Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bess Siting Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heavy public opposition, San Marcos council sends Seguro BESS matter back to staff for more study
Summary
Following hours of testimony from residents, technical experts and council members about fire and public‑safety risks posed by the proposed Seguro battery energy storage system near Palomar Medical Center, the council voted 3–2 to return the matter to staff for further study and to develop local safety standards and guidance.
The San Marcos City Council on Sept. 24 voted 3–2 to send a proposed resolution concerning the Seguro Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project back to city staff for further study and to concurrently develop safety and siting standards for energy-storage projects that could affect the city.
Deputy Mayor Jenkins and other members raised concerns about the proposed site’s proximity to Palomar Medical Center (about 1,600 feet as noted by multiple speakers), the area’s wildfire risk, and the possibility that a thermal‑runaway event could create prolonged smoke and toxic plumes. “We would oppose the Seguro Battery Energy Storage System Project as currently proposed and located adjacent to the City of San Marcos until further study and guidelines … can be developed region‑wide,” Deputy Mayor Jenkins read from the draft resolution.
Speakers included nearby residents, medical‑facility representatives and technical experts. Joe Goli, a longtime developer of large‑scale energy projects, told the council: “With that as background, I can tell you with total confidence that this is the worst site selection I have ever seen.” Several nearby residents and homeowners cited evacuation concerns, loss of hospital services during extended fires and potential insurance and property‑value impacts.
Other commenters and one local installer cautioned against blanket bans on energy storage, noting newer designs and standards and arguing for measured, technical approaches. Planning and public-safety discussion on the dais focused on how the city can balance climate goals and grid needs with first-responder safety and community risk.
The substitute motion approved by the council directs staff to research safety protocols, response requirements, on‑site mitigations and how such projects affect first responders, and to return with a fact‑based proposed resolution and draft local standards. The vote recorded on the substitute motion was 3 in favor and 2 opposed; the council did not adopt an outright opposition to the project site but put the city on record seeking further study and local standards development.
What happens next: Staff will research regional and county analysis, coordinate with fire‑prevention experts and report back to the council; the action does not itself change county land‑use permits for projects sited outside city limits.
