Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Juan Capistrano council adopts resolution opposing proposed 250‑MW battery storage project
Summary
The council unanimously adopted a staff‑recommended resolution opposing NG North America’s proposed 250‑megawatt battery energy storage facility on Saddleback Church property, citing public‑safety, environmental and local‑control concerns and directing staff to submit the opposition into the California Energy Commission docket.
San Juan Capistrano — The City Council on June 3 unanimously adopted a resolution formally opposing NG North America’s proposal to build a 250‑megawatt commercial battery energy storage facility (BESS) on land owned by Saddleback Church.
Assistant City Manager Matisse Reischl told the council the city had previously denied the project in 2022 and that the applicant later sought approval from the California Energy Commission (CEC), a move that bypassed local land‑use control. Reischl said staff recommended the resolution because of public‑safety risks, proximity to residential neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas, and the lack of locally tailored land‑use standards for BESS projects.
"BESS facilities have been linked to fires, toxic smoke plumes and regional evacuations," Reischl said in his presentation, citing recent incidents in Monterey and San Diego counties. He noted the proposed site sits adjacent to wildfire‑prone hillsides, an at‑grade rail crossing, a Kinder Morgan gas pipeline and waterways including Trabuco and Oso creeks, which staff said could be affected by fire‑suppression chemicals or hazardous runoff.
During public comment, Chris Lobel, governmental affairs director for the Wanyang Yebanna Mission Indians, said the tribe filed a formal opposition earlier that day and urged the council to adopt the resolution. "That location could not be a worse location for the tribe," Lobel said, urging continued city opposition and regional coordination.
Council members pressed staff about whether the resolution should call out NG’s outreach practices. Council member Frias asked whether to add language alleging NG had been dishonest about public support; staff replied the city had submitted evidence into the CEC record regarding NG’s prior community‑engagement efforts and would include the council’s adopted resolution in the docket.
After further council remarks urging Saddleback Church to reconsider its association with the proposal, the council moved, seconded and voted to adopt the resolution opposing the project; the motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: Staff said it would file the resolution and related materials into the CEC docket and continue coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions taking similar positions.
