Planning Commission - Special Meeting

May I have your attention please? Out of respect for the proceedings and in consideration of others in the audience, please turn off or silence any sound emitting devices. If you wish to speak on an item or register your opinion for an item on today's agenda, speaker slips are available in the rear of the chambers and must be turned in prior to the item being called on the agenda to the commission secretary at the front of the room. If you filled in your request at the previous hearing on the June 13th to any 25 meeting, You do not need to register again at this time unless your position or request to speak has changed. Speaker slips will be called in the order that they were previously received. Complete the green slip if you are in support of an item, complete the pink slip if you are in opposition of an item, and complete the white slip if you are neutral on an item. If you have questions about today's hearing process or need assistance with speaker slips, staff are available to assist you. These hearings are recorded, so when your name is called, please approach the lectern and give your full name. Each speaker today will have two minutes, otherwise approved by the chair. Information on how to appeal any decision can be found on the last page of today's agenda, and we will begin shortly.

Good morning and welcome to the County of San Diego Planning Commission hearing of July 9th, 2025. Before we begin, I'm going to pass it over to Vince Nicoletti with PDS to address the issues at the last meeting.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding our last Planning Commission hearing on June 13th, at that date we had a critical failure of the audio-visual equipment that's used to stream the Planning Commission hearings online. While we tested the equipment and software multiple times before each hearing, the equipment went down that day, and we were unable to restore it to hold the hearing. In the recent weeks, several county departments have supported the corrections to the hardware and software in the room, and we have multiple backup solutions moving forward. Our sincerest apologies for what happened last time. We're ready to hold the hearing today. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Commissioners, please answer for the record when your name is called. Chair Ashman?

Here.

Commissioner Calvo? Here. Commissioner Edwards? Here. Commissioner Pallinger?

Here.

Commissioner Weber? Here. And Commissioner Sudbury?

Here.

Please note for the record that six commissioners are present and none are absent.

We have no request to participate remotely by any commissioner, so I'll remove I'll move on to the rules of order Before we begin today the meeting We're going to go over the rules of order for the meeting each speaker will be given an opportunity to speak today and voice their ideas and opinions and We want to ensure that everyone is given a chance to share their thoughts without disruption. As a result, we ask that there be no clapping or booing during the meeting. Please be succinct in your comments and try not to repeat comments that have already been made. And at the risk of repeating myself, please proceed with charity, not the notion of giving alms to the poor, but the ancient and original definition of the word, which is tolerance and forbearance. Please keep in mind that any property owner has the right to submit an application and go through the process. In this case, staff is not supporting the project, but the Planning Commission has discretion and will decide whether to approve the project or not. The Planning Commission decision is also appealable to the Board of Supervisors. With that, we will begin our meeting. First item, public communication. Public communication provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not on any item on today's agenda. No specific action will be taken on any comments or queries that come from public communication. However, this could result in a referral to staff. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to discuss a topic not listed on today's agenda?

Sean, do we have anyone on hold for item D?

We have four callers for item D. I'll be joining the team shortly. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 7613, please press star six to mute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

Good morning, planning commissioners. My name is Becky Rapp and I'm here today to speak against the recently submitted draft EIR for the expansion of marijuana businesses in the backcountry. The report will soon come before you and you'll have the opportunity to make critical land use decisions that will forever impact our backcountry. Planning groups have publicly voiced concerns as pot is not what they want in their rural communities. The draft EIR leaves out serious environmental risks that could hurt our rural areas. The best example of this is what we've already seen in Santa Barbara County. There, marijuana businesses caused irreparable damage. Too much water was taken from the ground, wildlife areas were damaged, and traffic increased on narrow county roads. We're facing the same risks here. draft doesn't say how water will be tracked how odors will be controlled or how fire danger will be handled these businesses often use generators fencing and lights that disturb the land and harm animals and plants yet none of this is looked at seriously in this report this is a big decision once we allow marijuana businesses into these areas we can't go back and the county seriously needs to reconsider any marijuana expansion

while listening to the vast majority of planning group members as they have all publicly voiced opposition thank you thank you with the caller ending in the last four digits of six five nine eight please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking With the caller ending in the last four digits of 6598, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. We will return to caller 6598. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 3800, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

um i am concerned uh around regarding the county's camp is not addressing the significance of adding more marijuana businesses already five outlets in the county are unincorporated accounts of spectacular open spaces that i do not want to be compromised by marijuana investors the impact of more marijuana businesses that that country will be sick. Marijuana growers use pesticides and fertilizers that contaminate the soil and water sources. These chemicals can harm local ecosystems, affecting wildlife and plant diversity. Marijuana cultivation requires significant water resources offered in that of traditional crops leading to a strain in local water supply. Cultivation often leads to the habitat destruction to land use changes that disrupt local ecosystems. Indoor grow cultivation requires substantial electricity for life, climate control, and ventilation. Cultivation and processing of marijuana generate odor. It has waste, including plant matter, packaging, chemicals. Improper disposals can lead to pollution that harm local environment. The planning groups and the community are not asking for, nor do they want more businesses. Staff are only listening to the loud voices which come from the marijuana profiteers, not the residents who live there. The community is asking for your help before it goes any further. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you for your comments. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 2153, please press star six to mute your mic, and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

Hello, this is Kelly McCormick. I'm a public health educator. When it comes, I'm sorry. When it comes before you, I ask this body to provide protection to the land and residents of the unincorporated areas by rejecting any plans to expand the footprint of marijuana businesses. Across the state, marijuana businesses are having trouble staying afloat. There's simply too much supply. At the same time, tax revenues from these businesses are far below estimates, leading the state to consider lowering the excise taxes to try to prop up the industry. Would they try to favor the tobacco industry by lowering taxes and providing subsidies? I don't think so. The tobacco industry and marijuana industries have a lot in common and in many cases share the same corporate ownership. They both push a product known to cause harm to users while trying to hide and downplay that harm. They have made false and unproven health claims to lure in users under the guise of wellness. Let's not forget that cigarettes were once advertised as a treatment for asthma and morning sickness. Access for customers is not a problem. Delivery services already provide for these areas. There are much wiser uses for the county's land and resources. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. We are now returning to caller ending in the last four digits of 6598. Please press star six to mute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

Caller ending in the number of 6598. Can you please hear us?

Trying one more time with the caller ending in the last four digits of 6 5 9 8. Please press star 6 and mute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. You're unmuted now.

Okay. Hello there. Good morning. This is Ann Riddle calling in. And thank you for the opportunity to do so because I live very far away from where your meetings are being held. I felt as a county planning group member that I should should share with you my concern regarding the recent EIR that was released at the county regarding what would be the impact, the environmental impact, that's why I thought you all would care, that would happen with more marijuana businesses. And things important to remember, we already have five pot shops out here, so we don't need more. And anyone who's had any association with the pot world knows that the deliveries are aggressive and available, so there's no need. But a particular concern to my planning group and other planning groups is the environmental impact, and that's why the EIR was a concern. I might just say in passing, however, in these times of budget concern, that a thousand-page EIR report, honestly, is that how we spend our money? And it came back expressing great concerns about the environment. And all the planning groups have now weighed in that had the opportunity to consider the EIR. And they don't want cultivation of marijuana in their backcountry. They're well aware of what's happened in other counties. So when that opportunity comes to you for your oversight, please remember how much planning groups did not ask and do not want marijuana businesses out here. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We have completed callers for public communication.

That concludes public testimony. Announcement of handout materials related to today's agenda. Documents to be considered as evidence shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, July 7th. The Planning Commission may, however, receive into evidence for good cause shown or impose reasonable conditions on late filed documents. Please note that this does not apply to materials presented at the meeting as part of a visual presentation. A staff presentation for today's items was posted online for the public to view on Thursday, July 3rd, more than 24 hours in advance of the hearing. and the public was able to provide comments by submitting e-comments prior to the hearing. Madam Secretary, are there any handouts or e-comments related to today's items, agenda items?

Chair Ashman, 24 correspondences have been received. All items were submitted to the Commission through email or hard copy. They have been made available to the public in the Planning Commission website and at the rear of the chambers.

Request for continuance. Director, are there any requests for continuances from staff?

There are no requests.

Okay, we will move to the formation of the consent calendar. These are items to which no opposition has been expressed or received. Madam Secretary, are there any items for consent?

Chair Ashman, we do have one item available for consent. That item is item number one, the Alpine car wash.

Is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve item number one on consent. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

Please wait until your name is called to vote. Chair Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Commissioner Edwards? Yes. Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

Commissioner Weber.

Yes.

Commissioner Sudbury.

Yes.

Let the record show the item passes with a vote of six in favor and none opposed.

We will now begin item two. Namu Residence Variants Administrative. If you wish to speak on item two, please call in on 619-343-2539. The conference ID is 408-464-996-POUND. We will begin with staff's presentation.

Chair, before we begin, Georgina, do we have any speaker slips filed on item two? Okay. Okay.

Good morning, Planning Commissioners. I'm Eddie Scott with Planning and Development Services. Today, I will be presenting item number two, which is a request for a variance for the NAMU residents to reduce the front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of a single family home. Variances are typically at the discretion of the director of PDS. However, county code does allow for a public hearing to be requested by an interested party. A hearing has been requested by an interested party and this variance is therefore at the discretion of the planning commission. The project site. Marked by a red star, it's located east of Interstate 8 and south of the city of El Cajon at 894 Bernita Road in the Valley de Oro Community Plan area. Surrounding land uses are residential, with single-family homes located to the north, east, south, and west. The parcel is designated semi-rural residential in Zone 870 Limited Agriculture. It is accessed via a private easement connecting to Horizon Hills Drive, and the parcel is currently vacant. On November 4, 2024, the County received a request for a standard variance associated with the development of a new single-family residence on the project site. The site previously developed with a single-family residence that has since been demolished is currently bisected by an access easement serving an adjacent property. The lot is approximately half an acre in size, which is considered undersized for the zone, which requires a one acre minimum. The proposed project includes the construction of a 4,000 square feet, two-story home, a swimming pool, driveway, fire turnaround, and an onsite wastewater system on a half acre parcel. Due to the presence of a 20-foot-wide private row easement that bisects the property, the applicant is requesting relief from the 40-foot front yard setback requirement, seeking to reduce the setback down to 20 feet to accommodate the home within the buildable area. While the proposed residence meets all other applicable zoning standards, the variance is necessary to allow reasonable development of the site due to its unique physical and legal constraints. Approval of the variance ensures the project remains consistent with surrounding neighborhood character while complying with environmental health and infrastructure regulations. The parcel is constrained by a 20-foot wide private row easement that bisects the lot, significantly limiting the buildable area. The image to the left is the view facing north showing the primary entry onto the property via a 20-foot wide access easement that bisects the parcel. The image to the right is that the rear portion of the lot facing southwest illustrating the site's interior condition, moderate slope, and existing boundary wall The adjacent two-story residence visible in the background is indicative of the neighborhood's character, with homes typically ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 square feet in size on semi-rural lots. Planning and Development Services staff has reviewed the project and has made the findings in support of the requested variance. The findings include the property is uniquely constrained due to its smaller lot size, both for the A70 zone and compared to most of the surrounding lots. It also has a 20 foot wide private road easement that bisects the parcel and rear yard topography that includes natural rock outcroppings. As a result of these special circumstances, strict enforcement of the front yard setback requirements will substantially reduce the buildable area and prevent construction of a home comparable in size and location to other residents in the vicinity. This would deny the applicant privileges commonly enjoyed by neighboring property owners. In addition, the variance will not authorize any use or activity that is not otherwise expressly permitted and granting the variance will not result in any material detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare. Finally, the project is consistent with the San Diego County General Plan. On December 3, 2024, the Valley de Oro Community Planning Group recommended approval of this project without conditions. The motion passed 10 to 5. Because the project complies with all relevant codes and regulations, and because the required findings can be made, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project as detailed in the staff report and find the project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act through the processing of a notice of exemption. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for questions. Thank you.

Does any commissioner have questions of staff? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, are there any planning or sponsor groups wishing to speak?

Sean, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak on behalf of a CPG CSG?

We have no callers on item two at this time.

We'll now take public testimony. Madam Secretary, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?

Yes, I have one in person. When your name is called, please come forward and stand near the lectern. As soon as the person before you is finished, please approach the lectern and state your name for the record and begin your comments. Hany Tome.

Good morning. Can I start? I think two minutes will be too little for me, but I'm purchasing property just next to this house. where the survey, when I get the survey to my property, the property's already encroaching to my property about a foot, and I ask them to have that property removed, and they did not do that. Then my another objection was, they use my property to get to the, so they can get to the subject tank, and without permission and destroy stormwater, and I get violation from the county, And the planning department, the gentleman who was just speaking, I spoke to him. He said, we don't care about your opinion. We can approve it either way. I said to him, so why are we going through the hearing if this matter has already been set like you don't give a shit to nobody? I'd like to speak to your supervisor. He said, I will not let you speak to my supervisor. I send him an email, then supervisor call me after that about 30 minute, and he said it's gonna be public hearing and we can listen to you. My other problem is that the lot is not like too big, plus there is a problem with the lot. There is a big slope towards my property. So that slope, the building where they're gonna build it, the house is gonna, I'm not gonna have a privacy when I build my own house. So the first thing, they should be complying. They should not be encouraging to somebody else's property. They should not take the application and consider the application without them to be complying. And when you use somebody else's property, you should ask for permission. You just don't do whatever you want to do. And I believe that I know the owners. I know him because he's from where I come from. he doesn't do thing, he does everything illegal. So that's why I don't recommend that you guys approve this unless they are compliant and the house cannot be 4,000. I just heard that 4,000 is too much. And again, my privacy to my property is gonna be a problem. You guys have any questions?

So any of the commissioners have questions? Oh, as staff, but... Could you clarify? You started by saying you're purchasing a property next door?

Correct.

And which side is east-west?

I can say it's north.

It's north.

Yeah, there is a little corner about maybe about... We are adjacent to the property about maybe 80 foot. And the septic is just next to my, for them to use the septic, they have to go through my property. And we have a stormwater to avoid any water going, I mean, any dirt going outside the property. So they come in with the shuffle, and they destroy it, and they want to the septic tank. And when they come back, they did not fix it back. And, you know, the county, they don't care. It's your responsibility. We don't care who trespassing. Then the next one is the problem is the way they're going to build 4,000 square foot. The septic area is about maybe, I can say, about 50 foot by maybe another 50 foot. But the problem is the house is going to be too high from my house, like 40 foot. So they are building just next to the dropping point, and that dropping point is gonna be, I mean, if we're gonna have a swimming pool or we are outside, me or my wife, we're gonna have no privacy. I mean, the house cannot be that big, and plus, they are encroaching They fenced and encroached into my property today. So the property is not compliant. And I know you guys' time is valuable. So the problem is you guys should not look to this without everything to be corrected.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Is there any other questions? Yeah, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councillor, are the items brought forth by the neighboring gentleman in our purview, or are they outside and should really be dealt with directly with county staff and code compliance?

It's a civil matter between two property owners. If one's encroaching on the other, if there's improper use, then county code enforcement can get involved in that, too. Maybe staff wants to address if they've looked into this issue.

Through the chair, commissioner. So as counsel explained, part of this is going to be outside of our purview from the land use regulations. We can support the neighbor. We have the National Conflict Resolution Center that we can engage with the two property owners for any civil discussions for arbitration and mediation efforts. If there's any concerns on trespassing, we can certainly put them in contact with the law enforcement that can support with that. And then I'll defer to Mark Slovic to answer any of the questions on the other land use aspects.

Commissioner, just a couple of things I would point out. First, there is no improvements or work being proposed outside of the property in question. So all the work that's being done is on the property requesting the variance. The other aspect of it that I would mention is that the house is requesting a front yard setback. That is at the south end of the property. They're not requesting any setback reductions at the north end of the property adjacent to the property that the gentleman just mentioned.

I have another question.

Commissioner Calhoun?

Mr. Slovak, did I understand the gentleman to say he's in the process of purchasing the property?

Not this particular property, Commissioner. It sounds like he's in discussions to purchase the property north of this property.

I understood that. My question, Counsel, is if he hasn't closed escrow, what standing does he have?

Again, I mean, put that in the bucket of civil issues that need to be worked out between the prospective buyers, the property owners, et cetera, title companies.

And, Mr. Slovak, I understand that there is a private road easement. So help me out. I assume that would be recorded and everybody would have notice of it?

That's correct, Commissioner. Yeah, it would be reflected in their title reports when they purchase the property. It'll indicate that they have rights to use that road and improve that road for access to their property. Any disputes about those easements, like Council mentioned, would be a civil matter between the two property owners. Okay, thank you.

As far as the side yard setbacks, what are those? Where are the...

The standard setback is 40 feet from the center line of the access road. They're requesting a reduction to 20 feet setback from the access road that's currently there.

But the side yard.

Oh, side yard setback is 15.

And they're in conformance with that?

They're in conformance with that. Okay, great. Initially, they had requested a side, but they removed that and just asked for the front yard setback.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman?

With those clarifications, I think the neighbor's concerns are probably more of a civil matter, not within our purview. I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation.

I'll second.

I have one last question for staff. Looking through the plot plan, I took note of a note on here about a 20-foot retaining wall. towards the north end of the property? And is that still part of their proposal?

No, that has been removed from their proposed plan.

Chair Ashman, I would also like to know that we do have the applicant here. They are currently filling out a speaker slip right now, so they're available for questioning as well. And I'm preparing to see whether or not she actually would like to make a comment.

We'll hear from the applicant then.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Nicole George. I'm a civil engineer representing the owner. First, I'd like to express my sincere thanks to county staff for preparing the staff report and presentation for today's planning commission. We're especially grateful to Mr. Eddie Scott, the assigned planner, who has been incredibly helpful throughout the entire process His patience, responsiveness and willing to answer our questions made a meaningful difference. It's truly refreshing to work with county staff who have show such empathy and professionalism. We don't have much to add to the county's presentation. It correctly identifies the site constraints but I do have a visual representation of the effects the setback has on the property and can answer some of the questions you had about the side yard setback. So if you can see from this visual, this is the original setback with a 40 foot from the center line of the road easement, which is problematic because this road easement bisects. So essentially the first 50 feet of the lot is unbuildable. And then it further constraints the side yard as well. And we're complying with the 15-yard setback, which is on the westerly side. And we're also complying with the rear yard setback. So with the approval of the variance, we're gaining about 20 feet on the westerly and southernly sides. And it's really not affecting... The Atisha property, which seems to be the property that is not in favor of the variance. So this is the Atisha property, which is not approving or is requiring us to go to the planning commission is over here. The variance request is actually on the other side, the eastern side. So we shouldn't be really affecting his privacy in any way. It's going to remain a 15-yard setback. We're not asking to change that setback at all. My conclusion is we appreciate the county support. We do appreciate the Valley de Oro's planning commission or Valley de Oro community group support of our variants. And we look forward to your vote. So thank you very much.

Commissioner Ashman, we do actually have one more who would like to speak on this item. A member of the public. His name is Mr. Ahmad Atisha.

Okay.

Good morning, Commission. My name is Ahmad Atisha. I'm actually the property owner of the adjacent property to the applicants. I just want to add that I am in contract with Mr. Toma to sell the property to him. And the concerns he has that related to me were bothersome as far as their tactics. And I want to add, personally, at a representative of the client, of the applicant, reach out to me and say, hey, this is what we're doing. I said, listen, I'm sorry. I can't help you. I'm in contract with my friend. And he goes, well, he has nothing to do with it. It's your ownership. And they're practically bullying tactics and pushing me around, telling me, if you don't do it, then we're going to complain about you. And the actions that they are doing is inappropriate and more, hey, do it my way or else. And I just want to add that with respect to the civil matters, As far as the communications we've had with the planning person that was involved with this particular case, when we brought up the issues with the encroachment of the fence, the enforcement person says, oh, there's nothing I can do. Well, unfortunately, if this becomes a civil matter, then why do we have these hearings if we don't disclose or at least present the issues at hand regarding this particular property as the proposed plan that they're trying to put a 4,000 square foot house. Keep in mind the previous house was half of that size less than half of that size Which was appropriate for that particular piece of property because of the size and the way the slope of the property is with respect to What the proposed plan is, I'm really not concerned about so much. It won't affect me directly with the encroachment, I mean the variance, but the way they're putting their house will impact me in the long run as far as privacies are concerned. Just wanted to mention that. I'm done. Any other questions or should I leave? Thank you.

The comments seem to be more about potential things that could happen, but not directly speaking to the technical components of the variance itself, separation from the private easement and where the house is going to be built. That being said, we have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

What is the motion to grant the variance? Yes.

Commissioners, please vote. Chair Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Commissioner Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

Commissioner Weber? Yes. And Commissioner Sudbury?

Yes.

Let the record show that this item passes with a vote of six in favor and none opposed.

We will now begin item three, Cottonwood Sand Mine Project. If you wish to speak on item three, please call in on 619-343-2539. The conference ID is 856-932-40-POUND. We will begin with the staff's presentation.

Good morning chair and Commissioners. I'm Chris Jacobs with Planning and Development Services. Today I will be presenting on item number three, which is the Cottonwood Sand Mine project. The Department is before you today recommending denial of the project. Which is a request for a major use permit and related reclamation plan. The project site shown outlined in yellow is located within the Valley de Oro planning area. The project site extends west to east from approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of Willow Glen Drive and Hammershaw Road to approximately a quarter mile west of the intersection of Willow Glen Drive and Hillsdale. Willow Glen Drive parallels the north side of the project site and Steel Canyon Road bisects the western portion of the site. The project site is developed with the Cottonwood Golf Course consisting of the active Ivanhoe course on the east side of Steel Canyon Road and the Fallow Lakes course on the west. The subject property totals 280 acres, of which approximately 214 acres is proposed for extractive use and restoration. The project is a request for a major use permit and reclamation plan to construct and operate a sand mine Extraction operations would be limited to a maximum production of 380,000 cubic yards or 570,000 tons of construction grade aggregate per year over a 10-year period with an additional two years for reclamation. The extraction process would occur in three phases with three to four sub phases. Extraction in each sub phase is expected to take approximately one year. Each sub phase would be 30 acres or less in size. A fourth phase is intended for cleanup, equipment removal, and final reclamation. Once mining is completed, each phase of the site must be reclaimed in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The reclamation plan includes a plot plan and revegetation plan. Revegetation monitoring would continue for a minimum of five years. Operations would commence west of the Steel Canyon Road bridge and then generally proceed in a southwest to northeast direction across the project site. There's an existing utility corridor that bisects the project area and is located just east of the Steel Canyon Road. This corridor currently provides access for overhead San Diego gas and electric high voltage power lines to remain. Sand extraction and processing plant operations would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM. The maximum excavation depth is proposed to be 40 feet below the existing land surface outside the river channel. The average depth of excavation is expected to be approximately 20 feet. The project's mining operation would extract, process, and transport aggregate. The project would extract approximately 4.3 million cubic yards of sand suitable for Portland cement concrete with approximately 3.8 million cubic yards produced for market use over a 10 year period. San Diego County currently has a high demand for construction aggregate, including sand. San Diego County aggregate supplies began a downwards trend in the early 2000s as quarries began to close due to depletion and as a result, sand had to be imported from outside the county. A processing plant will be installed where the current Cottonwood Golf Course Clubhouse is located. Aggregate material extracted from the site would consist primarily of washed sand suitable for Portland cement concrete, but may also include sand, gravel and rock. No blasting or rock crushing will occur on site. Aggregate material would be processed, sized and stored in stockpiles near the plant. Fine wash fines produced from the processing plant would be gathered in settling ponds located near the plant. Reclaimed areas would be restored to open space. Multi use trails and land suitable for uses allowed by the general plan and existing zoning. Nearly 52% of the project site. About 143 acres. would be preserved in a biological open space easement to be held by the county as shown in green on this slide. This would restore and improve the connection of the riparian corridor along the Sweetwater River to offsite areas within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The open space will be managed in accordance with the county approved resource management plan to ensure long-term management of the preserve. An EIR was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have a significant impact to aesthetics and require a statement of overriding considerations. The draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period at the end of 2021 and into 2022. There was extensive public input on this project and portions of the EIR were recirculated in 2023 Most comments addressed secret topics including air quality and fugitive dust. Cultural tribal cultural resource impacts, emergency response, fire safety and evacuation. Noise. Traffic, including road damage and water quality impacts, including contamination of groundwater and drinking water in the Sweetwater Reservoir. a notice of public hearing was sent to all who commented on the EIR and all residents within 5,500 feet on the project in advance of this hearing. Staff received a number of comments regarding the project's impact on air quality and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. As described in the EIR, the project would incorporate measures to reduce dust and off-road equipment would be required to comply with best available control technology for reduction of exhaust particulate matter. These actions would reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant impact. The project would result in greenhouse gas emissions during both its construction and operational phases. Construction greenhouse gas emissions would be associated with heavy construction equipment, hauling trucks and worker vehicle use. The majority of the project's operational greenhouse gas emissions would be associated with truck trips for hauling sand and backfill material. However, because the project would result in a reduction in regional truck VMT, the project's impact would be less than significant. Comments were also received with concerns regarding the archeological and cultural significance of the project site. Due to the construction and ongoing maintenance of the golf course site, the area had been previously analyzed for cultural resources and cultural resources have been recorded within one mile of the project area. Impacts to any archeological resources have been reduced to a level below significance. through testing, recording and documentation undertaken as part of the current study for this project. The project site has been noted by several tribal governments to be within a culturally significant area. Due to the potential that unrecorded cultural resources could be encountered during earth disturbing activities, the project has been conditioned to implement an archaeological and tribal monitoring program with monitoring by a project archaeologist and culturally affiliated tribal monitors. Further, a treatment and preservation agreement will be implemented for this project. Members of the public also expressed concerns about emergency response and fire safety. The project site is served by the San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District, The closest fire station to the project site, station 22, is located approximately 0.3 mile to the north. The project would adhere to the recommendations outlined in the fire protection plan by maintaining a 100 foot fuel management zone around structures, ceasing operations in windy conditions, and maintaining and equipping construction equipment with spark arresters. 146 trucks will go to and from the proposed mining site for a total of 292 total truck trips on Willow Glen Drive. Per the major use permit, the trucks will only operate from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. and 100% of the trucks will enter the project site from the west towards Hamashov Road without any trucks heading east towards the Zikwan Reservation. To address traffic concerns and to analyze potential impacts from the additional traffic that will be created by project operations, a local mobility analysis was prepared for the project. The analysis concluded that there is capacity on the surrounding roads for the project generated traffic. The project will restripe Willow Glen Road to provide a deceleration lane and right turn lane at the project ingress driveway. A center acceleration lane will be constructed between the east and west driveway to provide a refuge area for trucks turning left out of the project site. For CEQA purposes, traffic impacts are now focused on Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT. The project will reduce regional VMT because it reduces the need to import sand from outside of San Diego County. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to traffic. The current dominant noise source from the vicinity of the project site is the traffic along Willow Glen Drive and Steel Canyon Road. To decrease noise impacts associated with the proposed project, mitigation is required. The mitigation is to construct noise barriers and excavate to the lowest feasible elevation within the project's excavation areas, such that the topography provides noise attenuation to offsite properties. For certain residential locations, An eight foot high or 12 foot high solid noise barrier is required when excavation is occurring within 400 feet. When mining activities are occurring at distances greater than 400 feet from a given location, a barrier would not be required. The EIR concluded that implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure the project has a less than significant impact for noise. On March 18, 2025, The Valley de Oro Community Planning Group reviewed the project. The Community Planning Group recommended denial of the major use permit and reclamation plan by a vote of 11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain, and 4 vacant or absent. In the same meeting, the Valley de Oro Community Planning Group voted to recommend denial of the applicant's request for a design exception review involving the waiver of the requirement to underground an AT&T overhead line along Willow Glen Drive. The vote was 11 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain, 4 vacant or absent. When processing a major use permit, the county zoning ordinance requires that findings be made for a project's compatibility with surrounding land uses. The findings are shown on this slide. Staff has determined that findings three and five cannot be made for the project because the project would have a harmful effect on desirable neighborhood character and the site would not be suitable for the proposed type of development. These findings are different from the findings required to be made for CEQA. For example, impacts to community character are outside of CEQA's scope. A project can be found to comply with CEQA, but not comply with the county zoning ordinance, as is the case for this project. The Cottonwood Sand Mine project complies with CEQA through the preparation of an EIR, which is before the Commission for consideration. This slide discusses Major Use Permit Finding 3. The proposed mining project will have a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood character because it will add haul trucks on the roads, increase potential sources of noise, change the way the site looks for residents and visitors, and create a nuisance from dust. The nature of sand mining involving heavy machinery and truck hauling is incompatible with nearby residential, commercial, and civic uses. Truck traffic would undermine the rural character and introduce noise that would change the neighborhood. There will be a new source of dust from project operations and odor from diesel emissions that currently does not exist with the current golf course use. These changes will result in a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood character. This slide discusses major use permit finding 5. The site is not suitable for the proposed mining operation due to its location within a suburban setting. The site is situated in a river valley near a variety of existing residences, schools and open space. Residential development in the area includes over 150 homes. Many of these homes were built around a golf course, which generates low amounts of noise and dust. However, the proposed mining operation will introduce trucks, noise, dust, and heavy machinery into the area. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Find that this project is not subject to environmental review under CEQA Section 21080 . CEQA and CEQA guidelines section 15270 because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Deny major use permit PDS 2018 MUP 18023 due to the inability to make major use permit findings 3 and 5 and deny the related reclamation plan record ID PDS 2018 RP 18001. If the Commission should choose to approve the project, the applicant has provided a package to the Planning Commission that sets forth their reasons for approval. The Planning and Development Services Department has reviewed their documents, which may be used should the Commission wish to approve the project. This concludes staff's presentation. We are available for questions. Thank you.

In closing, staff would like to emphasize that we received over 500 comments from concerned citizens with reasons why this project is not right for this area. Although the EIR concluded that environmental impacts from traffic, noise, and air quality were less than significant based on particular CEQA thresholds, community characters are beyond the scope of CEQA and are not required to be analyzed in the EIR. Community character includes a resident's sense of well-being and the values that come from living in a specific area. Community character includes intangible factors, psychological and social factors, giving residents a sense of place and identity, what makes them feel good about living in their neighborhoods. The evidence of the project's impact on the community character comes from the letters from the community, the people who bought a house next to a golf course, and who would now live next to a sand mine should the projects be approved. The planning process is not just about processing a CEQA document, it's about making findings of the project's compatibility with a neighborhood. And in this case, PDS cannot make those findings. This concludes our presentation and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Do any commissioners have questions of staff at this point? Madam Secretary, are there any planning or sponsor groups wishing to speak?

Yes, Chair Ashman, we do have an in-person speaker. May I please have Mr. O'Day Youssef?

Mr. Chair and Commissioner,

There you go. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much for your time today and thank you very much to staff as well for being here and being with us through this process the last seven years that it has been dominant in the Valle de Oro and Valle de Oro area. My name is Odey Yusuf, and I chair the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group, and I'm here today to present our formal presentation and recommendation on the Conwood Sand Mine Major Use Permit, the Reclamation Plan, as well as the Related Design Exception Review as to undergrounding the utilities. Please note that my group's recommendation came before we received staff's recommendation and before the applicant's alternative report. So our recommendation does not comment on any of those findings as we did not have those and that we were asked to make our recommendation before those were made available to us. I think that's important because I believe the staff report and the applicant's alternative report state certain things that may have been addressed in our recommendation that we were not, again, able to make at the time we made our recommendation. When a project comes before a planning group and we are told to determine and make a recommendation, we receive four criteria. Where to review four criteria. The completeness and adequacy of the project description, the compatibility of the project design with the character of the local community, the consistency of the proposal with the community plan, and the specific concerns regarding the environmental effects of the project. Those criteria are what are found on the PDS 534 form that are used as the basis of our recommendation for these projects. At our group's meeting on March 18th, 2025, following robust public discussion and careful review of all the documents that were available to us and based on presentations that we had heard from the applicant prior and from the county at that meeting, the group voted unanimously to recommend denial of the project with an 11 to zero vote with no abstentions. Again, our decision was not based on a single issue, but using the criteria that is available to us, we made our ultimate recommendation. I see my time's ending. Can I have more time? I was told five minutes. That's what I prepared.

You can have five minutes.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, didn't want to restrict the timer. So I will put the situation in more context. The Valle de Oro Community Planning Group area is a very unique area. It encompasses the neighborhood of Rancho San Diego where this project is located, but as well as the communities of Casa de Oro and Mount Helix. The Valle de Oro Planning Group area touches the city of El Cajon, the city of La Mesa. It touches the Spring Valley Community Planning Group and the Humboldt Planning Group and the Cresta Hisa Planning Group. It has... connections to five different surrounding communities, and it makes it a very centralized location. This project site specifically sits near the eastern end of our area, but nonetheless serves as a major area and thoroughfare between our group and the surrounding communities. This project would, based on the criteria mentioned before, create significant hindrances to the character of our local community and the environmental concerns as well as the compatibility with the community plan in our area. This isn't the first time our group has discussed this project. We've had multiple meetings since 2009 reviewing iterations of this project. Over the years, we've received extensive public input, including testimony from residents, scientists, parents, teachers, and students. The overall consensus is this project does not belong in our area. I've been chair of the Vaidya Area Community Planning Group for four years, was a member prior to that. In that time that I've received public comments and heard public comment, I've had one in favor of this proposal. Our meetings are always open to the public and have but that one have not received any other comment or concern that is in favor of this project or even expressing favor of this project and I think that is indicative of the feeling of the community and goes to whether this is compatible with our community's intentions and the overall the overall status of the project for the long term. The specific concerns that we found, first the 146 roundtrip trucks per day through Willow Grand Road, which is a residential road that services schools and senior living centers and neighborhoods is a clear safety risk. The open space recreation is the current zoning of the site and this project would change that and again be in contradiction of the community plan as well as the overwhelming environmental concerns that our group has took on and considered and has made a matter of public authority because of the surrounding schools and neighborhoods and the issues associated with that. Some have argued that this project will convert a defunct golf course into an open space, but we believe this is a bait-and-switch. We've been asked to, we're being asked to endure years of noise pollution, of environmental and ecological pollution, for the hope that in ten years the applicants or the current, the owner of the project at the time does not therefore ask for an extension. The Valle de Oro Community Planning Group knows specifically major projects in our area that have had time limits, but then ask for Ask for extensions at that point. I'll conclude. We ask you to listen to our unanimous vote, to the hundreds of public comments, experts, and common sense, and to take the staff's recommendation and the planning group's recommendation and deny these projects. Thank you for your time.

Question? Sorry. Anybody have a question as a speaker? Thank you.

Sean, do we have anyone on the phone wishing to speak on behalf of a CPG CSG?

We have no callers on behalf of the CPG.

Now we'll turn this over to the applicant for a group presentation. We've allotted a total of 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation. Can we please have the applicant come up and provide their presentation?

Always come prepared. Good morning, Chair Ashman and planning commissioners. I'm Jennifer Lynch. I'm a partner at the law firm Manat, Phelps & Phillips, and I'm giving the applicant's presentation this morning on the project. I'm joined today by the applicant's technical team, our project supporters, and special thanks to the Association of General Contractors, various builders and local employers, the San Diego Habitat Conservancy, and the Carpenters Union Local 619 for their support this morning as well. The applicant is asking the Commission to take these four actions. As we will discuss, there is ample evidence in the record supporting these actions. Notably, we are not asking you for a general plan amendment or a zone change because this use is already planned for and permitted on this site under the current zoning designations. Since inception of the project, there have been six project objectives, each important to guiding the project's design. But today we want to focus on two of these. The first is provision of a reliable local source of high quality aggregate sand. And we'll talk about why that's so important to our local economy, our construction industry, and our housing affordability. The second is provision of a significantly improved open space resource. And we'll talk about how this project achieves that and many other environmental benefits, including the reduction of GHG emissions, water consumption, and reduction of long hauling truck miles in our region. And importantly, we'll talk about the applicant's offer to donate nearly 150 acres of pristine open space to the county free of charge. San Diego County has a critical need for locally sourced aggregate sand. Aggregate material extracted from this site will consist of washed sand suitable for use in Portland cement concrete, what we call PCC grade sand. PCC grade sand is both scarce and indispensable. It is foundational to the construction of the homes, schools, hospitals, and other critical infrastructure supporting San Diego's population. But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what your County Board of Supervisors declared in Section 87701 of your County Code. Quote, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and declares that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the county. Further, the county's general plan update EIR highlights the critical need for aggregates, noting, quote, locally permitted construction aggregate supply has not kept up with demand, resulting in San Diego now having the highest prices for aggregate of any region in the state. If aggregate sand is so important, why isn't there enough of it to support our San Diego construction needs? It's because resources available for extraction have dwindled, primarily because of suburban development moving out and abutting the places where this resource is present. In 1980, San Diego had 25 operational sand mines. By 1995, that number fell to eight. By 2015, we had just two active sand mines in the county. And today there's just one active sand mine providing this essential construction material. And importantly, it is scheduled to close in the next five years. Yet, over that same time period, San Diego County's demand for PCC grade sand has only increased. When local supply cannot meet local demand, we have to import. San Diego currently meets its demand by importing sand from Mexico, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and elsewhere. This imported sand comes mostly by large haul truck crossing the border, crossing our region, to bring sand to our San Diego construction sites at great financial and environmental expense. Our region's dependence on imported sand increases construction costs, especially for housing and infrastructure projects already strained by high prices. It imperils our region's construction jobs, and it works directly against housing affordability. It increases regional GHG emissions from the miles traveled on our highways, bringing sand from far afield. And it leaves us vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, including those from tariffs, given our dependence on aggregate from Mexico. In short, reliance on imported aggregate is not sustainable for San Diego County. The Cottonwood Sand Mine project before you today offers a rare opportunity to secure a long-term local source of PCC grade sand that can meet a substantial portion of our region's demand. By providing this local source, this project can help stabilize construction prices, reduce environmental impacts, and protect our construction jobs, and do so in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. County staff presented an overview of the project, and so we won't be redundant, but there are two aspects that we want to highlight for you. The first is the phasing and sub-phasing plan. There have been, and there will be today, many comments made about the project resulting in noise or aesthetics or other disruptions for quote, 10 years or more. But unlike a traditional mine, this project is proposing incremental extraction with mining limited not just to phases but sub-phases of no more than 30 acres. This phasing proposal adds significant expense and complexity to this project, but it reduces disruption. This is an image of the phasing plan. The teal is phase one, but the sub-phases are the smaller polygons within the teal. The same with phase two, shown in red, and phase three, shown in yellow. Each sub-phase, so each of those smaller polygons, will be mined only one at a time for about one year, and when mining is done, revegetation will immediately begin in that sub-phase. We've created a short animation to illustrate this concept. And what you'll see is each sub-phase first turning sand-colored, and that is going to represent the extraction. Then it will turn brown, indicating the replacement of topsoil and the start of revegetation. And then you'll see the sub-phase, again, the smaller polygon. And you'll see it's revegetation growing in. By the time extraction begins in phase two, the revegetated areas of phase one are well on their way to establishment. And the video will end with an example of the natural wetland and riparian habitat that will replace the existing golf course turf and development. Next, we want to highlight how the project improves and then preserves in perpetuity the site's ecological value. Implementation of the project's resource management plan will transform a degraded and developed golf course into a biologically rich and functional ecological corridor. The applicant has already engaged the San Diego Habitat Conservancy, a nationally accredited land trust that acquires, manages, and protects habitat preserves to serve as the site's long-term resource manager. Finally, should the project be approved, the applicant has volunteered to commit, through an enforceable condition of approval, offering the area shown here in green to the county for free for use as county open space. This offer of nearly 150 acres of private property is not required by the EIR or the county code. It's an extremely rare and valuable opportunity to expand the county's open space network at no cost to taxpayers. No cost to purchase the land and no cost to restore it, as it will come to the county already restored and with an endowment in place. We want to move next to the CEQA analysis and importantly dispel some of the misinformation that we have seen about the project. The final EIR determined that the project would result in only one significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics. The EIR describes how project design features reduce this impact to the extent feasible. The most important design feature, of course, being the sub-facing plan that was illustrated in the animation. Importantly, with implementation of the resource management plan from an aesthetic standpoint, the site will ultimately be greatly improved over the existing condition. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution and given the subjective nature of aesthetics, the EIR concludes that this would be a significant impact. We have also seen misinformation about the project's potential for noise impacts, including unfortunately in the county staff report. The facts are that the project's noise technical study determined that with the recommended noise barriers in place, no residents, no school, no sensitive receptor will experience noise levels greater than the threshold set in the county's own noise ordinance. This is verified with noise modeling, that took into consideration all aspects of the project, site preparation, mining activities, processing, on-site trucks and off-site trucks. We have also seen misinformation, again unfortunately including in the staff report, about dust. The staff report went so far as to claim the project will generate dust emissions that are so great as to result in a nuisance. This is absolutely not the case. There is nothing in the administrative record supporting that statement. The facts are this project is required to put in place a fugitive dust control plan. This plan mandates dust control measures and requires the dust migrating from the site not exceed the Air District thresholds. The Air District, the expert agency on this issue, sets this threshold based on its expertise. The air modeling done for the project confirms that with application of the measures in the fugitive dust control plan, dust emissions will be below the air district threshold. There is no evidence in the record that dust will create a nuisance at any location. As we discussed earlier, local sources of sand have nearly disappeared while demand has increased. And of course, this means we import all of our PCC grade sand. The facts show that by providing locally 570,000 tons of sand per year, truck miles associated with sand hauling will fall by 35% within the county. The emissions associated with those truck miles will also fall. This is set out for you in the final EIR and its technical studies. Because the EIR found this project would result in one significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics, the question before you today is whether the project's benefits outweigh that one significant and unavoidable impact. And of course, yes, the regional and local economic and environmental benefits outweigh the project's single aesthetics impact. As set out in the statement of overriding considerations included in attachment C of the alternative hearing report, there are at least 13 project benefits, each of which individually provide the Commission with the ability to approve this project despite its one significant and unavoidable impact. The alternative hearing report sets out a significant amount of detail on each of these individual benefits, but to summarize, benefit one, the project will provide a reliable, local, high-quality source of PCC-grade aggregate sand, and by providing a local source, it supports our region's construction industry and our construction jobs. Benefit two, the project will create approximately 148 acres of new permanent open space preserved in perpetuity through recordation of a biological open space easement. Benefit three, the project improves and protects a functional open space corridor and through the project's resource management plan will transform an existing degraded managed golf course into a biologically rich open space corridor. Benefit four, the project will offer the county, again for free, 148 acres of newly created and permanently protected open space. This is a rare and valuable opportunity to expand the county's open space network at no cost to taxpayers. Benefit five, the project will restore the flood channel to a more natural condition, improving water flow and the ability to handle and dissipate energy from large storm events. Benefit six, the project will provide the county with at least $2.5 million in additional sales tax revenue. Benefit seven, the project will significantly reduce the site's water consumption. During the mining period, this project would reduce the site's water consumption by 83% from what is required to maintain two private golf courses. After mining and restoration is complete, the water consumption would be reduced 100%. Benefit 8, the site will be restored on a rolling basis. This ensures continuous enhancement for the community and hopefully alleviates any concerns about extending the mining period. Benefit 9, the project will reduce overall regional heavy truck miles and by association, greenhouse gas emissions. Benefit 10, the project includes new pedestrian pathways and regional multi-use trails. Benefit 11, the project will provide new Class 2 bicycle lanes along Willow Glen Drive, as well as other Willow Glen Drive improvements, including restriping and new dedicated turn lanes. Benefit 12, the project will implement Myriad County general plan goals and policies, in particular those associated with minerals and aggregate and long-term open space preservation. Benefit 13, the project will ensure there is no potential for more intensive permanent development within the biological open space easement area. For all of these reasons, the project's benefits outweigh the one significant and unmitigable impact to aesthetics. Finally, I want to touch on the major use permit findings. Public agencies must base their findings on objective facts and not subjective feelings. This is the law. This is the law not just for findings made under CEQA, but any findings made by the public agency, even when we are talking about neighborhood character. The law is this way to prevent public agencies from acting arbitrarily, approving one project over here and disapproving a similar or perhaps even less intensive project somewhere else. Staff claims they can't make two of the required MUP findings, but they cannot point to any evidence in the record supporting that conclusion. The facts and evidence in the record indicate the county can make the findings required for the MUP and has made similar findings for other projects in the past. The applicant's alternative hearing report goes into these findings in great detail and meticulously responds to the staff report statements. To be clear, the evidence in the record indicates there will be no nuisance levels of dust, no noise exceeding any threshold adopted by the county, no diesel odor permeating the neighborhood. The statements otherwise in the staff report have been disproved by scientific modeling, the mitigation measures, the project's conditions of approval, and application of the county's own thresholds of significance and air district standards. We want to close by saying thank you, commissioners, for your time. You have been inundated with so much information about this project, and our goal in this presentation was to distill it down for you, highlight the critical need for this project, the myriad economic and environmental benefits it will offer, and stay objective and fact based. Again, what we are asking you to do today is take these four actions that you see here, and I hope that you can take them confidently, knowing that the evidence and facts in the record support them. If you have any questions, our technical team is here, our supporters with the Association of General Contractors, with the Carpenters Union, and our long-term resource manager for the site. We are all here and look forward to your questions and deliberations. Thank you.

Does any commissioner have questions of the speaker? Thank you. Thank you. I have one quick question of staff regarding the, she referred to the applicants alternative report. And I just want to clarify, did staff assist or review the attachments in that report? particularly the findings, conditions, and that sort of thing?

Chair Ashman, yes, staff has reviewed the package that they've submitted. We reviewed it for form and content, and it does meet our county requirements. In terms of the use permit findings, we disagree with those, and we've kind of pointed to our findings in the staff report, but the package before you today has been reviewed by staff.

Thank you. Let's move on to a presentation from the community, who also requested 15 minutes. Can we please have a community representative?

So can we please have Ms. Diane Jacob, Barry Jantz, and Brian Lorenz approach the lectern?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission.

We have an organized presentation this morning and we request 15 minutes, maybe going a little over. The clock started already, please. We're gonna do our best to get within that 15 minutes, believe me. My name is Diane Jacob, and as a former County Planning Commissioner and member of the Board of Supervisors, I've been a part of many land use hearings. And in my decades of experience, I have never seen such a destructive project with such negative impacts on the people who live in a community. We're here this morning representing thousands of people who are part of the Stop Cottonwood Sand Mine organization, which was established in 2018 to fight against this sand mine right in the middle of a residential area. We're going to begin with a short video that explains why this site is not suitable for a sand mine, why it would be harmful to the neighborhood character, and why it is incompatible with adjacent uses. Video?

It's really unprecedented to be thinking about a project proposal that is taking an existing residential neighborhood surrounded by schools, businesses, walking trails, and be turning it into a sand mining operation for at least a decade.

What sense does it make to build a sand mine right next to an elementary school?

People in East County are gearing up to fight a developer's plans to turn a golf course into a sand mine.

Cottonwood's owner has applied for a permit to turn these golf greens in Rancho San Diego into a sand mine over a 10 to 12 year period. And residents are simply not having it. They say this project will pollute their air and their water, will disturb sacred Native American burial grounds, and will also destroy their sense of community. There are a lot of concerns. There's water concerns, traffic concerns, and valley fever concerns. Everything from environmental impacts to traffic to plummeting property values. Longtime residents say this was never part of the community's master plan for one landowner to make enormous profits.

When sand mining occurs, it releases silica into the air. All the way behind us, everywhere. Silica is known to cause asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

The sand mine developer has proposed 176 one-way trips over a six and a half hour period per day. That's 27 trucks per hour. or one trip every two and a quarter minutes.

Amul was listed as one of the 2% hardest communities to evacuate in the case of a fire. Now you're putting hundreds of truck trips daily into an area that's already not able to handle the traffic it has.

During that time, on 214 acres in the middle of our beautiful community, 7 million tons of material will be extracted and processed.

That silica dust going in the air, traveling down the 94, the 8, the 125, the 52, the 5, the 15, all those places, it's going to affect more than just our community.

There's an elementary school that is less than a quarter mile from where this proposed sand mine is or would be.

Can you imagine your child not being able to be on the playground with their friends because they can't breathe because of their asthma? Or on high wind days, all students needing to stay inside because of a bad air quality day?

I've got to believe that if a sand mine existed before that school were built, the school never would have been built in that location. So conversely, since the school exists, what sense does it make to build a sand mine right next to an elementary school?

It's also projected to be in the middle of the Sweetwater River bed, which is actually a source of drinking water down the road as it goes to San Diego Bay.

I moved here 22 years ago to raise my children and now to have this place for my grandchildren. The sand mine is going right over there and this is not a good thing for neither my family or any of yours.

I'm going to make just a couple of points for the Commission to consider, then I will turn it over to Brian Lorenz and Barry Jantz. The applicant attempts to make the argument that you must approve this project because there is a need for a local source of aggregate and PCC grade sand. Well, there's no guarantee that Local sand will stay local. And I want to share with you what happened back in the mid-90s with trash. The cost of dumping trash in local landfills went over $70 a ton. So the trash haulers dumped San Diego's trash in Utah and Arizona because it was cheaper. Yes, our trash was dumped in Utah and Arizona. No one ever thought that this was going to happen, but it did because it was cheaper. The same thing will happen with sand. Price will determine where the sand comes from and where it goes, not the promise of an applicant who's more interested in cash than community. More importantly though, the need for a local supply of sand, the economics of sand, and jobs have absolutely nothing to do with the legal findings that the Commission must make today. And then after the destructive mining operation is done, the applicant wants to gift to the county 148 acres of the 214 acre project site for use as open space, which is exactly what we already have guaranteed in the county general plan. And in the meantime, the applicant wants people in the area, including children, nearby schools, to risk their health and safety by breathing in silicates and dodging these huge double-trailer dump trucks for an undetermined number of years because there is no guarantee it'll be just 10 years. Now I know you're aware of zoning ordinance section 7358, which requires that to grant approval of this project, certain findings must be made. County staff has correctly determined that two of the required legal findings cannot be made. Another legal finding that cannot be made is consistency with the San Diego County general plan. And perhaps now I'm oversimplifying, but how can a sand mine on this property with a general plan designation of open space recreation be consistent with the general plan? Because this designation applies to large existing recreational areas and allows for active and passive recreational uses such as parks, athletic fields, golf courses, and so on. A sand mine is an industrial use, not an active or passive recreational use. Therefore, it is not consistent with the San Diego County General Plan. And just because the zoning, not the general plan, just because the zoning allows for the processing of a major use permit, it doesn't mean it's consistent, nor does it require that you approve it. zoning ordinance section also states in part, and I quote, before any use permit may be granted, it shall be found that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with adjacent uses, residence, buildings, or structures. The key word here is compatible, which refers to the ability of two or more things to exist together in combination without problems or conflict. In other words, capable of existing together in harmony. Brian and Barry will provide evidence why a sand mine is not compatible in any way with adjacent uses. Brian?

Good morning. I'm Brian Lorenz. regarding the major use permit findings. Finding one, harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density. Simply put, an open pit industrial sand mining operation and a residential community are about as disharmonious and incompatible as two things could be. Rancho San Diego, if you could bring up, thank you. Rancho San Diego and the surrounding area has a population of over 100,000 people. There's students, church goers, shoppers, cyclists, hikers, seniors. The applicant, and visual number two, please. The applicant wants you to believe that phasing the project will reduce the impacts to make it acceptable. The fact is the applicant is proposing to strip the sand of this site in 12 phases of up to 30 acres each at 40, up to 40 feet deep. in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Imagine a hole in the ground four stories deep, almost 23 football fields in size within 100 feet of someone's home. This is far bigger and potentially far more dangerous than the applicant wants us to realize. Finding three, harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood character. The project would irreversibly change the character of our area by introducing an industrial mine into an active and highly desirable community. As you can see, an open pit sand mine would be monumentally harmful to neighborhood character. In addition to the visual impact of a 12-foot high wall, the mine would create significant air and noise quality impacts. And as if decibels and dust simply fall to the ground within a few feet, the applicant has proposed a laughable 100-foot setback from residences and schools, like that could actually stop the ripple effect of destruction for our community. In fact, the applicant acknowledges and unapologetically states that, quote, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact relating to aesthetics, end quote. This is a finding that everyone acknowledges cannot be made, yet the applicant doubles down by submitting legalese attempting to coax the Planning Commission to turn the other way and ignore the fact. Finding four, generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets. Willow Glen Drive and adjacent streets are already busy. Traffic would be gridlocked with four new intersections, restriped and narrowed lanes, and the addition of hundreds of double-trailer dump truck trips every day, lumbering slowly in and out of the site, delaying commuters, parents with schoolchildren, and endangering students walking to and from school. According to the California Highway Patrol, in the past five years, on Willow Glen Drive alone, over 300 people have been injured or killed due to traffic accidents. A significant increase in semi-traffic, as well as loose sand spilled on the road surface, will make Willow Glen and adjacent streets far more dangerous. Barry?

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Barry Jantz. An additional major use permit finding is number five, the suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development proposed. We certainly agree with county staff on this one. The site is not suited for a sand mine. Not only is the site designated open space recreation in the general plan, it is part of the county's biological resource core area, a high value habitat corridor. The sand mine would fragment, destroy, and degrade these important areas, further threatening the viability of the region's wildlife and natural habitat. In addition, the site is located within the floodplain of the Sweetwater River. an area intended for conservation, not industrial development. You can see a map of the water flow area there. The Sweetwater Authority depends on the river watershed and provides drinking water to approximately 200,000 people living in South County. Sweetwater's concerns include water quality, hydrology, groundwater recharge, and the ability to transfer water to the Sweetwater Reservoir and its water treatment facilities. One of their main water sources is the capture of local runoff in the Sweetwater River. Sweetwater Authority in both 2022 and 2023 clearly stated their concerns are to be addressed before the county should even consider this project. In March, Sweetwater noted that the majority of the issues identified are still very relevant and have not been reasonably addressed. As well, there are over 485 homes, 14 apartment complexes, four restaurants, three parks, an ecological reserve, and an elementary school that would be directly impacted, all within a quarter mile of the mining operation. Rest assured, the devastating effects of an open pit industrial mine operation will reach far beyond a quarter mile. affecting over 100,000 people with the residual damage lasting far beyond 10 years. Finding six is that of consistency with the county general plan. The project is clearly inconsistent with several key county policies and goals, particularly those related to conservation, open space, and land use. The general plan, Valle de Oro community plan, and multiple species conservation program all prioritize the preservation of these sensitive lands and the avoidance of industrial uses in areas with high ecological value. As well, the Rancho San Diego Specific Plan identifies the Cottonwood Golf Course area serving as a buffer and providing a larger setback to both sensitive habitat areas and homes. SANDAG's 2011 San Diego Region Aggregate Supply Study makes it very clear that sand mines should not be located in developed or residential areas. With sand coming into San Diego from Mexico by sea and other quarries in and outside the county, there is no guarantee that the sand generated from the site would be used to support local projects. What is mined in San Diego doesn't necessarily stay in San Diego. Sand is sold to the highest bidder. The need for a commodity. Any commodity is not a legal finding. It is simply and solely an argument. The legal findings you must rely on include consistency with community plans, character of the existing community, development intensity, and overall adverse impacts. The bottom line is this. The applicant argues there is an unmet need for sand in San Diego. This purposely clouds the real issues in fact. The fact is the required legal findings to approve this project cannot be made. The Commission's only option today is to deny this project. And Diane will wrap it up.

In closing, we ask that you join thousands of residents, the Sequan Band of Kumeyaay Nation, Sierra Club, three planning groups, community organizations, the San Miguel Fire Protection District, and county staff to deny this project. Thank you for your time.

Does any commissioner have questions of any of these speakers? The last presentation is from the Sequan Tribal Government. Would the Sequan representatives please come up and begin their presentation? We've allocated a total of 10 minutes for the presentation.

Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman and honorable commissioners. My name is Jamie Labrake. I'm a Sequan tribal elder, Sequan councilman, and former director of our cultural department. Today's hearing is a critical moment not just for the Siquan Band, but for all of my fellow Kumeyaay tribes and tribal members. The proposal before you, if allowed to proceed, would be devastating to the Kumeyaay people, our culture, heritage, archaeology, and our ancestral human remains. While I am appreciative of staff's opposition to this project, I am extremely saddened to see that our well-researched and documented concerns were not addressed in your EIR. If they were, you would never be presented with a draft finding of less than significance. Always something that always comes to our people. This is not the only project, but throughout San Diego County, it is always coming back as less than significance. And it's painful as a Kumeyaay Nation, as original people's lands, to always be addressed and always have to address this. We are adamantly opposed to this project, and none of the alternatives are acceptable. Any one of them would result in a complete disregard for our sacred land and our significant cultural artifacts, funerary sites, and our ancestral human remains. I would now like to ask our Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Adam Day, to share a few comments, followed by our Special Legal Counsel, Mr. Ted Griswold. Thank you, everybody.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honorable commissioners. My name is Adam Day, and as you've heard, Sequan Tribe is strongly opposed to this project. Don't be fooled by the applicant's teary-eyed video and smoke and mirrors, or as I like to call it, dust and noise. There are lots of other reasons to deny this project, and don't be fooled by their presentation. The property in question has been zoned open space S80 for probably over 70 years, back to when the first zoning ordinance was adopted. This is so for a reason. As your staff report states, it zones such to provide appropriate controls for areas considered unsuitable for intense development. The S-88 specific planning area zoning is only meant for extractive uses when it is secondary to a future use of the site. This proposal is entirely inconsistent with an open space zone. This Kwan tribe has firsthand knowledge about the sensitivities area and the Sweetwater River specifically. They've called the Sweetwater River Valley an adjacent land home for tens of thousands of years. From the mountains to the bay, the Sweetwater River and other rivers were the original highways, living sites, hunting grounds, and cemeteries for the Kumeyaay people for millennia. There is no way to mitigate the impacts that a decade-long ground extraction operation will have on their culture, remains, and history. And it is frankly insulting to see that the draft findings and analysis conclude that impacts to cultural resources are less than significant. Completely untrue, as you just heard in the eyes of the Sequan tribe. Subsurface mining will cause irreparable harm. We have an example. We purchased a property on the river just five miles upstream nearly 25 years ago. It had a sand mining operation for over 80 years. On the first day after title was recorded, we shut it down. Why? Because it was a public health and safety nuisance to the environment, the residents, and traveling public on Willow Glen Road, as well as our well-documented cultural resources. Subsurface extraction of such enormous amounts of dirt will decimate known human and funerary remains, as well as critical archaeological sites and resources that are known to exist throughout the entire River Valley, and specifically this site, which our tribe has documented and staff has ignored. It's even more striking to me to find not one, but seven separate impacts that were identified in the staff's EIR that are significant and unmitigable. We completely disagree with staff that there's only one. There's at least seven, if not more. And there's not just two rationale that staff relies upon out of the six. There's four, as our attorney, Ted Griswold, will talk about in a moment. None of the alternatives are acceptable from a cultural and environmental impact analysis. I urge this commission to not be fooled by the trickery in the Hollywood film, to stand with the tribe, to stand with the Valley Area Planning Group, to stand with tens of thousands of residents, neighbors, people who live, work, play, and travel in this area, support staff's recommendation, reject this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, good morning, maybe afternoon almost. My name is Ted Griswold. I'm with the law firm Procopio, a longtime outside counsel for the Saquon Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. We concur with staff's recommendation that you can't make the findings three and five. However, we would add to that. We do not believe that you could also make the finding four regarding traffic. I think they went through some significant detail regarding that. I'm not going to go into that in detail, but I'm going to leave that there. But in addition, finding number six. Finding number six requires or looks at relevant impacts that would be caused by the project. And this is what we really want to concentrate on because the impacts of the tribal cultural resources at a landscape scale caused by this project are not irrelevant. They are relevant to this project and we do not believe you can make those findings when you get done hearing what we have to say. However, If the Commission chooses to try and make those findings and then consider the EIR, we've got some real concerns with the EIR in its current state. There are significant amounts of information, I'm going to focus primarily on the cultural resources, where we provided 50 pages of documentation and citations to staff through tribal consultation and multiple comment letters regarding the sensitivity of this area. informing them of the information. They informed some of that information into a revised report, never changed any of their findings, never acknowledged the consideration of this as a tribal cultural landscape. That's a problem. They've got substantial evidence that shows otherwise. So we urge denial both on the basis of the MUP findings, but also on the basis that we don't think you can certify the cultural resources. So one of the things you have to be asking yourselves is why is this so sensitive? What is it about this area? For millennia, Cuvier people and the people that came before them, that were identified before them, have used alluvial plains as habitation areas, particularly where there are inlet canyons along the side of the alluvial areas. This is one of those areas. A lot of people don't think of golf courses and Sweetwater River as that, but think about San Diego River and the vast cultural resources that are in Mission Gorge and Mission Trails Park, which are now parkland appropriately and preserved. But if you walk through there, you see resources after resources in those finger canyons that lead down into the alluvial areas. Same thing happens here. Mexican Canyon, the adjacent canyons that come in here, were feeding into the habitation areas. The old Ivanhoe Ranch, which is immediately adjacent to and was once part of this golf course, has cultural resources all over it. So why is that? Well, Just upstream from here is a former village site called Matamo. South of here was Hamacha, also known as Hamasha. We call it Hamasha, but Kumeyaay called it Hamcha. These two villages were two governmental centers, and between them, according to Florence Scheipeck and Richard Carrico and some of the other experts that are out there, There were a multiple, for about five miles, there were multiple habitation sites where individuals, individual clans of Kumeyaay people lived. This is one of those areas. And where they lived, those habitation sites, unlike the rest of us, you know, that have come since and are kind of afraid of the living and the dead being together, they were not. Their burial sites were within their village sites. When they burn a tribal member's clothes and they bury them, they want them to be part of the community. They are still part of the community. There is not a fear there. So as a result, where you have burial sites, you're going to have multiple burial sites and funerary objects. They're below ground. When you have a golf course, that's landscaping. That's surface work. That's not looking what's below ground. And they've never done an analysis of what's below ground here because it's been landscaped and it has not been developed. And that's a good thing because we have a very nice large tribal cultural landscape where all these habitations between the village sites occurred. Keep it that way. This is the last vestige of our cultural heritage of this county and of the native people here. If you allow sand mining, literally it all gets taken away. That's the whole idea behind sand mining is remove all of this and take it away. And that resource is an impact. That's a relevant impact. That's your MUP6. That's your significant tribal cultural resource impact in your EIR that's not stated. Now, the mitigation for this is a reclamation plant. Reclamation is putting inert material into the ground, not the same material, after you've removed the resource, put inert material in the ground, throw some topsoil on top of it, and maybe try and plant some plants and hope that they grow. That's not going to help the tribal cultural resources in their natural form or what's there right now. The other mitigation form is monitoring. They said that they're going to create a treatment and removal plan and monitoring. What that allows for is the culturally affiliated tribal members to witness the destruction of their ancestors and their ancestral areas. That's all it does. That's not mitigation. As a matter of fact, it's a little cruel to have that and have it as witnessing the destruction of what's so important to them. So on these bases, I ask you, please consider these as additional impacts that are not noted by county staff, and we would like to continue consultation with them on this and other matters, and deny this project on both the MUP findings and the lack of adequacy of the CEQA document. Thank you very much for your time.

Do any commissioners have any questions of any of these speakers?

I have one for staff, if that's appropriate. Is there any historical data on the Cottonwood Golf Course and how it was constructed, what kind of grading took place, or was it purely just landscaped? I've typically seen the golf courses graded out when they're constructed.

Commissioner Sudbury to the chair, it is difficult to determine based on the age of some of the records, but from what we've been able to gather, the site was graded extensively when the golf course was installed and has had grading and some minor mining activities over time that were all permitted by the county. So a number of sites that were identified there have been destroyed through kind of ongoing maintenance of the golf course.

May I?

Staff, just.

I'm sorry. You asked that question and we asked that question as well. And we requested the permits for the extensive grading and that sort of thing. The one item that we did get was in December 16th, 2005, There was, the last time they did extensive grading on the site, notice of exemption, no sequel review, no environmental review was done. It was done under an exemption in 2005. That was the last permitting on this.

Thank you. Please turn off the mic.

Staff. I'm not that old, but from personal knowledge, this has been graded and disturbed since World War II. I'm very concerned, Mr. Slovak, that staff has, for lack of a better term, Mr. Chairman, been impugned. These people claim that they provided you with 50 pages of materials. I am. Quit interrupting.

Please, if we could have calm.

So they claimed that they provided 50 pages of materials to you and that you ignored it. Based on my relationship with you, I find that hard to believe. Could you comment on that for me?

Commissioner Edwards to the chair. Yes, staff has had extensive outreach with the tribes during this effort. I would say there's been over 50 meetings held with all the individual tribes, including Sequan, You know, they have provided a number of documents and information to us. We've gone through that, both our staff archaeologists, the developer's archaeologists, we've looked at all of it. We have not been able to identify any specific information related to sites identified on this property, like specific geographic boundaries of sites on this particular property. We recognize the significance of the general area to the tribes. That's why we've incorporated the mitigation measures into the conditions of the permit. But from our research and understanding of it, there just isn't any evidence that's been presented that shows that there are specific areas of sensitivity on this particular site.

So staff has had multiple meetings and obtained whatever information you desired?

Commissioner, through the chair, you know, we have reviewed all the information that the tribes have provided, and we've, again, reiterated the position of the county that we need evidence that shows that there is some particular location on this site that has some specific significance that we could use to, you know, potentially avoid or add additional mitigation that just not has been provided to date. You just haven't received it. Correct.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Pallager?

Wasn't there a cultural resources report submitted with the application?

Commissioner Pallager, that's correct.

So there is one for the record?

That's correct.

Any other questions to the commissioners? And just to clarify, you received comments on the draft EIR from Sequan and those were addressed?

Chair Ashman, yeah, we received comments during the environmental impact review process. We also received comments during tribal consultation meetings, so it's been provided throughout. We have reviewed all of that information, and as I was explaining to Commissioner Edwards, we just have not been able to identify any specific information about a particular site location on this property.

Thank you.

The question, Mr. Chairman, for the applicant. Counselor, this Alternative Planning Commission hearing report, I just want to make sure it's clear in my mind. You, or on behalf of the applicant, provided this county staff and asked for their, well, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Why don't you tell me what happened and what you did?

Sure, thank you, Commissioner. The findings that were appended to the alternative hearing report, those went to county staff well in advance of us putting together the alternative hearing report. The conditions of approval that are included in there were a very long back and forth process between the applicant and county staff. They have had their input, and I believe they actually drafted the first draft of those. We provided the alternative hearing report at the invitation of staff when we were informed that staff would be recommending denial. Staff explained that this has precedent in the county and we wanted to provide to you an alternative option for taking action today.

So even though the final conclusions they disagree with the procedural and substantive bulk that we have here has, for lack of a better term, been reviewed and agreed upon by all parties?

Correct. That also includes the CEQA findings that were included in there. Those are all based on the EIR, and of course the EIR has been a very long collaborative process between the applicant and staff over many years.

I understand it's from the gentleman from Valle de Oro that apparently this has been under discussion for some six or seven years.

That is correct.

So can I ask you another question? And I don't want to pull something out that you're not prepared to answer. So if you're not, just tell me. On pages, Mr. Chairman, 9 and 10 of this report, there's a discussion, Counselor, about this design exemption request for undergrounding of poles or I guess it'd be power lines. Yes. Telephone lines and what have you. The way I read this and if I misread it you tell me. Of course. The county or staff had gone along with the applicants position for many years about undergrounding, if I misuse your terms you tell me, undergrounding five poles and then In May of 2025, county staff indicated it was now requiring removal of all utility poles and undergrounding of all utility lines along Willow Glen Drive, which was a total of 32 poles or 27 new poles to be removed and replaced or undergrounded. And I was wondering, Can you give the commission some background on, do you know why it took so long? Yes, of course.

So at the inception of the project, or at some point along the early process of the project, the project requires a redesign of the entrance to the site. I believe there are four or five poles there that need to be removed. Right, there are five. Right. And so we had requested an exception. So instead of undergrounding the utility lines associated with those four or five poles, we requested an exception to move those lines to the other side of the street. Those are AT&T lines. I believe I am. We have lots of technical consultants here, so if I am getting it wrong, please come up and tap me and let me know. We had requested that instead of undergrounding just that short amount associated with the four or five poles, we could move them to the other side of the street where there are SDG and E poles. The AT&T polls that we are removing, there is already an agreement in place between AT&T and SDG&E to share those polls. So AT&T, no problem. SDG&E, no problem. So we requested instead of undergrounding, can we just move them to the other side? That will be less disruptive. We're still getting the benefit of taking down those four or five polls. We're not adding any new polls. That has been shown on the project plans for many years. In May of 2025, so a few months ago after we are very close to the finish line, staff informed us, no, no, no, you have to remove all of the poles along Willow Glen, which is 30-plus poles, I believe. So we would prefer not to do that. We don't know if that is legally or technically feasible. We have not approached AT&T about can we take down all of your poles or SD&G&E, To underground them would require the removal of many existing trees along Willowgren Drive. That's another reason we don't want to do that. So what we are requesting from you today is that you approve our request to take down the four or five poles and instead of undergrounding those lines, move them to the other side of the street. We don't believe the removal of any other poles is required, and we don't think that undergrounding those lines, which would again require the removal of many existing trees, is a good idea or provide any meaningful benefit.

So, Mr. Slovic, what's the deal here? How come we waited so long to request this of the applicant?

Commissioner Edwards to the chair, if I could just clarify, we did bring this up early on in the process. So it was not something that was just brought up at the last minute, but it did become a focus towards the end when we started to prepare the draft conditions for the project. But I just wanted to highlight that it wasn't just brought up in 2025.

I do have to point out that all of the project plans have shown only the removal of four or five poles. Those are the project plans that are in the EAR that have been before staff, and we did not receive this comment at any time until May.

The reason I'm asking, Mr. Slovak, is on page nine it says, in May 2025, for the first time in the project's review process, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So is that a correct statement or not?

That's not correct. It was not brought up for the first time in 2025, Commissioner Slovak. Just to clarify.

So it's been a subject of discussion since the inception of the project?

That's where I would say no, Commissioner. It was brought up early on, and then it wasn't until the conversation regarding the conditions where we really started to get into the topic. So I think it's correct to portray it as an issue that was discussed more in depth in 2025.

Council, do you have any final comment on that? I'm more confused now than ever.

I apologize for the confusion. We were also very confused in May 2025. But again, there is no additional benefit to removing all of those poles. We do think it would result in removing trees that otherwise don't need to be removed. And we don't think that would provide any additional aesthetics benefit. We're not touching that area. We would like to remain not touching that area. And the poles on the other side of the street can accommodate the utility lines from the four or five poles that we do want to remove to adjust the entrance to the site.

I have a question for staff. Are these all wood poles?

I'm sorry, Commissioner, could you?

Are these poles all wood?

That's correct, Commissioner, they are.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions of the Saquon presentation? From the commissioners. We'll now take public testimony. Madam Secretary, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Due to the number of speakers, we'll be limiting all individuals to two minutes each.

And yes, I would like to highlight that there was one member who originally requested to speak as an individual, but is a part of a CPG group. And I'm going to go ahead and call her first. Her name is Ms. Lisa Hodgson.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Good morning, Chairman and the rest of the Commission. My name is Lisa Hodson, for the record, H-O-D-G-S-O-N. I am the Chairman of the Humboldt-Alzura Community Planning Group. And bottom line up front, the Humboldt-Delzura Community Planning Group unanimously opposes this project. A planned community development would never be approved to be built next to an open-pit sand mine. Why is there a consideration approving an open-pit sand mine operation in the middle of an established community? The Cottonwood Sand Mine Open Pit Mining Project will threaten our communities and our region with numerous possible hazards for which there is no mitigation. We do not believe the dangerous conditions to which the communities will be subjected to can be mitigated. We as a group reject the premise that there is an acceptable level of harm. And lastly, I would ask and remind everyone that the noblest motive is the public good. So please deny these permits. Thank you.

Chair, can we take a five-minute break before the rest of the public testimony?

Commissioners? Yeah, we're going to. We will be taking a 5 minute break before we delve into the public testimony from this point on. Thank you. We're we're going to proceed the first. We're going to take a speaker from the. Fire district serving fire district. And then we're going to take the folks who are on the phone, and then we'll do the in-person testimony. We will, at about 1230, take a break for lunch. And if you could bear with us. You have two minutes to speak, but please, there's no point in repeating things that other people have brought up. Anything you can do to focus on any new ideas and new information that you can provide us would be greatly appreciated to try and conserve some time.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Theresa McKenna. I'm the director of division five of the San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District, speaking on behalf of our board of directors. Our district serves approximately 140,000 people in East County, including this community surrounding the proposed project. On May 14th, 2025, our board adopted resolution 25-29, formally opposing the proposed project by unanimous vote. The findings of the board were that this project has the potential to adversely impact emergency services in several ways. First and foremost, the increased industrial traffic is anticipated to negatively impact evacuation routes, delay response times, and create congestion on rural roads that serve as critical ingress and egress points during wildfires. Further, large scale mining operations, which includes blasting and heavy equipment use, introduce fire ignition risks, particularly during periods of extreme heat and red flag conditions. The proposed operation could place additional strain on the district's limited personnel and resources without providing offsetting mitigation funding or impact fees. Airborne particles, dust, and emissions generated by the mining activity pose a public health risk to nearby residents and first responders, particularly those with respiratory vulnerabilities. For the reasons stated and more, the San Miguel Fire District opposes the project due to its negative impacts to public health and life safety unless and until the project meet or exceeds all public health and safety concerns outlined by the district. Thank you.

Excuse me. I have a quick question for you. In the board's list of concerns, did they mention blasting? It did mention blasting. Did they realize this is a sand mine proposal?

Well, my guess is that there would be blasting. If there's boulders in the way, they just have a big machine come in and take it out. I'm just...

I understand.

That was a concern that was voiced by.

I just wanted to clarify that that's what they had in there.

That is what is in the resolution and the concern of the fire chief, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, do we have speakers on the phone?

Sean, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?

Yes, we have seven callers at this time. I'll be joining shortly. With the caller ending in the last 4 digits of 0, 5, 6, 7, please press star 6 to unmute your mic. And please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Hello? You're unmuted. Go for it.

Can you hear me?

3 minutes.

Hi, this is Dan Weber. I'm here to speak on behalf of the neighborhood of Rancho San Diego. Thank you, honorable members of the Planning Commission. The Hammershaw Valley community of Rancho San Diego adjacent to applicant's property which is comprised of three, uh, as next to three environmentally sensitive wildlife preserves on its east, west and south sides. Rancho San Diego has 16,028 homes and in Hamul there are 744 homes and one elementary school and a school and a adjoining playground with close to 5,000 homes being within a half mile. of of the property on the south side uh the reality of it is this is sweet water rivers lowest flat point in the valley the um major it's in major rain events surface water which is not captured by lakes ponds road gutters close downhill in the hamishaw valley and into the sweetwater river either across or through the cottonwood golf course property Photos of this have been previously submitted to the County Planning Department. If mining operations were to start during these rain events, excess runoff across the subject property would pick up the pollutants that are dropped by the mining equipment. Comprised of soot from the diesel exhaust emissions, oil, grease, spilled diesel fuel, and the like. and these pollutants would flow into the river through the wildlife reserve, ultimately ending up down at the Sweetwater Reservoir. Thank you.

With the caller ending in the last four digits of 8923, please press star 6 to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. With the caller ending the last four digits of 8923, please press star six to unmute your mic, and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. We will return to 8923. With the caller ending the last four digits of 2586, please press star six to unmute your mic, and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Yes. This is Dr. Kevin May, a member of the Humboldt Missouri Community Planning Group, speaking as a private citizen today. My reason for speaking is because of a health concern regarding the spores of a soil-dwelling fungus, coccidioides. which causes the disease coccidial mycosis, better known as Dolly Fever, which can result in irreparable damage leading, yes. Can you still hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please continue.

Okay, thank you. Which can result in irreparable damage leading to debilitation, suffering, and eventually death. There is no recovery. Recent reports have shown a correlation between the increased number of cases of valley fever and an increase in the frequency of dust storms. Thus, the concern we have regarding all the dust that will certainly be coming from this mine over the next decade. The residents of Memorial and Valley Oral that live in, visit, or pass through the Cottonwood Basin on a daily basis, as well as students in the local school, will be vulnerable to this disease. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now return to caller ending in the last four digits of 8923. Please press star six to unmute your mic. We can hear you. Go for it.

Hi, this is Janet Mulder and I live in Homo and I've been I have been a member of the Homo Dossier Community Planning Group since its inception and i uh i'm speaking today as an individual resident wanting to make sure that you are aware of the following yes we do not believe the dangerous conditions to which the communities will be subjected can be mitigated in addition i would propose the following question which was also proposed by our planning groups A planned community development would never be approved to be built next to an open pit sand mine. So why are you even considering approving an open pit sand mining operation in the middle of an established community? You know, this planned project violates all the positive aspects of the Humboldt-Othera community today. The planning group and individual community members have thoroughly discussed this project and we feel that this project violates many of the different positive aspects of our community including noise air traffic air contamination and possible wildlife and threat entrapment which may well be the most dangerous part of this proposal it's totally incompatible with the surrounding area and it's environmental thank you so much for your time thank you for your comments

With the caller ending in the last four digits of 7672, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 7672, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. We will return to caller ending in 7672. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 8530, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Caller ending in the last four digits of 8530, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. We'll return to 8530. With the caller ending the last four digits of 2663, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. You're unmuted. Go for it. Caller ending last four digits of 2663. Have you unmuted your mic? Please begin. We'll return to 2663. Last caller, ending in the last four digits of 8062, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. You've unmuted your mic, please begin.

Hi, my name is Kamala Ignatius. I live in Rancho San Diego on Heatherwood Drive. This is the street directly adjacent to the proposed sand mine. The portion of the project designated phase one, which is on the old lakes golf course that the owner stopped maintaining in 2017. Our property and many on Heatherwood have wells and we use this water for irrigation. Similarly, our property has an easement onto the intended sand mine property as do many of our neighbors on Heatherwood. My husband's parents were the original owners of our home, having built it on an operational golf course in 1991. We then purchased the home from them because we wanted the same quality of life for our family. We live here now with our four children. The owners of this golf course have decided seven years later to stop taking responsibility for their property. And they've said to heck with the local community. They drained the ponds behind our house with pumps. They killed many natural animals, fish, wildlife, birds. They allowed a homeless encampment, actually many of them, to be set up quite elaborately in some cases with solar panels, tents, even RVs. As you know, many fires have been set intentionally or not by the homeless population living on the abandoned golf course over the past few years. It has been a scary and repeated scenario for me to look out my back window onto the golf course, see and smell smoke, and call 911 to report another fire on the abandoned golf course. why did they abandon this golf course because they were going to make a sand mine and strike it rich when they abandoned the golf course they created a haven for homelessness encampments they intentionally wiped out habitat for animals and stopped watering a brush-laden landscape increasing fire risk at the doorstep of residents such as myself and my family to reward this bad behavior with a lucrative sand mining permit, which will only further harm the golf course owner harm will only further the harm caused by the golf course owner to the character and quality of ranch of San Diego will be a huge mistake. And it would be a mistake. Long-term residents like me will never forget. I've heard others testify about the water quality issue. And I will just say that it is extremely, UNDERCOUNTED IN THIS REPORT HOW IMPORTANT THE WATER RESERVOIR IS AND HOW FREQUENTLY IT FLOODS. IT FLOODS EVERY YEAR. IT FLOODS FOR TWO WEEKS, SOMETIMES TWO MONTHS OF THE YEAR, AND IT'S A HUGE BODY OF WATER. TO THINK THAT THIS MINING OPERATION WILL BE A GOOD STEWARD OF OUR DRINKING WATER IS TO PUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES IN HARM'S WAY. IN THE EVENT THAT THE SAND MINING PROJECT IS PERMITTED,

We will now be returning to the last two callers. One has dropped off. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 8530, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Last call for caller ending in the last four digits of 8530. Please note we have not received a response of 8530. Caller ending last four digits of 2663, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. 2663, if you had muted your mic, I believe you might have your phone on mute. Last call, Pursue 663. I believe you have your phone muted, but you might be unmuted in Teams. We cannot reach caller ending in 2663. At this time, we have completed all callers and I believe that we will finish public communications on the phone.

We will now take public testimony. Madam Secretary, do we have members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Chair Ashment. Again, you're limited to two minutes and please don't repeat over and over again the same things your other members of the public are sharing with us.

Thank you, Chair Ashman. When your name is called, please come forward and stand near the lectern. I'm going to call up four people at a time. As soon as the person before you is finished, please state your name for the record and begin your comments. The first four people I have is Sarah Slade, Susan Waters, Michael Casimeli, and Janet Mulder.

Hi, my name is Susan Waters. My main point is to tell you I'm not a hydrologist. I'm not a subject matter specialist on the mining impacts to groundwater in the drawdown of the water table. I do know that my property and my well is shown on figure number three in one of the reports, which is an exhibit to discuss the potential impacts to wells in the area. I'm concerned about a part of the justification of the impacts of this project using estimates of a mining project from way back in 2006 in Ontario, Canada. I would think there would be something that would be more relatable to our area. I am also concerned that the groundwater report stated the well data was from the opinion of the Cottonwood Golf Superintendent And the wells on the golf course are not metered, so estimates were made of the groundwater use. The only other estimates that were quoted in the reports that I read were from a document in 1990. It seems that this is all a very weak baseline for something so valuable. One response to my comment stated that no monitoring of water use during mining is required or proposed. However, the groundwater number two of the groundwater compliance report states groundwater used from all pumped wells at the site should not exceed 150 acre feet per minute for mining excavation and reclamation activity, and that groundwater flow meter reading shall record monthly from all pumped wells. Also, which was my biggest concern, was a professional geologist or engineer was only supposed to visit the site once a year to monitor the accuracy of the water. There's mention of a proposed closure date of December 2036, but it may continue through approval of the major use permit to exhaust the 38 million cubic yards to be exempt.

Please summarize and conclude.

Sure. If the groundwater production is exceeding pumping, it shall cease until January 1st of the next year. So I'm almost 70. I'd like to outlive the project. So I think the 12 years might turn into 12 and 14. And to me and my community members with other colored hair, I think it's unacceptable.

The next group that I have is Jody Nelson, Edward Woodruff, George Robinson, and Phillip Faker.

Hi. I'm Jody Nelson. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. I really appreciate it. This whole process has been so enlightening to me. I'm not even going to read what I wrote. I bought my home in 89, and when I moved out to Rancho, lots of new homes, lots of open space, very little infrastructure. Over the years, the infrastructure came, and every single thing added to our community, brought something really good and positive to us. This sand mine doesn't do that. Truckload by truckload, it's going to take something away from our homes. I was going to talk to you about the things that you've already heard today. What I want to talk about is my community. If you stood in the site that's being discussed, you would see a beautiful spot. Mountains, birds, animals, a small river perhaps if it's that time of year. That will all be taken away. I was surprised today to hear that we are over 100,000 people strong because Rancho feels like a small town to me. The quality of life that we have is special, and this sand mine would destroy that. We are here in strength to tell you, please don't do that to our home. You six people have our future in your hands. I'm going to trust that you're listening to us. I'm going to trust that it counts, that we love our community and we don't want it to change forever because I think it would change forever. So I'm asking you, please vote no on this project.

My name is George Robinson. My property backs up to the Ivanhoe Ranch. To avoid redundancy, I'll just stick to one of my items. I kind of disagree with the county staff on their recommendation to certify the final environmental impact report. Item one is the one I'll stick with. It's the traffic analysis was incomplete. Traffic studies were conducted between 2020 and 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic when traffic was abnormal. Stay-at-home orders began March 19th of 2020 and were not lifted until January 25th of 2021. The applicant's traffic study includes some data collected on August 30th, 2018, with the other data collected on October 23rd, 2020. This data is misleading and incomplete because of the timing of the traffic counts. Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you for letting me speak. My name is Michael Cassinelli. I've been elected and re-elected to the Humboldt-Delserre Community Planning Group for about 20 years. I'm here speaking as an individual opposed to this project. If you'll indulge me for like 60 seconds, I will present a different perspective than the list of what you've been hearing. The last time I appeared before the commission was a major use project in Hummel. And there's a lot of similarities, a lot of parallels. Significant negative impacts, including traffic, environment, public safety with a mitigable or inadequate proposed mitigation. Nobody who was in favor of the project lived in the area. Both projects are or were backed by non-US corporations capable of hiring high-powered lobbyists and making political campaign contributions. Your predecessors did not do the right thing, and they recommended approval, and the Board of Supervisors approved the MUP. The Planning Commission and the Supervisors did not do the right thing, And that is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of the court who reversed that approval. And I think it's important to note that when the court reversed the decision, they listed all the reasons why and they mirrored everything the planning group had presented. And the other last point was that costs taxpayers a lot of money to fight that litigation and pay the plaintiff's cost as well. So in conclusion, today I trust you will vote unanimously to do the right thing. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, commissioners, My name is Philip Faker. I live at 3311 Rancho Miguel Road in Hamul. A critically important question is, can San Diego County meet the growing demand for fine sand aggregate while also protecting its rivers and streams and ensuring the health and safety of people who live near potential sand mining sites? The answer is yes, it absolutely can. And the best way to do this is for the county to transition from river sand to manufactured sand in the production of Portland cement concrete. Research and experience has shown, and aggregate materials engineers at the county and Caltrans agree, that manufactured sand can replace river sand in most Portland cement concrete applications. Manufactured sand can be made from waste material left over from crushing rock, that only two of the county's 13 rock quarries produce it. With the right equipment and the proper permits, local rock quarries could produce enough manufactured sand to eliminate the need for river sand mining in San Diego County or for importing it from outside the county. River sand mining is not sustainable. Many countries around the world are transitioning from river sand to manufactured sand. San Diego should do the same. I urge you to deny the Cottonwood Sand Mine Permit and ask the Board of Supervisors to convene a task force in partnership with SANDAG to study the promising alternative of manufactured sand and to develop a plan to encourage and incentivize local quarries to produce it. Manufactured sand is the sustainable way forward. Thank you.

The next four speakers that I have, Lauren Cazares, Bob Collins, Grant Foraker, if you're here, and Lori Loisel.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bob Collins. I've lived in the Rancho San Diego area for over 40 years, and I support the Planning Department's recommendation to deny this MUP. I grew up in Colorado. I grew up in open space. And when I came to this area, it had both what I wanted, a great place to live and a lot of open space. Not only open space you could look at, but open space that you could play on. And this proposal is going to take away the recreational aspect of that for 12 years. And what are they going to replace it with? A path. A trail. That's all they're going to do. They should go the whole distance. This area needs large-scale recreational opportunities. We don't need a sand mining operation. It doesn't make for good planning principles, especially if you're trying to sell houses to somebody. My other concern is the Sweetwater Authority's issues have not been addressed. The water purveyor of 200,000 people in South Bay are counting on Sweetwater to take care of their water. And yet, as I look at what's been done, they've written three or four letters and their concerns haven't been addressed. So what's more important, water or sand? I would say water. Now I was interested to read the alternative way of handling this. And they talked about the need for PCC. It's like PCC is the gold. It's the only thing that can be used. But what I don't see them talking about is recycled concrete aggregate. Why can't it be used? It's not as environmentally dangerous as what they're proposing here. Now we do have the ability to change all this. They can sell the property and get out of town. That's what I like to see.

Hi, I'm Lori Loisel, and my family has resided in Rancho San Diego since 1984. And we all know recently the whole destruction we saw in Texas, the natural disaster that ruined hundreds of families, took lives. And we've said, what is the worst thing about this natural disaster? We couldn't mitigate it. We could not come up with a system to mitigate this natural disaster. You know what's worse than that? Having a for-profit man-made disaster occurring in your neighborhood. How do you mitigate that? You mitigate it by preventing it from ever happening. Now, we had our governor in 2021 who wanted to provide a buffer zone of 3,200 feet from any mining or excavation site. He said that in order to protect our schools, our communities, and our homes. This buffer zone is a joke. It wouldn't pass a laugh test in a court of law. I could tell you that. And also, the noise, they're saying noise can't be mitigated. We live above the golf course. Noise travels straight up the valley. Just a couple weeks ago, they were doing tree trimming. With the windows closed and all the doors closed for 30 minutes, we could hear that tree trimming clearly from inside the house. Now, consistent noise, they might say the dB level might be passable, but not at a consistent level for hours at a time. That's what they used as a torture technique during wars, even in Iraq, was blasting loud music to be able for consistently to disrupt people's working from home, their children studying, that is a constant nuisance. And as far as the dust, it's not just dust. It is valley fever, it's silica, cancer inducing. You know how big that micro is? It is 1 25th thousandth of an inch. You cannot prevent yourself from breathing that. And when their attorney is up here saying it comes at no cost, it comes at the cost of my life, my mom's life, every face in here. It costs our community. That's a cost you can't put a price on. That's blood money. As far as the general contractors and the corporate union, well, they're just getting paid to put the final nails into our community's coffin. And this is why I'm very passionate, because I know the health effects are there. Something that we can mitigate. You have the power and the ability today to vote no for the sand mine.

Please summarize and conclude.

I'm saying the overall health effects to our water, our incapability of being able to mitigate the silica dust, the constant noise, the traffic, the impediments to our county's fire trucks and police. It is going to damage our community beyond repair, and you cannot mitigate that. So please vote no for the sand mine.

The next four speakers may have Ms. Marilyn Loisel, Noelle Ignatos, Zachary Svellen, and Dr. Kevin Anderson.

Hello, my name is Marilyn Loisel, and I live up on Wind River Road. I lived out there since 1984. I live directly above the Ivanhoe Ranch. And I could tell you for a fact, I lived through the sand mining operation that took place there for two years. It is so disruptive. The noise level, they can't build a wall tall enough to block out that noise level. It comes directly up, affects 900 homes in Rancho San Diego. The dust and the dirt and the din, that din from the noise is unrelenting. I'm going to tell you, everything that these people have said that are standing behind me, don't you believe it? I lived it. My husband and I lived it. And through the grace of God, it only lasted for two years. And it was just a small area. To this day, that small area is a blight. Nothing will grow there. They have a fence around it. And let me tell you, We went from buying in 1984 when it was a working ranch with cattle, horses, chickens, a rooster, and a woman who was a real philanthropist. She was a fundraiser. She did so much for our community. Oh, my God. We just felt so blessed. It was like, thank you, Jesus, that we've got this gorgeous view. Back then, Still Canyon didn't even exist, but we had the rolling hills. It was a real slice of God-given land. Today, we would like to see that preserved because we know that if the sand mine goes in, everything that they're telling you, don't you believe it, it is going to go from a little slice of heaven to a hellhole. There's no... You try living with that constant noise from 7 in the morning until late in the afternoon. Oh, my God. None of them live in our area. And people are right when they say it's just... It's unimaginable what they want to do. I, for myself... Could you please summarize and conclude? Yes, yes. Human life is far more important than sand. And my... I have a prayer for all of you, that God watch over you and bless you when you get ready to make your decision, because what you decide is going to have a lasting effect, not just within the next 10 years, but forever on a lot of lives. We're all going to be affected. So please make a wise decision. This is everlasting. This is not just a 10-year span. So thank you so very, very much for what you're doing.

My name's Bretton Peace. Noelle Ignatius is my wife. We have a child who's sick. She was gonna cede her time to me anyway. I'm also here, I have a speaker slip in. I'm also here that was a representative of the Humboldt Little League, all nine board members and the 160 families from that community. I'd ask you to indulge me with maybe an extra minute. I live at Heatherwood Drive, directly adjacent. This buffer zone of 100 feet, that's my backyard. which backs up onto where the sand mine's gonna go. The EIR remains fundamentally flawed. I know what that 2005 permit was. I'm shocked that the county hasn't figured it out, because I addressed it in my letters. That was when they built the lakes course. They pulled a permit to build the lakes, to pull the sand out, to bail the golf course out at that time. At least then they did it the right way. They pulled a permit to build the lakes, and the sand mine was ancillary. This time they want us to believe that they're going to do a sand mine project and give us a park on the back end. It's a bait and switch. Where are the lakes? I have the video documentary evidence that they drained these lakes in the middle of the night. They ran diesel generators out behind my house. I went and captured that on video. They drained these waters that now no longer are addressed in the EIR. These are ephemeral waters. They're vernal pools. There are areas in that EIR that you show do not have waters in them that if you go there today are full of water. They're full of water right now. They wanted to minimize the impact. I'm not going to address the other stuff. Finally, I want to come to why we're here. Their lawyer makes it sound like the people came to where the areas are being sand mined, that we came to the nuisance. That's not true. My family's lived in this home for 40 years. It's been designated open space for 70 years. The nuisance is coming to us. And in this case, I would ask any of you who are a developer, would you purchase the property before it was permitted? No. This was a lender who had lent to the prior owner of the property, foreclosed on that loan, and stepped into the golf course. Now he's asking the county to bail him out. This is backwards. If they want to give us open space, refile it as a project for an open space park, do the sand mining as an ancillary use, don't buy into this. You are bailing out a bad guy, a lender, not somebody who's a developer who sought to put a sand mine in.

Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioner. My name is Kevin Anderson. I'm a resident of Hamul, Steel Canyon. I've been a resident in the area on both sides of the proposed project for 40 years. And what I would say is the thinking of this has to be a little different. There's a fellow by the name of a great German mathematician by the name of Carl Gustav Jacobi. His comment was always to invert, always invert. Think of the opposite problem first and then look to it in a backwards fashion. So you'd ask yourself in this situation, how could I kill more people on Willow Glen? How could I poison the water? How could I make the air more toxic? And if you'd go through those series of questions, I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thanks for your time. I know you'll do the right thing.

Good morning, commissioners and staff. My name is Zachary Spelling. I've been a resident of Humboldt since 1992 and a real estate agent in the community since 2008. I'm also a proud member of the Stop Cottonwood Sand Mine Board. I'm here today not just as a realtor, but as a community member who deeply understands the delicate balance that gives this region its value. Quiet rural character, scenic beauty, safe roads, strong neighborhoods, schools. I'm also a member of the San Diego Antique Car Club, the San Diego Model A Ford Club, a group of citizens that greatly enjoys driving on Willow Glen Drive. Now, Willow Glen Drive is a county of San Diego designated scenic route, meaning it's recognized for its natural beauty, recreational value, and community importance. I will read that again. Willow Glen Drive is a county of San Diego designated scenic route, meaning it is recognized for natural beauty, recreational value, and community importance. What does it say about our values if we sacrifice that for diesel and sand? Because that's ultimately, to get sand, we're expending a tremendous amount of diesel. I work with homeowners and buyers every day, and I can tell you, nothing erodes home values faster than industrial noise, air pollution, traffic hazards next to classrooms and cul-de-sacs. An approval of this project would weaken the very identity of Humul and Rancho San Diego as a desirable place to live. A new school could not be built adjacent to a sand mine, so why is it that we find ourselves debating a sand mine existing near pre-existing schools? This project proposes the greatest public harm for private gain, and I urge you to protect the people who live, work, and attend school in this community, not corporate interests looking to extract and leave. Thank you for your time.

The next four speakers that I have are Mike Soloway, Andrea Soloway, Terry Davis Storm, and Travis Jokerst.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is Mike Soloway. And like many of the previous speakers, I live in a home that is contiguous to the second green on the Ivanhoe Ranch course. I've lived there for 31 years. I have owned five homes in my lifetime. Just had my 80th birthday, by the way. And before buying any of those homes, I would always go and evaluate the community first and then say, gee, I like it here. Maybe this is where I'd like to find a home and then would check the real estate information for available homes. I would never move into a community that had a sand mine. I would obviously go to a different community. When I moved to my community, 31 years ago because of the open spaces and all the golf courses that were available. It was a beautiful place then and it is still a beautiful place. Let's keep it that way. We were asked about seven years ago to write a letter to the city planners and I read all 60 of those letters yesterday online. I found one letter in particular not written by me but the The writer mentioned that the needs of a few should not be impacted by the needs of many. Well, the owner of this land is Michael Schlesinger. So I'm a Wikipedia guy. So I went to Wikipedia and I looked up Michael Schlesinger. Ironically, there were two Michael Schlesinger's and one of them actually comes from Hollywood and he helped restore the movie Lawrence of Arabia. What a paradox. The other Michael Schlesinger, there were two articles written in 2018 from the Escondido writer by the name of... Could you summarize? Yes, David Ross. One of the articles said, Citi files 12 criminal complaints against the developer. Citi gets Schlesinger's attention. This gentleman's business practices were unconscionable then, and if this project goes through, They will be unconscionable to over 100,000 residents of our beautiful community. Please, please listen to the personalized stories of this beautiful community and don't let this sand mine be approved. Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Andrea Soloway, and I live in Hammur. Imagine that your backyard overlooks the second green of the Cottonwood Golf Course across narrow Ivanhoe Ranch Road. There is exactly 67 feet from our fence to their fence. What a bucolic setting. Occasionally, yes, there is noise from the exclamations of players on or the rare curse word, but nothing to compare to the relentless sounds generated by a sand mining operation. We strongly object to the noise, the silica dust, and all the traffic that would be an industrial use in a residential area, and I ask you to vote against it. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Travis Jokerst. These mining projects are extremely hard to permit and we need more local sources of aggregate. A lot of people want roads repaired and potholes filled, but they don't really understand where that material has to come from. This project would reduce costs for local construction and reduce the number of trucks on the road that are making long trips. Some have said this project is inconsistent with the neighborhood character or zoning ordinance. However, the general plan and zoning ordinance allow mining with the use permit. Does that mean that the county's own general plan is inconsistent? Also, the site has been designated by the state as a significant mineral resource for construction aggregate. Also, historic mining has occurred upstream from the site, and there are two currently operating quarries within one mile. Ten years is not a long time for a mine. Many mines last decades or even 100 years. Many other areas of the county have been mined and later reclaimed to uses that are enjoyed by the community. Much of Mission Valley was mined along the San Diego River. The Costco and Ikea property was used for mining and processing, as was the entire Sevita community and park, Master Plan community and park. I live in Lakeside, where sand was mined along the San Diego River for decades. Now those areas and adjacent areas consist of commercial offices, one of the nicest Little League facilities in the county, and the adjacent Walker Preserve trail system, which is very popular. This project has been designed to benefit the local community during and after the lifespan. So I ask you to please vote to approve this project.

The next four that I have, Doug Hick, Jesse Garcia, Chris Allen, and John Cloud.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Doug Hicks. I'm an executive board member for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, and no, I'm not bought and paid for. I'm here to fight for the infrastructure in the homes of San Diego County. I've poured hundreds of thousands of yards of concrete in San Diego County, and oddly enough, when Lakeside Land was mining the San Diego River, I lived less than a half mile from their front door. Never heard complaints. Lakeside Elementary, directly across the street from that sand mine. Did you hear any detrimental stories coming out of there? No, you didn't. What we have here is a haves and have-nots situation. We have people that bought homes and said, I want to live on a golf course. So what we need to do now is go ahead and outsource all the mining to communities that don't have. This plan comes with Tier 4 equipment, the cleanest diesel equipment you can have. Instead, we're going to off-source it down to Mexico, where they use Tier 1 equipment that does create all of the pollution we're talking about. We're going to float it up on barges, unload it in Barrio Logan, and ship the particulates and contaminants to that community through trucks. Let's be clear. Concrete is essential. People talk about artificially created sand. That requires blasting. That requires a crushing permit. Has anybody heard what a crusher sounds like compared to a sand rag? The sound of crushing is exactly what it sounds like. That's the solution. That also drives up the cost. Lakeside land had a portable crusher. And you know what that cost for a permit for one year? $250,000 if you can get it. That is not a viable solution. There's a reason, if anybody here has actually poured concrete, that natural aggregate provides the best product. And like I said, I'll challenge anybody's resume who's, I've poured more concrete than people have walked on. There's aggregate sand mines all over San Diego County, where Three Roots is being built right now, today. That's in the Carroll Canyon community. Have you heard outpouring from the community? That is ringed by houses. The difference is this is a plan where we can't shove it back to the poor people and make them eat it. Everybody in San Diego needs to carry their fair share of what aggregate takes. Our dams are failing. Lake Hodges was built in 1919. That's going to have to be reclaimed, torn down, and rebuilt. Our bridges are failing. Mission Bay bridge construction, that happened under an emergency situation because that bridge is structurally failing. Our county infrastructure requires this aggregate. We pay the highest cost in California for aggregate because we have run out of aggregate supply. Let's be clear. This is not a question of do we need it or do we not? Absolutely we do. Concrete is the foundation. The hospital you were born in, built out of concrete. The bridge you drove across to get home, built out of concrete. The schools you were educated in, built out of concrete.

Can you summarize and conclude?

Yeah, I'll summarize with this. This is a haves and have nots situation. Are we going to outsource it to other countries or are we going to do it with economic instability? tariff threats, or are we going to create our own destiny here in San Diego County, create a mining opportunity with a reclamation plan that creates open space at the end of it? You look at the lakeside plant, the nicest little league field in East County is on reclaimed landmine. This is a haves and have-nots situation, and we need to stand for all of San Diego to have the supplies they need.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jesse Garcia. I'm a representative with the Carpenters Union Local 619, representing nearly 8,000 union carpenters and partnered with nearly over hundreds of local contractors, big and small. And together, you know, we build our communities. These contractors have employed tens of thousands of local residents in our communities, from commercial to housing projects. throughout the County of San Diego. Right now you heard talks of the Lakeside Sand Mine. I wanted to mention something. Yes, it's reclaimed. There's a hiking trail that was put in next to the river. And one of the biggest gems and benefits of that was the Lakeside Little Leagues that were put in there. Prior to those fields being built, I coached travel baseball in my community. I'm from this community. We had to travel north up the 5 and the 15 because we had nothing like it. And so there was many miles traveled going up north. And then when this reclaimed sand mine was built with the baseball fields, it was a huge community benefit to all the community members that lived in that community. We didn't have to travel north no more. We had our own gym here in the East County. And it was a beautiful thing. And this project here, you know, once it's already completed and done, it's going to bring community benefits to everyone that's here in opposition as well. No one likes change. Bottom line. Thank you.

Hello, commissioners, my name's John Cloud. Suppose I'm here as a industry advocate. This June 1st, we celebrated the 47th year that my father purchased Hester's Granite Company. Hester's Granite Company had been in existence for 40 years before my dad bought it, and as of today, we have reserves that probably last another 30 years. There's been, I wish I had two hours to dispel some of the hysteria. And hyperbole that's been spoken at this podium, I don't. If someone wants to call me, I'll be more than happy to talk to you about it. Regarding compatibility with houses, my dad bought Hester's Granite Company 47 years ago. There weren't million-dollar houses at our property line. Today, there are million-dollar houses at our property line that weren't there 47 years ago. At the corner of Hammershaw and Hillsdale, where the McGrath Quarry was, that's been in existence for 60 years. There were not million-dollar houses at that property line. Rancho San Diego, for as long as I've lived in it, people who talk about living in Rancho San Diego since 1984. I lived in Rancho San Diego long enough that when I was six years old, my uncle and I did touch and go landings off the landfill behind Valhalla High School. I remember the dump in Rancho San Diego that most of the people who were in this room don't even know there was a dump in Rancho San Diego. I recall driving across the Steel Canyon Bridge that now is used to take prom photos. When it comes to compatibility with houses, people in this room need to go down to Chula Vista and look at the Lennar property, who has a community of 980 homes that they are building next to the Vulcan plant at the end of Main Street. 980 homes within a quarter of a mile of a quarry that has 160 million tons of reserves. That quarry will be operating when everyone in this room's grandchildren are dead. They built, they're building brand new homes, 680 to $900,000 homes next to a quarry that's been in existence for 70 years and we'll be there for another 160. And people in this room want to talk about compatibility, housing and quarries. Why are they doing that? Speaking of compatibility of housings and quarries, there's the Vulcan plant on Carroll Canyon Road up in Miramar. It is surrounded by houses, has been surrounded by houses for some 25 years now. They've built those houses and they're gonna build more. When it comes to the price of aggregates in San Diego County, Mr. Jantz mentioned this survey. I was a part of this in 2011. It was sponsored by SANDAG. It had two county representatives in it. The county probably doesn't even know where this is in their folders anymore. This went on for a long time because San Diego County does have the highest price of aggregates in California. When this plant comes on availability, when its material becomes available, it will not be exported out of the county because prices are determined by market and determined by availability. availability. San Diego County pays the highest prices because we have to ship aggregates from all over from Mexico and Canada to get here. You ship a ton of aggregate on the road, it doubles the price every 10 years. We're already paying the highest price. The only thing that this operation has to do is beat the price of the aggregate coming into San Diego County by 10 cents and all of it will be sold here. So I suggest that the Planning Commission, you guys dig up this sand ag report. You take a copy of it. It was done in 2011, and it addresses all the issues of sand mining in the county. You guys need to take a look at it. Whether you vote for this project or not, vote your conscience. But there has been planning done in this county before, and the planning that's been done Some people come in later and want to, I don't want to yell and scream about what's been going on, but they're in the moment. They're in the moment, and planning's been done, and you guys should look at the people who have planned this before.

Can you summarize and conclude?

Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Allen. I am a career heavy highway infrastructure carpenter that has been working in San Diego for the past 22 years solid. I'm the one that builds the freeways. I'm the one that keeps people moving safely. And the one material that we need in order to build is sand, whether it be in the asphalt that goes out of the area that all these people live in, The concrete that's laid, that way they can safely get on the 125, 54, 94 and the 8 freeway, all main veins to get them to safety. So I urge you to support this. I want this passed. This depends on me. I'm not retired. I still have a mortgage payment and I got a family to take care of. This has to do with my job and thousands, if not millions of jobs in the state of California. Approve this project. Thank you.

Yeah, it's 1230 now. We're going to break for 45 minutes for lunch.

May I have your attention, please? We are going to go ahead and resume the July 19th Planning Commission, or excuse me, the July 9th Planning Commission hearing. Please note that we will resume public testimony in the order in which your speaker slip was received. Also keep in mind that there's not an audio sound for your time. Please ask that everyone respect the two minute timer. There is a screen right in front of you that will turn red when you have approximately five seconds to speak. We're going to go ahead and continue with the first four I have for Mr. Rick Adams, Mr. Yusuf Bibbo, Todd Wadena, and Ms. Lisa Wood.

Good afternoon. My name is Rick Adams. I am the project manager for Western Golf Properties. the management company for Cottonwood Golf Course. I have nearly 35 years of experience managing golf courses as a member of the PGA of America. Since the economic downturn of 2008, Cottonwood has attracted fewer players and most of the golfers we do see here are from outside of the immediate vicinity. Golf is a difficult business, especially since 2008. As a matter of fact, the previous owner lost Cottonwood in a bankruptcy proceeding in 2016. Six months later, the new golf course owner closed the second 18 hole golf course to reduce costs and focus its resources, including water and labor, on the existing 18 hole golf course. County staff has said in their report that homeowners expected when they bought their homes that they would be looking at a golf course. I'm not sure that's enforceable or a confirmable fact, but the one fact that I do know is that the golf courses of Cottonwood have been in this state of disrepair for nearly two decades. The irrigation system is nearly 60 years old and operates on literally 1966 technology. Greens need to be rebuilt to today's standards for efficient use of water. These replacement costs will exceed $4 million per 18-hole golf course. The clubhouse is more than 60 years old and the structure is failing due to its age. All of these infrastructure items cost millions and millions of dollars and are economically unfeasible for Cottonwood. Any investments into infrastructure would result in the raising of green fees that Cottonwood's current players may not be able to afford, which keeps the golf course in economic peril. Thank you.

And I'm going to repeat, I know that we still have some members of the community that are settling in. The last names that were called, I have Mr. Yusuf Bebo, Todd Wadena, and Lisa Wood. I now have Ms. Lisa Ross, Ron Asklin, and Mr. Charles Riley, please.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lisa Ross. I'm the chair of the San Diego chapter of Sierra Club. I'm here representing our 13,000 members and 28,000 supporters in San Diego County and Imperial County. We're here to oppose the Cottonwood Sand Mine. In our view, community character is an important part of environmental analysis. And what could be more disruptive than mining on what was a central feature of this community? The golf course, which did also serve as a wildlife area, as golf courses do. It is now an important corridor serving McGinty Mountain Ecological Reserve and the San Diego National Wildlife Reserve as nature has taken its course over the last several years and is starting to regenerate there. In your world, my world, their world, Wreck and restore is not a sound conservation principle or strategy, and reclaiming an area after such an invasive activity as sand mining has, well, we can call it unknown consequences, but we can guess it's not going to be good. And even if it's successful, its biological value will have been lost for over a decade. The fragmented restoration plan that the proponents are proposing, it's fragmented. Wildlife corridors need to be just what we're saying, a corridor. And so their restoration notion doesn't... in our view, have huge promise. And even if it does, over 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, the biological resources lost there is very sad and unacceptable. So thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Dr. Peter Anderson, resident of Hamul, vice chair of the Sierra Club Conservation Committee and vice chair of the Sierra Club Legal Committee. I personally, on behalf of Sierra Club, submitted over 40 page of testimony and letters to the staff and Shu Mahaley, our lawyers, have likewise submitted over 50 pages of testimony. I'm probably one of the few people in this room that have read the several thousand pages of the EIR that has been distributed in three phases. I won't have time to recoup the stuff I wrote in 50 pages, but I'll highlight a couple issues. First of all, the EIR makes almost no analysis of McGinney Mountain. It's mentioned 17 times in the conservation biological technical report. but they don't address the fact that a jewel of San Diego, the McGinney Mountain Ecological Reserve, is a quarter mile from this project and downwind 300 days a year that will definitely have dust and other forms of pollution spewing into it. So the EIR is definitely deficient in that they've never done any analysis of the impact on that important ecological reserve. We've heard a little bit about valley fever. Again, the EIR is erroneous. They say valley fever only occurs in silty soils, not sandy soils, and yet there is millions of tons of silt come down from water releases in Loveland Reservoir right to the site of this project. There's plenty of silty soils and therefore there's going to be plenty of valley fever. All you have to do is have a small amount of fugitive dust and it gets released. In terms of noise, it will not achieve the 70 decibel level, but I sent a report to the commission which says... Can we please have you summarize your comments? I'll wrap it up real quick. 50 to 70 decibel sustained noise, which this site will produce, has prolonged intellectual and emotional detriments to residents. So for these and 20 other environmental reasons, please reject this awful project. Thank you.

The next four speakers I have, Cheryl Scallions, Sierra Waddell, Brittany Waddell, and Stefan Berthel.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Sierra Waddell. I'm 13 years old and I live in San Diego. I have many friends that live in homes above where the Cottonwood Sand Mine is supposed to be built. My friends go to school nearby and spend a lot of time outside walking to school, hanging out with their friends, and playing sports at the parks around the mine. I'm here to say that I think this mine is a terrible idea and it is unethical for people to live next to a sand mine that can make people seriously sick. The mine, after it's completed, it can cause valley fever and silicosis, which are detrimental diseases that can cause death. The plan for fixing the land after the mine is done does not sound legitimate. They say it will be turned back into open space, but there aren't enough details stated or promises being made. And when the promises are being made, they are not telling us how it's going to be completed or how they will be doing it. I think that once the mine is finished, they'll just leave a big hole and the community will be stuck with that eyesore for years to come. Please listen to the people who live there, especially kids like me who don't get much of a say in things like this. We love our community and we want the environment to be safe and healthy, not polluted by dust and trucks for the next 10 plus years. Please don't improve the Cottonwood Sand Mine. The community deserves better than constant noise and the lingering effects of the sand mine. Thank you for your time.

There we go. I'm here now. Hi, my name is Brittany Waddell and I'm here to express my opposition to the Cottonwood Sand Mine project and my support for the staff recommendations. Thank you for your time this afternoon to speak to you. I want to say commissioners that I'm not an envious by any means far from it. I recognize the importance of development in our county when it makes sense. I recognize the importance and the quality of the livelihoods that the construction industry brings to our county because my job is one of them. After reviewing the final EIR, I found that it inadequately assessed and addressed critical concerns related to biological resources, public health, and I have concerns about the adequacy of the reclamation plan. Other speakers have, you know, touched on several of these things, you know, air quality, health impacts, so I'm just going to kind of gloss over where I can hit my key points that others haven't hit already. The first is in regard to the greenhouse gas analysis and its impacts. I'd like to refer the commissioners to the technical study for greenhouse gas. You might notice there that in that technical report, there are several pieces of construction equipment and vehicle trips that are not included as part of that technical report that form the basis for the mitigation measures that are recommended. Those pieces of equipment and trips that were left out were included in the narrative body of the EIR. Next on to the reclamation plan. The plan lacks specificity and fails to address the long-term ecological impacts of the mining operation. The plan proposes that upon completion of activities, the 40-foot deep holes resulting from the extraction would be backfilled with inert debris, which they define as soil excavated from development projects, clean demolition materials, possibly concrete, asphalt, and rock. That's the land. That's the land that they would be donating back to the city is essentially a capped landfill. I don't find that to be a good trade. I don't find that to be proportional mitigation. And I respectfully ask that you reject this project and the MUP. Thank you.

Hello.

Cheryl Scallions, I'm a longtime resident of Rancho San Diego. Most of my talking points have already been addressed, so I won't repeat those. But there is one thing that I did want to mention that I haven't heard anyone bring up, and that's as far as the protections that are afforded to the residents. What kind of protections are we going to have? I know that MSHA, who regulates the mines, we would be indirectly affected by them protecting the employees, but from the research I've done on other mines, sand mines around the country, there's a lot of sand that is being dispersed into the community, and the worst of it is the sand that you cannot see, the fine dust that floats in the air. You don't know whether you've been affected by it until years later when you're on a respirator or on an oxygen tank. The MSHA requires for open mines like that to have two inspections annually, and if it's a pit mine, I believe it's four inspections annually. And they're not able to keep up with that right now. And unless they get a waiver on the hiring freeze, I believe they're only allowed to hire one person for every four people that they lose. So if they're not keeping up with their inspections right now, how do we expect them to keep up with them if this mine goes through? I feel like we have no protections whatsoever. And that's why I would, you know, I respectfully request that you deny this proposal. It's just, I feel like I myself will be afraid to even go out into my yard without wearing some sort of protection. It'll be much worse than COVID was. You know, if you think wearing a mask for a couple of years was bad, just think of it for 10 years. So anyways, thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Berto. Me and my children live very close to the Sand Mine. My children also attend Hamishaw Elementary School, the school you can see in the photos. I'm here today as a mother of two boys who would have to breathe this air every day. This is a health crisis in the making. We are talking about placing a sand mine operation next to playgrounds, bedrooms, and classrooms. Hamishaw Elementary, where 604 children spend their days, is just 440 yards from the proposed operation site. These include children as young as three in the preschool program, children with disabilities and medical needs, They would all be facing daily exposure to proven carcinogens. Scientific studies confirm that living near a sand mine exposes families to crystalline silica, a deadly airborne dust. Inhaling this can lead to lung cancer, sulcosis, asthma, chronic cough, and reduced lung function. These dangers are magnified for children. Children breathe three times more air than adults, making them more susceptible to toxins. Imagine children running on the playground, deep breathing in poisonous silica. Imagine their outdoor open air cafeteria. Everything at Hammershaw is open air, is outdoor. Whether they're eating, playing, they also do half their classes outside. Imagine their outdoor open-air cafeteria where the children eat breakfast, lunch, and snacks, blanketed in toxic dust. On windy days, silica dust will blanket the school grounds, leaving playground equipment, lunch tables, and lungs coated in toxins. How can the school possibly shield students and staff from airborne silica? What protocols would be put into place to protect them from hazardous material? Research also reveals that families living near sand mines experience chronic coughs, chest tightness, and reduced lung function, even among healthy individuals. If this mine opens, we can't take the dust out of their lungs. We can't undo the lifelong health impact. Once a child gets sick, no apology can make it right. Please do not green light a legacy of illness and heartache. I am asking to please stop the sand mine from coming close to all of us.

The next speakers I have are Johann Feathers, Kathleen Hedberg, Javier Santizo, and Victor Diaz.

Good afternoon.

My name is Yosan Feathers. As a registered civil engineer and a former 12-year member of the Valley Dior Community Planning Group and a current VDO Cottonwood subcommittee member, I agree that many of the required MUP findings can't be made. I also believe that the FEIR is flawed. Because it did not present a feasible alternative, neglecting the obvious, the use of manufactured sand. MSand is included in California's standard specifications for public works, listing it as an authorized sand aggregate for PCC. Fly ash can also be used as a primary binder in concrete, eliminating the need for sand entirely. MSand has been used globally due to the hazards of sand mining in rivers, and the scarcity of sand. The Guardian reported that sand extraction from rivers has caused millions of dollars of damage to infrastructure borne by taxpayers. Furthermore, bridge collapses due to sand mining in Taiwan, Portugal, and India have killed almost 100 people. As an engineer, I'm concerned about the up to 40 feet below grade excavation of 79 acres downstream and 100 acres upstream of the Steel Canyon Road Bridge, potentially undermining the abutments and footings of the bridge used by many to access the nearby elementary school. Finally, there is the Monster's proposed grouted riprap control structure, which is 620 feet long and almost 20 feet high, which the applicant hoped no one noticed in the plans, and I don't think they did. Who will maintain it upon the completion of the project? which with extensions may drag on for over 20 years. Once the applicant waltzes away with an estimated $40 million, the county and taxpayers will have to fund and maintain the structure in perpetuity in this age of climate change and unpredictable flooding. Please deny this project. Thank you.

I have now Ricardo Sanchez, Joe Nunez, William Burnell, and Steven Bicknell.

Good evening. My name is Ricardo Sanchez, and I'm a representative for the Carpenters Union Local 619. I'm here to speak in favor of Item 3, the Cottonwood Sand Mine. We all heard it's a demand that we need for concrete. I know and I understand that if this was happening in the South Bay, everybody would be in favor for this. Why? Because what you need for your driveways, walkways, swimming pools, all that luxury life they live, It'll be at a cheaper price. But normally in the South Bay, we have to eat it all the freaking time. I have kids, and I want them to stay here in San Diego and be able to afford a house, not houses that were bought 30, 40 years ago. They're good. Yeah. Let's talk about growth, change. Change happens all the time, and a lot of people don't like it. But it has to come. You think people back in the 60s, 50s, 40s ever wished for this change of how beautiful San Diego is? No. And look at it. We live in the finest city in the world. Everybody wants to live here. So I support this project. I don't live in Rancho San Diego. I do shop over there. But let's pass this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is William Burnell. I reside in Humul, specifically at the Steel Canyon Estates with my wife. We've been there for over 30 years now. I'm also appearing as a representative of the board of directors of Steel Canyon Estates. As a director of that organization, I am here to indicate that to a person, we strongly oppose this project. It is ill-suited, ill-timed, and ill-placed for where it is suggested to be. We strongly oppose it, and we join in the opposition of that's already been expressed much better both in oral argument and in writing than I can do this afternoon. I would add the following, though, in my humble opinion. The traffic that's going to occur in these areas that this mine is proposed to be located is going to be significant. We've seen that increase over the last 30 years dramatically, and this is going to throw into a collision path these huge trucks rumbling and rambling up and down this road. And I can guarantee you, gentlemen and ladies, that these drivers, they do not stay within the speed limit. They are paid by the truckload, and they are maniacs, if you will. I think it's gonna reduce the property values in the area. The tax basis will go down. This will be an eyesore in our community for years to come. It'll far outlive me, I suspect, at this point, but it will last for generations, and all you gotta do is look at the pictures, and you can see that. Thousands of families are gonna be affected, Not just to find folks that are here and have been here all day and earlier days and put in incredible time and effort, but it's going to affect thousands more families, homes. This is essentially a reduction of the quality of life that they're going to have in this community. It is a transfer of wealth. Sand is available at other locations, and I think that the bottom line here is that We don't want to see our community reduced in value and quality because somebody can't affect or find sand in some other location. Appreciate you for your time. Appreciate you for your effort. Thank you for listening to me.

Mr. Brian Fowler, Chris Ventries, Muriel Spooner, and Joseph Duncan, please.

Good afternoon, I'm Muriel Spooner with the San Diego Bird Alliance, formerly known as San Diego Audubon Society. We're in strong support of the recommendation to deny this project. I'm here, people have already covered many of my points, I'm here to speak for the birds. We feel that the project impacts to habitat are unacceptable, especially concerning Sweetwater River. That's a key corridor for movement of wildlife in this region. We're also concerned for the water birds such as Western and Clark's Greaves that are living and reproducing in the Sweetwater Reservoir. They will be significantly impacted through all the previously mentioned contamination from the mining operations and changes to water flow. It will also harm the fish populations that provide food for these species, and also a lot of people fish in that area. Additionally, this project is going to cause loss of critical riparian habitat used by the California gnatcatcher, Lispels Vireo. The Willow scrub and Degen Coast scrub that have been identified within the project area should be expanded rather than further degraded and destroyed. The claims regarding project phases limiting wildlife connectivity disruption are implausible. The project's significant impacts to species would not be limited to site-specific activities, and this is a fact conceded in the FEIR. Wildlife movement in this biologically important region would definitely be affected by all the previously mentioned construction issues, which will travel to the adjacent wildlife habitats and corridors during the decade-long project. Any attempts at habitat reclamation post-project will simply be too little too late for the sensitive special status species such as the gnatcatcher. and for whom recolonizing the area would be far from guaranteed and would take years if it did happen. 163 animal species live and navigate through this proposed project site in the MSCP core area, which by definition supports, quotes, a high concentration of sensitive biological resources, which, if lost or fragmented, could not be replaced or mitigated elsewhere, end quote. Clearly, the project location and duration are too negatively impactful for many of these species to adapt proposed mitigation strategies or to wait a decade for a post-project habitat reclamation plan. Please deny this project. Thank you.

Next we will have Clay Cox, Sharon Cox, Barbara Villagrania, and Frank Ruffino, please.

Hello, my name is Sharon Cox. I'm sorry, my husband Clay could not be here. He was here last time. I've been a resident of Rancho San Diego since 1974. It was a beautiful place. It still is. It is open space. It is the Sweetwater River going through the middle of our area. A great way of taking water all the way down to the people that live south of us. In 2023, I was diagnosed with a very rare lymphoma in my bone marrow. It has made me forever immunocompromised. It will make it where if I got a simple cold, I could be hospitalized or worse. I would like to know how many of you have some kind of a health issue that would be detrimentally affected by the sand mine. Raise your hand. I'm not alone. This thing, we talk about the aesthetics of it, we talk about the environmental impacts of it. It's our life, it's our health, it's our life or death. It can kill people. If one of us got valley fever, one of the people in the Stop Cottonwood Sand Mine group has valley fever right now, and that's why she's not here. We need to protect all of the things about our community, but we need to support our health as well. When we talk about the mitigation of all these things, and sometimes it is just dumbfounding that there's only two things that are not acceptable by this plan. I think all of it is unacceptable. When you talk about the mitigation, I just don't trust the fact that Michael Schlesinger, the man who has done some rather strange things in other parts of our community, you know, he's been fined $100,000 by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District already on previous projects. Pardon?

Please summarize your comments.

Okay. I just really hope that you guys will do what is said on the front sign coming into this building. The noblest motive is to protect the good. We are the public that needs to be protected for you. Thank you very much.

Next we will have Ann Kelly. Brian Davis, Jake Richards, and Alicia Morrison.

Thank you. I've been in San Diego all my life, born and raised. 83 years. I moved to Rancho San Diego. It's a beautiful place. A lot of it is neglected. Could we get your name for the record? I'm sorry?

Could we get your name for the record?

Barbara Villagrana. That's V as in Victor, I-L-L-A-G-R-A-N-A. So I live in Rancho San Diego over 42 years and it's a beautiful community and I'm very much opposed to this. San Diego has always been beautiful. Everybody wants to come and live here. But this is just not acceptable to the community, to the people, to everyone in this room, even the ones that are for this. So I hope that you'll really think about what's going to happen with the sand mine and the people that it's going to affect. Number one, the findings cannot be met. Fact number two, the project cannot proceed since these findings cannot be met. Fact number three, if a county approves a project that does not meet the fundings, the county will be held accountable for any violations. Integrity, common sense, and all the laws indicate and hope that you will do the right thing. Thank you.

Hi there, Brian Davis, 50-year East County resident, 30-year Humboldt resident, speaking in opposition to the sand mine. And my concern is the liability that the county will face if this goes through. I agree with everybody's opposition points. The main ones I have to address are the health concerns where the county in limiting liability and creating liability has to undergo several criteria. One is negligence and for not assuming or assessing the risk. So should anything happen, It could be said that the risk was not properly assessed and that could fall back on the county. The county is as an okayer of this project part and parcel of the mitigation of any harm that might come about and so they I did see the Valley Fever report that came out and that addressed the mitigation to the workers, but nothing to the residents. Residents, as far as they did discuss, would be best to stay inside, best to wear a mask, best to have HEPA filters in their home. And so how am I gonna tell my two-year-old granddaughter he can't go outside because of concerns with valley fever, silica, and so forth? County, as the Governing body has a duty to take care of the county residents, protect and to, out of concern for pests and wildlife. The only way that that can be shown is by not allowing the sand mine to go through. Cost is very significant for Valley Fever cases. Minimum cost for uncomplicated cases is around 22,000. Complicated cases over millions of dollars. So I again would request that you reject this proposal out of concern for county liability. Thank you.

Next we have Preston Brown, Ju Nguyen, Deborah Fox, and Robert Velazquez.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Bobby Velasquez, long-term resident here in San Diego since 1966. I've also been a union carpenter for 49 years. Most of my work has been here in San Diego County. I had to go on the road and work nuclear plants throughout the state of California. County's general plan and everyone that works in construction recognizes mineral extraction as essential to the region's economic well-being. Cottonwood is one of only two locations in the county with confirmed extractable sand resources large enough to meet a reasonable amount of our local demand. In these times of uncertainty with tariffs and rising costs, And this is happening here locally as well as nationally. Material prices have been fluctuating. The local extraction of the sand makes economic sense and provide local jobs here with this particular project. It doesn't make sense to, you know, in this tariff situation, you know, we're going to be picking up the cost, the consumer, the buyers. It's a tax on the American people. It doesn't make sense to get sand from Mexico and pay those extra costs. It doesn't make sense to get sand from San Bernardino or other places of the state when we can do it here locally, provide the jobs, and also... improve our infrastructure, and keep the money here. So in closing, think about what makes sense, the feasibility, the cost, and also think about it when you look at sand when you take your kids to the park and they're there playing in it. Thank you.

Next we have Robert Horstman, Teresa Curran, and Juliette Lindholm.

I better put this down, because I'm too short. I'm sure you're all tired. First of all, my name is Juliette Lindholm and I live in Rancho San Diego. And I came to San Diego here because I fell in love with the city in here. But now with everything that's going on, there's a lot of changes that have been happening. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. When I came here, it was just a small town. I really loved it. Now it's so big. Anyway, everybody said what they want to say, but what I want to say is that comes from my heart. I just tell you how I feel. I have a medical background and I know what the sand mine is, is not good for us. I just had heart surgery because of COVID. I like to walk, but when I walk, I don't want to be smelling the sand because there's toxicity. I have a medical background. I do know that it has a lot of chemicals in it that will hurt ourselves. And I don't want to go through this. I went through a heart surgery. So I was hoping that maybe have a big heart. You have a big, big heart, just like mine, and say no. Just say no and be kind. Money is not everything. Money is not everything. Believe me, your health is the best. And I just appreciate it if you oppose to this proposal and be helpful to us. Help us. Help the human beings. That's more important than money. Thank you very much.

Up next, I have Gary Reese, Leticia Reese, Francisco Pena, and Jorge Viramontes.

My name is Gary Reese, and I've been a resident of Rancho San Diego for 40 years. The people from the sand mine company have minimized the harm that can be done with the sand and the dust in the air. And the dust in the air is cumulative. It's not just when they're mining it. when they drive their trucks through the area, dust comes out, lands on the pavement, and then they go on. The dust is now on the surface. Another truck comes through, more dust. The dust doesn't go anywhere, but every car, every truck, everything that goes by puts that dust up in the air. It's like if you walk through a dirt field, you're gonna get dust coming up, and that's what this is. It's cumulative, and it's not gonna go away. It shouldn't be there in the first place, but once it's there, you're stuck with it, so thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Leticia Reese, and everybody's kind of taken my PowerPoints. Even my husband said how long we've been in the area. So anyway, my name is Leticia Reese, and we've been here since 1985. I love our community, and what these lawyers and owners of Sand Mine Project are wanting to do is a total crime. And you know this. The project is a disaster and should not be approved. I WAS GOING TO TAKE THIS OUT BECAUSE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT, BUT WHEN YOU TOOK THIS OATH, I'M SURE YOU READ THE COUNTY SEAL, WHICH IS UP THERE, AND IT SAYS THE NOBLEST MOTIVE IS A PUBLIC GOOD. SO DO YOU THINK BY APPROVING THIS PROJECT IS A PUBLIC GOOD OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE RICH OWNERS AND THEIR LAWYERS? THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS ALL ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN THEIR POCKETS. Oh yes, they say in 10 years we'll have a beautiful park and trails and whatever else they promised. First of all, how many people here will ever see that? They'll be probably asking for an extension by then. And be honest with everyone here, please. Would you want a sand mine project in your community? Would they like a sand mine project in their community? Would you like your kids or grandkids playing during recess while this is going on? I don't think so. I sure wouldn't. But it just causes a lot of damage and it causes our community to be not the beautiful community that we've grown used to. And last thing I want to say is because as you can see, I've been crossing out a lot of things here. It was funny to say, I had a laugh when the attorney for Sandmine says she was concerned so much about the trees. Oh, we're going to have to take out trees. We're going to have to take out trees. How many times did she say that? But she's not concerned about the property behind them. She's just concerned about those few trees. Thank you. And please vote no.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Francisco Pena representing Carpenters Union Local 619 here in San Diego and a little over 1,000 young men and women that are apprentices within our program. I am here today to speak in favor of Cottonwood Sand Mine. This is a 10-year project that will create many job opportunities to local residents, specifically the next generation of young men and women that want to be a part of an apprenticeship program. This could be the great beginning of a career to become that successful craftsman in our community. And this sand mine will bring real economic opportunities to the East County. Also, another speaker mentioned about us taking our kids to the park playing in the sand. How many of us haven't taken or us ourselves, our kids or grandkids to the beach and we do sand castles. And we never think about this. Or how many of us golf in here and all of a sudden our ball goes into a sand trap and we get a bunch of sand in our face? We don't think about that. Do we? Not then because we're having fun. I encourage you to move forward with this project as it will help us a lot. Thank you.

Commissioners, how are you? My name is Jorge Viramontes. I'm a hardworking local 619 carpenter. I'm in 100% in full support of this project. I was gonna say all these talking points, but I've listened to all these stories here today from all these beautiful people. But my house was built in 1952. My legacy that we all worked, we all have a legacy that we want to leave to somebody, our grandkids, our kids. This is why we work hard to build that. My house, 1952, I'm going to leave it to my daughter. She's just going to graduate as a registered nurse. Now, the pool's going to decay. The plaster on the house is going to need new plaster. You want that roundabout beautiful concrete driveway you have in front of your house. You get a quote. We've all been there. We get contractors out there. Hey, give me a quote on this new concrete. Why is it so expensive? Well, why? We know now why. Because everything's imported. Projects like this keeps that aggregate and that material in-house in order for us to be able to leave that legacy we worked so damn hard for. Let's get this passed. Thank you.

Up next, we have James Lawson, Jacqueline Hunlock, Eugene Mully, and Gerald Granger.

Good afternoon, Chair, Ashman, and Honorable Commissioners. James Lawson here to read a letter on behalf of AGC San Diego. Dear Chairman Ashman and Commissioners, on behalf of the 900 member companies of the Associated General Contractors San Diego Chapter, I write to express our support for the proposed Cottonwood Sand Mine Project. AGC San Diego represents general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, and others who support the construction industry. Our members have been building San Diego County for a century. AGC San Diego has a standing position to educate decision makers about the aggregate shortage and support industry and local entities efforts to expand aggregate production sites in the region. This project represents a vital opportunity to secure a high quality construction grade resource that our region urgently needs. This site is projected to supply up to 25% of the region's aggregate needs, helping to stabilize costs and improve supply chain certainty for public and private construction projects. Local projects significantly reduce the need for long-distance hauling, cutting down on emissions, vehicles miles traveled, and traffic impacts. Cottonwood's output will directly support housing, transportation, utility, and commercial development, all of which rely on timely, cost-effective access to quality materials. Additionally, this project is conditioned through a major use permit, phasing, and reclamation plans to ensure responsible operations and would be subject to strict environmental oversight by numerous local and state agencies. We urge your careful consideration and respectfully request your support of this important regional project. Signed, Dustin Steiner, Vice President, Government and Industry Relations, AGC San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jacqueline Hancock, and I am a longtime resident of Hamul and a business owner and in the construction industry, which I own a business with my husband. I am opposed to the Cottonwood Sand Mine. There are many reasons why, most of which have been outlined at this point, but I am going to hit a few high points that I think that just try to imagine what it would be like. 250 more truck and transfer trucks, each one of them hauling 20 tons of a day on a street that now has four lanes that will be shrunk down to two in each direction and a center lane for turning a quarter mile from a school. The impact on the Sweetwater River Valley itself can also not be ignored and seems to be largely ignored by the EIR that was submitted. What will happen when it rains or when the Sweetwater River Water Authority decides to once again release all of the water out of Loveland Reservoir, which they have done on two previous occasions in the last two years, almost completely draining the reservoir? What will happen with the pollution from the sandpit that will exist as it gets carried into the Sweetwater Reservoir and all of the pollutants as a result of what is going to be in there as a result of the sandpit? To approve such an eyesore just on an aesthetic level is a complete travesty. Whether or not you own a million-dollar home, which I do not, by the way, It really has nothing to do with it. This was originally developed as an open space area where people could go and hawks and animals could live and deer can pass and vultures fly overhead. To all of the sudden say now, we can go ahead and dig a 40-foot pit is ludicrous and completely against all of the hundreds of people that managed to take time off of work here, and I also work, to beg you to please vote no against this. Use common sense, and if asked if it was in your backyard, would you want it? Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Gerald Thomas Granger. Good afternoon. I'm reading this off of Google. Silicosis. Silicosis is a chronic, progressive, and incurable lung disease caused by inhaling crystalline silicon dust over a long period, usually years. Silicoparticles scar the lungs, making them flexible and reducing their ability to take in oxygen. You can Google it if you want to see more details. I believe that the Hammershaw Valley is one of the prettiest places on earth. If one would want to go to Wind River Road and there's a lookout area on Wind River Road that is next to 2506 Wind River Road. I would suggest that you all go there and have a seat on one of the benches and just meditate for a minute and look at this beautiful valley and imagine what would happen if we took out that Cottonwood Golf Course down below. and suck a sand mine there, what it would look like in one of the most prettiest places in San Diego. I don't know if anybody's ever followed a sand truck before and seen what their windshield looks like afterwards. They have covers over these sand trucks, but the sand still gets out and hits the windshields. Thanks.

Thank you. I appreciate the work that you do, a job I wouldn't want, but I do appreciate it. My name is Eugene Mullally. I live about a mile from the Mission Gorge quarry. So I know that it was established in 1933. It's still with us. It's expected to, it was built on a conditional use permit, expected to end in 2033. So I know that much. And my son lives in Rancho San Diego, and so he has an interest, and that's why I'm here. But one thing, I agree with everybody that's opposed to that project and everything we've heard. The one thing that I haven't heard that I think is a valid point is that the EIR talks about the Vehicle Miles Traveled, VMT, and it assumes that all of the sand mined at that location will be used in San Diego. And it comes up with the calculations out a slight decrease in vehicle miles traveled. There's a benefit from it. But another consideration is to make is that what if the sand that we currently purchase, import into San Diego is very inexpensive. To the extent it's brought in by barge, that's a very inexpensive transport method. To the extent that it's mined in Mexico, that's an inexpensive, so has a study been done to compare how much we pay for sand in San Diego versus other locations, Los Angeles, Riverside. And there's nothing in this project, there's nothing that's required of the owners of the sand mine to sell it to San Diego. Please summarize your comments. So will that happen? So that's one thing I looked up is that if it could very well lift the YMT reading to above a CEQA level, So if that was calculated and that happened, we would have a significant increase in YMT. So I don't know how much more time I've got, but that's my main thrust of what I'm trying very hard to say.

Up next, we have Don Ledrizabal, Stephen Capp, and Barbara Oberndorfer.

Commissioner, commission members, my name is Don Ledrizabal. My family's been living in Next to the proposed site area for more than 40 years, previous speakers have already touched the numerous negative talking points that I had, but I want to again highlight what has unmeasurable value. That's our health and the human stories involved. We have toddlers in our family that play outside and will soon be attending the elementary school 100 meters away from the mining site. We have adults that walk the neighborhoods and exercise at the park next to the proposed site. We have senior parents enjoying their retirement that love gardening and entertaining in their backyard. I have a retired military veteran father whose main satisfaction is being outdoors in his garden. He's a recent heart transplant survivor and his immune system is suppressed for medication. Approving a sand mine in close proximity would knowingly put our lives and future health at risk. We would essentially be prisoners in our own homes. So I ask you all, what is the value of human life and our health? My answer is it's unmeasurable because it's so high. The good news is we can eliminate the health risk and prevent human tragedy by voting no on the project. And today we're here to ask the Planning Commission to protect our health Thank you for your attention on the matter.

Chairman and Commissioners, Stephen Kapp. I'm a resident of Rancho San Diego north of the site, 26 years with my wife and family, opposed to the project. I'm an energy engineer, project development engineer, who have developed efficiency and resiliency and sustainability projects for my career in the construction engineering industry. And also, my dad was a carpenter, so this is sort of multifaceted. But on the face of it, this is not a good project. Although I'm sympathetic for the needs for PCC, I contend that the applicant is 65 years too late. This site was established as an open space golf course, residential community retail after that period. I think the time has come and gone. I think health does prevail over economics, as tough as it is. My wife and I have hiked in the area. I do photography. I've done a photography portfolio of the sites on my website. I can share that with your team if you're interested. But I contend that the project should be denied the major use permit because it's incompatible with health endangerment in adjacent populations and non-conformance to the general plan and so forth. The silicosis that's talked about for the elementary school is relevant because the winds go from west to east in the direction of the school. Secondly, the project does not meet section 7358 of the county zoning ordinances, in particular for the harmony and scale bulk coverage and density item. 90% of the property being developed would not be harmony and scale. harmful effect on desirable neighborhood character, which is one of the planning staff's items, general traffic and capacity of physical character of surrounding streets, and the suitability and intensity of the project. The proposed mitigation measures also cannot be met entirely. Please summarize your comments. The noise barriers are not really going to address the items adequately. and also the stationary source testing that were used for the particulates for fugitive dust is for stationary. It doesn't take into account moving trucks, as the previous speaker talked about, all of the prevailing amount of dust that will be occurring on the roads and therefore. And the other concerns just can't be met. I propose in conclusion that The county supervisors, should they have an opportunity to address this, do as they did back in 2019 and set aside 600 acres for the whole canyon preserve and valley center. 160 acres are habitat protection in the city of Poway and 98 acres for open space preserve at Alpine's right field. They can do the same thing and bring it back to open space preserve and recreational use as it's intended to be, thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Oberndorfer. For any of you that have duty watch, you'll know that right now there's an active fire. For those of you that have duty watch, you would have just gotten an alert that there's a fire by Steel Canyon. I'm a 40-year resident of Rancho San Diego. My husband and I were thrilled to buy our first home there, raise our children there. They went to school there. All the points that I was going to make have already been made, except I... Two points I just want to drive home right now. Any emergency vehicles that need to get through this area are always, it's a struggle. The traffic in Rancho is a nightmare now. It's not going to get any better. All the families that moved there and raised their children, all those children are now driving and they're having children and so on and so forth. We cannot support the traffic as it is. The infrastructure is a nightmare. We live in Paso Tiempo, and I'm representing Paso Tiempo today. We're 191 single unit homes. That's my husband calling me to tell me there's a fire. We live just behind Hamishaw Elementary. Steel Canyon coming down. Hamul Drive and Steel Canyon is where we live. The traffic already from just day-to-day life is a nightmare. We cannot live with what you're proposing. So I'm here to say no thank you, no thank you, no thank you.

At this time, are there any members of the community that have filled out speaker slips, names who have not had an opportunity to speak? I repeat that have not had an opportunity to speak.

Okay.

My wife previously ceded her time when I did fill out a speaker slip during the last meeting and was told that it would be here. So if I could have 60 seconds, I want to address on my own time just two points that haven't been addressed.

You've already spoken previously.

I had time seated to me. Okay.

At this time, we have concluded the in-person speaker slips that we have. And we don't have any more public testimony.

Since that's all the public speakers at this point, we'll give the applicant the community organization. Two minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you. I have a quick list of rebuttal points that I'll run through to respond to very specific questions that seem to come up multiple times. There were several comments made about mining for 10, 12, 15 years. I just want to make clear that MUP only allows for extraction for 10 years, and it also caps the amount of sand that can be extracted over that period and that is made enforceable with a condition of approval that's MUP condition of approval gen number five. There were several comments about trucks clogging traffic during commute times. MUP and reclamation plan both of them have conditions of approval that that limit trucking to off-peak hours so there will be no trucks on the road during commute times. Next, I wanted to touch on this feeling, this fear that the local sand will not stay local. It does not make any economic sense for somebody to purchase this sand and haul it far afield. The biggest contributor to the cost of aggregate sand is the cost to haul it. That is why San Diego's aggregate is the most expensive because you have to pay not the person that mines the sand, but the trucks to haul it in. So it would not make sense for somebody in LA or elsewhere to purchase this and then pay the truckers to haul it far afield. There was a comment made about water quality and drinking water quality. Again, no man-made chemicals are used in the mining process other than just the equipment that will be used and vehicle fuels. There will be a SWPPP, an erosion control plan, a stormwater quality management plan, and a hazardous materials business plan. All of those have BMPs that will address this issue in detail. And we didn't hear any comments that looked at those plans and brought up any issues with them. Is it possible to make one more point? Sure. We've been hearing a lot about noise. I think so much of this comes from a misunderstanding of what type of mine this is. There will be no blasting. There will be no rock crushing. The equipment that is used to mine the sand is a few excavators, mostly working below grade within the extraction areas. I think if there was better understanding about how that would work, then there would be less fear about noise impacts. And then, of course, if the commissioners have any other specific questions, I can answer those as well.

Does any commissioners have any questions of the speaker?

Council, before you depart, I've heard a lot about dust control and sand in the air, airborne silica. I envision, but I'm not sure this is correct, that you would have, or your client would have, some type of, for lack of a better term, fire hose there that keeps the dust down, or could you explain to us what?

Absolutely, that's one of many different BMPs. So a health risk assessment was included in the final EIR. I know that those are complicated. There is so much modeling and science and inputs and methodology that goes into those reports. It was included in the draft EIR. It was summarized in the final EIR. It looked at silicosis specifically, and it looked at valley fever specifically. It's hard when we spend so many years working on these objective, robust environmental documents to feel that nobody has read them. To specifically talk about valley fever, there is a summary in the final EAR and the topical responses that explains that the soils on this site are not alkaline. They are sandy. They are not silty. It is not the type of soil where the fungus grows that is associated with valley fever. And then in terms of the watering, that is a BMP. There are so many different BMPs that go into the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. We do have our air quality technical consultant here who could run through those. Watering is one of them, but there are so many others as well.

Can I ask you just to briefly address, I believe the community, and I may again misstate this, is concerned about for lack of a better term, that the project might get half done and then just, for lack of a better term, abandoned, and they'd be left with a big hole in the ground. Staff, is there a bond in place to take care of this, or what would happen if that occurred?

Commissioner Edwards through the Chair, so one of the requirements is that as the mining is completed, reclamation needs to start immediately. We do require bonds basically before the project starts mining so that in the event that that happens, the county has bonds in place where we can pull that security and then actually reclaim the property.

And then in addition, because it is phased, right, if it were, this wouldn't happen, but say hypothetically it was abandoned halfway through, phase one would already be revegetated and that vegetation would be reestablished. That is one of the benefits of the phased program.

And again, I don't mean to bore you, but one of the things was that, for lack of a better term, the excavation would be filled with concrete, asphalt, and elements of trash. What will be put back in the hole before you start the revegetation?

Right, so there is backfill that would come to the site that would be added with the other materials that have been mined, but they cannot be sold as sand. Those would be mixed together and put back in to reach the final landform. I don't, in front of me, have the list. That is detailed in the EIR and the final EIR. I believe in the topical responses in the final EIR, there's a listing of the regulations that control that and how it would be controlled on this site.

I can't even imagine the number of regulations that must apply to this, but staff, did we receive or did you receive any complaints about the fire protection plan that the applicant has prepared for this project site?

Commissioner Edwards to the chair. So there was a fire protection plan prepared. It was done in accordance with all the county and state requirements. It complies with the county and state fire code. It's also reviewed by the local fire district who didn't have any comments on the plan.

Well, I don't want to hog up all the time here, so I'll defer to the other commissioners, but I thank you for your time. Of course.

Any other questions?

I had a few questions, but also some recommended modifications to the proposal, but I don't know if now is the right time to ask the applicant or after the rebuttal.

We'll reserve that. All the commissioners will have a chance to share their ideas and thoughts after the public testimony has ended.

One final question, staff. So do I understand you that the applicant has a 10-year outside limit for the MUP because I think we've heard multiple people come back and say, well, it might be 12 years, 14 years, 16 years. Could you help elaborate on that?

Yeah, Commissioner, over to the Chair. So the permit itself will be given for a period of 10 years. Now, does that preclude the developer from coming in at some point in the future and asking for extension? It does not, but the permit currently would expire basically in 10 years. Okay, thank you.

Next, the community organization.

Is it working? And by the way, whoever mentioned there's a fire, there's a fire right up the hill. If you're anywhere near Steel Canyon, Campo, You may want to check your watch duty apps right now. People are starting to leave because of it. So I just wanted to mention that. So thank you for the opportunity. So we've heard a lot today about the need for sand. And, you know, we would reiterate, you know, the need for sand is not one of the findings. I've heard, you know, from a lot of people today as well. I myself, a little background, I was a union carpenter apprentice, became a union carpenter journeyman. I had years in the industry. I'm also vested in the retirement in the carpenters union as a retiree. So it wasn't just a couple years. I ended up working on about a billion dollars worth of projects in San Diego County, either directly working on them or managing them. Most of those were hospital and healthcare facilities. I understand the need for this sand. that still doesn't make it appropriate to get it out of the ground anywhere you please. Okay, so this comes down to the appropriateness of the site and the findings. So we go back to the findings. The need for the sand is certainly not one of your findings, and we're reiterating that right now. So all due respect to those I know in the industry, We were there for 12 community meetings. I didn't see any of those folks that are now advocating from a construction standpoint in any of those meetings until today. And I understand that's political. But the fact is that the need for sand is not one of the required findings. You know what your findings are. And the findings cannot be made. So I reiterate, the only option you have today is to deny this project. So thank you, unless you have questions.

Any commissioner have a question? Thank you. At this point, I'll turn it over to the planning staff for some clarification.

Thank you, Chair. There were a couple items we wanted to address that were brought up during the comments today. The first I didn't mention, but I wanted to just kind of go back in terms of the Sequan Tribe's concerns. Just want to make sure that we share how much we do value the tribe's input. We try our best to coordinate with them throughout the process and address whatever concerns or requests that they have. In this particular case, we understand the concerns that they have, but unfortunately the law requires us to make sure that there is evidence in the record that supports a specific geographic location on this property, and we just do not have that and have not been provided that information to date. There were concerns raised related to groundwater use. I just wanted to make sure it was clear. The project is going to result in an overall reduction in groundwater use compared to what is out there today in terms of the operating golf course. So there's going to be a substantial decrease in the groundwater use. In terms of the concern related to traffic counts, counts were done twice outside of the pandemic. Once before and once after the project used the more conservative counts, the higher traffic counts and their analysis. So we feel that it is adequate and addresses what we need In terms of the findings, just wanted to make sure it's clear they are separate from CEQA. CEQA is a separate state requirement that we have to comply with. The findings are separate from that. And like has been explained and shown today, related to the public comments, from a staff perspective, we do not think this project fits in the area and we can't support it based on those two findings. Just wanted to make sure it was clear that it is unrelated to CEQA. In terms of the concerns related to the EIR being inadequate, we disagree. We think it has evaluated all the impacts from the project. It's incorporated all the required mitigation, and if the Planning Commission so desires to approve the project, the EIR is adequate and complies with CEQA. In terms of the public health concerns, just wanted to reiterate that we did do what's called a health risk assessment. It just looks at the potential increase in exposure to offsite residences and the potential risks that it poses to health. That study concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to the health of offsite residents based on state and local requirements. I'm going to pass it over to the team to address one last issue related to Valley Fever that came up.

Thanks, Mark. Commissioners, there is no established threshold for valley fever. However, there was a report prepared that contains information on the potential for contracting valley fever. It discloses statistics of valley fever in the surrounding community in San Diego. and then suggest methods such as reducing fugitive dust emissions and providing information for workers on the site to reduce those impacts. However, it is unlikely that Valley Fever is on the site due to it being a public golf course subject to irrigation and the soil types that are present on the site. I also wanted to note that the county public health team did also review that study. and they are in agreement with the statistics and the conclusions that are included in that report.

With that, we will close the public testimony. At this point, I'd like to give the commissioners an opportunity to weigh in and give their ideas or suggestions.

I'm ready to go, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Commissioner Pallinger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm assuming and want to just confirm that traffic analysis included the import of the fill soil for of the project?

Commissioner Pallinger to the chair, that's correct, it did.

Okay, thank you, I wanted to confirm that. And could I, can you pull up the picture that shows the existing facility? While you're doing that, you covered groundwater. Is it the one that shows the trees and the existing kind of vegetation? While you're doing that, there's some land that's outside the open space area. THE PROJECT SITE IS UNDEVELOPED, CONSISTING THERE'S SOME LEFTOVER LAND AFTER THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS DONE. WHAT'S THE ZONING ON THAT LAND? CAN IT BE DEVELOPED?

Thank you, through the chair. Commissioner, there's three zones on the subject property. S80 is open space. It's about four acres. The S88 is 32 acres. That's in the southwest portion. And then the majority of the site is S90, 244 acres.

So where's the excess land that's outside the mitigation area or open space preserve area zoned?

We can speak to that. Let us bring up a slide and then we can kind of walk through the areas.

Okay, let me talk to this one. So this shows the current golf course, which of course goes away and all the trees then get demolished in order for the sand mine, so that's why we lose all those trees, okay. So it's gonna be mainly revegetated as, I guess, wetland, willows and that sort of thing.

Here we go, Commissioner Collinger, so.

The gray land there.

Correct, the areas that are outside of kind of that river corridor that goes through the central portion of the site, yeah, those would be retained by the property owner. You know, any future permits, you know, would be required to go through the environmental review process similar to the project.

Are they all zoned, what are they zoned now? Or are they various zones?

As staff mentioned, yeah, there's three separate zones. It's a combination of different things.

It's on slide 47, 48, something like that.

Okay.

The zoning.

And I suppose even though it's capped at so many cubic yards of export sand, in the event that that slowed down and they reached their 10-year point, they would have to extend that permit. Okay. That's correct, Commissioner. I think that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Edwards? I'll defer. You'll defer?

I have a couple questions for the applicant. First one has to do with the setbacks. How did 100 foot come about versus something else? I'm talking primarily for the non-billable easement on or non, I can't remember what it's called exactly, but the easement by 1A and... and 2A and 2B gets closer to the residents?

Sure. If your question is, I know earlier we heard some comments about a sand egg buffer. Sand egg has never set any sort of legal or recommended buffer. There is a sand egg study that talks about where mining facilities might likely be developed, but there is no established buffer. The design of this project tried to be very careful about where we placed the permanent, well, not the permanent, but the processing plant. We selected an area where there was not residents nearby because that would be there for the entirety of the mining period. And then we took a careful look at the different, those smaller polygons, the 30 acre sub phases, and tried to make sure that, you know, to extend the buffers as much as possible while we identified those different areas. But there is no established legal buffer to adhere to here.

So on 1A and 2B, could we propose something a little wider?

We tried as hard as possible to reach our maximum extraction numbers that would make this a feasible project. And any reduction in those polygons would change that. And then in order to extract the same amount of materials, we would have to extend beyond the 10 years, if that makes sense.

I find it hard to believe that you can't make it work at a little bit wider buffer in 1A and 2B for the residents. I mean, a couple hundred feet?

Can I check with our mining consultant about what that actually would entail?

Okay.

Are there any other questions while they're working on that that I can answer?

Yeah, I do. So on the haul trucks, so I know why you're having them come out where they are over by the processing area layout, but one of the biggest concerns obviously is traffic on Willow Glen in particular. Was there any consideration to move the access point closer to Hamishaw Road down by the commercial center? So you're virtually off Willow Glen Drive completely.

Sure.

Would that be a question for you, Shankar? About the ideal location for the project site entrance?

Sure.

Not entry for employees. I mean the haul trucks. Of course. Could the haul truck exit and entry be moved to the west?

Good afternoon, planning commissioners. My name is Shankar Ramakrishnan with Lynn Scott Lawn Greenspan Engineers, the transportation consultants for the project. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm a registered traffic engineer in the state of California. I have over 20 years of traffic engineering and transportation planning experience. So in terms of the truck access we wanted to keep it on the east side of Steel Canyon to keep it away from the residents as much as possible. That is why there was a dedicated entry inbound driveway and a dedicated egress driveway and the project is making improvements to make sure that traffic is not affected on the east side of Steel Canyon rather than keeping it on the west.

I guess what I'm asking is could we move the entry and exit for the haul trucks to the west on Willow Glen Drive but closer to the commercial center on the far west side of the property?

That is also to do with Planning Commissioner Sudbury with the plant that's on the east side so that there is a function within the site itself. I'll let James talk about how the trucks go into the site and come out. Like like Jennifer talked about the processing plans located more centrally in the site. It's far away from residences. It's just the place that makes the most sense.

So the trucks are going to go to there along Willowland Drive. Sorry, we were talking right before this, so I kind of missed the gist.

Yeah, I guess what I'm asking is, I've seen these sand operations before where they're traveling up and down gravel roads and not on the main highways. If you could move the entry to the far west of the property on phase 1C, closer to the commercial center, you wouldn't be going by any homes at all.

Well, there are homes on the direct opposite side of Willow Glen Drive from it on the most western side.

I don't think he's following. On the far west corner of 1C, you're crossing a commercial center. Your trucks would still be on Willow Glen Road, but just for maybe a couple hundred yards, not the entire length.

As far as I know, we've designed it in this way for it to cause the least amount of impacts. I mean, there might be other things that I'm not considering at this moment, but that is the reason that we had it in that location.

Just to add to that, in regards to 1A and was it 2B that you were concerned about? Okay, so I know that this is awkward, but could I approach and show you this phasing exhibit?

So this is from the secret document, and there is actually already a

Excuse me. Excuse me. Can we wait one second? It's not appropriate to have them view something that everybody else can't. Do we have that as a exhibit that we can show? Thank you.

Yeah, I'm looking at the mine phasing map on page nine. It's just hard for me to tell from my aerial here how close the mining operation is to the homes.

Yeah, the staff's bringing it up for everybody.

Is it only 100 feet in that corner, or is it more?

They put it up on the screen here for everybody to see if you want to walk through. It's just very difficult to see it that large.

But if you look at 1A, it's separated from the homes by this whole area, which is not...

But in that corner, is it 100 feet or is it more?

From residential, yes. Chair, if I could, is there a way we could get the mic in a position to where we could hear the conversation? We could also get a microphone out.

It's been so hard to answer his question here. There is a, and it's the same with 2B, right? So the mining does not, just as an overall comment, the mining does not go to the extent of the site boundary. So there's several phasing diagrams in the EIR and its various technical reports that have these smaller polygons. And that's the best way to see the extent of the mining areas, which is much smaller than the extent of the site.

So isn't there a there's a plan in the in the package? There's a cross-section in the plans, and I think it shows a distance in in the plans.

And it's the same with 2B as well. There's a large area that is not part of the mining adjacent to 2B.

So what page is that?

It's page 102 of the present, of the package. Page 102 of the package.

Okay, I think even though it's hard to show me, I see that it isn't a minimum of 100 feet from a residence there. That's what my concern was.

Okay. No, it's greater. Sorry. Okay, so we just measured the closest area from the boundary of the 1A mining sub area and the residential area, and it is...

Approximately 400 feet. Okay, thank you.

And then for 2B...

It was 220 feet. 220.

Okay. And then back to the conversation on the haul trucks. Is it possible to move the entry and exit further to the west so the trucks aren't traveling?

It would not be. That would require an extensive redesign of the entire project.

I have a few. We did confer on that a little bit more too. On the west side here, there's an issue with site distance in that area because it's so close to Willow Glen or Hammershaw Road where the trucks are coming from. Also with queuing, there's a short distance between Hammershaw Road and where that proposed entrance would be. And lastly, Steel Canyon Bridge does not give clearance for those types of haul trucks to go underneath. So if you did put the plant still in the central location where we've had it, you wouldn't be able to have trucks drive along the site and underneath Steel Canyon Bridge.

The public testimony is closed.

Do you have comments, commissioners?

I had a question for staff. For the current operating sand mine, what was the original closure date and how many extensions have been granted for that facility? Because obviously the MUP is a 10-year timeline, but understanding they can come back with another MUP process to extend that. So I think we need to understand what we're seeing in operation right now.

Commissioner Weber through the chair. So there are currently no permits on the property to do any sand mining. All that's been completed. It was relatively minor work. The nearest sand mine to the project is down further on Willow Glen Drive. That predated our county zoning ordinance requirements for a use permit. It started up prior to probably 1960 and it is still in operation and they're proposing an expansion and it's going through the permit process today. Kind of an illustration of how some of these can take quite some time until they extract all the resource available.

Thank you.

Okay, I just wanted to have a few reflections about all of this. Just so the public knows, I lived for a time on Stallion Oaks Road in Dehesa Valley. And that was before the Sequan built out their facility out there. And I got to commute through there and play golf at Cottonwood. And so I've known the area for quite a while. And I've got to watch the historical activities that have taken place with the land use over the last 40 years throughout that area. And so when I listened to some of the comments and concerns by the public, some of them, I see that there's warranted comments and some of them, my question, whether or not they're warranted. And, and so I have, there was a lot of information to take a look at with all of this and that golf course was there before Rancho San Diego. The reason I know that is I worked for the county in 1976. When they first came in, Rancho San Diego came in as a lot split, a four-lot split. And then they came in with all their neighborhoods. And it is their neighborhoods which grew and surrounded the golf course. A couple of them are from Hummel, but most of them were from Rancho San Diego. The golf course, as I understand it, was not part of the specific plan. There are parts of it that became part of it when they did the Steel Canyon Road extension through the middle of the golf course. The other thing is looking at the history of The river valley, and you'll have to forgive me, I'm from back east. To use the word river on that is a stretch. You've got a couple of stormwater reservoirs out there, and they can cause some water to run through there periodically, as will some heavy rainy seasons. But without those, I would imagine it would be fairly dry most of the year. and it does create a resource. There was probably a vested mineral resource in that location prior to the golf course and all the housing and all the other activities that's gone in there. Having talked to people who lived and worked in that area for a long time, I think there were closer to about 10 different sand mining operations starting at the one that Saquon bought above the Saquon Golf Course, working its way all the way down to Nelson Sloan down by the Sweetwater Reservoir. And so the county came in, and I believe it was in the 90s, and they bought the last two or three neighborhoods of Rancho San Diego. They're south of the commercial strip. and put them into open space, some sort of preserved system, which had an effect on the improvements to Highway 94 and the bridge and the width of 94, and a lot of things that affect Hummel. But Hummel is topographically on the other side of the ridge, primarily from Hammershaw. as is some of the other things that people reference. Are they talking about schools? Are they talking about old folks' homes? And all of these sort of things. I understand the community viewpoint. I understand it. But it is something that evolved over time And to say that you're putting this in the middle of a community, for me, I look at it from a different vantage point. That's a community that has surrounded this use. This is a commercial use, this golf course. And most of the talk, you come in and you generalize about a couple hundred acres of open pit mining, but these folks went out of their way to try and look at this in a less intrusive manner and break this into pieces and try to structure a controlled environment that would make them adhere to doing this in little pieces over a certain period of time. And then in the end to reclaim it. And so sometimes when I hear some of our environmental enthusiasts talk about what the end result is here, when I look at these things, the project is the end result. The activity in between can be controlled and mitigated along the way to some extent, but the end result here would be a river, wetlands, And to go back and look at the findings for the major use permit and to look at the findings for the environmental impact report, because there is a significant impact. And to approve something, you'd have to have overriding findings. And so... That caused me to go back and revisit, which I've done many times in the past, CEQA. And I'd like to just quote one part of CEQA, Article 2, General Responsibilities. These are for the agencies that are conducting and utilizing CEQA. Duty to minimize environmental damage. and balance competing public objectives. 15021, in item D, if I might take a moment here, CEQA recognizes that in determining whether or how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors. And in particular, the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. So, In trying to go back and absorb and wind my way through all of this, I can understand there are vantage points that make this a negative or disturbing activity, but there's also vantage points that make it a positive or helpful. Service and behind all of this is having participated in this particular commission for the last four and a half years is my own personal reflections on the things I've supported. The housing element of the general plan. All this dialogue about. Underserved communities and how we're going to create affordable housing. And then the VMT, the Climate Action Plan. All of these things are gonna play a role in all of this. There's no way for us just to set them all aside. We're either gonna pursue these things, which the Board has adopted some of these and then let them go through legal actions and they're in the pursuit again, or we're gonna end up changing directions somewhere along the way. And so my own personal reflection in all of this is having supported those sorts of things and that this type of activity I would consider to be in support of the pursuit of those types of agendas. And I also look at this from a standpoint that you can't dismiss, that this is not natural. This is a man-made golf course. We're starting with something that was manufactured, and they're talking about modifying that. And so, I personally, have some reservations about the recommendation that was given to us by the staff and management. And so with that, I'll let any of my other fellow commissioners weigh in if they desire. Any comments?

Yeah, I understand your points, and I understand the need for the construction material that supports the housing that we need in our community. I appreciate that the carpenters are here. They're really important partners to make sure that our large infrastructure projects happen. But I do just want to recenter the conversation a little bit, Chairman. We're not talking about something similar to a recreation use here. We're talking about going from a recreation use to an industrial use, which is why We're seeing a staff recommendation that is to deny an MUP, which is not normal here for Planning Commission staff. It's an industrial use next to a suburban neighborhood. There are important elements of the project in terms of restoration, but we're talking about restoration a decade after neighborhood impacts that are concerning. And the fact that sand mines existed, in this part of our county before housing does not mean that we should approve a Sand Mine existing now that there are 100,000 people that live in that neighborhood. So I think I see where this board is going, but I would make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

I would second that and I do agree with Commissioner Weber that although zoning does allow You know, for this use, it's definitely not in the setting that it was intended to be, and it is industrial. And when we approve other projects, you know, we've approved many projects, and I'm all for business enterprise and, you know, just following the, you know, reports and technical studies and professionals. But I think that in this case, you know, you're putting an industrial use in the middle of a residential area. and I wouldn't be able to support that.

Before I call for the question, I'd just like to make a couple comments. I appreciate your viewpoint. To use the phrase that it wasn't intended for this, again, you're not looking at the fact that that golf course was there first. There was no residential. This is another example of sprawl development swallowing up. our resources and everything else. And so I just wanna be in the record that, and this site had three sand mining operations on it. So to say it's not intended for that, and one of them was in 2013. It's not before the housing came into the area.

So I agree with the county staff's findings and it's, I think, you know, we all have our opinions and we have a basis for our decision and I agree with the county's findings.

I appreciate that and that's why I was asking everyone to comment to get their ideas and where their viewpoints were coming from. So with that being said, we'll call for the question.

So with that, we do have a motion in the second. We will go ahead and call for the vote. Commissioners, when your name is called, please vote. Chair Ashman?

No.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Commissioner Edwards? No. Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

Commissioner Weber? And Commissioner Sudbury.

No.

So I am going to go ahead and reach out to council because we do have a split at this time.

Would anybody? Yes. Are there any other motions on the floor? Would they like more discussion?

refusal of staff's recommendation and the endorsement of the applicant's alternative planning commission hearing report. A few comments I think are in order. I am not unsympathetic to the situation articulated by the residents of the area. I too am very familiar with this area. Before the shopping center was there, Most of the housing was there and it played the Cottonwood Golf Course numerous times. I watched Steel Canyon be built and I watched the homes there and their clubhouse be built. However, reading the decision originally of staff, it reminded me of a Agatha Christie novel. where you read the book and you go through it and you think you have tracked the characters and you know what the decisions will be made and what the ultimate resolution of the book will be. Then you reach the denouement and it's totally different. That's the way I felt reading staff's recommendation. It read to me as though it was being crafted for approval and then toward the end on number three and number five, the denouement became different and the refusal was made. I too am familiar with the duties and responsibilities that we have under CEQA. I'm reminded that one of the objects of CEQA is for us to attempt as best we can to create jobs. and income for our fellow citizens. And I believe Mr. Chairman, that this is going to create jobs with a trickle down effect of three to one. We know that the estimate is $2.5 million a year, just in sales tax to the County of San Diego. And I think one of the things that is impressive to me is this is not as one person indicated, Mr. Chairman, a fragmented development. This has been carefully thought through in parcels of 30 acres, more or less. And it is a unified, ultimately, program. And at the end of the project, the county will be in line for 100 and, 49 acres I believe it is of open space. 148 acres and at no expense and that goes into the hopper of the scales of justice to balance things and on balance I think this has a lot more positives than it does And again, I am cognizant and aware of the concerns of the residents, but I would never endorse this if I didn't read this three times and came to the conclusion that the county and the staff have made every effort possible to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the area. So that's my rationale for endorsing the Appellant's Alternative Planning Commission hearing report, Mr. Chair. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second to approve, to endorse, to approve, endorse the alternate.

Yes. Councillor, I don't think we have the ability to approve it. We can endorse it or recommend it. What's the proper wording for Commissioner Edwards?

Commissioner Edwards to the chair. So if the commission wants to support the applicant's proposal, you would make all the findings that the applicant had presented previously, including certifying the EIDAR, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, and then approving the reclamation plan and major use permit along with their set of findings that they had proposed.

Yes.

second We have a motion and a second is there any other comments Madam secretary, please call the vote Commissioners when your name is called please vote chair Ashman Yes Commissioner Calvo no

Commissioner Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger?

No.

Commissioner Weber? No. And Commissioner Sudbury?

Yes.

Let the record show that this item fails with a vote of three in favor and three opposed.

Do we have any other motions?

Seeing none.

Mr. Chairman. Maybe, I'm sorry. I was just gonna clarify for the public and everybody watching that in a tie vote, without four votes to pass, that means the project's deemed denied.

Thank you. So that means the staff's recommendation stands?

That means the project under Admin Code 388, if they can't get four votes to approve a project, it's deemed disapproved.

Thank you, Councillor, for that clarification. And Mr. Chairman?

I have a question. I have a question of Council. The applicant has the right to appeal this?

Yeah, we believe that the applicant can appeal this decision.

Yes, yes, absolutely. We appreciate your input and the time that you've expended to help us here.