Planning Commission - Regular 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, please visit publiccomment.sandiegocounty.gov and select the Planning Commission hearing for July 10, 2026 to register for today's hearing. If you are joining us in person, please make sure to check in with the clerk to let them know you have arrived and register if you have not already done so. If you are joining us via phone, dial in on the conference line using the instructions in the email or text reminder. When it is your turn to speak, please begin your comments after the prompt. Requests to speak must be registered prior to the item being called on the agenda to the commission secretary or the clerk at the front of the room. If you have questions about today's hearing process or need assistance with registering, Staff is 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 to speak unless 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 again, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

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

Here.

Commissioner Calvo. Here. Chair Edwards.

Here.

Commissioner Pallinger.

Here.

Commissioner Weber.

Here.

Commissioner Sudbury.

Here.

And Commissioner Sabelico.

Here.

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

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, it could result in a referral to staff. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to discuss a topic that is not listed on today's agenda.

Chair Edwards, there are no requests for public communication. None in person and none joining us on the line.

Thank you. So, ladies and gentlemen, there are handout materials related to today's agenda. Documents to be considered as evidence shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission not later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8. 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 Tuesday, July 7th, 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 agenda items?

Chair Edwards, we have over 200 correspondences that have been received. All items were submitted to the Commission through either email or hard copy. We do have an additional hard copy that was sent out to the Commission this morning. They have been made available to the public on the Planning Commission website and at the rear of the chambers.

Thank you. Let's... uh... go to request for continuance is uh... mister uh... so that do we have or i'm sorry director there any requests for continuance from staff chair there are no request for continuance today thank you so we'll proceed to the formation of a consent calendar These are items to which no opposition has been expressed or received. Madam Secretary, is there any item for consent?

Chair Edwards, there are currently no items available for the consent calendar.

All right, let's proceed then to item one, pass rail. We'll begin with staff's presentation.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Commissioners. I'm Sean Oberbauer with Planning and Development Services. Today I'll be presenting on item number one, which is the Passerelle project. On June 12, 2026, the Planning Commission accepted a request to continue the item to a date certain of July 10, 2026. The department is before you today recommending approval of the project. Project site, identified by the red star, is located within the Faubourg Community Planning Area and I-15 Designer View Corridor in the Campus Park specific plans. The project site is located in the northeast section of the State Route 76 and Interstate 15 interchange. The project site consists of the remaining portion of the campus park tentative map that has not completed a final map. The last portion of the campus park tentative map consists of a single parcel with 11.96 acres north of the Horse Creek Ridge County Park and 8.3 acres south of the Horse Creek Ridge County Park. The 138-unit residential development is proposed on the northern property while the remaining town center property that is not proposed to be developed at this time is located on the southern property. The Fallbrook Education Center of Palomar College is located directly west of the project site across Horse Ranch Creek Road. From the mid-2000s to early 2010s, three specific plans are processed in the northeast section of the SR 76 and I-15 interchange known as Campus Park, Campus Park West, and Meadowood. The three specific plans include a range of uses including 1,920 units, recreational facilities, a school site, and commercial uses. In the late 2010s, the residential uses in Public Park of Campus Park, excluding the commercial sites, were constructed in a development known as Horse Creek Ridge. The Meadowwood development is now known as Citro, and has been primarily constructed excluding a vacant school site. The Campus Park West development, now known as Palo Ranch, includes 513,000 square feet of commercial uses, as well as 283 dwelling units, and has not been constructed. The Campus Park West team is in the process of coordinating with Caltrans and finalizing conditions associated with the development. Since construction of the residential component of Campus Park, the office professional site and town center sites have remained graded and vacant. The applicant has stated that they have not received interest in the development of the office professional property, and the applicant prepared a market analysis that has been reviewed by a third-party consultant that concludes office professional uses will no longer be viable for development of the site. The project consists of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, revised tentative map, and site plan in order to allow for the development of a 138-unit condominium development designed as detached single-family dwelling units. The general plan amendment and specific plan amendment includes revisions to the Falbert Community Plan and Campus Park Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the office professional site. The revised tentative map will designate the area proposed for development as a condominium map for 138 units while designating the town center area as a remainder parcel. Access to the residential development sites will be provided by residential driveways connecting to Friesian Way, Massara Street, and Horse Ranch Creek Road. The project includes road improvements and widening to Horse Ranch Creek Road along the project frontage and the Horse Creek Ridge County Park. Road transition improvements to Horse Ranch Creek Road will be constructed north of the proposed residential parcel and south along the remainder parcel. 138 units will be divided between two condominium lots. The northern lot will be 3.02 acres and contain 35 units, while the southern lot will be 8.94 acres and contain 103 units. The dwelling units are designed as four plan types that each include three architectural styles. Each floor plan type includes a three-story dwelling unit. In accordance with general plan policies, county staff and the applicant created an inclusionary housing condition for the project. The project is conditioned to either pay an in lieu fee or construct 5% of the proposed units as affordable units on site using the very low income category. The applicant has the option of paying an in lieu fee of approximately $2.6 to $2.9 million or constructing seven affordable units. Time of application submittal, public notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Throughout the initial processing of the project and during community planning group meetings, staff received concerns from residents within the project vicinity regarding traffic, parking, density, use of parks, and conversion of additional commercial uses in the Campus Park Specific Plan. The General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and CEQA documents associated with the project were circulated for a 50-day public review period from December 17, 2024 to February 7, 2025. Public notices were sent to property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site, which included over 1,100 notices. Staff received 39 formal comments from individuals, including residents in the community and the nearby Horse Creek Ridge development, as well as organizations such as Caltrans, Sierra Club, and the Endangered Habitats League. The comments focused on similar concerns such as traffic, parking, greenhouse gas emissions, parks, fire safety, and demand for commercial uses. The project will reduce trips compared to the approved Office Professional project and result in less mobile source emissions for greenhouse gas. The following slides will address the remaining concerns. The traffic generated by the office professional use will be approximately 2,669 average daily trips, or ADT. A new traffic analysis was prepared for the project of 138 units, which estimates that the project will generate 1,380 ADT. The project will generate 1,289 ADT less than the previously approved project, which is a 48% reduction in ADT. Since the project will result in less traffic than what was studied in the Campus Park EIR, case law has confirmed that the project is not required to analyze vehicle miles traveled or VMT and can evaluate the project's traffic using level of service. The project will result in full width frontage improvements of Horse Ranch Creek Road, identified by the dashed white line, from Friesian Way to Gold Palomino Way and in front of the Horse Creek Ridge County Park. Road transition improvements to Horse Ranch Creek Road, identified by the two dashed red lines, will be constructed north of the proposed residential parcels and south along the remainder parcel. At the time of development of the town center, the remaining frontage improvements of Horse Ranch Creek Road will be required. With the incorporation of the project frontage improvements and reduction in trips, the project will not result in significant traffic impacts beyond what was analyzed in the previously certified Campus Park EIR. The project is located directly adjacent to the Horse Creek Ridge residential development as well as the Horse Creek Ridge County Park. The Horse Creek Ridge residential development is tied to a community facilities district or CFD, which includes taxes for residents in the Horse Creek Ridge development specifically for funding maintenance of parks, fire services, and stormwater facilities. The Horse Creek Ridge development also includes several private parks that are managed by an HOA. The project includes two tot lots and three passive park areas, and the project will require payment of parks fees. In addition, the project is conditioned to either modify the existing Horse Creek Ridge CFD or create a new CFD, which will allow for funding of the same facilities of the Horse Creek Ridge residential development, including parks. The residents of the Passerelle project will be able to use only the on-site private recreational areas in the adjacent public park. Fire protection plan and an evacuation plan were prepared for the project. The project will be served by the North County Fire Protection District and is located approximately a mile northeast of an existing fire station. The fire district is currently in the process of developing and replacing the existing fire station that will assist in providing adequate fire service to uses and residents in the project vicinity. The project will also include a CFD, which includes funding of fire services. An evacuation plan was prepared for the project and determined the project could be evacuated during a wildfire event and would not significantly impact the existing community or their ability to evacuate. The evacuation plan also identifies that residents within the Horse Creek Ridge development and the pass route project can evacuate using multiple routes identified in green in the slide as the project is near several major roadways. County staff have continued to receive feedback and comments from community members regarding timing of construction of the town center of Campus Park, as well as concerns that town center will be converted to a different use if the product is approved. Community members have also requested additional commercial uses in the area. The use of the town center will remain unchanged in the campus park specific plan area and staff have not received an application to change the town center. A site plan was approved in early 2025 for the redevelopment of the Palo Mesa Market commercial property in the project vicinity to include remodeling of the existing market as well as construction of a gas station with a convenience store and two 6,000 square foot retail buildings. Lastly, the approved campus park west specific plan area that has not yet been built contains approximately 513,000 square feet of approved commercial uses. Following public review of the project, the applicant revised the project to include additional parking spaces in larger garages to address community feedback including comments from the Fulbright Community Planning Group, or CPG. On May 19, 2025, the Fulbright CPG voted to recommend approval of the project based on the parking and garage changes, as well as the parks fees and maintenance requirements by a vote of 12 yes, 3 no, and 0 members vacant or absent. During public review of the project, the applicant presented the project to the I-15 Design Review Board on January 29, 2025. The primary comments from the I-15 DRB focused on garage sizes and parking spaces and potential trash can location concerns. On October 29, 2025, The I-15 DRB voted to recommend approval of the project based on the revisions to the parking spaces and larger garages by a vote of 4 yes, 0 no, and 1 member vacant or absent. Because the project complies with all relevant codes and regulations, would provide affordable housing or assist in financing affordable housing, is in conformance with all relevant goals and policies of the General Plan and Fulbright Community Plan, and the required findings can be made, staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation of approval of the project to the Board of Supervisors. Staff recommends the addition of a condition to require no natural gas for operation or infrastructure of the project that the applicant has agreed to based on coordination with stakeholders following the continuance request from the previous Planning Commission hearing. Staff also recommends that the Commission recommend to the Board to find the project in conformance with CEQA through the processing of an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report. This concludes the task presentation, and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, do you have any questions for staff based upon the presentation?

No?

Oh, yes, sir.

My understanding is that because it is a general plan amendments, it does not strictly comply with the objective design standards, so the Housing Accountability Act does not apply. Is that correct?

Is there something specific in the Housing Accountability Act that you're referencing and we could take a look at it and get back to you?

It wasn't addressed necessarily by a public comment, but it will determine my response to a certain public comment that was made late. So maybe if you want to get back while public comment is going on, that would be helpful. Absolutely. Thanks, Commissioner.

Madam Secretary, are there any planning or sponsor groups that wish to speak?

We do have one on hold for a CPG group, but if we wanted to go ahead and proceed with the applicant, we can, if he's ready, we can actually do the applicant presentation.

All right. Let's proceed with the presentation for the applicant to make their observations.

Good morning, commissioners. Chris Brown with the Passerell team. I appreciate that. Before I get started, I just wanted to thank county staff and county council for getting us here today. It's been a long, Hall, but we're here and we appreciate their support for the project. Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna probably need about six minutes and I'll run through it as quickly as I possibly can if that's okay with you and the Commission. Next slide please. As County staff shared with you, this is the 2011 Campus Park land use plan. We were in front of the planning commission in 2011 and then eventually the board. This plan was approved as staff had mentioned. We're talking today about the two blue parcels in the office professional and as staff pointed out the salmon colored area is the town center and I want to be very clear we're not proposing any changes to that. We've not made any applications and in fact all public comments that we've ever made or that I've ever made are going to be that we're gonna build the town center. Next slide, please. This is a 19, pardon me, this is a 2026 aerial view. You can see that this is an infill project surrounded by development of the Horse Creek Ridge project. We are surrounded also by, on three sides by development, but also two on the west side by the Palomar College. And you can also see the 15 freeway there. Across from the 15 is the Palo Mesa Resort, just to give you a sense of where this is. Again, this was taken about three months ago. Next slide, please. This is a little drone flight that we've put together for you. You're flying north here over the start of the Citron project, moving north. You can see that it's fully developed out. This is, again, a 138-home missing middle infill project. Coming up here is, again, more development. That is the town center vacant lot there to your left. Palomar College is coming up on your left. And as you go over the development again, fully developed out, you see the sports park there, the parking lot, and then you start to see these two vacant lots. As staff said, and as I'm gonna say today, This is a completed lot. Water sewer and everything is right up there. All we're doing right now is mowing it. That is our southern parcel, and this is the northern parcel. And you can see, again, we're surrounded on three sides by residential and the Palomar College and the 15 freeways to your north. Next slide, please. This is, as staff mentioned, this is the Passerelle South parcel. We're seeing the drone flight again, there you go. The south parcel is out of the 138 single family detached homes, the missing middle, the infill project that we're proposing, 103 of those units will be situated on this project site, the south parcel, next slide. The north parcel here is 35 units, again, of the 138 total, 35 will be here, you can see to the north is the 15 freeway, to the right or to the east is development and then of course bifurcated by the Frasian Way. Next slide please. When we took this project on, and I was involved with the original entitlements of this some 15 years ago, we saw it as an infill project. We wanted to make sure, and we spent a great deal of time and effort in the architecture, the paint palette, the colors, especially the streetscape, how that all looked and how that all... Conformed with seamlessly with what was out there in in the in the current neighborhood in the built-out neighborhood So this is a view of a of a streetscape on our south parcel next slide please this is again the streetscape for our north parcel and Spending all that time with staff with the community planning group We were able to come up with we think a design that is it fits very seamlessly in fact not only from an architectural and a planning standpoint, but from a density standpoint. In fact, our neighbors to the south are at about a density level of 12 dwelling units per acre and we're at like 11.5. So the density hasn't increased. The impacts associated with it are decreased from the office professional and we think it's really a very good plan. We spend a lot of time with the Fallbrook Planning Group and the community trying to figure out a best way to make this infill project work seamlessly. Next slide, please. When we talk about meeting with the planning group, we've spent a number of hours and numerous meetings with the Fallbrook Planning Group. One of the issues that came up recently was the size of the garages. Even though we submitted a plan that shows the community standard and the county standard of an 18-foot garage, the community mentioned that they thought the garages could be a little bit bigger. to handle some storage and also some bigger vehicles, et cetera. We said we would take a look at that under a condition that I'm not changing my streetscape, I'm not losing density, I'm not turning pocket parks into garage space, et cetera. And so the planning group said, okay, fine, we'll give you the time to go back and take a look at it. Next slide. And in that discussion also, and you're going to hear a lot about parking, let me be very clear about the parking. There is a parking problem out there, but as you saw from the drone footage, I haven't built a single thing. The parking problem that's out there now is existing from the current HOA. They need to do a better job of things that they've not done as far as enforcement. But we took the parking issue seriously. When we met with the planning group, they said, hey, there's a parking problem here. What would you do about it? So I said, listen, we'll go back. We'll see what we can get as far as more parking, even though we did submit a plan that showed that we were at the county standard. In fact, we exceeded it even then. But we said, listen, we'll go back. We'll take a look at it. But again, I'm not going to lose density. And more importantly, I have to be very, very careful that I don't do anything to the roads that would cause any issues with first responders coming in. So fire was a big deal in making sure we have signed off from the fire department on where the roads and parking. So what we did is we submitted a plan that had 49 parking spaces, again, exceeded the requirements by the county. And we came back and we said, hey, I think we can do this. And we provided the planning commission, or pardon me, the planning group with 16 additional parking spaces. So we went from 49 to 65, a 32% increase. We didn't lose any lots. We didn't lose any support from the fire department. We didn't lose any density and we were still able to keep the streetscape and the architecture the way we wanted it to be. Next slide, please. So when we say outreach, we spent a great deal of time with Fallbrook Planning Group, as you can see here, starting in 2021. We met with them several times and with the two slides I just mentioned and the two issues with parking and with the garages, We were able to seek their support and we received it on May 25th, 2025. As you can see there, it was 12 to 3. I will say for my own little antidote here, the three people that voted against the project were actually voting against the county. They even made statements that they did not like the standards that the county was proposing, and they think they should be higher, that even though we exceeded them, they should be higher. So they said, sorry, Chris, protest vote, we're going to vote no. Unfortunately, I would have had maybe a unanimous decision, which would have been great, but I'll take the 12 to 3. We also met with the Fallbrook Community Planning Group Land Use Committee. received a thumbs up from them. The Fallbrook Design Review Board Committee, January 2025, received a thumbs up from them. As staff mentioned, the I-15 Design Review Board, yes, there is such a thing. And we met with them in January and then received their endorsement in October of 2025. And we have reached out to the Horse Creek Ridge HOA previously, and we had meetings even May of this year to discuss some of their concerns, some of their issues. Next slide please. And when you do outreach and you spend a great deal of time, hopefully you get support. And so we think we have a broad community and agency support. We have received the recommendation from the San Diego County Planning and Development Services for an approval. We have the Fallbrook Community Planning Group request for approval and approve the project. And the I-15 Design Review Board, as I mentioned, 4-0. And then what I'm pleased to say is that in my 20-some-odd years of doing this, we were able to work with the Endangered Habitats League, Dan Silver. We came before you in June and asked for a continuance so that we could work with Mr. Silver. We were successful in that, and I think this is probably... Those that have been on the Commission for a long time, I think this is maybe the first or second letter that EHL has ever written in support of a project. So to wrap up, we, the Passerell team, respectfully request the Planning Commission support the staff recommendation and that you would join with these agencies, organizations. neighboring property owners, and interested community leaders in supporting the Paso Real project. Our team is here to discuss any issues that come up during public testimony, and if I may, Mr. Chairman, reserve a few minutes for rebuttal if necessary.

That's acceptable. I understand the issue on the parking. I read the letters and the comments. There also seemed to be, Mr. Brown, some issue about... I'm not sure what the proper description would be, ladies and gentlemen, but the overloading of the park. Can you give us some information on that?

Yes. When we originally entitled and designed the Passerelle Park or Passerelle Project, which is now called Campus Park, but then back to Passerelle, that park that is in question is a community park. It is a county park. It is a park that is open to anybody, not just the residents of the HOA, not just the people of Horse Ridge Creek. We have shared that comment previously. several times with the HOA that this is a community park. It was requested from the county when we did the original entitlements for a community park. And the HOA that we're proposing will pay into that fund to maintain that park. But that is a park that is open to everybody from Chula Vista to Fall Brook can use that park. There's no restrictions on that. The only item of interest is that when they were doing when when DR Horton bought the property and they started to develop and started to do some things they took some lots out and put in a pool and jacuzzi kind of community area. We are not suggesting that we're part of that. So we're going to pay HOA fees just like everybody else for the maintenance of the parks and everything else.

Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, do you have any questions at this time of the applicant? Yes, sir, Mr. Ashby.

I just have a quick question. The information provided in the staff report shows a three-story residences. Yes. Is the top floor, in looking at that, it seemed to me like it's kind of like something that's an optional thing? Yes. So is it possible that there's going to be, some of these are going to be two-story?

Yes. In fact, Mr. Ashman, through the Chair, we spent a great deal of time talking to our building partners, KB, Lenar, others, and seeing what, from the market standpoint, would work out there. Some places, coming out of COVID, wanted an extra space for maybe a learning area for children or something like that. As far as I know from talking to our builders and some of them are my clients They've said we may or may not use the third story But we'd like it as an option and it may be one of those things where four or five of them are a three-story maybe none it just depends and when the When we come back to eventually build it if we get approved There will probably be some substantial conformance discussions on whether some or all will have the third story in some cases They may not have any All right, thank you any other questions

Yes. One question. It may be more of a question for staff than the applicant. But did I read in the staff report that there is a recommendation for no natural gas to the property? And if so, is that something the applicant is agreeable to? Or is that an issue?

Yes, that was one of the issues that Mr. Silver and some others had brought forward is that some projects are now being required to do all electric. We didn't see that as a problem, and in fact, we reached out to some of our building partners, and they said, in fact, Chris, most of the projects that we're building now in Southern California are going to be all electric and no natural gas. So it was an easy yes for us, Mr. Sudbury. Okay. And our team is here to answer any questions if anything comes up. Thank you very much.

Any further questions, ladies and gentlemen? All right, let's proceed to public testimony. Madam Secretary, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?

Chair Edwards, yes, we do. I'm actually going to go and do, we do have one caller on the line that was a participant for the CPT group. So I'm going to go ahead and let them speak and then proceed with all of the public testimony. All right, thank you.

Good morning. My name is Janine Domer. I am the second vice chair of the Fallbrook Planning Group. And during the review process of Passerell, we did have two concerns. The first one, as Chris mentioned, was garage sizes. Although the plans were originally presented to us did meet the county requirements, we were concerned that they were too small and impractical and should be larger. The second concern we had was parking. Again, the plans did comply with county regulations, but we were concerned that the number of parking places were not sufficient. We did work extensively with Passerelle, and they heard our concerns and made changes. Garage sizes were expanded, and they did add 16 extra parking spaces. Because of these changes, the Faubourg Planning Group voted to recommend approval of the Passerelle project. As a side note, I also sit on the I-15 corridor and we did vote for approval as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Next.

And now we will go ahead and proceed with the public testimony. I'm going to go ahead and call your names up in groups of three. So when your name is called, please approach the lectern. And today, keep in mind you will have two minutes to speak. I have Brad, Paul Varandy, Paul, Clucas, and Peter Anderson.

My name is Brad Poverenti. I'm a resident in Horse Creek Ridge. I have a daughter who's four and a half and we have another one on the way. And I really hope you listen to our concerns. While I am pro-housing and I appreciate the work that Chris Brown has done and his people, they're not living there. The people who are approving this aren't living there and haven't seen. I'm in, like I said, Horse Creek Ridge. We have a lot of folks who use their garage for storage. Is there a plan to make sure people don't use their garage for storage? And why I say that is then they take their cars and park on the street. We have a problem with it in our community, and I'm hoping our board is going to be taking care of that. My question is, what are they doing for that? Number two, why is there no pool? We've seen when Citro was added, that's the Meadowbrook property, people coming into our community using our pool. Even though they have a pool, it's a large community with one pool. I don't see a pool. It sounds to me like it's a money issue. The fire concern is what really, really matters. Scares me and I am a huge proponent of our emergency services. I want to say thank the firemen and and sheriffs who are in the in the room today Ten minutes. I don't know if you've read in the proposal, but it's going to add ten minutes to our evacuation time ask Malibu Ask Ulta Dana ten minutes is the difference of life and death and I'm amazed that somebody would have the audacity to put in that report Oh, it's only ten minutes ten minutes could be the death of my child my two children soon and So when I see that, I'm very concerned. I'm already telling my wife, when we have a yellow, the yellow alert, we need to be moving. 750 units in our property, plus whatever Citro was. We have a lot of people in that community. If you haven't been up to our community, I hope you come up. It's a beautiful area, very close to wine country. But I think you need to see what we're dealing with before we bring in 138 units with no pool, no parking, and only two ways in and out. Yeah, that's multiple entries, but it's two ways in and out. A lot of people are going to die if we have a fire.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you very much. I'm going to talk very fast. It sounds like the timeframe has been reduced. Mr. Chairman, I'm Paul Klukas. I'm a resident of Horse Creek Ridge. I've also owned a planning consulting firm in San Diego County for over 20 years. And I'm also a member of the Horse Creek Ranch HOA Board of Directors. I'm going to take this opportunity to talk a little bit more. I know you've got a lot of information that you've gotten regarding the technical problems that Horse Creek has got with the project. But I wanted to talk a little bit about the bigger picture planning perspective that's different than most of the comments that you've received. 20 years ago, this area was not slated for any development. Then smart growth was the planning buzzword. And the campus park specific plan was approved by the board at that time because it was identified by SANDAG and by the county as a location for a prime smart growth community. Smart growth at that time was defined by the board of directors, and I quote, as a mixed use community proximate with services, transit, jobs, and community amenities. The intent of the county was that the campus park was designed to create that mixed-use development so it would reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. But the county is now changing the rules. They're changing the land uses. This direction of change is now taking the county to dumb growth. We've got none of the services, none of the jobs, and none of the amenities that Smart Growth would have had. We have homes, and we have more homes. Even today, over 1,600 residential units are in our community. We have to travel over 15 miles to get to any decent community services or to any jobs and any commercial services. Approval of this project is going to eliminate future jobs and future services. The only other thing I would ask is that if you are going to approve this, please put some type of condition on it that they not do the same thing with the town center site because we're very concerned that that's going to happen.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Dr. Peter Anderson. I'm a volunteer leader of Sierra Club, and Sierra Club unanimously opposes this project. The EIR was hopelessly outdated because the original EIR was from a different project. It was office and commercial, now it's residential development. There's no current analysis of VMT. Now, the county is going to tell you they don't have to do that anymore for a prior approved project, but that was a different project. That was for an office and industrial project. The Olin and the Hillsdale decisions, according to our lawyers, do not apply. 15183 exemption should not be invoked in this situation. They still should do a VMT analysis. There's no mitigation for greenhouse gas in this project or air pollution. Other projects that we've been negotiating put money into a fund. to ameliorate greenhouse gas, but that's not true of this project. We are concerned about the wildfire issue, as the previous speaker said. The environmental review set the prior FER for the approved project did not contain a discussion of wildfire-related issues in its own topical category. The evacuation plan did not presume cumulative impact A real evacuation plan would assess the whole area. In 10 minutes, that might be... dangerous. It might not be, but you need a good plan. Finally, this masquerades as affordable housing. This is not affordable housing. 5% is a pittance, and they're not even going to do that because they're going to pay an in-lieu fee. So we urge you to make them do a better EIR with a real VMT analysis, with greenhouse gas mitigation, with a basic good evacuation plan, Sierra Club unanimously opposes this project. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Madam Secretary, any other speakers?

Thank you. If we can definitely hold the applause. Thank you so much. We have now Tanya Ayau and Chris Brown.

You did a great job with my name.

My name is Tanya Wilkins-Ayao. I'm a resident of Acomba. And I have had personal experience with the project that they've been doing on the solar there, which has had a great impact on my health. Two months after they started the project, I was having problems breathing, and I was diagnosed with COPD, which now has, regardless that our community got $4 million, nothing is going to fix my health. I'm stuck with this. I'm a co-manager at the community center there. We're there for the community. We happen to be the closest building to the project.

Matt, I hate to interrupt you, but I believe you're speaking on the The next item, item number two, the Hocumba project?

No, I'm speaking about the health hazards that I have experienced because of having a big project being dug up when you're very close to houses and people around it. Because they said that they were going to mitigate the dust, But their guidelines, they had no way to measure, and they stopped taking our calls. So I'm just saying that my experience, this is what they said they were going to do. They did not. They failed, and my health is gone because of them saying that they were going to be able to mitigate that dust and stuff. They're 200 feet from our houses and our community building. And the same thing is going to be Boulevard when they start digging everything up. It's all this old dirt.

Thank you very much Next speaker Up next we did have Chris Brown. Are you here in person? Okay, so we'll go ahead and proceed with our callers for Item number one

Hello, my name is Michael Gogol. I live in Horse Creek Ridge with my family, and I'd ask the Commission to focus on the justification to change the approved land use from professional offices. That justification is no longer valid because it's based on an outdated March 2001 report that's now five years old. That report focused solely on whether office professional uses would be valid after the COVID pandemic lockdown. On page 109 of that report, it confirms in its limiting conditions that it has a very limited shelf life because it includes that this analysis should be updated at least every three to six months to account for possible changes that could materially impact the market viability of the development. So not only does this market analysis fail to consider other commercial uses, it concedes that it cannot be considered valid after no more than three or six months. The staff report mentions this market analysis. The applicant's presentation does not even address it whatsoever because both clearly understand that it is an insufficient basis to change directly to residential use. There are other commercial uses that this property, these properties could provide, such as a gym or a fitness center, childcare or a daycare center, assisted living facilities, or one of the larger medical offices that I see Kaiser, Scripps, and other medical groups building all over our county. There are no such facilities in the town of Fallbrook whatsoever. The closest facilities are in Temecula, Escondido, or along the 76th corridor after you get into Oceanside. My family needs to drive at least a half an hour to obtain medical. There should not be more housing in lieu of actual services that the current residents could accept. So even if this commission were to grant a land use change based on this outdated market analysis, then it should at least follow that analysis as recommended home size, which was 1700 to 2200 square feet. Every single proposed residence exceeds that 2200 square foot, including three-story residences, which will be built regardless of what the applicant says today. I'd also ask the commission to disregard Mr. Brown's comments regarding the parking problem. There is no parking problem in Horse Creek Ridge near these proposed redevelopments. That parking problem is south of the county park, not in the streets that will be adjacent to this proposed development. And there is in fact only one out of a possible eight streets that border this proposed development that allows public parking, street parking.

Thank you, sir. Could you summarize, please?

Gentlemen, madams, do your job. Deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next caller, please.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Christopher Hallmeyer and I live on Australian Way right next to this project. And I am on the record as a token to this project. I'm speaking for myself and my family today, but there are approximately 12 homes on Australian Way that share the same situation we do. When we bought our home in 2018, we checked what was owned next door and it was commercial offices. This is a big part of my decision to buy in Horse Creek Ridge where I bought because offices don't have bedroom windows that are looking into your backyard and into your home. These condominiums will. The staff presentation covered traffic, parking, parks, and fire, but it doesn't mention what my main concern was for these 12 homeowners because it hadn't been studied yet. The developer's own plans show that their closest building pad on the easternmost edge of Parcel 2, the south parcel, sits at 370 feet. The ground on a steering way is approximately 400 feet. So when these three-story condominiums are built on those pads, those top four bedroom windows will be eye-level with our backyard. Those windows will look straight into my house, into my neighbor's house, into my bedroom and my kids' bedrooms all day, every day. When D.R. Horton originally built these homes, they built them not expecting to have residences on the west side of these houses that would stare into and know it went the right way. The county did respond to this concern, but only about the height. They said that the height was the same as the old commercial approval, which is true, but they never addressed the change in use. An office or commercial space backs up to my house with a wall. A townhome backs up to it with a bedroom window. It's a completely different impact at the same height, and for the 12 homes that are impacted by this the most, that impact has never been analyzed. The planning group vote and the design review or vote, voted for changes based on garages and parking, but nobody has voted or even addressed the issue up to this point. Nothing on the record lists the view from the third floor of these proposed condominiums into our homes. The photo simulations on record only show the view from ours. The staff also pointed out to the commercial projects nearby, including the Palma Mason Campus Park West project. However, neither one of those had been built and given the timeline that things are being built currently today, It's real and expected to assume that it'll never be rebuilt. So what I'm asking for today is not that just benefits me, but benefits the neighbors and the community at large. The four things that we're asking for is that we, the commission approved on a condition that there are no bedroom windows on the east side of the closest building on the easternmost edge of the south parcel lot. That privacy screening is built along the boundary. Thank you, sir.

Could you summarize, please?

Yes. We want the commission to do its job and to vote no on this project. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Anita. Hi, my name is Anita. I live at Horse Creek Ridge. The first person to talk from this community said it the best when he said, these people do not live here. They don't know what we're dealing with. There are people that have to walk two and three blocks to get to our harvest house pool. They also have to use their cars because some of them are too far away and they have too many pool supplies for their kids and things like that. It's a danger to put All those homes in that community because of the driving, the people that will be coming in and out of there and the residents who live in the homes have to walk. And when they're walking around there, there's no room for them. There's also, that's where the buses are. We were promised when we bought in 2019, we were promised there would be 250 homes. 800 homes later, which means 1600 cars There is no way that if a fire came through here, we wouldn't be impacted. It's ridiculous. There's also buses that come through there. We were promised a school bus. We were promised schools. There's no schools. Instead, they're all out there waiting for their kids. And the problem with the parking that we see in our southern area is going to happen. It's the same thing to Freesia if these plans are gone ahead with. So please, we're begging you, especially with those people that paid lot premiums to have clear views. And now the three stories monstrosity is going to block their views and it's going to create tension where there doesn't need to be any. There's no reason they needed to go three stories with those. And there's no parking. There's no provisions for fire. People are going to try to leave from this community. In the case of a fire like we just had a month ago, people were calling us saying, are you evacuating because we have fires up and down the 15 freeway? And nobody, nobody will be able to get out of here. There's too many homes.

Thank you. Could you summarize, please?

Yes, I would just like if you could please consider if you lived here, I want you to think about what you would plan for, what the person who owns that property should be giving us an opportunity to have pickleball, a full basketball court next to the pool or a dog park. We do not need more homes. Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes all of our public testimony.

That concludes public testimony. Commissioners, do any of you folks have questions for either the applicant or the staff on the issues that were raised? No questions? I would like staff to comment on the issue or perhaps the applicant of the fire evacuation. I know that we've gone through this commissioners over and over and over again, but I assume without knowing, and you know what happens when you assume, that this was studied in some detail, Mr. Slovick?

Chair Edwards, that's correct. We worked closely with the Sheriff's Department as well as the local fire district who are both here today. Through that analysis and working with both of them, they did not identify any concerns with the development project, and I'll turn it over to Lieutenant Twyman to kind of cover his thoughts on the project. Yes, sir.

Sorry about that. Good morning. Yeah, of all the projects that are continuously going on, this one happens to be next to the 15, which moves the most amount of cars, has the most development. There's multiple entrances and accents, which is always a concern with these projects. The Sheriff's Office, although there is an evacuation plan, it's a framework because every fire there's so many different variables to time of day, whether it's weekends or whether it's commuting times, the weather. We work very closely with fire to determine the best evacuation plan at the time, and I feel that this plan is adequate. based on the amount of access and the routes to go north and south, and even east, which really isn't mentioned, but it is an option on 76. Some of our fires go in really different directions. We really can't predict that, so there are more than one route to use.

Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant, ladies and gentlemen? All right, then... Having heard all the public testimony, ladies and gentlemen, Is there a motion on this project?

I believe staff has a response to the earlier question.

Oh, I apologize.

Chair, apologies for this. Commissioner Sibelico wanted to follow up on your question earlier. So we've looked at it. The Housing Accountability Act basically requires local jurisdictions to approve housing developments that are consistent with the general plan and zoning. Since this project does include a general plan amendment and a rezone, it would not qualify under the Housing Accountability Act. So just wanted to report back on that. Okay, thank you.

All right, we've heard public testimony. Ladies and gentlemen, we've heard the applicant and staff's responses. Having heard all the public testimony, ladies and gentlemen, is there a motion on item number one? Is there a motion to approve or deny? I will move staff's recommendation. All right, we have a motion. to approve staff recommendation. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a second for the approval of the project, or rather the motion. Any further discussion? If not, let's go ahead and vote.

Commissioners, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallager.

Yes.

Commissioner Weber. Yes. Commissioner Sudbury.

Yes.

And Commissioner Sabalico.

Yes.

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

All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your patience. We will now begin item number two, Starlight Solar. And we will begin with the staff presentation.

Chair, if it's okay, before we go into our PowerPoint, while we change seating up here, I'll just make a few introductory comments to kind of set the stage. So in California, in the state level, there's been a lot of legislation that has set renewable energy goals for 2045 at the state. To achieve these goals, counties in California are seeing renewable energy projects proposed by private property owners throughout California. San Diego County is seeing similar projects proposed with many in the... Thank you, audience. We'll try to be a little louder while people change out in the room. So San Diego County has seen similar projects proposed with several proposed in the East County, these large renewable energy projects. The reason the projects are primarily going there is that's where there is space, where there is undeveloped land. Today's project, Starlight Solar, is one of these projects that is being proposed in the community of Boulevard. This is the largest project that we've seen in the unincorporated county, though there have been much larger projects throughout the state. When a project like this is submitted, there are years of technical studies done to analyze project impacts, prepare associated mitigation measures before a project goes forward for consideration. Part of that process includes engagement with local communities and stakeholders. And in response, there have been several projects to the design of this one before it's come forward for your consideration today. Local communities provide insights that are critical to shape project design, conditions, and ultimately decisions on whether a project is approved or denied. Today we'll go through our staff presentation, the applicant will make a presentation, and then we'll hear important community comments as well. Today, the PC will be asked to make a recommendation before the project goes to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. While this project has been reviewed at the staff level, and we believe it meets all the local requirements, the Planning Commission absolutely has the purview to propose and make recommendations for additional project changes at either the design or condition level before the project goes to the Board of Supervisors. If that happens, staff will absolutely work with the project applicant and community to refine any of those recommendations before we bring a project forward to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Thanks for letting us kind of lay out how this is going to work, and now we'll go into our staff presentation.

Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been in conference with county council, staff, and the commission. And in view of the number of folks here who wish to speak, we will give both the applicant and the community 30 minutes each for their presentations. Individual speakers will have two minutes, so please keep that in mind as you plan your presentation. I might add that the Board of Supervisors, if there are more than 10 speakers, gives one minute. So we're going to give the individuals twice as much time as the board will give you. There will be no cumulative testimony. So if you testify as one of these group presentations, you will not be testifying as an individual. So please keep that in mind. Do you want to proceed with the staff presentation at this time?

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Commissioners. I'm Nick Kotefides with Planning and Development Services. Today I will be presenting on item number two, which is the Starlight Solar Major Use Permit. On June 12, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item to today's hearing. PDS is before you today recommending approval of the solar and battery facility project with modifications, including an increased buffer from the community of Boulevard.

Madam Secretary, I'm afraid the audience can't hear you.

Could you hear us? We're going to take just a brief moment to restart the video and see if we can get the audio a little louder.

Just one moment. Ah, technology.

is the Starlight Solar Major Use Permit. On June 12th, 2026, the Planning Commission...

Apologies, ladies and gentlemen, it's technology at work.

Thank you.

that much opposition to the Falls Road project. Frankly, it's a really nice project. But, you know, unless I go there and take a look, I don't know what the issues are with parking. I mean, is everybody trying to use the pool? Or is it like Tierra Santa? If you go up to my old neighborhood, Villa Trinidad, unit number five, I guess people are using their garages for storage and everybody has two or three cars. Yeah.

Chair, perhaps we just take a 5-10 minute recess to let them work on the technology and let folks use the restroom.

No problem. Let's go.

And we are ready to go.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and commissioners. I'm Nikola Fides with Planning and Development Services. Today, I'll be presenting on item number two, which is the Starlight Solar Major Use Permit. On June 12, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item to today's hearing. PDS is before you today recommending approval of the solar and battery facility project with modifications, including an increased buffer from the community of Boulevard. The Starlight Solar Project site is located within the community of Boulevard and the Mountain Empire sub-regional planning area, approximately one mile south of Interstate 8 and one mile north from the United States-Mexico border. The project is a solar energy generation and battery storage facility which will produce 100 megawatts of solar power and 217 megawatts of battery storage. As originally proposed by the applicant in 2022, the solar facility and major use permit area totaled 588 acres. The project will be conducted in two phases. The first phase includes 20 megawatts of solar and 17 megawatts of battery storage, and the second phase includes 80 megawatts of solar and 200 megawatts of battery storage. The proposed solar and battery facility is considered a major impact service and utility use and is allowed by zoning with the approval of a major use permit. In response to community concerns and consistent with several of the Boulevard Community Planning Group's recommendations, county staff supports increased setbacks of 300 feet from Jewel Valley Road, 400 feet from the northernmost property line, and 500 feet from existing permitted residences. Although the solar facility development footprint has been reduced, the facility will be able to generate approximately 86 megawatts of solar and 217.4 megawatts of battery storage on approximately 500 acres. For the rest of this presentation, this will be referred to as the staff recommended project. The project will be conducted in two phases. Phase one includes 125 acres with 20 megawatts of solar and 17.4 megawatts of battery storage. With the staff recommended changes, phase two includes 375 acres with approximately 64 megawatts of solar and 200 megawatts of battery storage. The project site will include security perimeter fencing and access will be provided by driveways off Jewel Valley Road. There are two types of electric current, direct current, referred to as DC, and alternating current, or AC. The solar panels generate DC energy. An underground system will collect the energy from the solar panels and connect to the inverters. An inverter converts the power from the solar panels to AC power, which is compatible with the grid. A transformer then takes the converted power and increases the electricity to a higher voltage. The inverter transformer platforms will be connected through an underground system to the collector substation. The collector substation collects all solar power from the facility and further increases the voltage so it is compatible with the grid distribution level. The substation components will be a maximum of 50 feet in height. The proposed 0.6 mile transmission line is proposed to be undergrounded except for an overhead section across Tule Gym Lane and then will be undergrounded until it connects to the boulevard substation. The project also includes a battery energy storage system. The battery containers are proposed at two locations shown in the slide. The battery energy storage system will have a maximum capacity of 217 megawatts. The image shown depicts a typical battery storage container. Battery energy storage systems, or BES, provides flexibility to the electrical grid by storing energy produced during periods of oversupply and discharging it to the electrical grid during periods of high demand. Each steel container will be approximately 6 feet wide, 5.5 feet deep, and 8 feet high. The system will use lithium iron phosphate batteries. Each battery storage container will have an internal fire detection and suppression system. The solar panels will be mounted on single-axis trackers that allow the panels to track the path of the sun throughout the day. The solar panels at full tilt will be up to 12 feet in height from the graded ground surface at their highest point. The area underneath the solar panels will be hydro-seated and vegetation would be maintained throughout the operational life of the solar facility for dust and erosion control. A decommissioning plan and a bonded agreement are required to ensure decommissioning of the entire facility. The project will be conditioned to remove all components after its operational use, including both above and below ground components. Most of the solar facility materials can be recycled or reclaimed. Remaining materials that cannot be recycled or reclaimed will be contained and disposed of off-site.

During processing of the project, the county received comments from stakeholders, including the Boulevard Community Planning Group and community members of Boulevard and Hacumba Hot Springs. In addition, various organizations, agencies, and tribes provided comments. These comments included concerns primarily related to visual resources, biological resources, wildfire risk, and battery fire suppression. This slide shows a comparison of the existing view from Interstate 8 and a simulation of the proposed solar facility. At higher elevations, most of the solar facility is visible. The visual impact analysis in the EIR determined that the solar facility's impacts to views from Interstate 8 would be significant. As a result, these visual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The staff recommended project will include a 448 acre biological open space easement, which is highlighted in purple in this slide. The open space is contiguous to undeveloped land and will be managed in perpetuity. Based on agency input and site specific conditions, the project incorporates a wildlife movement corridor with a minimum width of 150 feet through the site. The corridor is intended to maintain north-south wildlife movement and connectivity between surrounding open space areas. The exact alignment and final design of the wildlife corridor will be refined in coordination with the wildlife agencies and the county and finalized prior to issuance of grading permits. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the final EIR, impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant. A fire protection plan has been prepared, which identifies fire risks and identifies measures that will mitigate those risks. These measures include improved access, fuel management zones throughout the solar and battery facility, water tanks, and the use of steel poles. Boulevard Fire Station is located approximately one mile from the boundary of the proposed facility. The staff recommended project is required to implement a fire protection and mitigation agreement, which requires approval by the Board of Supervisors. This agreement will ensure funding for firefighting and emergency medical resources. The fire protection plan and the mitigation agreement have been reviewed and approved by the County Fire Protection District. With the implementation of the fire protection plan and agreement, the project will have a less than significant wildfire impact. Comments were received regarding the potential for smoke, gases, or small particles to be released if a battery fire were to occur at the proposed battery energy facility. The project was required to prepare a hazard mitigation analysis, which evaluates the safety of a proposed battery and what could go wrong and how it can be mitigated pursuant to fire guidelines. As part of the analysis, a plume modeling study was prepared, which evaluates how smoke or gases from a potential battery incident could travel through the air and whether those impacts could reach nearby homes, schools, or other sensitive receptors. The analysis was subject to third-party review by the county and an outside third-party consultant. Based on the separation distance, the plume study concluded that the battery facility is adequately sited. Additionally, the analysis found that the proposed batteries are required to be 10 feet apart as proposed. With implementation of the agreement and the fire protection plan, county staff has determined that there would be a less than significant impact caused by the battery facility. In order to grant a major use permit, findings must be made demonstrating that a project is consistent with other uses and structures in the surrounding area. The major use permit findings can be made based on the increased setbacks and the existing infrastructure in the area. A number of factors contribute to the suitability of the site for a solar facility. PDS finds the site suitable because it is an area where there is existing transmission and renewable energy infrastructure, including the Boulevard substation, Sunrise Power Link, Thule Wind, Kumeyaay Wind, the Rugged Solar and Boulevard Solar projects. Panels would be up to 12 feet tall, and the battery enclosures would be up to 10 feet tall, and the substation structures would be about 50 feet tall, comparable to nearby transmission infrastructure. The project includes setbacks, fuel management zones, anti-reflective panels, glare controls, minimized lighting, screening, and wildlife permeable fencing. About 448 acres would be preserved in permanent open space. Construction traffic would be temporary with about 258 daily trips in phase one and 699 trips in phase two and operational trips would be minimal. Based on staff's analysis and increased setbacks, the findings for a major use permit can be made. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. An EIR was prepared and may have available for a 46 day public review period from July 31st to September 15th of 2025. A total of 35 comment letters were received during the public review period with most of the comments being in opposition to the project. Comments on the EIR were received from tribes, agencies, organization, as well as from individuals. Six issue areas have potentially significant impacts that will be mitigated to less than significant. These include biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The EIR determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to visual resources. Thus, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared and is included as an attachment to the hearing report. A decision-making agency may decide to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for a project because the agency views that the economic, social, technological, and other benefits resulting from the project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts. The County identified several overriding benefits proposed by the project. The project would generate about 100 megawatts of solar energy, helping the state meet its clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals under SB 100. The project supports local energy reliability. Phase one has a power purchase agreement with SDG&E for 20 megawatts. The project includes up to 217 megawatts of battery energy storage, which supports California's energy storage goals under Assembly Bill 2514. The project would reduce reliance on fossil fuel generation and is estimated to avoid about 29,700 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. The project also includes community benefits, including a project labor agreement for union construction labor, and then additional community benefits will be described on the next slide. The project includes a community benefit package with two main parts. For phase one, the applicant has committed approximately $900,000 to refurbish the Backcountry Resource Center. For phase two, the applicant would provide a community benefits package for Boulevard residents at a rate of around $22,000 per megawatt. This benefit is intended to operate as a 20-year electricity bill reimbursement program that covers 20% of eligible Boulevard residents' electricity bills with a total estimated value of around 6.2 million. On October 2nd, 2025, the CPG first voted to recommend approval, but that motion failed on a two to two vote. Because it needed four votes to pass, that same day a second motion to recommend approval with contingencies also failed on a three to two vote. Then on November 6th, 2025, the CPG voted to recommend approval with conditions and that motion passed four to zero. Those conditions focused on a larger community benefit package of about $7 million, increased setbacks of 300 feet from roads, 400 feet from property line, and 500 feet from residences, stronger battery fire risk mitigation, wildlife corridors, native vegetation buffers, pollinator-friendly ground cover, reptile-friendly fencing, avian considerate panels, and water harvesting features. On April 10th, the CPG voted 4-0 to send a letter to the county raising additional concerns, including relocation of the batteries, additional plume and wind modeling, an increased water supply, emergency notification, a secondary evacuation route along Thule Gym Road, additional fire protection resources, wildlife protections, construction limits, dust control, and avoiding construction traffic on Jewel Valley Road. On May 7th, the CPG voted to send a letter to the county because it aligned with concerns the CPG wanted considered The letter requested that the batteries be relocated, that a paved secondary evacuation route be provided, a community-wide BESS alarm system, a battery alarm system, at least 200,000 gallons of water storage, added emergency response resources, increased setbacks, stricter construction hours, and a guaranteed community benefit fund of at least $7 million. On June 16, 2026, county staff attended a community town hall meeting in Boulevard to discuss public questions and concerns regarding the project. At the town hall, the community expressed concerns related to fire suppression water supply. In response to this, staff work with the applicant who has agreed to provide the agricultural pond on Empire Ranch as a water resource for the San Diego Fire District in the event of a fire associated with the project. The pond is located adjacent to the residential compound on Jewel Valley Road, directly across from the northern portion of the project. The pond contains approximately 1.8 million gallons of water, which is approximately 5.5 acre feet. At a continuous flow rate, the pond could provide water for approximately 120 hours or five days before being depleted. Additionally, the project will be conditioned to use non-toxic herbicides for vegetation management throughout the site. The only exception is for the offsite open space restoration area adjacent to the border where different vegetation management practices will be necessary.

Community members have requested that the county consider additional conditions of approval intended to provide greater benefits and protections to the community. These requests fall into three categories. First, additional fire safety measures including relocating the Phase 2 battery energy storage system farther from homes and evacuation routes and requiring a water retention basin to support emergency response and groundwater protection. Second, enhanced construction monitoring, including independent monitoring of dust and noise, along with additional accountability and enforcement during construction activities. Third, increased community benefits. Specifically, community members requested a minimum $7 million community impact fund, fully funded in Phase 1. The community has expressed a preference for that approach instead of the proposed electricity bill reimbursement program. The Planning Commission may consider the remaining community requested measures during its deliberation on the project. Because the project complies with relevant codes and regulations and the required findings can be made, staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the staff-recommended project, including the additional conditions discussed in the Town Hall related to the fire water supply and vegetation management discussed and as detailed in the staff report. Staff also recommends that the Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors to find the project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act through the processing of an EIR and adoption of environmental findings, which include adoption of a statement of overriding considerations and implementation of a mitigation and monitoring program. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions.

Thank you very much, staff. Commissioners, this is a bit of a complex project. Do you have any questions of staff at this time before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, do we have a community sponsor group who wishes to speak? Madam Secretary?

I currently don't have anyone registered as a CPG or CSG. Is there anyone who registered today to speak that would like to speak on behalf of the CPG or CSG? We do have one item. If you can, go ahead and approach the lectern and then state your name for the record. You still have your two minutes to speak.

YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP?

YES.

GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS ANTHONY ROSS.

GOOD MORNING, PLANNING COMMISSION.

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

YES.

Good morning, Planning Commission. My name is Anthony Ralphs. I'm the Vice Chair of the Boulevard Planning Group. The Planning Group voted in favor of this project on the contingency that it fulfill conditions of approval. Those conditions of approval have either been met or will be codified into county conditions of approval. This developer is the first to create a voluntary community benefits agreement for a solar project of this kind. This would be the biggest solar project in the County of San Diego. Now much of the discussion has been centered around the cumulative impact that all these projects would have on the back country. but virtually no discussion has been had regarding how this first of its kind plume analysis will revolutionize the industry and create greater setback requirements and safety standards on every development project of this kind that moves forward. Now, we've had four years of meetings on this conversation. This project is not a new project. There was at least three meetings where this project was voted down until enough contingencies were offered to our community and a community benefits agreement package was presented to our community that our community thought was sufficient and that's why we voted in favor of this. Those contingencies have been met and the developer has showed a continuing willingness to work with the community in good faith to make sure that all safety standards have been enforced and have been met. The community's concerns are valid. We have been historically utilized as an industrial dumping ground for all kinds of projects. So when we request additional community benefits, it is with this understanding. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Good morning. My name is Carl Anderson III. I'm a resident in the community, 2508 Alta Viva Road. I'm a board member of the Rill East County Fire Safe Council and a board member on the Boulevard Community Planning Group. I oppose this best project and my community opposes this best project. I have been told that this project will move forward. That is what I was threatened with as a board member. So in order to give something to the community, that's why I said voted no, voted no, or abstained, and then finally, with contingencies, voted yes. It's ultimately to make the community safer. This project... If it's approved with you guys to recommend it forward, the community must be protected. You must move the batteries to the southernmost part of the project near the border wall. You've got to keep it away from the people. You have to use the absolute safest batteries to minimize risk. It doesn't matter the cost. If they're expensive, let them pay for it. But they've got to be the safest batteries that are out there, not the cheapest. And to establish a community benefit fund of at least $7 million. This is to bring balance to the project. This is a blight on our community, and if they're gonna force it down our throats, then they should have to offset that with something. Everything was contingent on, contingent on. These people want, my people want, I want something to offset this terrible project. And then as a side note, Commissioner Sobolico, last time we met, we asked for a 90-day extension. You said 30 was enough. We had 10 people here. And you said it was 10% of the community. This might be 10% of the community. We might have like 40 people here now. We actually are trying to get this out. And last thing to say, I'm not sure when it happened, but the plume study was released to you guys on Wednesday. Is that correct? You guys studied it on Thursday. I got it at 345 last night. I haven't read all 49 pages, but have you guys looked into it?

Sir, would you please summarize? You're not doing your position any good by running over the time that the chair has allotted to you.

Thank you for your time, guys. Appreciate it. Please vote no.

Thank you. Any further members of the community planning group wishing to speak? If not, then let's proceed to the applicant. As previously indicated, the chair has given 30 minutes to both sides. You may use all or part of it. You may reserve some time for a rebuttal if you care to do that. With that, go ahead and please proceed.

Thank you very much, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Christopher Fahey. I'm here just to bring a couple of words from the Hagen family who owns the Empire Ranch and who is the applicant for this project. The Hagen family has owned this property for over 60 years and has been a good steward and a good neighbor to the community. We've contributed when asked for improvements, small improvements like carpeting in community rooms and things like that throughout the community. We've provided the electronic equipment that the community planning group now uses to be able to Zoom their meetings publicly. So the Hagans have been involved, have been participating in this community throughout these years. I JUST WANT TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY BECAUSE IT'S DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY INCORPORATED IN THE PROJECT BASED ON COMMUNITY INPUT. AFTER YOU'VE HEARD, WHAT YOU RECENTLY HEARD IS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP FOR FOUR YEARS. THIS PROJECT'S BEEN DISCUSSED OVER EIGHT YEARS BETWEEN STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP. So we've gone through it all. We've endured the public comments that have exceeded and surpassed the public comment period on this project for over eight months. And we've tried to address them all. We've worked very hard to address them all, to address the community's concerns. and safety concerns being the largest. But a couple of the design elements that we've incorporated in this project that you won't hear about today is that we, from the beginning, we've undergrounded all the utility distribution lines on this, so there's no visual impact for overhead lines, which frankly are about one-tenth the cost of undergrounding the power lines. We've positioned the solar panels on this project at locations that are south facing on the hills and in the flatter areas to reduce grading on the property and to reduce the visual impact to the local citizens who the vast majority live north of this project. We are importing the water needed for construction and maintenance on this project when we have 4,000 acres of water rights, natural springs, and this agricultural pond that you recently heard about just across the street from the project because the community was concerned about the impact on the aquifer if we pull the water for the construction and maintenance from our property. And again, at significant expense to the project, we've agreed to import the water. At the request of the planning group we we agreed to the setback requirements that you just recently saw in the presentation 500 feet from the residences and frankly there's two residents that was impacted by this 500 foot radius But we've pulled back the other Setbacks off the roads and off of the property lines to accommodate the community planning groups request We initiated, again, as you heard about the community contributions, we initiated the project several years ago with Mark Ostrander, who was managing and owned the community resource center. And we brought the contractor in to itemize the improvements that were needed. And again, we voluntarily committed. to the funding of those improvements for the Community Resource Center, again, which directly benefits the local Boulevard citizens, not some big amorphous fund that's out there that gets applied over the years by a group. But this is a specific improvement for the Boulevard residents. And lastly, there's no perfect project of this size. Again, we've worked very hard as the property owner working with the citizens to try to mitigate and to minimize the impact to the community, including the community benefits. I'll let my colleagues continue the presentation. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Good afternoon, commissioners, county planning staff, other department staff, and members of the public. My name is Johanna Falzerano, and I'm the principal planning team lead with SWCA Consultants. SWCA was retained by Starlight Solar LLC, the project applicant, to prepare the EIR for the project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the County of San Diego CEQA guidelines, and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Next slide, please. I'm sorry. The project applicant, SWCA, county planning staff, and the county's consultant, Harrison Associates, engaged in the preparation, review, and revision of the EIR and technical studies to assure that the scope and depth of analysis met the requirements of CEQA and that public comments received were addressed. Although prepared by SWCA and a team of technical experts on behalf of the project applicant, the EIR and technical studies were all independently reviewed by the county planning staff and Harrison Associates. Next slide, please. To support the EIR and to fulfill the requirements of CEQA and of the county, SWCA, the project applicant, and a team of 10 other consultants undertook a rigorous process of performing field surveys and preparing technical studies, which were executed by experts in their fields, meeting the pre-qualification requirements of the County of San Diego to prepare such analyses. The technical studies that were prepared to support the EIR include those listed on these slides. Next slide, please. Through this environmental review process, the EIR determined that the project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts to the resource or topical issue areas listed here, which include air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and traffic, among the others shown. Next slide. The EIR determined that the project would, however, result in significant impacts to the topical issue areas listed here, including biological, cultural and tribal cultural resources as well as wildfire. These significant impacts of the project would be reduced to less than significant impacts following implementation of the required mitigation measures. These measures include but are not limited to the provision of a nearly 448 acre biological open space easement area, a dedicated cultural open space easement area for archeological resources, and of course a fire protection and mitigation agreement with the San Diego County Fire Protection District. Next slide. Finally, the EIR determined that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics related to visual character and quality, valued visual character and image of the neighborhood, community, or localized area, and focal and panoramic vistas. While no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, the applicant committed to including the project's design features listed here to alleviate adverse aesthetics effects to the extent feasible. Next slide. As previously discussed, before a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts can be approved, the county must consider and adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines. To this end, the county must balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impact when determining whether to approve a project. Therefore, I conclude today with listing some of the benefits of the project, which that it assists the county in achieving regional decarbonization by 2035, produces enough clean energy for nearly 7,000 homes, assists the state in achieving its renewable energy production and storage goals, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, locates solar energy projects as near as possible to existing infrastructure, uses union labor with a local hire requirement for construction, and provides community benefits that are tailored to Boulevard, including refurbishing the community center and lowering rates for locals using the disadvantaged communities green tariff. Thank you for your time. Next, Kevin Marr from Hazard Dynamics will review the findings of their analysis.

Thank you.

He's on the phone.

Can you please state his name so I can make sure to let him into the room?

Kevin Maher.

Kevin Maher. Kevin Marr Thank you so much for this opportunity to come speak to the meeting here. As Joanne had mentioned, my name is Kevin Marr. I am a principal engineer at Hazard Dynamics, and we were retained by Starlight to conduct a plume study. So our first slide here, we wanted to review, just kind of overview some of the study issues here, just to kind of bring them to light and to summarize our findings. It's really important to understand background of plume dynamics first. And as you see here in the bullet points, it's important to note that all fires, batteries, as well as all other types of fires, will release hazardous products into the environment. As these products are released, the wind will transport products away from the fire, and this is what we will refer to as what the plume is, these products that are being transported away. During this transport, products are mixed with air, and the concentration of these products are decreased. Typically, we look at transport with average wind speed because the mixing is determined by the average wind speed, not necessarily the gusts. And so what this means ultimately is that further from the fire, the lower the product concentrations are. Next slide, please. Our plume study approach is something that we've been working on with industry and other subject matter experts over the past several years. We have done over 50 some odd plume studies for projects all across the country, including California, all the way to New York. In our plume study approach, what we use plume studies for is we like to use them to help aid emergency response protocol development, as well as site planning design. Our plume study consists of computer simulations that are used to estimate the concentrations of product at the ground level. And these simulations are then, results are then compared to the permissible exposure limit. Distances to these PELs, or permissible exposure limits, from the fire, if any, are then determined. In this study, we considered several key PELs for carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfur dioxide. Two here that we've listed are critical ones called IDLH, which means immediately dangerous to life or health, and AGL2, which is defined as acute exposure guideline level 2 for a 30-minute exposure. We also considered other AGL-1 and AGL-3 exposure guidelines as well. However, the AGL-2 is the one that we focused on at the critical level because this is defined as the level at which irreversible or serious long-lasting health effects can occur. Next slide, please. Another aspect of our Supreme study is that we want to make sure that we have concerted assumption. So some of these assumptions are listed here. The fire size we considered was based on test data of the actual units that are proposed to be installed. And we then increased that fire size by nearly 2x safety factors. As we all understand, the fire size, the larger the fire size, the more hazardous products that can be released. So therefore, we are increasing these assumptions in order to understand what a worst case could possibly be. The range of winds that we are considering is up to 99th percentile average wind speed for the area at the Boulevard region. And we actually used a wind station that was next to the proposed site. And per San Diego requirements, we explored multiple atmospheric stability classes to ensure that we are considering the worst-case scenario. Next slide, please. Finally, the conclusions that we found were that The worst case plume scenario occurs when the fire is large and extremely high average wind conditions are present. For these worst case exposures to happen, we have to consider that the fire has to be one large, the wind has to exceed these 99th percentile wind conditions, and that the wind direction importantly has to be toward the person outdoors, which is very unlikely in this region. As far as the ground level concentrations for CO, HF, and SO2, they did not exceed the HL2 level at any nearby home, nor at the Jewel Valley Road nearby. Nearby residents that are outside of their homes are not expected to exhibit any irreversible or serious health effects under the worst-case plume. It's also important to note that these AGL-2 and any AGL or PEL levels are just determined at outdoors where people would be outdoors. So going into your home would also be a possible way to mitigate some of the exposure. Also, the last thing to note is that the Jewel Valley Road does not expect to exceed any PEL that we considered for CO, HF, and SO2 under the worst case report. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

I'm last. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair Edwards and members of the Planning Commission. Jim Whalen from J. Whalen Associates, and I'm here on behalf of Starlight Solar. Over 60 meetings and four years after we began, we are last in front of the Planning Commission seeking your approval. I've been coming out to Boulevard for 18 years and love the place almost as a second home. I've had more than a few good friends here for years. Before we talk about starlight, I'll note for those who feel we could decarbonize using only rooftop solar, that independent institutional studies, such as from USD's Energy Policy Initiative Center and UCSD's School of Global Policy and Strategy, have confirmed that even with rooftop fully deployed in the San Diego region, we still need other sources of renewable energy to make up the difference. This means utility scale solar, geothermal, and wind. For starters, nobody has requested that I bring a large solar project to Boulevard. I understand that this project is not popular with locals, especially those who have only recently become involved in the conversation. Opposition is to be expected from those missing the full context of a conversation which began several years before they became involved. We know it's impossible to appease everyone, especially those individuals who don't reside in Boulevard, who have been responsible for generating much of the hysteria and fear of this project due to their past personal experience with another solar project. We are doing more than most perceived to be possible to minimize the number of people affected, compensate the town fairly, and mitigate hypothetical risks. That means We are committed to doing the best job possible, which will minimize potential negative effects in Boulevard and create the largest reduction in greenhouse gases from power generation ever in San Diego. We believe we've done just that. And you've all just heard from our team on how we do more than just check the boxes. We believe we are a decent model for how to do large-scale solar in rural areas. In Starlight's case, we believe we've done things right. People agree, including the vote in favor from the planning group, endorsements from Sierra Club, Climate Action Campaign, San Diego 350, San Diego Bird Alliance, the Endangered Habitats League, Communities for Global Sustainability and Good Company, support from organized labor, and last but not least, concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. For community benefits, after pioneering voluntary benefits in the solar arena with our rugged solar project four years ago, we agreed to the same amount per megawatt as JVR Solar did as a gesture of good faith, even though $22,222 a megawatt is exponentially more than the county has been considering in its community benefits discussions. Unfortunately, the opponents move the goalposts and now demand all of the money up front. Because there is no power sale in Phase 2 yet, there is no income. Therefore, it's $189,000 a megawatt. Now is what the opponents are demanding. I feel compelled to say that this group of late arriving opponents doesn't represent Boulevard. They showed up several months ago very late in the process and it shows. The Boulevard Planning Group does represent the community and voted in favor with conditions which we agreed to. In closing, all solar projects are not created equal and do not affect the communities they reside in equally. We are not JVR. We are in support of staff's recommendation. Starlight has demonstrated that this project is exemplary, and I urge your support, and we are reserving our remaining time for rebuttal. And frankly, if Starlight Project isn't good enough, then there probably isn't one. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. That concludes, I believe, the appellant's presentation. I would add to the audience that we try and conform to civility and decorum here. Laughing catcalls and comments are not welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a complex situation. You've heard the applicant's presentation. Do you have questions for the applicant or staff at this time? No? All right, then. Excuse me. Mr. Slovak, if memory serves, when we were here last, you were going to go out to have a meeting with the community, and I'm aware that you did that, but just in summary form, could you tell the commission what happened and the results of the meetings?

Certainly, Chair. We'll pull up a slide that we had in the presentation that will highlight it. Yes, Mark Slovic, myself, Nick Kotefitis, and County Fire made it out to the community after that meeting. We were out there. We did a site visit of the project site with a couple of the members of the community, and then we did a community meeting that evening for a couple of hours. Very good conversation. A lot of extremely helpful insights came from that meeting. We're pulling up a slide that will summarize some of the feedback that came through that meeting. Nick highlighted it during his presentation of project design changes that have been considered based on that meeting going forward. Much of the discussion is what you will hear today. A lot of concern and interest on evacuation, impacts of a best fire should it happen, any impacts of the plume, many, many comments on the plume analysis. You will likely hear a lot of that today. It will be very technical and we have a variety of consultants that had prepared it and then reviewed it that can speak to it. Additional comments we have up here was related to fire having adequate water to suppress the fire, county fire walkthrough, how Water containment on the fire is what's used to keep the flames from spreading. And so there's a lot of interest on how much water is available on there. Many other questions came up during the day or the evening on veg management, whether it's non-toxic, biodegradable, or manual tools used to address the vegetation. Other concerns came up about a local school in the area in terms of its relation to any fire or plume impacts as well. I think we have one more slide that we can walk through here. Thank you. The other big issues that came up in the evenings, a lot on dust, dust control. These are large projects. And just based on the location of where these projects are, it is desert area. And the dust control out there is going to be a little different than what's going to be in other portions of the county. And so we heard a lot of comments on what they're experiencing on the JVR project during that. So interest on dust, we'll be able to speak to some different options and questions on dust control today. and then certainly a lot of feedback on community benefit. You heard the applicant's presentation as well as what we have in our presentation on what's proposed by the applicant for community benefit, and then you'll hear comments from the community today expressing other ways that they would like to see the community benefit proposed. I'll just note for community benefit, we don't have a requirement for community benefits, and there's some legal dynamics on community benefits. It's not something that we can require under CEQA. This is voluntary, and the applicant is proposing it in relation to what we saw on JVR as an effort to try to address impacts from the project on the community. What was very clear from this community, it is unique. And the desert communities are experiencing a lot of these solar projects proposed just based on the location of undeveloped land. And they asked us to acknowledge the fact that this is a series of projects that are going on into the East County, and they're looking to see how projects going forward can learn from past projects. Thank you.

Could I ask a quick question before we go into the community discussion? What was the nexus for the request of $7 million?

Chair Edwards, the request was based on the megawatts that are proposed as part of the project in comparison to what was provided for the JVR solar project. So that was a smaller project and it was at the end of the day voluntarily agreed to provide $4 million. If you were to just translate the megawatts based on what Starlight is proposing, it would amount to a $7 million voluntary contribution. So that's what the community is requesting.

So I can ask Mr. Whalen, but what did the applicant agree to? The $900,000 for the refurbishment of the center and then attempting to reach an agreement with SDG&E on a reduction of the, if I say this wrong, tell me, the monthly electricity bill to some of the residents out there. Did I get that right, Mr. Whalen?

Almost.

Okay.

I can elaborate a little bit. Phase 1 and 2 are very different. Phase 1 is the only part of the project that has the power sold. So we have an income stream that we were able to tie down and know that we could use that income stream to support the refurbishments to the community center. That's over 22,000 megawatt on Phase 1. Phase 2 does not have an interconnection agreement, nor is the power sold. So it's prospective at this time, but the major use permit covers the entire project. What I have been hearing for years and years and years from the people who live out there is you keep foisting these renewable projects on us and we never get any local benefits. So we hit on the idea of approaching San Diego Community Power, not SDG&E, about using their disadvantaged community green tariff program which is expressly designed to provide for 20% discounts for 20 years for qualified residents of the affected area. We have to apply for that. And when we proceed with the second phase, we hope to have that in place. And that would provide direct benefits to the community who are affected, as opposed to some nebulous fund that sits in an account that's never used for anything in particular and is fought over for years. We worked with the community starting in 2022 to come up with feasible, tailored measures for them. And that's why we are doing what we're doing. And if we do fail getting the green tariff approved, we'll fall back on the $22,222 and come up with another mechanism and go back to the Board of Supervisors to reconsider what we would do.

All right, thank you. Any questions before we proceed to the community groups? Yes.

Just have a quick question. It may have been in the report, but what is the expected life of, like, the equipment, like, as it's proposed right now?

That is actually a better question than you think because the equipment's changing so fast. One of the points that I would love to make more and more is as the equipment gets more efficient, you need less land area to do it. So... I would like to say 20 to 25 years for the equipment. That's what we're planning on. But who knows? If somebody comes up with some materially beneficial technological improvement that increases the efficiency, we would probably do it, change out the equipment. But right now, we don't have a solar developer. We just have sold the power on the first phase. Does that make sense?

It does. And how long is the major use permit for?

It does not have a time limit, but in the event that they had to walk away from the project, they would be decommissioned.

Okay.

We have a requirement to decommission and bond for it.

Thank you. All right. Thanks, sir. Any other questions before we let Mr. Whalen go? I guess not. So, ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. We'll now take public testimony. Let's first, Madam Chair, Madam Secretary, help me out. I understand that the community planning group has spoken or their representatives have, but there are other ad hoc members that have formed themselves into some type of presentation. How many groups are there?

That would be correct. We do have a team. There is... There is a team of five that has individual speakers within the group. I can call them up. There is still gonna be a lot of the 30 minute time slot instead of the two minutes per member. So what I would do is just call the group up and then you approach the lectern and you can go in the sequence that you have for your teams. I'm gonna go ahead and call your names. I have Becca Begrin, Dave Begrin, Jeff Osborne, Karen Parker, Mason Smith, Adam Robledo, Russell Gray, Joe Rowley, Weena Aaron, Jim Freeburn, Dan Grunow, Thomas Wall, Murphy Smith, and the community elders.

That group changed because of the time limits. We were originally told we were going to have 50 minutes, and then it went down to 25. The chair agreed to 30. So that group is we have Becca, myself, Jeff, Murphy, Dan, and Russell. So how much is that? Is that six people, I think?

Thomas, essentially, if this is the community presentation, what the chair indicated was he's allotting 30 minutes for the community presentation, however you want to break that up for this group. However you want to deal with it. And then after that, we will essentially break for a 30-minute lunch, and then after lunch, we'll do individual comments from the folks as well. Just make sure that each of the folks, when you're presenting, you say your name, and Vanessa up there will ask for... Vince, I get that, but because of the change, we changed the group, and we put the people onto individual speakers.

So some of these people that are on that list are individual speakers now. They're not part of the group.

That's okay. Just state your name when you come up, and then we'll remove them from the individual speakers later as they have made their comments during the group site.

Yes, there's going to be no cumulative testimony here. You get one crack at the bat. So you can divide up your 25 minutes however you like.

30 minutes, correct?

I'm sorry, 30 minutes. And so go ahead, sir.

Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Just a point of order here. I've been on this commission for over 20 years, and this is the first time I've seen a community group allowed at 30 minutes. So this is very extraordinary. So I want them to appreciate that, what you're accommodating here, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I think they, after all this time, have the right to be here.

All right, thank you chair and commissioners for this time. I'm Becca Bergen and I'm a Boulevard homeowner and a proud member of the community for the past five years in Boulevard. And I want to be really, really clear here. We are not against renewable energy in any way. But what we are against is a project being placed in a location that risks our lives. We're also against over and over again sacrificing the safety, the health, and the future of our small rural communities so that the power can be sent elsewhere. And as we've all heard, the county's own EIR confirms the Starlight Solar Project will have significant and unavoidable long-term impacts. The developer profits hundreds of millions and moves on while we bear the risk, we bear the burden, And coming into this meeting, we knew that staff was going to recommend a statement of overriding consideration so they could bypass these significant impacts and approve the project anyway. And that's why we came prepared and are asking for at least a little help to restore some semblance of balance with three simple conditions, as you've heard a few times already. First, protect our safety. Move the batteries to the far end of the project away from homes, away from evacuation routes, and also require a water retention basin for fire emergencies so our groundwater is protected. Second, protect our health. We demand independent, continuous monitoring for the dust and the noise and real enforcement. It's real different out in the desert. And third, protect our future, please. provide a minimum seven million dollar community impact fund fully funded in phase one. Please help us make sure that significant and unavoidable doesn't mean inevitable and ignored. So I'd like to make sure that you know who and what is at stake today. So if you could play the community, let's see, the This Is Boulevard video, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

When you love a place, you really are dedicated to the commitment to the relationship and making sure the place is taken care of and preserved. And so we're here as a community to tell our story.

We love where we live. We love the night sky. We love the peace and the quiet, the animals that we've got, the natural habitat that we live in.

Love the open space, love all the nature, the animals, the peace and quiet, and the sense of community. There's always somebody there to support you when you need a hand.

For me, it's nature, the birds, the plants, the boulders, everything about being out here that you can witness and be immersed in.

I like the space.

I love the quiet. I love the peaceful nights. That's one thing I love.

I need to tell you one of the things I love is my home in Boulevard and this beautiful country and land and rural character that we have. And so we're here to advocate. And our hope's in by telling our story and our needs, you will advocate with us. Though we're not opposed to renewable energy, we are really opposed to renewable energy literally in our backyards without proper fire safety, proper evacuation routes. and without substantial commitment to the community benefits package, because the reality is this package is majorly affecting this area. And it's not just one project. Starlight's one of many. JVR has already happened to Hukumba. We're almost surrounded by windmills at this point. So we're here in that advocacy because we know it's our responsibility to let you know what our needs are to at least improve this package so there's more benefits coming to the community.

We protect the Mother Earth and there's, you know, there's room for growth in all areas and things but I think that we have to learn how to do those things in a way that doesn't take away what is already there.

Large industrialization of an area like this is, it's a bit devastating when you see what it does.

I think that when we start turning a community into a location for massive industrial projects, we lose the culture of the community too.

The backcountry is continuously being a resource of the urban centers. It's being looked at as just a place where expansion can happen without any repercussions. But there are. There's environmental issues. There's wildlife, there's plant life, there's the sky, there's so much. It really takes away from the security of the natural environment here and the peace of mind for the people that live out here as well.

We would like to protect the cultural resources that have been present in Hacumba and the over 10,000 years, which includes the plants, the animals, the artifacts, and the history that is here. And I would also like to advocate for the generation that comes after me, the generation that comes after that. My name is Jason Santos, and I live on the Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians. We stand with Boulevard as a community, and we would love to see the rejuvenation and the revitalization of the living standard here of Boulevard.

My biggest hope for the future is that the communities will work together to achieve a lot of ends. That's my biggest hope to Refugee.

My hope is that we have a bigger voice in what happens in our communities to protect the things that we have moved out here for. My family's been out here for 29 years.

My mom has worked all those 29 years to afford what we have, our 10 acres, our little slice of heaven. Above anything, I would love for her to be able to retire and not have to fight another solar project or wind project and just get to enjoy the land she's worked for for so long, for once.

Lincoln, what about you? Any hopes for the future?

I want a playground.

Playground would be sick. Mm-hmm.

Thank you for watching that. If you could cue the presentation, it says Jeff Osborne on it. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. I really appreciate it. I understand how busy you are and how much you hear from communities that are opposed to projects. And I'm also a developer. I understand that perspective as well. I'm a proud resident of the Mountain Empire. I live in Acomba Hot Springs. I'm the chair of the Acomba Community Planning Group. I am the president of the Acomba Community Center and Highland Senior Center. I'm also the owner and operator of the largest employer in the region, the Acomba Hot Springs Hotel. I'm a proud ally with Boulevard in this project, and I bring a unique perspective as I live in Acomba and live directly adjacent to the current JVR Energy Park project. So I'm gonna open up with two main topics here today. It is the health and human safety, and the first one is the dust and grading issues, and the second is the battery siting.

Could you give us your name, sir?

Jeff Osborne. Yeah, I'm sorry. Next slide, please. So one thing that needs to be considered that's extremely unique about the siting of this project is its location in a wind corridor. Next slide, please. So this is from a map when the county was recognizing where to put wind projects. You can see the project site there in the bottom right. It's actually in the highest level of wind ratings according to the National Renewable Lab. Next slide. This outlines those ratings. So we are in a average wind speed. This is not gust, this is average. 16 to 18 miles per hour. It is unbelievably windy where we are. Most conditions and code is not designed for this wind condition. Next slide. I did a national study. I found a national renewable lab study on how much of the entire country has this wind condition. This is California highlighted from that study. It is 1.3% of the entire state has this level of wind. This is extremely unique and it's one of the main focuses today on why we need special conditions that the code does not already fit and the current conditions do not meet. Next slide. So we need conditions that enforce themselves. We live in a rural community. Code enforcement comes two or three days later. I've constantly, like Tonya came up early to speak to that point, we call in, I've written letters to every single possible enforcement group on dust in Acomba. They come out and it's like a not windy day or the project's not happening in that area and they're like, oh, it's not happening today and the water logs say they did it. Next slide, please. So this is the JVR Energy Park project. It's a very similar size. Just since this is actually in January, it's already 16 days when the gusts were over 25. They were supposed to shut down. They never shut down one time, even though it's in their permit. Next slide. We have residents now that are being hospitalized. Tanya's been recently diagnosed with COPD. We have multiple residents that are unable to make it to this meeting that are having extremely serious health impacts from this project. Next slide, please. These are direct quotes from KPBS articles and meetings we've had. The county's claiming that they've stopped work on several days when the wind exceeded 25 miles per hour, but in that meeting the developer's representative said, not that I've seen. He's never said he's ever seen them shut it down. In April they said they're continuously watering the site when they're working as a preventative measure for dust. So that's what they're claiming. Next slide. This is June 10th, just a month ago. You can see the large excavators there. No water being sprayed. Even when I do work like this on a small scale, we spray water to keep the dust down. None. You can see the loaders, these enormous loaders getting loaded with no covers, driving through the job site, creating an unbelievable amount of dust. There's things like valley fever. There's toxic chemicals. This used to be a farm. There's lots of considerations when it comes to dust in our communities. Next slide please. This is that same day looking back towards town. You can barely see town in the background on the left. That's from those trucks. We call in, they come two days later, they say the truck log said they were watering it. So we're asking for measures that are self-enforcing. Next slide please. These are what I'm recommending and these are all coming from other SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL MEASURES THAT ARE IN PLACE. THESE ARE NOT MADE UP. THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT ARE UNACHIEVABLE. THEY'RE JUST REASONABLE THINGS. IT'S A TWO-MONITOR SYSTEM, UPWIND AND DOWNWIND. YOU SUBTRACT ONE FROM THE OTHER TO ISOLATE DUST PRODUCED ON-SITE SO THEY'RE NOT GETTING BLAMED FOR DUST OFF-SITE. ANY TIME IT'S READING OVER A CERTAIN LEVEL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SHUT DOWN AND GRADING SUSPENDED UNTIL IF THEY VIOLATE, THERE'S ALSO A BOND. WE CAN START FINING THEM AND OR SHUT DOWN THE PROJECT IF THEY CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE DUST ISSUES. IT'S REALLY ABOUT A RESULT. KEEP THE DUST DOWN. I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY YOU GOT TO PUT THIS MUCH, COVER IT THAT MUCH. IT'S TOO MUCH. WE CAN'T EVEN, WE CALL AND NOTHING HAPPENS. THEY NEED TO BE SELF-MONITORED. AND THE BIG POINT IS THEY NEED TO ALSO STABILIZE THE EARTH WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN THE PROJECT SITE FOR THE END OF THE DAY. 100 mile an hour gusts, and I am not exaggerating. That's happened in the last year. That came across this job site too, I think it's 70 mile per hour so far. It was on a Sunday. They're gone. What did our town look like? Next slide, please. So we're asking you to please make dust measures as part of your approval today. Next slide. battery siting, the AEGL standard, and groundwater. This is something I had to make last night between 4 p.m. and midnight, so I apologize. I'm also speaking on behalf of Joe Rowley, who's going to try to call in. He is a SEMPRA vice president of development of gas and electric power that's been consulting us on this exact topic. He is an expert. And me and him have been talking back and forth about this plume study. I will try to speak to the best of my abilities on the technical aspects. Next slide, please. So the revised plume study, they did not state this, but it actually fails the county's standard. The current county standard was actually an AEGL1. they're claiming it's AEGL2. And this is a drastic difference. It changed, what happened is between April and July, we pointed out that their meteorological data was actually from Mission Valley. So they were using average wind speeds of like three. And our average wind speeds are 16 to 18 miles per hour. So they used the completely wrong wind study in their plume analysis originally. And they finally released the updated one to us yesterday at 3.45 p.m. This is a significant impact. Our community has not had a chance to even respond to this, to study it, to have our engineers or consultants really dig into it. It has expanded the toxic impact zone to 2,200 feet now, according to AEGL 1, which is the historic standard for the county. And the nearest home is 1,300 feet. We've had 17 hours to now intake this information. Next slide, please. So the corrected wind speed multiplied the impact zone by 7x. So we didn't even know if it would. Honestly, Joe Rowley, the engineer that was consulting, didn't even think the wind would have an impact like this because it could disperse the fumes. But in the end, it did. And it had a drastic impact. As you can see here, it changed the hydrogen fluoride, which is the most concerning, from 300 feet to 2,200 feet. Again, this happened 17 hours ago. We found out this information. Next slide, please. This is an email from San Diego County Fire pointing out that there was originally a miscommunication about AEGL1 and AEGL2. All previous versions of fire protection code included AEGL1 as the standard. In the recent April release, it was written as AEGL2, but it was a typo. And they admitted to that and said they were going to correct that error. And this happened at our public meeting as well. They said in front of the entire group, that is an error. The exact standard is AEGL1, not AEGL2. Next slide. This is a letter from Joe Rowley to Nick last night. So this is coming from an engineer and a former vice president of development for Sempra. He is not anti-development. This guy's built the biggest power plants in the county. San Diego County Fire has acknowledged in writing that the AEGL2 reference in their BSS guidelines is a typo. and should read AEGL 1 and both previous editions of the BESS guidelines specified AEGL 1. Conceptually, AEGL 1 must be the trigger threshold for evacuation because by definition, AEGL 2 levels can impair the ability to evacuate. See the attached for further explanation. He goes on to just point out this is inconsistent with county policy. Every former version was always AEGL 1, and this has not been done without any public process or review. This happened last night. Apparently they changed their guideline to match the plume study. Next slide. This brings us to fire risk. So according to Joe Rowley, and this is the EPRI database showing BESS failures, there's a 15% chance of failure for every gigawatt hour per year of battery. This one's almost one gigawatt hour. It's like 868 megawatt hours. The chance of it having a fire event each year is 12%. Take that in for a second. Every single year this project exists, it has a 12% chance of burning. This is not an if. It's not if it happens. It's what year is it gonna happen. Over the course of the 30 year life, that's a 98% chance of a fire. The actual statistic odd is it's gonna burn 3.9 times over that 30 year life. So we're asking for, I think, very reasonable mitigation measures like just moving the batteries and providing us protection from when there's a fire, the toxic chemicals from that fire, when they go to extinguish those battery packs, go into a retention basin, not a detention basin. It's very important that detention allows seepage back into the aquifer. The retention they hold and they can pump it back out and take it away. This has already been done at TerraGen in Valley Center. Next slide, please. So what we're really asking for, and I think this is a very fair ask, is that you guys don't even vote on this today until we clear this AEGL 1, AEGL 2 up. I think this thing should be recirculated. I think this should be considered a significant impact at this point. We're going to probably talk about that today, of course. At the minimum, if you guys are going to ignore all that, you have to request those batteries, all batteries, not just phase two, because we did not have this information when we said just phase two or whatever. This is all new as of yesterday at 4 p.m., that it's a 2,200-foot impact zone. So now all batteries have to be moved to the southern end of the project away from people. It's going to burn. So if it's going to burn, are we going to get people in toxic hydrogen fluoride gas fumes? I mean, that's literally what we're agreeing to. And then require the land, the lined water retention basin. Next slide. Is that it? That's the end? Okay. The last thing I just wanted to correct was right now I'm at Okay. The Otay Mesa project, there's something confusing about megawatts and megawatt hours. The Otay Mesa project that burned for 11 days was 250 megawatts. This one's 217. It may sound like Otay's bigger, but actually that's not the right way to look at it. It's megawatt hour. That's the true storage and the size and volume of batteries. Otay is only 250 megawatt hour as well. It's only a one hour storage. This project's a four hour storage. It's four times the size. This is the largest battery project ever proposed in San Diego County. This is a battery project you're voting on today. This is not a solar project. This is the largest project ever. And I just want to point out that all of the wind speed tests, including the plume study, do not consider gusts. So it said 27 mile per hour wind, which is a windy day for us, gusts are 40, gusts are 50. So when they say the plume study is only reaching X, Y, or Z location with a toxic fume, a gust is going to send those toxic fumes further into the AGL2 categories. But that's just not how the study is built. That's it for my points. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation.

Okay, let's jump into that first pillar. Ask one, fire safety. Specifically, we're talking about battery energy storage systems or BESS. Here's the reality on the ground. Boulevard sits squarely in a very high fire hazard severity zone. What does that actually mean? It means the community and its firefighters are shouldering a massive risk. If a battery thermal runaway event happens out there in the high winds and dry brush, yeah, it's a huge, huge concern.

They can catch fire, releasing deadly fumes. These battery energy storage facilities help support the power grid, but there is risk involved.

Three fires in a year. One in Valley Center, another in Otay Mesa, and more recently in Escondido at this SDG&E facility where one of 24 battery containers caught fire. It's called thermal runaway. A chemical reaction when lithium ion batteries overheat. Once it starts, there's no way to stop it.

Really, the fire that's happening inside the battery has to run its course. So that chemical reaction really can't be stopped. These fires can take days or even weeks to burn out.

The one in Escondido lasting 13 hours. The one in Otay, 17 days.

And here is a really wild detail. The final battery technology for the Starlight project hasn't even been picked yet. Fire testing was actually based on a stand-in system. So there has literally been zero project-specific testing to see how these exact batteries will behave in boulevards notoriously high winds, where toxic smoke could just spread like wildfire.

Because of all that uncertainty, the community's first ask is straightforward. Just move all battery facilities to the absolute furthest point from homes and evacuation routes. Plus, they're asking for a mandatory water retention basin to keep the groundwater safe during any fire emergency. Makes sense, right?

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Russell Gray. I have been living and raising my family in Boulevard for over 10 years. In my time living in Boulevard, I have experienced annual environmental hazards and high winds and heat that have a severe impact on our community. They include multiple-day power outages, road closures, and infrastructural damage, combined with being in a very high fire hazard severity zone. This project creates significant, unavoidable impairment impacts on our community. We are asking the county to require fire protections that match the impacts that this project presents. One, move all BES facilities to phase two at the furthest point from residential homes. This project lies on a one-way in road. It will not have a safe evacuation route in a timely manner. And two, construct a water retention basin beneath the battery storage area to contain contaminated runoff during a battery fire and protect our groundwater and underlying aquifers. Boulevard literally lives off of its well water. Though I completely oppose this project, I don't think these are extraordinary requests. They are reasonable protections for a community living in a very high fire hazard severity zone that will bear the permanent impacts and fire risk of this project. We are asking simply for you to help protect us and our loved ones. California is moving towards stronger BES protections, not weaker ones. I'm here as a representative of my community, as a father, and as a human being. that you guys consider and recognize that the community that lives with the greatest risks deserves the greatest protections. Thank you very much for your time.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Dan Grunow. My wife and I moved here from Imperial Beach to Boulevard 12 years ago because we wanted to raise our family in a rural community. Market gardening, homesteading, summer days, swimming at Hakumba Lake with the kids, and bike rides down Jewel Valley Road, where this project's sited, have been some of our highlights of our life in Boulevard. While we may be transplants to this community, we are entirely invested in spending the rest of our lives here and optimistic that our children and grandchildren will choose to do so as well. Like many other residents, we are managing the land we live on with this long-term perspective and contributing to our community in an effort to make Boulevard a better place to live for generations to come. During our time in Boulevard, we've seen the community create a momentum of revitalization. The opening of a nonprofit volunteer-run community center and several small owner-operated businesses that provide basic services, local employment, and opportunities for community connection are just a few of the positive changes we've witnessed. It's disheartening to see a project such as this one come before us. It goes against what volunteers and local small business owners have worked so hard to create. This project creates no local jobs, provides no services to our community. The several hundred-page Starlight Solar project EIR summarizes that this project has permanent, significant, and unavoidable impacts. Increased fire danger, damage to the rural character of our community, and property devaluation are just a few of these negative impacts. I would like to explain why we believe the $7 million impact fund should be fully funded in Phase 1 and why we oppose the developer's proposal for the SDG&E Power Build Discount Program. From our perspective, the negative effects of this project for Phases 1 and 2 begin when the major use permit is approved, not when construction commences. Parcels that are in proximity of phases one and two will legally have to disclose that there's a major use permit that has been approved when selling. I can't imagine anyone would read this EIR for this project and want to pay the same price knowing the land was about to experience industrial decimation. This property devaluation will impact our already struggling local schools, which are partially funded through local property tax collections. The local businesses that rely on ecotourism will be impacted, and this project will make Boulevard a less desirable place to live and operate a business. Up here on the PowerPoint, what does Starlight Solar really cost? The market just answered. In 2025, December of 2025, JVR Energy Park, four miles away, with one-third the battery storage, closed $416 million in financing. This is almost a $1 billion estimated total cost scaled straight from JVR's own dollars per megawatt. In addition, $90 million a year profit is what this project must generate annually to pay its lenders and investors. Next slide, please. The $7 million ask, this number wasn't invented. It is JVR's own community benefit rate applied straight across with no inflation added since 2021. This precedent was set by the Board of Supervisors voting on August 2021. 0.96% is JVR's $4 million benefit as a share of the $416 million project cost. The standard is set. 0.7% is Starlight's $7 million ask as a share of the $900 to $1 billion project, a small share that JVR agreed to. At this scale, $7 million is a rounding error. Less than 1% of the project cost paid once over a 35-year permit. JVR committed to $4 million and still closed $416 million financing. Construction is underway on that project. This project should provide meaningful benefit to the community at impacts. However, our community has been clear that an electric bill discount is not what Boulevard asked for. The impacts of this project will remain for generations. The community benefits should as well. Following comprehensive community needs assessment, the fund would support priorities identified by the community itself. These include public health and community resilience, parks, trails, and open space, community facilities, transportation issues, environmental restoration, youth, senior, family programs, tribal and cultural partnerships, local economic development, and revitalization. This approach follows the successful model established through the Hukumba Boulevard Revitalization Alliance and the San Diego Foundation, ensuring transparency, independent oversight, public accountability, and investment that directly benefits the community community experiencing these impacts. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you require the project to fully fund the $7 million community impact fund before phase one commences construction. This request is about responsibility for balancing the negative impacts this project will have. Thank you very much.

Chair, we're almost out of time. We had two speakers. Can we have two minutes? No, okay. Well, let's just say this. I want everybody in this room to think about something you love, something you'd protect. That's Boulevard for us. Okay, please. It's your children. Sometimes you think about it. When you love something, you protect it. What we're asking for here today is reasonable. You'll notice none of us, we are opposed to this project, but that hasn't come up. We are fully opposed. But we're asking you to make this project better. We've had the responsibility to tell you how this project affects us. It's now your responsibility to bring some balance to this project. This $6.2 million SDG credit, it's a little baloney, honestly. So if the developer is willing to pay the whole $900,000, $6.7 million, why not make this smart? That $7 million is going to revitalize this town. everyone, the county, all your commissioners, you can come out to Boulevard on my word and feel good that you're going to watch the town get better. And can you imagine how good that's going to feel to you? Think about it. You're going to go up there like, wow, we actually helped the town that got all these impacts that happened. So I really implore you, please make the right decision, especially around this community impact payment. Thank you.

Thank you. And this town's behind us. Mr. Whalen, do you have your rebuttal time reserved? Do you want to make your rebuttal now? Or do you prefer that we break for lunch and do it after lunch?

I think since the majority of it's on the battery safety situation, let's wait until after lunch. And the only other thing I would comment is JVR is not the same as Starlight. JVR's power is all sold. That's how they know. It's not unlike a shopping center lease. You have the revenue coming in. You can know what your expenses can be. So let's wait until we're back.

All right, I'll accommodate your request. So we'll break for approximately, ladies and gentlemen, 30 minutes. It's high noon. We'll plan on being back here at about 1230. We'll take Mr. Whalen's rebuttal and then community individual testimony. We'll reconvene the meeting. I believe, ladies and gentlemen, we left off with Mr. Whalen in his rebuttal.

or did we, oh, I apologize.

Yeah, did you want to do your rebuttal now?

If the majority of the questions are on battery safety, I think it might be better to have staff go first. I don't know what the best way to do this is. However you want.

Through the chair, I think we would recommend that we wait until after public testimony for us to start to get into any of those technical discussions. That's fine.

Okay, that's fine with me. Ladies and gentlemen, we're now going to proceed to the individual testimony. By our Secretary's count, there are 18 individual speakers left who wish to speak. Because there are 18 and because that I gave the amount of time I did previously, we're going to revert to the Board of Supervisors rule and each speaker will get one minute, not two minutes. We're going to revert because there are 18 individual speakers left to the Board of Supervisors rule whereby you get... Oh, I apologize. Is that better? Yes, thank you. I apologize. Because there are 18 individual speakers left, we're going to revert to the Board of Supervisors rule and give each person one minute, not two minutes. And then we will proceed with any questions the committee, the commission has of the presentation. by the community. So let's get you people lined up and we'll get moving.

Okay. We're going to start with the first three, Mark Guetta, Thomas Wall, and Mason Smith. Please approach the lectum and be sure to state your name for the record.

Hello, good afternoon commissioners. My name is Mark Guerra and my wife and I own property in Boulevard where we're in the process of building what we hope will be our forever home. We chose to build our future home here because we value the rural character, open space, dark skies, and sense of community that make Boulevard unique. I want to be clear that I'm not here because I oppose renewable energy. I understand California's energy goals, and I support responsible renewable energy development. What I oppose is asking one small rural community to shoulder an ever-growing concentration of industrial-scale energy projects while receiving little in return. You've heard this before, but we're respectfully asking you to recommend three additional conditions. First, move the phase two battery storage as far from homes and evacuation routes as possible and require a water retention basin or other properly engineered containment beneath the best to contain firefighting runoff. Finally, I want to make sure that the recommendation is for a requirement for a community impact fund in our control that meaningfully offsets the project's impacts on Boulevard with a minimum contribution of $7 million fully funded in Phase 1. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next speaker.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Mason Smith. I am a longtime Boulevard resident of 30 years. So I would like to clear the air here and say that that man does not speak for the town of Boulevard. You have the town of Boulevard in here speaking to you now. All right. Because the time has been shortened, I would just like to say that in the initial EIR, there were wind reports on the noise readings that read from about 4 to 5 miles per hour. I checked global weather data, and those reports are completely false. I don't know where those reports were taken from, but the wind reflected that day was more 6, 7 to 10 with 20 mile per hour gusts. So I don't believe those noise ratings should be treated with any sort of validity.

Call that good.

Thank you for your time. Next speaker.

Up next, we have Karen Parker, David Begrin, Weena Josie, and Park Troutman.

Good afternoon. One moment. My name is Karen Parker. I birthed a child in Pine Valley 36 years ago this week. I'm a resident of San Diego's unincorporated East County where my mother picked citrus and hauled water. I'm a retired social worker and first responder who retired in Boulevard where 49% of the population Of the 752 is white, 32% Hispanic, 16% of us are something else, 3% native, and most notably 53% of our town's population is disabled, over 65, the most common disability being COPD and brain injury. This is uncomfortable to say, but it needs to be said. I hear discrimination and racism from the mouths of and in print from area representatives every time I attend a committee meeting. I've seen prior an example today of the subjugation of our land and our people. This town's committee officials absolutely do not by demographic nor representation serve the town's population, nor does it have any authority. Half of this town cannot shelter in place nor evacuate when this extreme fire severity zone ignites on a triple-digit day during our Santa Ana season.

Please summarize.

I'll not be able to sit on the swing in my own front yard and watch my grandchildren and great-grandchildren play on the land I choose to spend my last days on earth when, because I won't be able to breathe. Usual winds will blow large quantities of dirt and toxic plume of smoke into our atmosphere, created not by nature but by selfish desire for corporate and individual wealth for those that don't live here. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker.

My name is Wina Joshi. I'm a board-certified pediatrician and a member of this community in Census Track 21102. which is an unincorporated San Diego County, also known as the Mountain Empire. For those of you not familiar with our space, I would like to just tell you about it using the Healthy Places Index. On a scale of zero to 100, for economic, we rank sixth in the state, education, 48, social, 13, transportation, 37, clean environment, 53, healthcare access 57, housing 42, neighborhood 17, racial diversity 58, and racial diversity of elected officials 5%. For what it's worth, I tried to track down if this data was an improvement, and I couldn't. So the applicant has access to data professionals who can easily pull these complicated databases and extract information. I'm doing this in my spare time. Looking at the cumulative energy map for this region, the PDS found that the Starlight Solar was suitable for Boulevard because it is an area already shaped by transmission and renewable energy infrastructure. I'd like to tell you about a sacrifice zone. A sacrifice zone is a geographic area that has been permanently changed by heavy environmental alterations. The concept of a sacrifice zone is not new in San Diego County. There are many powerful examples of wealth extraction from minoritized communities to the benefit of more powerful communities. Just ask Southeast San Diego about freeway infrastructure, Barrio Logan about the Coronado Bridge, San Ysidro about border infrastructure. One of the ways to make sure that we do not become a sacrifice zone to the needs of rising energy costs and demands in San Diego County is for businesses that come into our community to be required to raise up and build our communities into richer and more vibrant spaces that take care of people. By making sure companies make significant investments in our health, environment, and community, we can uplift both business and community. Through a $7 million community impact fund, to be put into a trust at the launch of phase one, the applicant can measurably make sure they're contributing to our community instead of extracting from it. We are asking that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. We understand that everyone has to make sacrifices to protect access to clean, abundant, and affordable energy. We are asking that you do not allow our community become a sacrifice zone, but one that flourishes, evolves, and thrives because of the sacrifice. We do not want insignificant token placations such as energy bill credits and a subpar community center. We have a chance to break the cycle of causing real harm to communities in the interest of profit and extraction and instead create a model of how government, business, and community can work together to provide a safe space for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Thank you for the time today, Commissioners. My name is David Bergeron. I am a five-year homeowner and property owner in Boulevard, a place that I call home. amazing retreat from the hustle and bustle of our amazing city. And I think by this point, I think we've all realized that Boulevard is in a high fire risk zone, high fire risk zone. We all have apps on our phone that ring regularly called watch duty, fires, fires, fires. We're all, where is it? Where is it? And so we live in a constant fear of fire out there. And so San Diego County knows these massive battery facilities carry severe fire risk, which is exactly why the county is currently rewriting the rule book with new BESS battery energy storage facility zoning ordinance. Other California counties have already banned or heavily restricted BESS in high fire zones. So my question to you all is why are we not waiting to get our own best zoning regulations in place before we are approving more projects like this?

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker.

Hello. Good afternoon, planning commissioners. My name is Park Troutman. I am here to express support for Starlight Solar Project on behalf of San Diego 350, a countywide organization dedicated to preventing the worst impacts of climate change. Solar, coupled with batteries, is absolutely clutch for moving away from heavily polluting and financially volatile fossil fuels. Every megawatt hour produced by this project is less pollution affecting the residents near a gas plant and, of course, fewer greenhouse gas emissions into the wider atmosphere. Having batteries allows the electricity generated by this project to be discharged during peak evening hours, reducing the need for infrastructure to import electricity from places further east. And that helps stabilize rates.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Up next, we have Jim Freeburn, Will Iha, and Pamela Haas.

Hello everyone.

Thank you very much for listening to us. I know it's a lot to think about and I appreciate your efforts and your attention. If I had two minutes, I would probably spend some time directly contesting Jim Whalen's characterization of our community. His condescension is something to behold. But instead of that, I'll use the rest of my minute to just plug on one idea, and that is the idea of doling out this money like over 20 years in an electrical bill discount. They're always going up anyway. We really won't notice. You wouldn't notice if your bill, you know, The money up front lets us do something. And I found it really patronizing also that the idea that they need to figure out how to give us the money and how we should use it. And I heard him directly imply that we somehow might not be able to manage that, like infantilizing us. Our community has come together. The silver lining of this whole situation is we have really come together. Do we sound uninformed? Do we not sound well-organized? And for the most part, polite and respectful? So please make the money immediately available and put it in our control. That's my main ask. Thank you for listening and thank you for your work.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Pamela Haas. Thank you for listening. There's so many good points that my community members have made. One of the things I have not heard is on the EIR. There's at least one mine. It's a silica mine. There's possibly two deposits. They are called the Risley, Burroughs, or Round Mountain deposits or mines. The EIR did not have any additional information. They said it was blank. All I had to do was Google it. to find additional archive documents that describe that it was commercially mined at least twice. And silicosis is one of the effects of if the mining dust gets in the air, miners get very sick. I did not see any record of soil samples that have been taken. So that's something that I think is important considering there are used silicon mines and we have no idea what is still contained in those. The other thing is I didn't see water samples because I know we're talking about mining but Boulevard's known for a high water table, and Dr. Victor Ponce demonstrated that with various studies on other projects, showing that red shanks directly correlated with high water tables. So that just leads to importance of protecting the batteries from draining into the aquifer if the fire happens.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Anthony Dang, Christina Marquez, Harry Backer.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Anthony Ding. I'm with Climate Action Campaign here to express our strong support for the Starlight Project. Solar and battery energy storage, like what Starlight is going to provide, are a critical piece of the pollution-free future that our communities need and deserve. Starlight brings immense benefits to the county, including local job creation, economic benefits, and clean energy investments. Most importantly, local power helps build our local reliability. We need to keep energy local as opposed to relying on foreign fossil fuels to strengthen our energy stability and longevity. And we cannot do that without starlight or without battery storage. In fact, state officials credit renewable power and particularly battery storage for keeping the lights on across California during last summer's historic heat waves. As we enter a hot summer that will surely break heat records again, the only way to keep our grid stable is to deploy energy storage projects that prioritize safety, good jobs, economic investments in the community, and that keep our lights on during blackout and brownouts. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Christina Marquez speaking on behalf of IBW Local 569 and its 3,800 members in San Diego and Imperial Counties. I'm a journeyman electrician who went through the apprenticeship and now the environmental organizer for the union. I urge you to support the Starlight Solar Project. Because this project has a full building trades agreement on it with local hire, it gives opportunities to local San Diego County residents to help fight climate change and be paid a livable wage. Wages that will be spent in our community supporting local businesses and the economic health of our region. I have personally benefited from having PLAs on projects. For instance, the Southwestern Community College football field, many schools in San Diego Unified, and Sweetwater Union High School districts. I urge you to please support the Starlight Project. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's not a Mr. Harry Becker, I will go with Ken Kramer, Peter Anderson, and Carl Anderson III, please.

good afternoon my name is ken kramer what i do is television stories as you may know about san diego and in the past months and years i have come to know and appreciate so very much the people of the mountain empire and particularly of boulevard i've come to know that this area where you propose this development, this industrial development is an area that is absolutely precious beyond words. It is irreplaceable and I stand with the people who say you must not do this. This is something that, have you gone there? Have you seen it? Have you seen the crow and the eagle? Have you seen the spreading palm trees? Have you seen the achingly clear nighttime sky? This is not a place where you put in an industrial development. And when there are alternatives that we hear about all the time, when you hear about development projects that can create solar power in communities, in neighborhoods, the All-American Canal can be covered with solar cells and at the same time save millions and millions and millions of gallons of water. So all to say, I think this is a very, very bad idea. I urge you to preserve something precious and irreplaceable about San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Peter Anderson with Sierra Club. Sierra Club unanimously supports this project and the setbacks associated with it. We have looked at the pros and cons, and there are cons to this project, but in balance This is a good project. It cuts peak demand, which is extremely important because our solar arrays only generate solar during daylight hours. So the battery storage elements of this project are extraordinarily important. There is no way California can meet its future electricity demands without both rooftop and industrial solar. It doesn't pencil out. One or the other is not enough. It provides resilience during weather and extreme weather outages, power outages and weather problems. It saves money and reduces greenhouse gas and new power plants. It reduces fossil fuel burning. It avoids 29 million tons of carbon emissions that hurt the health of every American. And new batteries have little risk of fire. Please approve.

Thank you, sir.

Is there no call? Anderson the third? You spoke? Nope. If you've already spoke, you're good to go. We will now proceed with Trudy Niebert and Tanya Eahu.

Good afternoon and thank you. My name is Trudy Niebert. I am a resident of the unincorporated East County and a realtor. serving the back communities, and a concerned member of this community. I have spent many hours reading the FEIR, the fire protection plan, and the technical documents for this project. I am not here to argue against renewable energy. I am here to speak for the people who call this place home and who were unable to attend today's hearing. As a realtor, I know that buyers ask difficult questions. They ask about wildfire risk. evacuation routes, nearby industrial development, and anything that could affect their family's safety or their investment. I ask that the county continue to place the safety and quality of life of our county residents at the center of every decision. That means ensuring emergency notification systems are robust, emergency response plans remain transparent, and community concerns continue to be heard throughout the life of this project. The people who live here deserve to know that their homes, their families, and their community remain the highest priority. Thank you for your time, for your service to our community.

Thank you.

All right, before we proceed with our members, if there's anyone whose name I have not called, please go ahead and approach the lectern. and state your name for the record. If you have not registered, please make sure that you register with the clerk at the front of the room.

OK, I did register. Good afternoon to all of you. I am Yvonne Mena, a retired teacher of East County. My husband and I decided to downsize and look for property that would be an ideal location for us. Although we travel around 50 miles for necessities, it is well worth the tranquility and the peacefulness of our boulevard that offers that to us. We have lived at 1939 Jewel Valley Road in our new home for the last four years. The Starlight Solar Project, which I am totally against, will be directly behind our property. A 360 degree pristine view of an incomparable and beautiful ecosystem, including mountain ranges and natural chaparral, will vanish. Solar panels will be the view instead. Hopefully, you have heard of the unpleasant impacts, weather, noise, the concern of water, the ecosystem, and safety concerns for all life, not just human, that this project will have on us and the community. There is no doubt in any reasonable minds that this impactful catastrophe event that would occur in a high fire zone with winds that reach up to 50 miles per hour or more if lithium batteries catch on fire. There is nothing that exists at this time to handle a lithium battery fire. Liability and self-accountability should fall in the hands of the Starlight Solar Company.

Please summarize your comments, please.

Okay. I am asking you to listen to our needs of our community when you make a fair and honest decision. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time. My name is Greg Forrest. I'm here as a professional. I do live in Boulevard. I've lived there with my wife for 13 years. I work for the city of San Diego, just retired. I worked on fire trucks. Thank you for your service. I know how they operate and I know how they work. I know about the batteries because I went through extensive training on batteries to be able to repair fleet vehicles. These batteries cannot be put out with water or with anything. They have to burn everything they have inside them before they can be put out. The videos that you were shown of those facilities that were on fire were with fire trucks that were hooked to fire hydrants. All they're there to do is to cool the battery down. Now, I don't know if you ever heard of a brush truck. A brush truck is a fire truck that has water put inside of it. It only has a limited amount. So if a fire started in Boulevard, all you're going to be doing is putting water onto that battery So all the other fires that are around, you're going to have helicopters go to the facility that has the pond to take a helicopter and dump it on there. It's not going to do anything to it. All you're going to do is continue to have a fire happen in Boulevard without any way of putting it out. You're going to have a Palisades with not no structures, but you're going to have a Palisades where you're not going to be able to put the fire out, a 60-mile-an-hour wind. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I just want to say thank you for your patience as we're all trying to organize ourselves here in this ever-changing scene. My name is Mara Harris. I am a community advocate for Boulevard and I live in Boulevard as well. I want to take a moment of pause regarding the county's statement of overriding considerations. So a pause. And I want to also acknowledge that at this point, the room is feeling very contentious. And it's not that we're seeking to have deliberation over one another, but to find actual results for human life and safety. So human life impacts are at the bottom line of this proposed starlight solar development, which include fire risks, inadequate evacuation, health risks, and additionally, and should be considered as well water and detriment to plant and animal life. Boulevard will be irreversibly impacted. Please support the full community impact fund. And lastly, I just would like to leave us all with this. Please choose to use your power and your influence to bring balance, upliftment between development and irreversible impacts to a small community. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Murphy Smith. I'm a 30-year resident of Boulevard, California. A few months ago, I took a walk up what we call Friendship Hill in Acomba Hot Springs to take in the view right next to the JVR Energy Park. For the first time, I watched a view I had seen thousands of times before of a serene desert landscape transformed seemingly overnight into a dead sea of metal and glass. I stood there, a voice told me that future generations are going to stand in that very same spot and they're not going to see what I saw six months ago, a year ago, ten years ago. They're certainly not going to see what I saw growing up there. That is what we call a devastating cultural impact on our community. So in my time in Boulevard I've seen many projects and there's many more to come and we have to ask how many more? How many more before we start to see these inequities balanced out? So I want to leave you with this. I implore you, commissioners, please, please for one moment step out of the developer's shoes and step into the shoes of the community members who have shown up here today and clearly picture in your mind's eye the effects that this project will bring. And I don't think it's an unreasonable ask that we ensure our protections and these mitigation measures that we're asking for. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Cori Schumacher. I'm the policy director of IBEW 569, representing 3,800 union electricians and sound technicians throughout San Diego and Imperial counties, 1,000 of which live in the southeastern portion of the unincorporated area of San Diego County. Projects like Starlight are critical to providing reliable and affordable energy to our neighborhoods and small businesses. We understand the community's concerns. best can pose risks if not built and maintained by the right skilled and trained workforce. The Electrical Power Research Institute, which houses the largest global database of best incidents, has provided conclusive evidence showing that the root cause of best incidents are tied to the workforce. So we know that ensuring the right skilled and trained certified workforce is the way to prevent incidents. Because the Starlight project will be built under a project labor agreement and will be built by a skilled local and trained electricians, who have the critical training and certification to build this. We live in that area and we want this to be safe and successful. We urge your support.

Thank you, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Sita Stark and I'm a resident of Boulevard and a board member of the Real East County Fire Service Council. At one of the first meetings I attended, the representative of the project spoke in a way I found concerning. The sentiment I found concerning was that this project was going to happen regardless of the community. How could they say that? It wasn't yet approved. At one point, the Bulbard planning group needed to vote on this project. I watched as they were pressured into voting yes with stipulations because if we didn't, the community would not get any benefits. That if they didn't cooperate, that they would have no input with the developers. It felt like being strong-armed. It felt coercive. At another meeting, I watched Jim Whalen pass out maps containing the locations of protected Kumeyaay sites. When he was told by Angela, the chairwoman of Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, that this was not acceptable and asked to retrieve the maps, he rudely refused. There are countless reasons why our community does not and should not trust this developer. I could go on and on with reasons why this project is a bad fit for Boulevard. We are in a very high, severely fire hazard zone. The project is right near our only school, which has one bus for an emergency scenario. We have been told that in an emergency situation, fire resources will come from San Diego. Best case scenario, they are there in an hour. God forbid they get stuck in traffic.

Can you please summarize?

This is a bad fit for the neighborhood. I support all of my community asks. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm nervous. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Audra Bergio. I am a longtime 27-year resident of Boulevard and previous board member and a local business owner. I employ lots of youth and people in our community. I, along with many of our community members, have worked very hard to try to revitalize our community and being one that is rural and small-town vibe to keep that. And it has brought in tourists and people who come through New people who've bought homes, people enjoy the peace, the tranquility, all of those things. And over the years, you've heard this again, we have been bombarded again and again. We are fighting again and again. I was on the board when we fought the Sunrise Power Link. And yeah, we were pressured. We were sidestepped. We got nothing. We were actually told that we fought so hard that guess what? We're going to put any mitigation money we have every single place else except for yours because we fought. I couldn't do the community board anymore, so my resources went somewhere else. Anyway, I support everything my community members have said, and thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Long. I'm a Boulevard resident. Standing in line, I just saw the picture of Diane Jacob and was a little comforted with my... my faith in community government. So I thank you for allowing me to speak with you today. Just real quick, I wanted to bring up when it comes to the wind, I'm not going to give you numbers because I don't know them. I know that it's insanely windy where we are. If you need any proof, we have so many turbines, they wouldn't put them out there for three mile per hour winds. Also, I'm not really sure why we haven't looked at using the Cleveland National Forest as a resource. I believe that's what it's set aside for by the federal government. Obviously, it wouldn't impact a bunch of residences or anything like that. So, yeah, just I guess that as a member of the rural community, I wanted to let you know that this feeling is getting very old and that my family, my animals, and my land are tired. I ask that you please vote no. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Leona Gruno. I've been raising my family in Boulevard for the past 12 years. I'm not against renewable energy, but I am opposed to this project. This land saved my life. When I was going through postpartum depression and autoimmune disease, I found solace and healing in this land, in the quiet, in the plants and animals, and in the beauty of the countryside. That is why many of us are here today, because this land has been medicine. We have shown up, spoke up, despite our discomfort, because we truly love this place deeply. This land, our home, has given us so much, and we wish to give something in return, to protect it, to give it a voice. I respectfully ask that you consider the voice of the Boulevard community, the stewards of the land, as you make your decisions now and in the future. Thank you, Commissioners, for listening. Thank you.

That concludes the in-person public testimony. We do have a couple of members who are from the tribal community who I'm waiting on one to join the call right now, but I will proceed with our in-person speakers. If you are listening to the call and you are part of the tribal community, please go ahead and connect right now so we can enter you into the room.

Hi, my name is Veronica Santos, and I am the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Manzanita Reservation. I am calling in today because I would like to at least see a continuance. I mean, ideally, we don't want this project to go in the way it's going in. I think there's a lot more that can be done. with the community's input and as far as collaboration with the tribal communities and the community that's right there in Boulevard. I would like to voice that I am very concerned about the school, Clover Flat Elementary. I know that it's farther away to the county standards. It's far enough away. to the standards of the people that live there and are looking at the kids in their faces when they're scared because there's fires starting and they can't get home because their mom and dad work in, you know, town. And there's only one school bus for all of the Clover Flat School. So I would like to see the... the developer of this project do a little bit better community outreach. I think that there's a lot more things that people like that come in and want to do these huge projects can do for underserved communities like Boulevard. And, you know, the fire That's a very scary, real fear. We can say all day that, you know, that's never going to happen, but it is going to happen. And what's going to happen when it happens. Excuse me?

Please summarize your comments. You're over your time.

Okay. Yes. Anyways, I would like to see a continuance or at least this project do a little bit better effort for the community and the school and all of that. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we do have the next tribal member. She's on hold. I'm going to go ahead and let her in.

Angela Elliott Santos, tribal chairwoman for the Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. I would just like to speak about the last planning commission hearing. I heard the planning commissioners say that they owe their, or they owe certain duty or whatever to the to the developer, but you also have a duty to the members of Boulevard. I pray that you are looking at the cumulative effects of what's going to happen to our region because of all of this. And the fire danger is real. The need for a possible evacuation is real. The lack of public knowledge of the truth of this project and its impact to an already area that's already impacted by so many energy developments. So Also, the developer has not been true to the community, has not given out any fair... How do I say this? The developer has not been fair with the community as to the impacts and has... told everyone that they have done that, and it is not true. And also the developer did hand out cultural site maps from the tribe and has not engaged in any real consultation or even, like I said, the true nature of this project and what their responsibility to the community should be. So I'm asking for a continuance of this project. We need more time to fully understand. From what I understand, this is the second largest battery storage to be put in California right there in our community. We're not prepared for it, and the developer hasn't done what they need to do to help us be prepared for it. So please... Give us a continuance. Allow the community to come together to speak about what should be in the community benefits package and for you to hear the truth from Boulevard and not dismiss us because we're only 300 people or 10% of us are in that room. You should be applauding that, that we are standing up for what's happening in our community. And please, the cumulative impact is ridiculous for our little community without a real community benefits package. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

all the community to come together to speak about what should be in the community benefits package and for you to hear the truth. from Boulevard and not dismiss us because we're only 300 people or 10% of us are in that room. You should be applauding that, that we are standing up for what's happening in our community. And please, the cumulative impact is ridiculous for our little community without a real community.

If you are online, can you please mute the audio and state your name for the record and begin your comment, please.

Mr. Lawrence, if you can hear me, please mute the meeting audio. We can hear that in the background. And then state your name for the record so you can begin your public comment. Good afternoon. Rhett Lawrence.

39375 Old Highway 80 Boulevard. First of all, your opening statement about we have a lot of open space out here. That's why a lot of people move here. And that's what we want to keep is open space. Of course, this is privately owned land. Anything can happen on privately owned land within reason. So I want you to know that Thomas Wall and a few others who have spoken from our so-called community are not speaking for the whole community. I don't want $7 million to buy Boulevard. And that's what it is. It's a buyout. So having said that, I don't want to see something like this go in like the JVR solar project, which flattened a bunch of, uh, riparian land, uh, and cause two horses, wild horses to die because their habitat was taken away by a solar farm. 255,000 panels of solar, uh, not even talking about the battery energy storage system, are just not acceptable for Boulevard. Thanks, sir. Could you summarize your comments? I sure can. With the addition of the plume study update that was given yesterday, I request 45-day continuance to let the residents of Boulevard read it and figure it out and swallow it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Deborah Gonzales. I'm at 980 Sierra Del Sol Road in Boulevard. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Deborah from Boulevard speaking on item four. The final EIR for the Starlight Solar is legally deficient due to an absolute collapse of the water source and a fatal chemical blind spot. Chapter three claims millions of gallons of hauled water will suppress fugitive dust. But the grading plans show that they are cutting and pulverizing 350,000 cubic yards of earth straight through the historic Risley Mine. This isn't ordinary dirt. It is crystalline silica, an OSHA-regulated human carcinogen that causes silicosis, an incurable fatal lung disease. Worse, the plume study completely ignores basic chemistry. During a battery fire, the facility will release massive volumes of hydrogen fluoride gas. Gas touches fractured crystalline silica. It triggers an immediate reaction, creating silicon tetrafluoride, SIF-4. which is a highly corrosive, deadly inhalation hazard that generates hydrofluoric acid inside human lungs. OSHA and university labs strictly ban letting HF touch silica because it creates a secondary chemical weapon. The EIR completely ignores this interaction. Finally, the project's entire dust mitigation strategy has just legally disintegrated The FEIR states that the project relies on 100% groundwater hauled from the Hakamba Community Service District. However, Hakamba Water Board has officially refused to sell water to this project. The JPSC is not a water bill. Under CEQA guidelines section 15088-5, losing the primary water source combined with an unmodeled toxic gas.

Next speaker.

My name is Adam Robledo. I am a firefighter for the Manzanita Band of the Plumee Eye Nation. I am also a Boulevard resident. I want to take my time to have plain speak. Statement of overriding consideration is a fact of a price on lives. This is unacceptable. And it wouldn't be an acceptable risk at any of the county commission's homes. It's not acceptable here. Since my interaction with this project, seeing EIR and insufficient water plan and fire protection plan within the past seven months and how much it's drastically changed, I could only assume that there's several underserved positions in this project. I would request to have a 90-day continuation while we have the proper experts with no bias to review these projects. For the consideration of all surrounding communities, not just the 300 or 400 in Boulevard, but the 1.4 million people in San Diego that live to the west of us. which is what would be caused by a fire escaping our boundaries. Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

My name is Joe Rowley. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, sir, we can hear you. We can hear you. Please proceed with your comment.

Okay, great. My name is Joe Rowley. I'm formerly the Vice President of Project Development for Semper U.S. Gas and Power, currently a consultant on large-scale energy projects. And I've been working with the county on this policy since the beginning, two years ago. My concern is that this new plume study revision came out yesterday afternoon. I've had just barely a chance to look at it at all. And what I've seen so far is just... I have a lot of questions about this revised clone study. The last version said hydrogen fluoride emissions would go downwind 300 feet at AEGL-1. This one says 2,200 feet. I mean, just hugely further impact. And I question that result and... I just don't have time to look at this study. The other issue is the characterization of what the acceptance criteria is, AEGL1 versus AEGL2. AEGL1 is 1 ppm hydrogen fluoride, for example. AEGL2, which is what was in the email yesterday from the county, suddenly changed that to 24 ppm fluoride. So, which is dangerously close to IDHL level, which is 30. So, I mean, we just don't have time to review the study between yesterday afternoon and now and have comments that are any more than just questions. We just need a little more time to be able to absorb this and make sure we're communicating. I think we're not communicating to some degree.

I thank you, sir. Thanks for your comments.

That completes the public testimony.

That's everybody? That's everybody, yes, sir. All right. Mr. Whalen, you want to wind up here and we can talk to staff and bring this to an end, hopefully?

Sure. I am not in a position to make the technical responses on the battery questions. I would defer to staff first, and if there's any questions, we can get to our consultant. But before they start, I want to make sure I, I don't know if the words apologize for giving the impression that people from Boulevard were not in opposition to the project. I know they are. And with that, I'll let staff touch on the battery questions. And we have Hazard Dynamics on the phone now in case they need to come in after staff.

Chair, we can ask our county team through County Fire to speak to specific questions. I did hear a number of comments, though, from the public that I think would be best answered by the applicant team. If they have their presenter on the line, we would certainly allow you to ask them any specific questions that were raised from today for the people that prepared the plume analysis study, and then we can respond to any comments regarding the county review of it.

Okay. I just want to make sure that Kevin Maher can communicate if he needs to.

Commissioners, do you have any questions? Mr. Whalen, go ahead, Commissioner.

I'm not sure which individual is best suited to answer the question, but there was discussion about when the plume analysis was submitted to the county and subsequently to the public, I know that there were multiple iterations of the plume analysis and my question and the reason I'm asking this is whether or not to grant another continuance is what level of modification or refinements were made at the last minute yesterday afternoon and does, in your opinion, or whoever's opinion that is here from your team to answer, does that constitute a substantial modification that would necessitate more time, or is it more on the minor revision side that can be dealt with on the day of?

I would, from the limited technical knowledge I have of battery studies, the one that was submitted some weeks ago covers 85% of the wind in Boulevard. The part that was not covered was from the 85th to the 99th percentile, which increased the wind speed at that level from 16 to 27 miles an hour. So I would probably have to stop making technical comments at this point. But the gist of it is that the original plume study that went in covered 85% of the impacts. backfilling that we did with better wind data covered the rest of it. And that addendum was four pages, so it's not that hard to read. The original study was the same study.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Sibelico, I think our review of it was the original plume analysis report was 49 pages. The addendum that came in that was released yesterday to the public was roughly eight pages. So the additional information was eight pages that came in for review. If the board, if the commission would like to have further analysis of that between now and the board hearing, we are going to continue to engage with the community and the applicant to answer any questions and can set up any working meetings to answer questions on that addendum as we move forward. We're okay with that.

Okay, I do have a follow-up then because the The length of the actual addendum is at issue, but also the substance of it. So if the additional eight pages dealt with the wind speeds between 16 miles per hour and 27 miles per hour, and the actual average wind speed is a factual issue in this hearing, I think that it's more than just like an eight-page versus a 49-page issue. It's a little bit more substantive than that, right?

I think that's a fair assessment. We were just providing the eight pages for context of how much was changed. Good. Thank you.

I share the Commissioner's concern, but I'm wondering if this would require a continuance or just have it worked out, as you said, between now and the board meeting. And if it wasn't worked out by then, then a continuance at that time of that hearing.

We would support that.

Commissioner. I don't believe it requires a continuance. We can move forward. It is not uncommon for projects to have technical analyses that are continuing to be refined and updated based on engagement between a planning commission and a board hearing.

And that would also include the issue of the desk control.

Chair, absolutely. If the Commission wishes to make a motion for additional analysis regarding dust control measures, including monitoring during construction, as was addressed by community comments today, that could also be part of your motion for additional review and analysis between now and the board hearing.

We would agree to that.

Yes, Commissioner Pallinger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whalen, you know, it's very rare that we have a hearing that so much involvement from the community and so much passion on their part. So we take that very seriously. And I think we heard consistently throughout their testimony these three or four issues. And before Commission moves forward, we'd like to know your flexibility or ability to kind of address some of their concerns. The

If I recall the three.

Yeah, we think we all know what they are. Number one was the community involvement, the $7 million versus what you proposed. Certainly dust control is one of those.

The dust control we're okay with.

Containment of protection of the groundwater. We're okay with that. And moving the batteries to the southern portion. I don't know if that's technically possible.

We can move the second phase. The first phase is already fixed because the power's sold. We don't have any commitments on the second phase, so we're flexible there.

So it's already engineered and it can't be moved? All right. The first phase. The second phase can be moved. So we could include that in the second phase, but the current phase, which is the closest portion of the project to the community, right? Yes.

Well, yeah, there are very few people everywhere.

Can they put up a map?

Yeah, could we see a map of the aerial? Yes. Oh, well, here we go. Don't hurt yourself.

Actually, the commission secretary has an exhibit for me. That's all right, sir.

We'll have staff pull it up.

This is the map. Just so you know, this is the project. These are all people.

Please sit down. Thomas, thank you. We'll pull a map up on the presentation.

It needs to be on the record, so council's here whispering in my ear. We have to have staff pull it up, so... If you could pull it up, please, staff, that would help us get some context there. It sounds like there's nothing we can do at this point because it's already engineered, but just for context.

That's not the one. It's the one that would go with my, it was a colored drawing that had yellow pins showing the six residences within. Yeah, that would be great.

Commission, we're going through our files right now to pull the map that he's looking for. Thank you, Mr. Director.

We can't look at that one because it has to be on the record, so it has to be on the screen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to dig into this a little bit. We have the exhibit you're looking for. Yes, it was sent to us yesterday. It was sent to the commission secretary.

She's pulling that up. And if you sent it, she has it, believe me. So while she's looking up the community benefit issue, how can we work with the community to address their concerns?

As I understand it, there it is. The yellow, okay, the through the chair, Commissioner Pallinger, let me finish this first. The magenta shape is 2230 feet from the batteries. There are six homes within the IGL, the least dangerous area. And I believe that of the areas up in the two in the northeast would be the houses that would be evacuated if there was a fire. So there would be two homes evacuated or they would be told to shelter in place. That's the entirety of the entire battery situation. Thank you, Mr. Whelan. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. And then to your question on the community benefits, we agreed to the community's request for $22,222 per megawatt. The first phase is 20 megawatts. So that's 20 megawatts times that. the 900,000 is more than 22,000 megawatt. So if the logic is to spread it over the megawatts as they come online, the other part would be the other remaining part of the 7 million would come in the second phase.

So in lieu of the credits to the billing, you would turn it into cash for the community?

Well, our understanding is that the community center needs refurbishment. And that would be a clear and present need. Right.

That's why we agreed to that. And the future funding would come from phase two then? Yes. Yes. But it would be cash, not credit.

If the community doesn't want the reduced electric bills. They're pretty clear about it. That's fine with me. That is fine with me. We can convert it into cash.

All right. Well, that's quite a concession. Thank you very much. Okay.

Can we put the slide up that shows what phase one and phase two is? Because that's not clear to me.

And while we pull that up, Commissioner, just to make a comment, that map that was just shown has been part of the project record for several months. I just received a comment from the community that there could be up to eight additional houses within that sphere of the magenta zone. We will work with those individuals after this hearing to identify if those harms are within that zone and to figure out why the record discrepancy exists, but wanted to note that.

I believe it's because we only use legal residences.

and that'll be part of what we look at after this. I think what he means is permitted homes that we have permit records for. So we'll work with individuals to find out what's going on with those additional up to eight homes and figure out how we can reconcile.

Thank you. Eight homes are too many.

Be quiet.

Can I ask a question of staff? Go ahead. So obviously we would be approving the MEP today. They're conditioning the community benefits funding for the community on their phasing. which from my perspective is not fair considering we're approving the entire project. Are there other steps for their phase two that would require approval before this body or administratively that we need to understand like a future threshold leverage opportunity?

Yeah, Commissioner Weber through the chair. So the way that this would work would be the use permit would have certain conditions that are tied to phase one. And based on what the developer has proposed thus far, it would be the 900,000 for the community resource center. before they can move forward with phase two, there would be a subsequent set of conditions that need to be complied with before they can start construction. So I think what the developer is suggesting is as part of those second phase conditions, it would be a contribution, a voluntary contribution to the community, and that would have to be done before they can begin physical construction of phase two.

And the reason for that, if I may, is because only the power in the first phase is sold. That's why.

Mr. Chairman.

Other questions?

Yes. Did you get your, Commissioner Calvo, did you get, I think you wanted to see another map, didn't you?

Which portion of phase two would you be agreeing to move the batteries south?

We would have to take a look at that because it's a new technical change.

Okay.

We would do it before the board hearing.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Mr. Chairman, I have one final question of the applicants here. Obviously, there's a real need in this community, and $900,000 initially doesn't seem like that much money to me. Obviously, it's a lot of money, particularly if I had to pay it out of my pocket, but in the context of a large project like this, I wonder if you'd be more flexible in redistributing your funding between Phase 1 and Phase 2. You mean not by megawatt anymore? No, the community benefit... an amount greater than $900,000 allocated to phase one. Oh. On a large project like this that you've been working on for many years, it certainly seems to me to be a goodwill gesture on your part to the community.

Well, surely we can take a look at it. Where the number came from was because... Yeah, I don't care where the number came from.

We budgeted it. And I know you probably can't speak. You're not the owner or the developer, but you represent them. But I think if you could go back and take a look at that with your team... It certainly seems to me, I work on a lot of large commercial projects, and I think there's probably room in there to be more. We can do that. Thank you.

Other questions, ladies and gentlemen?

No? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion if you're ready.

I'm ready. I was born ready.

Or do you want to have some more public testimony?

I intend to go out ready.

If we stay here long enough, it'll be happy hour. I'll make a motion to support staff's recommendation with the following conditions. I understand phase one is designed and cannot be changed where the batteries are located, but those batteries need to have a containment barrier, water retention underneath them. Phase two battery should be located as far away from any residences or community improvements. And I know the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Air Quality Control Board are gonna be on you. And I hope they're really mean to you. So we don't have, I know they're mean to me. And if there's any additional monitoring that staff can work with the applicant to have maybe an onsite monitor there to help dust control, I think that makes a lot of sense in that area. and have the applicant work with his ownership and the county to reallocate, not in a formula, just dollars from phase one to phase two. That's my motion.

For the community benefit fund? Okay. So we have a motion, ladies and gentlemen, on the floor. It's quite qualified, although I think all of us have the gist of it. And... Is there a second or do you want to have discussion? Is there a second?

Could I suggest just two refinements to the motion before anyone seconds? Is that going to be okay?

Okay.

I don't know if I haven't read my Rosenberg's Rules of Order recently. I would like to add the following two conditions. I would like to require an independent third-party verification of on the figures and the plume analysis, or just make it the whole plume analysis, just so we know that this is going to be legitimate, that we can stand by our EIR, that it's not going to, you know, go up in flames in court. Just, I heard there was a member of the public who said that this is revolutionary. When I hear revolutionary, I think new and untested a little bit. So we need to really be sure of ourselves that the plume analysis is legitimate, not saying anything about it being wrong, but we just have to be sure. The second condition I would want to add is consider the Board of Supervisors appoint a special master for the community benefits agreement, just because there was some concern about whether or not the money, how it would be dispersed. I mean, who do they give it to?

I think typically on these community benefits, it's administered by the San Diego Foundation. Is that correct? Yeah, so the money would go to the San Diego Foundation. So a grandmaster exists. There is controls in place.

Okay. Then I'll withdraw that second one.

I'll so amend my motion to take your first point.

Okay, thank you.

And we concur with that.

Chair, if we could also add a nuance. The county has a contract for a third party who helps review plume analysis and technical reports like this. We'll engage them for the review. Yeah, that's satisfactory.

Right, we have a motion and a second, and the maker of the motion accepted the plume analysis item. So with that, are we prepared to vote, ladies and gentlemen?

Chair, if I could, just one minor clarification. I believe the commissioner intended to say to reallocate funding from phase two to phase one, not the reverse. So I just wanted to make that minor clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Director.

All right, so as stated in the record, ladies and gentlemen, please vote.

Commissioners, when your name is called, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

Commissioner Weber?

Yes.

Commissioner Sudbury? Yes.

Yes.

And Commissioner Sibelico.

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, maybe just thanking the community for all their time and effort on this, if you would please. Go ahead. Thanks for coming down here and spending all this time. It was maybe a little painful for us, but we appreciate all of your efforts in trying to protect your community.

All righty then, while the room is getting cleared, could we have the director's report? Or maybe we should wait a few minutes.

Yeah, from phase two to phase one.

Mm-hmm.

All right, we'll quickly do a director's report. Folks who are leaving the room, if you don't mind keeping it quiet, we still have a brief ending to the hearing today. Mr. Chair, for the Director's Report on August 19th, at the Board of Supervisors, we'll be presenting the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program for the first reading at that ordinance. And then we will also be doing the follow-up on the Accessory Dwelling Unit item. This is options for the Board to consider for first-time homebuyers. Both of those will be on August 19th, and that is it for our Director's Report. Thank you.

Well, that was fast. Mr. Chairman, if I may once again. Yes, sir. I will be representing the commission, so I want to be sure that we're organized ahead of that, if you would please.

All righty, with that, our next scheduled meeting is August 7, 2026, Friday. And mercifully, I'll adjourn.