Dozens of residents, environmental advocates and community groups urged the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors at the Dec. 9 meeting to prohibit lithium‑ion battery energy storage facilities in the county or pause the ordinance process until further environmental and safety review.

Speakers repeatedly referenced the Moss Landing battery fire and a San Jose State study they said found heavy metals and toxic residues. Keith McHenry of multiple community groups called for a ban and said attorneys are prepared to litigate to stop the facilities from being sited in Santa Cruz County. “We watched the draft ordinance meeting, and the board voted to rehear that case in March,” McHenry said, asserting that the schedule was moved without adequate public notice.

Nina Audino and Diane Denton, representing a local coalition often described in the record as Stop Lithium BESS, urged the county to prioritize non‑flammable storage technologies. Denton warned that placing large lithium stores near working‑class neighborhoods and farmland (the Watsonville site was repeatedly cited) could impose disproportionate health and environmental burdens. “Lithium is not a safe battery technology and the county should not permit their use in [the] county,” Denton said.

Speakers asked for a fuller environmental impact review — including worst‑case fire, smoke and drift modeling, electromagnetic field and geological hazard analysis — and argued that proposed overlay zoning near substations amounts to spot zoning that shifts risks on communities without benefits. Christian (a Stop Lithium BESS spokesperson) urged an EIR-level analysis that evaluates noise, electromagnetic exposure, geological hazards, and worst‑case release scenarios.

County staff noted that ordinance timing and statutory constraints shape what studies can be required for specific permit types; however, speakers pushed the board to slow the process, expand public outreach, and research non‑lithium alternatives. Several public commenters tied their arguments to environmental justice, saying siting decisions have concentrated risks in Watsonville and other vulnerable neighborhoods.

There was no formal vote on the topic at the meeting. The item drew sustained public interest and prompted board members and staff to note continuing debate and legal complexity as the ordinance process proceeds.