County staff presented a draft zoning overlay and principal components for a battery energy storage (BES) combining district on Nov. 18. Stephanie Henson (assistant planning director) summarized minimum site standards proposed for facilities: minimum parcel size of 10 acres, maximum development area of 20 acres, containerized outdoor batteries, 1,000‑foot setbacks from sensitive receptors (schools, day cares, residential care facilities), a prohibition of nickel‑manganese‑cobalt chemistries and a preference for lithium iron phosphate (LFP), requirements to meet NFPA standards and state law (including Senate Bill 283 and forthcoming NFPA 855/800 guidance), perimeter air monitoring and consultation with local fire districts, and decommissioning and insurance requirements.

The presentation and a multi‑hour public hearing drew dozens of speakers for and against the draft. Supporters (including local fire districts, Central Coast Community Energy and labor representatives) urged local control, stricter safety standards than state minimums, and clarified that storage is essential for grid reliability and climate goals. Opponents raised concerns about siting BES on agricultural land near College Lake (Minto Road), potential runoff of firefighting water, soil and groundwater contamination, long‑term disposal of batteries, risk from thermal‑runaway incidents, and urged a pause to pursue non‑flammable alternatives or more detailed protections.

During board discussion members pressed staff on operational standards, financial assurances and the need for soil, water and baseline air monitoring. Supervisor Martinez asked staff to ensure that developers—not taxpayers—bear costs of incident response, testing, decommissioning and community impacts. Supervisors requested stronger language requiring fire‑district coordination, minimum fire‑access and turnaround routes, runoff/catchment and monitoring plans, skilled‑labor construction requirements, community‑benefit commitments, and stronger decommissioning bonds or insurance. The maker of the proposal asked staff to return with revised ordinance language and an implementation plan; staff said environmental review (likely a supplemental EIR analyzing both the ordinance and the reasonably foreseeable Minto Road project) would begin and public hearings before commissions and the board would follow.

The board voted unanimously to direct staff to incorporate board recommendations, proceed with environmental review and return with a refined ordinance and recommended first reading within a shortened timeline, and staff agreed to attempt a focused return within roughly three months for a revised ordinance draft with the requested elements. The board also asked the chair’s office to notify the BES applicant (New Leaf Energy) of the county’s intent to proceed with local ordinance work.