Morro Bay’s Measure A-24 was passing, according to the most recent election results, as the City Council began discussing its options to potentially block any future battery plant permits.
As of Nov. 14, 59 percent of voters approved A-24, 4 percent more than what’s required to pass. Although not explicitly stated in the ballot measure, it aims to prevent the 24-acre Vistra battery plant project from being developed where the old power plant currently stands. A-24 would strip the City Council of its jurisdiction to approve a battery plant at that location without voter approval.
But after a meeting in September where the City Council extended the plant’s review for another 18 months, Vistra decided to seek state approval under AB 205, a bill that offers a more streamlined process for energy facility approval. If the California Energy Commission approves the project, final approval would go to the California Coastal Commission, and the city would be bypassed entirely.
In light of this, the City Council voted 4-0 on Nov. 12 to allow city staff to start developing ordinances that would block any future battery plant permits and enable the city to implement battery plant regulation into its zoning laws—although no ordinance would impact Vistra’s current application.
“I think it’s important our community takes a stance in light of how we have seen the whole process with the [battery plant] application and the pause to further consideration of going to use AB 205,” Mayor Carla Wixom said at the Nov. 12 meeting.
According to the Nov. 12 staff report, current city zoning codes do not include specific standards for battery plants. So, if an applicant were to submit a permit, it would likely be processed as a public works or utilities project and could be built near businesses, homes, or schools.
“None of us want to see this next to our home,” Wixom said. “I think our community is certainly on board with renewables, but it’s about location, location, location.”
By enacting an ordinance, the city could review each battery plant application and determine whether it meets land use criteria. If it doesn’t, the applicant would need to apply for a land rezoning, which then requires approval from the city and California Coastal Commission.
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald presented two options to the council to pursue land use adjustments.
The city could enact a permanent ordinance that would prohibit battery plant permits and require state approval through AB 205. The staff report said this would force applicants to bypass local zoning and reduce the city’s influence over future battery plant permit applications.
The other option would be to enact a temporary urgency ordinance that would block battery plant permits for two years while the city works to set clear standards for new land use, which could later become a permanent ordinance.
“This option would provide [battery plant] projects a local path for approval, set clear guidelines to protect public safety, and ensure the city has a seat at the table to negotiate for community benefits,” the staff report read.
However, neither would prevent applicants from pursuing state approval through AB 205.
With the City Council’s unanimous approval, city staff will develop each ordinance and present them to the council in early 2025.
Wixom told New Times that the ordinances for battery plants could serve as “protection” for the city and that the Nov. 12 discussion was just the beginning.
“It will allow us time to address zoning areas and areas that would be appropriate versus areas that might impact residential or retail or commercial businesses,” she said. “So, we don’t want to be chasing it with a knee-jerk reaction, … and we want to be proactive about it.” Δ
This article appears in Holiday Guide 2024.
A clean battery storage facility is a perfect use for a former oil-fired power plant that produced toxins for decades. Only fools would be against reusing a brownfield site that already has all the key infrastructure (ie, switchyard).