Council narrows battery storage zoning; planning commission recommendation would block all in-city sites

Director of Community Development Shannon Dowell introduced an ordinance to amend zoning text for battery energy storage systems (BESS) following a high‑profile January fire at a Moss Landing facility. The amendment would define BESS in the municipal code, confine eligible sites to M‑2 (heavy manufacturing) zones, require an emergency response and action plan in coordination with police and fire, and set a quarter‑mile buffer from sensitive receptors such as residential areas, schools and hospitals.

Dowell said the planning commission recommended additional constraints: add agricultural cultivation uses to the list of sensitive receptors and expand notice to both tenants and property owners within two miles. With the planning commission's added agricultural restriction, she said, "it would actually eliminate all sites from consideration within the city of Santa Maria." The staff offered an alternative compromise to restrict siting directly on agricultural parcels while not applying an agricultural distance buffer; that would leave two potential sites available inside the city.

Representatives of PG&E and energy industry speakers urged the council to review pending state legislation (identified in the meeting as SB 283) and national standards (NFPA 855) before finalizing local rules, to ensure consistency and to reflect evolving, safer technologies such as lithium‑iron phosphate. Eric Daniels of PG&E noted that early installations used older lithium‑ion designs and industry practice has changed; he asked staff to preview state legislation and to consider siting needs such as proximity to substations.

Public commenters and safety advocates raised concerns about large evacuations and plume effects in the Moss Landing incident. Andy Caldwell of CoLab said the Moss Landing fire prompted evacuations up to eight miles and that BESS fires can produce chemical plumes; he urged a full environmental review (EIR) and stronger emergency planning for any local siting. Council members voiced concern about proximity to sensitive uses; one member said she would "hate for something like this to go up near the county jail." Staff noted the ordinance could function as a near‑term local restriction while state standards evolve.

After public comment and discussion, the council voted to proceed with the staff‑directed version on the agenda (which included the M‑2 zoning restriction and other standards but did not adopt the planning commission's broader agricultural distance buffer). The roll call on the motion recorded unanimous support as shown in the meeting record. Staff and several speakers said further coordination with the state and monitoring of state legislation and national standards would continue before any final permit approvals.

The action was an introduction/first reading of zoning text amendments; council members noted it would preserve local control of where BESS may locate while staff returns with any additional edits informed by state action and industry standards.