BOULEVARD, San Diego County — October 29, 2026. A legal challenge has added a new chapter to the debate over a large solar and battery-storage development in rural East County. After the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the Starlight Solar project on September 16, a group of opponents filed a lawsuit challenging its environmental review, according to KPBS reporting published October 22.
What was approved?
County documents describe Starlight Solar, south of Boulevard near Jewel Valley Road and the U.S.–Mexico border, as a proposed facility with up to 100 megawatts of solar generation and 217.4 megawatts of battery-storage power capacity. The project’s environmental review describes an approximately 588-acre development area, associated roads, power connections, fire infrastructure and an off-site biological open-space easement. These project-area figures should not be confused with the size of the final array footprint, which could reflect additional setbacks and permit conditions.
What does the lawsuit allege?
KPBS reported that the Back Country Community Alliance for Responsible Development filed suit in San Diego Superior Court on October 15. The challengers argue that the county’s environmental analysis failed to adequately address potential battery-fire hazards, evacuation routes and water-supply considerations. These are allegations in litigation, not findings by a judge. The filing seeks further compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
How has the developer responded?
In the same KPBS report, project land-use consultant Jim Whalen disputed the challenge, said he believed sufficient safeguards were in place, and argued that large renewable-energy projects are needed to meet energy and climate objectives. San Diego County declined to comment on the pending litigation, KPBS reported.
What protections were debated?
The county’s September staff materials describe additional buffers from Jewel Valley Road and homes, dust monitoring, fire-related containment measures and community-benefit contributions. The Board’s public record states that the application was approved as amended. The environmental decision records significant impacts and adopted mitigation and overriding-consideration findings. Neither approval nor the filed lawsuit proves that construction has started, that a fire will occur or that the environmental review will be overturned.
Why this matters to Boulevard
The decision places a rural community at the center of a dispute about utility-scale renewable energy, public safety, land use and the obligations of government agencies under CEQA. For residents, the next meaningful milestones are court orders, any revised environmental documents, implementation of permit conditions and verified construction notices.
Primary records and independent coverage: San Diego County Board item 26-564, action September 16, 2026; State Clearinghouse 2023030603, Notice of Determination; KPBS, October 22 lawsuit reporting. Editorial update: October 29, 2026.
Help this community newspaper grow
Your support helps build coverage for the people and places this local newspaper serves.
Donate once by card ↗Support Boulevard News
Choose how to support Boulevard News:
Credit / Debit Card via StripeChoose an amount from $1. One-time support through the publisher's LINKERNO Stripe account.
Continue with PayPal Continue with ZelleZelle payments go to Vitaly Ataev Troshin. Please verify the recipient in your bank before sending. Availability depends on your bank.
Optional reader support. When possible, add “Boulevard News” to the payment note. Contributions are not advertised as tax-deductible. Support does not influence editorial decisions.More from Boulevard News
Explore more local reporting and community updates on the newspaper homepage.
Visit Boulevard News →
COMMUNITY
Comments
Join the California58 conversation. You must be signed in to comment.
Create a free California58 account or sign in with an available social provider.