Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Okay, thank you very much. Before beginning, I'm going to go through our House rules. Public engagement is the cornerstone of a transparent and accountable government, and these Board of Supervisors meetings are one of the primary venues where people in our community can make their voices heard. Under the board rules, speakers may not use loud shouting, threatening, slanderous, profane, and abusive language to any member of the board, staff, or the general public. Second, all remarks and questions must remain on topic during the duration of your speaking time. Third, these remarks must be addr

Okay. Thank you. We now begin with a non-agenda public comment. This is an opportunity for the public to address matters within our board jurisdiction, but not a matter on our agenda today. The only thing we may do is refer the matter to the CAO. Speakers can speak once per meeting for non-agenda public comment. That's either today or yesterday at your choice. We will have five speakers in person and five speakers by phone at the beginning of the meeting. The remainder will be held at the end of the session. And the first five in-person speakers will be selected by random in order to facilitat

Okay, thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is approval of minutes and statement of proceedings for the concurrent special district meeting of the Sanitation District for June 24th and June 25th. Do I have a motion? Okay, we have a motion by Supervisor Desmond, a second by Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp. Please vote.

Okay, we now proceed with the consent agenda. These items are routine and will be acted upon with one motion. First, I will ask my colleagues if they have any comments or any items to pull, and then we'll go to public comment. Vice Chair?

No items to pull. I'm happy to move the consent agenda. I do just... have a comment on item number three. And I just want to thank the Spring Valley Community Alliance for your work in using their lived experience and knowledge to bring attention to much needed local programs that would go above and beyond the Spring Valley Community Plan. I also want to thank PDS staff for their role as a collaborator in recognizing support and capacity needed for the alliance is partners and the residents of Spring Valley. So I appreciate everyone's work on this and the grant that is noted in item number thr

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Nothing to pull. I do have an item number one. This is the advertised and award construction contract for drainage culvert repair and replacement. I just want to acknowledge the great work of the Department of Public Works because of their outstanding achievement in bringing our road network to an average level. pavement condition index of 70. We're now able to direct more dollars into other critical infrastructure, such as the $4.5 million in culvert repairs being presented today. So thanks very much for your good work. I'm happy to support you.

Okay, thank you very much. Supervisor Anderson, we are doing consent. Do you have any items to pull or any comments? Okay, we'll move to public comment, thanks.

Sir, can you please clarify which item you're speaking to?

Excuse me, sir. Please ensure your comments are confined to that item. Thank you.

Sir, please pause. Which item, I've asked you now, I said you can be on item one, two, three, four, or seven. Which of the items?

Okay, sir, which item is that one? Item one.

Okay. Thank you all very much. We have a motion on the floor from Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp and a second by Chair Parton-McGee. Please vote.

Okay, fantastic. So now we move on to item five, and this is notice public hearing approve the Starlight Solar Project to allow for the development of a solar energy generation and storage facility and certify the environmental impact report. We do have a county presentation, so we'll begin with the county team. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Thank you. That was very thorough and very helpful. And it did actually answer some of the questions I had, so you anticipated them. Any of my colleagues have any questions at this time?

Just want to verify. You just said that if the best location has to remain in the north, that Chief Meacham and Cal Fire said it's no more of a fire hazard or danger. Is that true?

Thanks. Okay. Seeing no further questions, we will go to public comment.

It imposes enormous costs, but does not make the community whole. The community is left sort of holding the bag on something that benefits others, and they're holding the costs. And I think this is the kind of environmental injustice that I think we fear when we look at big-scale energy investments.

You know, for too often, we've allowed affluent communities to step on smaller communities, weaker communities, and that's not fair, and it's not right.

Apologies. We really need to be consistent because we do have a lot of presentations, but I personally am going to ask you to come back when it's my turn to ask questions because I do have some follow-up questions for you specifically. Thank you. Appreciate that. And sorry, sir, what's your name so I can call you appropriately? Joe. Joe Raleigh. Joe Raleigh. Okay. Thank you, Joe.

And they can continue on your same slides. They don't need to change slides if they want to. We just need to change people so they can do the rest of your presentation. We just have to change people.

You only have about 25 seconds left, just letting you know. Vote now, then.

Ma'am, please, please. Thank you. This is your first warning. Thank you. Before we move on, I just want to first of all thank everyone. I know this has been an incredibly difficult topic and you all came really, really far to be here today. I would appreciate if we could not clap or engage in other behavior that would disrupt our proceedings because I'd really like us to have an opportunity to have a robust conversation and really consider this issue carefully. So please no clapping. If you want to show support, we can do this. Thank you. Okay.

Okay, thank you very much. First of all, thank you everyone for being here, for all the community members who have been participating in this process and who drove really far to be here today, and also the community and project proponents that are also here to talk about the merits of this project. I just want to make a couple opening comments regarding how I'm thinking about this and how I'm approaching this. I have a lot of questions. But I won't ask them all at once because I'm sure my colleagues also have lots to say. So I will say a couple things, ask a couple questions, and then we'll ha

Like, very big picture. We obviously need reliable, affordable electricity. I mean, we have lights on in this building. You know, I don't know anyone who doesn't use electricity on a daily basis. And the rising costs of electricity are one of the biggest challenges that people face throughout San Diego County and really across California and across our country. the rising cost of energy, and I don't know anyone who's decided to solve that problem by going and by turning off the lights and stop and just completely stop using electricity. So, and that means there's really not a lot of great choi

Okay, so it's a water quality testing in the beginning. and then regular water quality testing, and then including in people's wells.

So my question, I think we'll start maybe with the developer and also the county team. I'm sure this was raised by the community initially. What's the reason that this has not been included? Is this not needed? Is this not a good idea? Like what's the deal on the water quality testing? Because as we all, I mean, I think clean water seems like a pretty fundamental issue. Yeah. Yeah.

I just want to thank you. That was very helpful. I feel like it's conflating two separate issues. One is where is the water coming from and the groundwater level? It sounds like the community is interested and concerned about pollution and groundwater quality. And those are different questions. I get it. Obviously, this project can't move forward if they can't buy water from somewhere else, and that water purchase would have to conform with assumptions. I'm not as concerned about that. I'm more concerned about this basic issue. Is there anything awful going into the groundwater that we don't k

Thank you, that's helpful. I think again, I have a lot more questions, but I would just say from from just from the outset, if I was to approve this project, I would want to see an agreement to do some kind of ongoing monitoring of the water. That sort of seems basic, like we should know that the water is clean. Is there any reason we couldn't? Do that that doesn't seem like super onerous.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was hoping you were going to call Joe up and save us from both questioning Joe. Did you want to call Joe up to talk about the plume?

He was on my list for after. I didn't want to talk the whole time, but we can.

Why don't you go ahead and hit the plume portion.

Okay, great. Thank you. So my next set of questions regard basically these questions around fire risk, plumes, and kind of mitigation procedures. So let's do plumes, and then we can talk about fire risk. So I don't know if you wanted to, if you have your presentation, we can put that up.

Yes, thank you. I was hoping that we'd hear from the other side as well.

Okay, yeah, thank you very much. Do you think before you, could you put your picture back up of the plumes?

And then we'll go back to exposure thresholds. I just think that would be helpful for folks.

Okay, thank you. Could you go back to your exposure threshold level? The other slide, just so you can leave it up and we can hear from the county. Yep, no, you were good.

I just asked for that. Sorry, that was my bad. I asked for that one. Is this correct?

Can we turn to, so I want to hear from the county team kind of how they did their modeling.

Yeah. I feel like that's where we're all, that felt like the next step. That was also what Supervisor Anderson was interested in as well. So it would be super helpful. I think that was very articulate and very clear. I think it would be very helpful to hear from the county team. It seems like there's... A couple questions on the table. One is, what's the appropriate threshold level to be utilized for the model, whether it's the ALG-1, the ALG-2 at 30 minutes, the ALG-2 at one hour? Hopefully I captured your different thresholds correctly. And then, based on those thresholds, and the wind patte

I think that's a great idea. I think what would be most helpful is to address particularly the concerns raised by the community group presentation and by Joe Rowley in particular regarding the AEGL 1 versus 2 radius and answer kind of the concerns that he raised.

Hold on, my colleague has a point of clarification.

I believe Jensen Hughes is here. I'd actually rather hear from the MS. That's what I was going to suggest. Thank you.

We can hear from Jensen Hughes instead. Okay, great. Please, thank you so much.

Do any of my colleagues have any questions? Yes. Okay, please, Supervisor Dessler.

So if I caught you, if I understand, is the scenario that I guess the... Opponents, you're saying it was all the worst case scenarios all tied into one for the modeling of the flu. But what's the health? You're probably not a doctor, but what's the health risks in AEGL1? It just says health risks. Is that permanent damage? Is it a bloody nose? I don't know.

Okay. Thanks. That's all I had on the plume. And we've already answered the other questions. Thanks. Thanks.

Thank you. Other questions for my colleagues on the plume study?

This is a question for Jensen. No, ma'am, it's for Jensen. Thank you. Just to clarify, my colleague is asking a follow-up regarding the plume modeling and the accuracy of the plume modeling, and she asked whether variability of wind patterns was accounted for, particularly generated by climate change.

Yep, any other questions for our friend from Jensen while he's up here, please? We have a hand up from Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Okay. We have a hand up from Supervisor Desmond. Go ahead. You did a real hand up. You did an actual hand instead of a virtual hand.

Okay. There's windmills to catch the wind in this same area. So I would imagine the wind speeds here are higher than in other parts of the county. So that would, I don't know if that's better or worse for the plume, if the plume dissipates more rapidly with the higher wind speeds or just blows it further away. I'm just kind of curious.

So, all right, is it better or worse to have high wind speeds? Sorry? Is it better or worse with that higher wind speed?

It's primarily going blowing west to east, I mean, imagine, because that's where the windmills are kind of aimed. So if it's blowing... I'm just curious if the higher speed dissipates the plume further and is less of a hazard as opposed to a zero wind or less wind.

So there's all sorts of factors, but I guess still, is it more hazardous to the people if there's less wind, or is it more hazardous if there's more wind?

Is it more dangerous to the people on the ground?

No, he's saying more wind is less dangerous. Oh, okay.

Thank you. I'm glad you interpreted that. Thank you.

Right? Yes? Okay. Got it. Okay. We're all going to be experts on plumes. Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thanks. I also want to acknowledge just the travel here for community members and that this, you know, we're faced with so many impossible decisions, having to balance so much. But I want to get clarity on the, any further action based on what the board decides here today. So, um, I'm, uh, I think Vince, you started out with sort of a, um, a summary about state law, um, and the requirements. And so if the board, uh, were to not approve this in this forum today, um, what would be the next step as far as the state is concerned? I'm, I'm, I am, um, And I heard fro

The question is, would the project still be able to be approved at another level without the community benefits? Are there any kind of like appeals or?

OKAY, GOT IT. THANK YOU. THAT DID ANSWER MY QUESTION. CHIEF MEACHAM, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ANSWER All right, thank you. My other two questions are about the request from community members with regard to water testing. I think the chair made that distinction, right? There's one thing about water supply. My understanding is from what has been represented here today, that there is no There is no agreement yet with regard to the water supply, but the project cannot move forward without that agreement. Is that accurate based on the planning commission's conditions?

Okay. On the other side of that, what I heard, and this may be a little bit of my misunderstanding, but I think I'll try to see if my common sense is common here. that any project really, especially with a community such as Boulevard in the water supply, a project with this magnitude could impact that water supply just based on the building of the project. And so I think the request for testing is coming from that impact. And so I don't know if this is question for staff or the developer of both, what is the mitigation for those particular impacts?

Okay. I think what I'm hearing from community is in order to get the baseline first, though, that testing, they're requesting testing kind of now so that they can use those results to test against any other, to compare against any other type of testing. Sorry, I'm on the diet, so I think a scientist and an economist, and I'm neither, but...

OK. OK. So a baseline now regardless of an incident though?

And so have you agreed to that already up to this point or is this breaking news?

Okay. Okay. So that's what I would like to, if possible, add that condition. I think that that is important. Okay. The only other thing that I heard, and I want to get clarification, because this was also in one of the videos, and I don't know if, is there anything anybody wants to say just to clarify? I think we got, is that settled?

I think the water's clear, and we do have a motion that the team has drafted that would add that condition to the project. So I think we're good on that. Meeting the minds.

Okay, great. Okay, one more issue. Thank you so much. That is around the fund. And so in one of the videos, I think is a clip from the planning commission, there was a request to front, well, really the group request is to front all of that fund from the beginning at the start of phase one. There was agreement to something in the video, but I'm not sure what that agreement was to. There was a planning commissioner that brought this issue up. I believe you said we're willing to do that. What was it exactly that you agreed to there?

Is that from the $800,000 to the $900,000? To a million. Okay, $900,000 to a million.

I just want to, if you could stay up to be efficient here. I'd love a little bit more clarity on the structure of this community benefit. I guess, a million in phase one and then a dollar per megawatt in phase two. What is the timing? Where does it get paid? What does it fund?

But then the San Diego Foundation decides how the money is spent, like legally?

That's your first warning. If you disrupt the meeting again, you'll be asked to leave. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

I'm some more kind of questions that community benefit.

Okay. I have some questions on that. I mean, I think what I'm hearing from the community is they want all the money up front. You're saying we can't do that because you can do the part from phase one because that energy is already sold, so there's a pot of money to distribute.

But you can't do that from phase two because that has not been sold. There's no income. There's no income. Question on that. I understand that makes sense logically, but there's another piece to me, which there are upfront costs to phase two, right? Like you're doing a lot of paying a lot of investments to kind of design the project, develop the project. There's a lot of upfront costs for developing phase two, even before there is a revenue stream. It seems like it might be reasonable to consider at least a portion of a community of development, a community benefit as an upfront development co

Other question, are there precedents, and maybe this is for our accounting team, of the community benefit going into some kind of source that's actually governed by the community? So, right, like I think the only, the reasonable entity, representative entity seems to be a community, the community planning group, since there's not like a city council.

Let me hear from our county team. If they can't answer, I'll turn to you.

I understand that, but there's a difference between the county hearing from the community, take it or leave it, versus there being some kind of accountable body that's like actually chosen and selected and accountable to community members that has authority to make decisions about how money is spent.

I mean, Julie, you would need to correct me, but it's the community planning group is the only real entity that has like representative power, like that's actually accountable to the community members. It seems like if this project is to go forward, the community planning group should have authority to figure out how to spend it for the community, not some outside entity, namely supervisors who don't represent the district.

Could I hear from this gentleman, please? Why don't you see the floor? He's trying to answer the question. Yeah, please. Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it.

And this is the structure that currently governs the JVR? That's correct. And is that written in, is that already the conditions on this project, that that would be the structure of the grant management? Chair, yes, it is. Community Benefit Grant Management. That is already.

Okay, got it. That's really helpful. Another set of questions, probably not for anyone here, there was a realtor in the room. I was curious, did we have some assessments on like how much we think people's property values would be impacted by the project?

Sorry, if you don't, to put you on the spot. You did introduce yourself as a realtor.

Ma'am. It's totally fair for you to say I have no idea, but I just figured that seemed like an important, interesting point.

No, it's totally fine, and thank you for being here and sharing. Absolutely, thank you.

Thank you. I have some follow-ups on this, but let me give it to my colleague, Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you very much. When we do our community grants in some of my communities, we had so many grant requests that we set up a system very similar to what they're doing. Everybody submits a grant, gets to vote on in their community who gets the money because they're asking for four times more than what's allocated. And I'm not going to be the bad guy when I'm helping get the money. So I let them work it out. And I think that's essentially a one-off of what they're doing. One of the things that my staff had said that was... AN EARLY PROPOSED IDEA, AND MAYBE THIS WOULD HELP CLOSE SOME OF THE GAP

May we add that to the amendment, I mean, of the motion?

Yeah, could we, county team, could we get a write-up on how that would be included in a motion? Mm-hmm.

You can go ahead and step to the microphone.

This would be the marginal profit that they would have received above the standard rate. because they pay a premium of 20% more for that power they use. So that marginal difference would then be reunited into the community for people who hit the criteria of underserved.

question that's a question for the county team if there's if the water testing does reveal that either the quantity is decreasing so the water table is going down which we don't anticipate obviously or there's some kind of pollution in the water and the water quality is decreasing which of course we don't anticipate either these things but if they were to happen which is why we'll be testing for them what would be the consequence so if if

I want to finish this conversation on community benefits, and then we'll go to the water quality piece. Anything additional from anyone on the community benefits side? I have one additional question. This is for the developer.

No, I just want to ask, I want to get some clarity on the structure. So you said it's based on, it's 26,738 per megawatt. Is that correct? So the estimate is 7 million. And what is the timeline on the payment? Is that would be immediately upon the project, the power purchase agreement being inked?

So it would be right, it would be the next phase would be transferred to this account at the nonprofit once that power purchase agreement is inked.

Okay. And is that included in the way the conditions that it would be upon signing a power purchase agreement or shortly thereafter it would be sort of over the 30 years of the project?

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate the personal experience. Okay, this has been an incredibly granular and I think thoughtful conversation by this board. Why don't we go ahead and put those two motions up for consideration or amended amendments to the motion?

Let's look at these and if anyone has any additional questions or any of my colleagues would like to call you back. Okay, so this is not actually the motion of the floor. That's not correct. But basically the idea is this kind of looking at this as additional conditions of if this project was to move forward would be to add a condition to require baseline groundwater monitoring, And testing prior to construction with further testing occurs should a fire occur on the property. And the applicant work with state or federal agency to remediate any contamination caused by the event. Does this inclu

Yeah, okay. Based on groundwater monitoring, testing of both quality and quantity. No, and testing of both quality and quantity. Quality and quantity. Okay. Okay. And I think, is this second bullet getting at what you were hoping for Supervisor Anderson to provide additional prior? I think you were being a little more specific. Require the developer to pursue a green tariff and ensure that any additional benefits generated are paid to the community.

Would be used in the community to offset people who meet the financial criteria or the underserved aspect so that it would go to the most needy to help them augment their power.

Well, I guess the question is, does this bullet meet your needs, or do you feel like it needs to be more specific?

Require the developer to pursue the disadvantaged green tariffs program.

No, you're correct on the title. Disadvantaged Communities Green Tariffs Program. It should all be capitalized.

And it probably should say in the form of energy rebates. So it's not the additional benefits

MAY BE MISCONSTRUED AS IT'S A SIDEWALK, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY MEANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE FORM OF GREEN, IN THE FORM OF ENERGY REBATES.

YEP. MA'AM CHAIR, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ASK THE NATURE OF THEIR AQUIFER. SO WHEN YOU THINK IN TERMS OF COMMUNITIES LIKE RAMONA, ALL THOSE WELLS ARE ON SHALE. When you have shale, you can have water here that pops up over there. It's no rhyme or reason. If you're on sand, the aquifer is very clear where it begins, where it ends. For years, there was a Hatfield-McCoy battle over who's stealing whose water.

and that was all based on shale, and it's not trackable. So I'd be curious to find out, if we're checking well in the reduction of the wells, that we don't have a shale situation where it's not truly trackable. The Barona tribe had to defend their water usage, and everyone complained that they were taking their water, but there was... It proved untrue, however, it drove great angst. So I'm just, I would like to take a look at and make sure that we're looking at this from a scientific geology standpoint.

Okay, we also have a geologist on our board.

If I may. I've sat through a lot of hard community meetings.

Yes. Okay. But to the county team, I think that was a very useful question. What is the nature of how the groundwater is stored and is it a shale situation?

Thank you, please. And any questions, Supervisor Anderson?

Okay, that was a lot. So anything additional from anyone at this time? I think I just want to uplift something that might have gotten lost because there's a lot of conversation. I think it was a comment made and a question from the vice chair that felt really central in my view to this entire conversation, which is, that there is a state law that allows for these projects to be greenlit at the state level. And if that is to move forward, if the state does decide to take this up, then there's no space at all for community engagement. benefit agreements, for conditions, for the community voice.

Yeah. So thank you. I just want to uplift that. I thought that was like a really, it's definitely informing a lot of how I'm thinking about this for sure. Yeah.

My staff just texted me. They said on the community benefits, I mean, as far as the community power, it would be the developer that issues the rebates. It would not be because they're not customers of Community Power. So we just need to make sure that it's routed the correct way so it gets to the community.

Let's read it. I think it's written in a way that's not...

It's broad enough that... Well, we were alerted by San Diego County Power... They called my office. They're worried. Okay. Why don't we just write it more open-ended and say that rebates would be provided through the appropriate...

Require the developers to provide additional needs to eligible communities in the form of energy rebates. Could be. Could be? Or whatever is...

I wonder if the San Diego Foundation would do it.

Can we just get rid of the, in the form of energy rebates, just require the development of the Disadvantaged Community Power Program through San Diego Community Power to provide additional benefits to eligible community members, and so that way they're not boxed in? Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to pause. I'm going to just right now we're having a board conversation. So if the board has any questions, we will call on you. But let me ask my colleagues if they have any additional questions for Joe Rowley or any community members that have been here. the county staff, any of the indepen

No, I mean, we're about to move forward. So I actually wanted to ask Supervisor Anderson, this is in your district, how you'd like to proceed.

I'll make the motion to support it moving forward with these amendments.

Okay. This is the original question that the was raised of the plume study. So let me ask directly The standard is a aegl1 is the staff's analysis and presentation based on aegl1 or aegl2

Is AEGL, and that is also validated by, what was the name of our independent? Jensen Hughes. Is our representative from Jensen Hughes still here? Could you clarify, please come up to the microphone. whether the analysis of plume safety is based on the AEGL 1 modeling or the AEGL 2 modeling?

No, that's wrong. Okay, yep, okay. Great. Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Supervisor Anderson, whose district this is in, to move this item forward with these additional conditions. Is there a second? Joel moved it. I'll second. Okay. We've got a second from Chair Potemagiri. Please vote.

Okay. Thank you all again. Really, again, so appreciative of the very constructive engagement from everyone. I know that this was very difficult and complicated and just appreciate the very thoughtful engagement. So thank you all for being here. Okay, it is now 1.20. We will break for lunch. We will be back here at 2.15.