Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge city to oppose nearby battery storage and 24-hour travel center
Summary
Multiple residents and community groups told the Vacaville City Council they oppose the Corby battery energy storage project (in unincorporated Vacaville) and a proposed 24-hour Cherry Glen travel center, citing wildfire risk, groundwater concerns, traffic and loss of agricultural land.
A steady stream of public commenters at the July 28 Vacaville City Council meeting urged the city to oppose two unrelated but nearby proposals: the Corby battery energy storage project (regulated by the California Energy Commission) in unincorporated Vacaville, and a proposed 24-hour pilot travel center at Cherry Glen Road.
Sarah Dunn of Keep Vacaville Safe (speaker 20) told council the commission's preliminary recommendation "found no significant impact except it's an eyesore," and said the group strongly disagrees. "If built, it will absolutely affect our Vacaville residents, businesses, and our economic development and growth," she said, noting proximity to hospitals, freeways and homes and urging citizens to submit comments to the Energy Commission.
Other speakers raised wildfire and public-safety concerns about a proposed 24-hour travel center at 566 Cherry Glen Road, pointing to recent nearby fires (June 7 and July 23) and arguing that freight and truck traffic would increase risk to adjoining neighborhoods, impede evacuation and add noise and pollution. A resident who said his property sits across the street from the proposed truck stop said he was never notified and called the project "detrimental to the whole neighborhood." Several speakers urged the city to preserve agricultural land and to provide fuller, earlier notice of projects.
City staff (speaker 12, Erin Morris) told the council the truck-stop and Corby project are at early stages: the Cherry Glen application is incomplete and the city is preparing a project-focused web page and plans to hold at least two community meetings. Staff emphasized the city cannot unilaterally stop projects in unincorporated county land but will coordinate with county staff and has existing local ordinance protections (a moratorium and a city ordinance banning certain battery facilities in some areas).
Council members acknowledged the concerns and said staff will follow the public process; the mayor and council noted the state process can preempt local control in some cases but urged residents to participate in comment periods and upcoming community meetings. Staff said the CEC public hearing for the county project was scheduled for Sept. 1 at a county community center and reminded residents how to submit comments.
