Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press supervisors to tighten BESS ordinance, oppose lithium siting near Watsonville
Summary
Multiple Watsonville-area residents urged the Santa Cruz County Board on April 28 to move forward with a firm battery energy storage (BESS) ordinance and oppose permitting lithium-based projects near Mento Road; speakers demanded independent soil testing and argued the county should not pause ordinance work in deference to developers.
Dozens of speakers during the public-comment period pressed the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors April 28 to strengthen the county—attery energy storage system (BESS) ordinance and to oppose lithium battery siting near Mento Road, Watsonville.
Linda Santos asked the board not to pause the draft BESS ordinance while a developer decides next steps. She urged the ordinance to include objective criteria for "economically unviable agricultural land," independent soils testing at the Mento Road site, and clear definitions so findings are not based solely on developer-funded studies. She told the board: "If independent testing confirms that [soil is viable], then the basis for this project collapses." Several other speakers made similar demands for third-party, site-specific soil analysis and more explicit protections for farmland and adjacent neighborhoods.
Phoenix Sartisia, calling in from a Watsonville community meeting opposing a New Leaf Energy proposal at 90 Mento Road, said county supervisors must not allow flammable lithium chemistry in disadvantaged neighborhoods and asked whether Supervisor Hernandez—ould commit the county would "fight New Leaf." Callers cited alternative, non-flammable chemistries (sodium, vanadium flow) and referenced prior correspondence to the board (a letter from a vendor, John Hassar of Infinity, promoting vanadium flow batteries). Others raised environmental justice and public-safety concerns, listing nearby counts of Latino residents, monolingual Spanish speakers and school children.
Board members acknowledged constituent concern and asked planning staff to continue work on the draft ordinance. Supervisor Durpa and others said they wanted the draft ordinance and supporting analyses to proceed rather than pause; staff said a policy commission review and stakeholder engagement will be part of the process. The board did not adopt an ordinance that day; public comments were heard during the consent/public-comment period.
