A proposed battery energy storage system in western Goleta divided the city’s Planning Commission and residents on Monday night.

The commissioners voted 2-1 to recommend that the Goleta City Council defer a decision on the Greenbark 30 Battery Energy Storage System project. They noted potential fire risks and neighborhood incompatibility, and said the project needs more analysis. 

Commissioner Rita Serotkin was absent, and Anne Miller recused herself, citing a possible conflict of interest because of the proximity of her home to the project site.

Developing Vacant Land on Viajero Drive

Scale Microgrids LLC proposes installing 36 Tesla Megapack 2 XL battery units on a 2.1-acre site at an unaddressed location on Viajero Drive, which could provide up to 30 megawatts of stored power.

The project has been in the works for about two years, according to project staff.

The proposed system is expected to enhance the existing grid by storing power during peak generation. That power could then be discharged during peak demand or emergencies, according to city planner Travis Lee.

The site is near the Ellwood Generating Station, Ellwood Elementary School and Westmont of Santa Barbara, a senior-living residential community formerly known as Mariposa at Ellwood Shores.

“I support battery storage systems,” Commissioner Jennifer Fullerton said, “but I cannot support one in this location.” 

She called for a full environmental impact report, saying she was left with unanswered questions and that the project was incompatible with the area.

“The location was selected because it’s the ideal location for a battery storage project in this area,” said Nelson Gould, an Environmental Resources Management Inc. project consultant.

The project could “tap into” the Ellwood Generating Station’s Southern California Edison interconnection point and thus not need new development or transmission lines, Gould added.

The project also would require a General Plan amendment to change the site’s zoning to office institutional to make way for the project, according to Lee.

The proposed battery storage facility, however, is not adequate to serve the entire South Coast, and the ability to use that energy during power shutoffs depends on the ability to create islands with certain portions of the grid, according to Peter Imhof, Goleta’s planning and environmental review director. 

The project could provide power for four hours, enough power to support up to 30,000 homes within the greater Goleta area, according to Gould. 

Commissioner Cary Penniman agreed with Fullerton and advocated for further review.

“I would like to bring the public up to speed on this. I would like to get up to speed. It’s super fascinating,” he said. “Let’s just not rush into it.”

Goleta plans to analyze land use within the city to determine which areas would be appropriate for utility-scale battery storage, according to Imhof.

Planning Commission members and some residents wanted the city to complete that study before making a final decision.

“That is a little bit of a different time horizon than this project,” Imhof said. “We didn’t feel like we could hold up this project in order to complete that comprehensive planning effort.”

A study found potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the facility’s construction and operation, but mitigation measures could reduce the impacts, Lee said. 

Goleta already has another battery energy storage system at 6864 Cortona Drive that was approved about five years ago, according to Mary Chang, a supervising city senior planner.

Commissioner Katie Maynard said denying a recommendation of approval for the project would mean the city held the two projects to different standards. 

“I wish that we did have that more comprehensive assessment, but we didn’t ask the other battery storage project to wait,” she said.

Commissioners Penniman and Fullerton voted to defer the decision, and Maynard opposed.

The vote also carried a recommendation to postpone a General Plan amendment, ordinance amendment and development plan.

Goleta Residents Divided in Stances

A group of Goleta residents also pushed for approval of the project, citing its community benefits of renewable energy and electrical grid resilience. 

“I believe the Greenbark project will make the area safer, not riskier, while providing economic benefits and helping keep the power on for really critical needs,” said Katie Davis, a Sierra Club volunteer and Goleta resident.

She added that she toured the larger Cortona Drive battery storage facility and noted it was “very quiet” and “three times closer” to homes.

More than 20 local organizations and groups, including the Santa Barbara Unified School District, the nonprofit Clean Coalition and Mariposa at Ellwood Shores, the former name of the nearby senior-living community, are listed in a joint letter supporting the project. 

The batteries proposed for the vacant site are the “exact same” as those on various Santa Barbara Unified School District campuses, said Craig Lewis, Clean Coalition’s founder and executive director.

He added that a battery fire is comparable to a house fire, citing nonfatal risks to human life unless someone is “in the fire.”

“This is not something where people with pitchforks should be out here, screaming about this,” Lewis said. 

He also pointed to the fact that the project garnered the support of the nearby retirement home.

However, one senior-living facility resident said otherwise.

Westmont of Santa Barbara resident Jo Ann Winter said residents and facility management discussed the project but did not hear that management was in support. 

She said the 67 disabled and senior residents who live at Westmont of Santa Barbara and the Ellwood Elementary School community could be exposed to “toxic fumes” if a fire were to break out.

Project’s Fire Risk Prevention

The commissioners inquired about possible fire risks, related safety plans and battery safety, and tied some concerns to the 2025 Moss Fire Landing. 

The Santa Barbara County Fire Department consulted on the project in its hazard analysis, risk assessment, safety features, and operations and safety plans, according to city and project staff.

In case of a fire, the units have some protection to prevent the spread to other cells or batteries, including a steel encasing.

The facility would also use several layers of fire protection, detection and mitigation. This would include battery monitoring and automatic shutdown systems, infrared fire detection, ventilation and fire hydrants, according to Lee, a city planner.

Additionally, the project team said the proposed facility uses a different battery chemistry than the type involved in the Monterey County battery storage fire.

Next Steps

The project will now go before the Goleta City Council at a later date, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.