Lea este artículo en español aquí.
Pointing out that an expert consultant’s report had not yet been considered, the San Benito County Planning Commission voted Oct. 20 to postpone until Dec. 16 its consideration of proposed new battery energy storage system (BESS) rules.
A draft BESS ordinance presented to the commission would have included amendments to the county’s zoning codes governing battery storage projects, such as Longroad Energy’s proposed Allium Solar project off Hwy 156.
County Director of Planning and Building Abraham Prado presented the draft ordinance, which staff recommended the commission approve and forward to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors for approval.
But the commissioners indicated they believed the draft ordinance wasn’t nearly ready for their review yet because expert consultant Mike Nicholas’ report on his review of the draft had not yet been considered by the ad hoc committee of interested parties.
Nicholas, a retired Kern County fire captain who has worked with state officials on creating BESS project standards, agreed to review the draft ordinance and provide recommendations.
However, Prado told the commission Nicholas’ recommendations had not been added to the agenda prior to the meeting. Prado then proceeded to give a lengthy review of the proposed ordinance, including changes made at the ad hoc committee’s behest.
He said the staff recommended the commission approve the ordinance and forward it to the supervisors to adopt.
Commissioner Robert Gibson was quick to comment, “The staff recommendation is a little off. The ad hoc requested more time to work on the ordinance. We did not want the Planning Commission to send this to the board because it’s half written. There’s a lot of changes that need to be made to make it a workable ordinance.”
After a brief back and forth between commissioners about setback distances, better maps, and the need for community meetings, Chair Richard Way suggested, “Why don’t we continue this and send it back to the ad hoc committee for further review?”
During public comment, ad hoc committee member Leslie Austin said she wanted the ad hoc review to continue before the ordinance goes before the supervisors.
“We need an ordinance that protects people, the environment, wildlife, public funds with requirements that fit different project types that the county can actually administer and enforce,” Austin said, adding that she had been preparing a side-by-side review of the county’s language, research from government agencies and other jurisdictions along with suggested changes and questions needing county council review.
“I began this work to contribute effectively to the ad hoc process and to support the community staff, commissioners, and supervisors in this critical work,” she said. “The document explains each recommendation, its supporting research, and questions about responsibilities and costs. But we also need to understand how the requirements work together, building on the county’s mapping. That means looking at realistic projects and locations and considering land use rules, electrical connections, safety costs, and oversight all together.”
She suggested that the county bring affected residents, climate and environmental groups, and other key stakeholders together to compare options before deciding whether any protections should change.
“The document is substantially drafted and I’m checking that its recommendations fit together and will deliver it no later than Oct. 28,” she said. “I ask you to please allow enough time afterwards for staff, council, commissioners and stakeholders to review it before the next hearing.”
Long Road Energy spokesperson Laren Cypress agreed that the ordinance needs more work.
“Some provisions in the current form cannot even be met by an applicant,” Cypress said. “The ordinance requires soil testing on neighboring land that an applicant has no legal right to enter, and it requires a geo-liner under the batteries that would result in rainwater pooling around energized equipment. Things like this matter for the county, not just an applicant.”
She reiterated her warning, delivered several times already, that if the county cannot devise an ordinance the applicant will go to the state for permits and the county will lose control over the process, including “where the dollars for a community benefit or development agreement go.”
“An ordinance that’s strict on safety while still being workable for applicants keeps control out of Sacramento,” Cypress said. “In the same vein, the ordinance now calls for a development agreement, which is fair and reasonable, but a number of the ordinance’s requirements increase applicant costs significantly with no net benefit to safety or the community because they either duplicate what’s already required by other state or federal law or they’re not grounded in informed and established safety standards.”
In other public comments, Green Foothills Policy and Advocacy Associate Manager Jessica Wohlander complimented the staff and the ad hoc committee for their work on the ordinance but also said even stricter standards were needed to protect habitat, species and more.
Green Foothills is a nonprofit dedicated to protecting local nature and ensuring a healthy environment.
“I really appreciate the protections for farmland that have been included and the fire hazard and floodplain exclusions and the community meeting requirement,” Woolander said. “My biggest concern, though, is that the draft ordinance does not contain any provisions relating to critical habitat, specialist status species, or wildlife corridors. San Benito County contains critical wildlife linkage points between the Diablo Range and the Gavilan Range and the Gavilan Range in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Wildlife movement through these areas is essential for maintaining ecological resilience in our county and beyond.”
John Freeman, who said he has 40 years of experience in the hazardous waste industry and conducts classes on lithium battery handling and shipping, said he is in favor of the Long Road Energy project and subsequent similar projects that may come after it.
“What I really want to concentrate on is that the project produces local tax revenue for our county,” he said. “These types of projects produce no traffic, no noise, and no pollution. It’s really important that we consider tax implications to this county.”
After public comment, Way said he agreed with those who called for more balance between safety and operational flexibility.
“I’m hearing a lot of people arguing that this could benefit from additional polishing, and I think that’s true,” he said. “We have to be careful to craft something that, as several people have pointed out, is workable and yet also promotes safety. I don’t think we’re there just yet.”
Related stories
Planning Commission continues review of battery energy ordinance to August | BenitoLink
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website covering San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and to providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.
You must be logged in to post a comment.