Goleta City Council
May 17, 2022

1 From: Stuart Kasdin
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2022 4:50 PM
To: Deborah Lopez
Subject: Fwd: Case No. 21-003-GPA AKA Another Ill-Advised Battery Plant From: Ti
m Morphy <[email protected]>
Date: May 2, 2022 at 4:04:27 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Roger Aceves <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>
Subject: Case No. 21‐003‐GPA  AKA Another Ill‐Advised Battery Plant Mayor and Council Members:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I write you today in strong opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment that will allow for the installation of a Battery Storage facility on the parcel on Viajero (Case No. 21-003-GPA). Please note that I am not opposed to this sort of energy storage, only the location of this proposed project.

First and foremost, you need to know that Mr. Imhof and his team have neglected to mention in the Background section of their report that this proposed project is directly next to the location of another proposed battery project a few years ago that was wisely abandoned in favor of a better location in Goleta. There were several good reasons for that decision and while the location is slightly different, that difference actually increases the argument against this project.

As you consider this proposal, please keep in mind:
 The proposed location is dangerously closer to a senior living facility. Only a few feet away from being “adjacent”.
 The proposed location is dangerously closer to Ellwood Elementary School.  The proposed location is dangerously closer to the vital railroad line.  The proposed location is dangerously close to the only entrance/exit to/from the eastern half of the Hideaway development containing about 50 homes.

I hope you will also consider the fact that these facilities are not as safe as pres ented by the proposed developer. If you haven’t already, please take a look at the recent history of the Moss Landing battery plant to our north … two fires in the past year. Do we really want this in the middle of a residential community near an elementary school?
2 You are changing the zoning for a property that is in the middle of a growing residential area of Goleta to move in the wrong direction.

I hope you will also revisit the work done around the 2019 resolution considered in May 2019. While the presentation may be technically correct that Sovereign Energy’s GPA Initiation remains in effect, the reality is that Sovereign has removed itself from the project and their replacement has found a better location in Goleta for the project … better for the project and better for Goleta. I know this because I participated with Sovereign to consider the issues they faced in proceeding with the ill advised project and helped them find the more suitable location. There is a story here and a lesson to be learned so we don’t repeat our errors in considering the 2019 proposal while considering this new project.

Again, as was the case in 2019, I am in favor of these projects. I am just not in favor of placing these potentially dangerous facilities so close to our communities and schools.

I hope you find your way clear to finding a better solution fro this project.

Tim Morphy
140 Sanderling Lane
Goleta CA
213-923-3699
1 From: Steve Penner <[email protected]>
Date: May 9, 2022 at 2:20:50 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, Roger Aceves <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Michelle Greene <[email protected]> Subject: Please Do Not Allow GenOn to Build a Battery Storage Facility In, or Near, Goleta To the Goleta City Council (and the Planning Dept):

Please do not rezone any part of the area bounded by Cathedral Oaks on the west, 101 on the north, the ocean on the south, and all the way out to Storke on the east, to be industrial, no matter who is asking. That entire area contains residences, senior living facilities, schools, flammable eucalyptus groves, at least one nature preserve, retail businesses, and clean commercial concerns (unlike a 30 Li‐ Ion MWh battery storage facility owned by a Texas energy company like GenOn).

Lithium ion batteries (big and small) are prone to spontaneously catching fire. A fire at that storage plant would likely spread east, west, and south from the 101, particularly if we have a windy day (like yesterday, today, and probably the rest of this week), and particularly in what is being called the "worst drought in decades". Also, here is a link to an article from the NIH that discusses the potential for the creation and release of toxic gases from Li‐Ion battery fires:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577247/
Causes
of these overly‐frequent spontaneous combustions include:
(1) Poor construction (which is likely to be the case, since much lithium cell construction is apparently done in Far Eastern countries, like China). Even construction done in TX is highly suspect, given the large numbers of refinery and other industrial explosions that occur in that state. Remember the West, TX, explosions and fire, in a fertilizer plant that was located cheek‐by‐jowl with the residences of the people who were killed or maimed for life by that explosion? After the OK City bombing, how could the state of TX, or the town of West, allow the construction of a fertilizer plant next to houses (or vice versa)? Do you remember the Li‐Ion battery that caught fire on a brand‐new Boeing 787, despite the fact that airplane equipment is considered to be "life‐critical"? Poor construction of Li‐Ion batteries leads to internal short circuits, which then leads to overheating and very hot chemical fires. Poor construction practices affect not only the cells themselves, but also the casings, the buildings in which they are housed, and especially the safety equipment used to keep the batteries from catching fire and exploding.
(2) Sloppy maintenance and neglect (excessive ambient temperatures, as on some of our Sundowner and August days; water/chemical leakage from poorly maintained roofs, cooling, plumbing, and sewage lines, and from external floods).
2 (3) Abuse (overloading; external shorts in the grid).

And I do not believe that TX energy companies are capable of building or maintaining safe energy production or storage facilities that are safe enough to exist within a mile or less of residences, or any other installations that house living creatures.

CA residents have a lot of experience with oil companies and electric companies, who swear all over the place that they will not pollute the environment or start fires, but then dump huge amounts of oil in the waterways and on the land, and/or start fires that kill people, leave them homeless, and destroy their lungs. Li‐Ion battery fires:

(1) Have not been adequately studied (see the linked NIH article above).

(2) Still occur far too frequently for any large‐scale battery storage to be allowed to exist less than a mile from residences, and especially in an area with a lot of flammable landscaping in the middle of a severe and prolonged drought.

Is the Goleta Fire Dept even equipped to fight a chemical fire that engulfs a 30‐MWh Li‐Ion battery? Or, will they have to call in special equipment and wait while the fire spreads to the surrounding trees and homes?

GenOn is NOT a responsible corporation, and you (and we) cannot rely on any assurances they offer: A GenOn subsidiary (I think it was coal generation or waste disposal) was sued for environmental damages by Maryland:

https://casetext.com/case/maryland‐v‐genon‐ash‐mgmt

Apparently, when they lost the suit, GenOn sold all of its assets and liabilities to a holding company, and declared bankruptcy (at least for the MD subsidiary). Large companies are now using this tactic across the country, to avoid paying reasonable (or any) claims for damages that they willfully caused, through gross negligence and deliberate actions, while keeping the obscene profits they reaped from their criminal behavior.

The Planning Dept should not have recommended approval of this project! They are supposed to be responsible gatekeepers who prevent unnecessary loss of human life, and quality of life, and property, by not denying irresponsible projects proposed by greedy, irresponsible individuals and companies!

Please do not rezone GenOn's lot, and do not allow anyone to build a Li‐Ion battery storage facility anywhere in Goleta. If they really want to build such a facility, they should do so at least a mile away from residences, schools, and businesses. Li‐Ion is NOT an adequately safe, clean technology yet.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. Penner
7708 Kestrel Ln
Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]

1 From: Heather Abe
d <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:58 AM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>
Subject: REZONING TO ACCOMODATE ENREL FACILITY VOTE NO
Haytham and Heather Abed
7720 Kestrel Lane
Goleta, California 93117
925‐324‐6720
Your Constituents Voice NO on Rezone to allow Enel Battery Storage Dear Mayor Perotte and Council Members;
We are extremely concerned that the Council is even considering approving the rezoning for Enel Green Power Company’s  battery storage project at 7780 Hollister Avenue.

Their  proposal  to  install  such  a  facility;  larger  than  previous  requested   near  an  elementary school,  senior housing home, the Sandpiper Golf Course AND over 162  luxury residential homes is unacceptable.  As a major property owner and resident tax payer I find this not only a physical objection  (  12  shipping  containers  plus  HVAC  system)  but  a major  hazard  to  our  community environmentally, noise level and a fire hazard so near the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and our home.

We are still waiting for our fire house to be built on Holliste r.  We are still waiting for the city of Goleta to clear the dead eucalyptus groves and the substantial underbrush; we have approved a CHP facility but all remains to be seen.  Does Goleta have to continue to be the dumping ground for Santa Barbara?   As  Council Members responsible for improving and providing safety  to our communities  you think installing this battery storage project is OKAY???  It is  NOT okay for us 2 and  we  wish  to  make  our  objections  heard  through  this  correspon dence  asking  you  all  to vote   down  this  rezoning  to accommodate  t h e  E n e l  G r e e n  P o w e r  C o m p a n y .  W e  n e e d  t o  b e improving our neighborhoods in Goleta not trashing them.

Sincerely,

Haytham and Heather Abed
May 10, 2022
1 From: John Lamoutte <[email protected]>
Date: May 10, 2022 at 3:01:05 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>
Subject: APN 079‐210‐053; Case No. 21‐0003‐GPA
Dear Mayor Perotte,
By way of this email I wish to express my concern and opposition to the proposed amendment to the City’s General Plan that would ultimately allow the installation of a Lithium Ion battery storage facility in Western Goleta.  Such a facility poses a danger to the residents of Western Goleta.  It would be next to and across Hollister from residential areas.  It would be near a memory care facility and Ellwood School.  As a resident of the Bluff’s neighborhood, I am deeply concerned by such a proposal, as it would create a danger to our community, we so much cherish.  Please consider this opposition to the proposed amendment to the City’s General Plan that would allow this type of development in such proximity to Elwood School, a memory care residential facility, and numerous residences.

Thanks for your anticipated consideration.

John Lamoutte
Managing Partner - Central Coast Office
Certified Specialist, Workers' Compensation Law

TOBIN LUCKS LLP
5425 Hollister Avenue, Suite 210
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
Ph: (805) 685-3200
Fax: (805) 685-3222

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the recipient(s) named above, or responsible for delivering it to that person(s), be aware that disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication is strictly PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by sending us a message at [email protected].
1 From: David Cutaia
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 11:43 AM
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: Battery storage for Gen On
From: Marian Klein <[email protected]>
Date: May 10, 2022 at 5:29:08 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, Roger Aceves <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Michelle Greene <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Battery storage for Gen On
Sent from my
To City Council of Goleta,
As a resident of the Bluffs, I am strongly opposed to the re‐zoning of the GenOn property to allow for a Lithium Battery Storage Area.

Why would you allow  GenOn to incorporate a Lithium Storage System in the neighborhood of a school, an elderly residence, a golf course, several large residential communities and the fire station that is going in next door, not to mention the 101 freeway and train route which would be impacted if an accident was to occur.

The last time this re‐zoning was proposed, the community was not in favor and the company found another location.  If an accident was to happen, is the fire department or public works able to contain fire or toxins?  My prior research suggested that there is not the training nor protocol to handle an accident of such a storage facility.

As you are elected by the public, please consider the opinions of the community.

Please do not approve re‐zoning and allow the storage facility to be built in this populated area.

Marian Klein
Bluffs Resident
Sent from my iPad
1 From: David Cutaia
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 10:44 AM
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: Battery storage for Gen On Hollister
From: Steve Ferrara <wes
[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 3:47 PM
To: JACK KERNS <[email protected]>
Cc: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Battery storage for Gen On Hollister
I Live across the street from the proposed Lithium Battery storage area and oppose the project Due to the danger of moisture entering a cracked battery and then the oxidation of the Lithium component causing a heat reaction that can lead to a fire- Next door to a elderly home and elementary school . I say this is a bad idea
I am electrical contractor and have actually seen this oxidation and overheating of the battery start a fire on Solar wall pack Lithium batteries
Thank You Steve West Coast Electric Inc. 805 444-9756
1 From: David Cutaia
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 10:53 AM
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: Battery Storage Project
From: Barbara White <[email protected]>
Date: May 11, 2022 at 3:22:27 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Subject: Battery Storage Project
Reply‐To: Barbara White <[email protected]>
Dear City Council members,
My name is Barbara White, and I am a Goleta resident, residing at The Bluffs. Which as you are aware, is across Hollister Avenue from the Ellwood School. and Senior resident facility, as well as adjacent to Sandpiper Golf Course.

This letter is a request for you all to oppose the proposal for Gen On to install a large Lithium Ion Battery storage adjacent to the Peaker Plant. As you all are aware, this is a very similar issue as to the one that was turned down in 2019. If my memory serves me, there was going to be large shipping containers to house the batteries, and an HVAC system to keep it cool. As well as having to rezone the property.

Again, I am sure that you know all the reasons we must have this denial, but, with everyone I have spoken to many in our community, the concern and concensus of the residents is safety, first and foremost. If fire ever broke out, the results would be disastrous. I would assume that Gen On can locate a location better suited for their purpose, away from children, seniors, and residents of many adjacent communities. Not forgetting the future fire station. This project puts many in jeopardy.

Please consider this carefully and kindly ask them to "move on".

Thank You
Barbara White
1 From: Paula Perotte
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 9:40 AM
To: Michelle Greene; Deborah Lopez
Subject: Fwd: Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Attachments: Planning Commission on Genon.pdf
From: Cosmo Perrone <[email protected]>
Da
te: May 12, 2022 at 8:38:03 AM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Roger Aceves <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>
Subject: Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
The Board of the Hideaway HOA is opposed to the Recommendation for Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA. The Board strongly believes that the appropriate standards for the following two factors of the five that the City Council must consider have NOT been met:

2. The amendment proposed appears to have no material eff ect on the community or the General Plan.

3. The amendment proposed provides additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy.

Since the effects on the community are critical for evaluation of these 2 factors, it is prudent to look at the nearby areas more closely than described in the recommendation. The recommendation’s description follows:

The 2.1-acre subject parcel is currently vacant and located south of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and north of Hollister Avenue along Viajero, which intersects with Campesino Drive (see Figure 1: Subject Parcel Location). The current General Plan land use designation and zoning at the subject site is General Commercial (C-G). Land 2 uses surrounding the subject site include Public/Quasi-Public (P-QP) to the west (peaker plant), C-G to the south and east (vacant parking lots), and Union Pacific Railroad/Highway 101 to the north.

A more revealing description would have included the nature of the adjacent infrastructure and associated risks, the nearby housing immediately to the west (the Hideaway) and across Hollister ( the Bluffs), the Mariposa retirement community immediately to the east, the Ellwood school adjacent to Mariposa, and the Ellwood Bluffs and Preserve, across Hollister from the school. The following risk condition are now present in the immediate vicinity:

1. The GenOn generation (peaker) plant is served by above ground natural gas pipeline on Las Armas and adjacent to the Hideaway.

2. Grid transmission lines flow across the railroad track, along Las Armas and then east along Hollister. SCE is very concerned about these and monitors them regularly especially under current wind conditions.

3. Underground oil and fuel lines run on Las Armas and across Hollister.

4. Freight trains regularly carry HAZMAT; quantity and type has been difficult to ascertain.

5. Similar HAZMAT is regularly transported on Highway 101.

Other factors that impact risk are local wind conditions, including sundowners, and the stressed eucalyptus trees and dried up palm trees that surround the area. Currently, there are several downed eucalyptus trees on the adjacent vacant property.

The recommended amendment serves GenOn’s desire to install a battery energy storage system (BESS) in a community already burdened with serious risks. A more detailed regional risk assessment of the proposed operation in the current environment reveals that, in fact, the BESS would significantly increase the risk to life safety, property damage, and other significant consequences. Battery energy storage systems are subject to a condition known as thermal runaway which cause fires and associated toxic releases. These fires are difficult to extinguish and jeopardize the safety of the first responders. Numerous incidents of BESS fires have been reported worldwide, including the U.S. in the community and risk environment described above, the possibility of a compounding cascading event must be considered.

Foreseeable consequences include:

1. Life safety issues may become critical

2. Evacuations, directed or voluntary, are likely, especially for the Mariposa retirement community

3. Property damage to nearby homes

4. Closing of the Ellwood school

5. Closure of rail traffic

6. Severe impact on traffic flow on Highway 101
3 In a worst case scenario additional adverse consequences should also be addressed. These would include damage to the GenOn generation station, damage or downing of the grid transmission lines causing severe impact to the grid itself. Even fire damage to the Ellwood Preserves is foreseeable in a strong wind condition during a fire.

GenOn is likely to claim that installation of mitigation measures such as fire system monitoring, fire suppression systems, command center communication and alarm, and local response is a deterrent to the possible consequences identified. But, as stated, numerous incidents of fires caused by thermal runaway have been documented. Systems fail, faulty communication can happen, and local resources may be unavailable due to deployment at a concurrent incident elsewhere.

The City of Goleta recently declared that it would apply the worst case scenario standard in its opposition to the permit request for a cannabis farm in Winchester canyon. The City Council must apply the same high standard to this recommendation and conclude that it must oppose the recommendation for the amendment on the grounds that:

1. By introducing a heightened fire risk, the proposed DOES have a material effect on the community.

2. The proposed DOES NOT necessarily provide a public benefit to the community and may, in a worst case scenario, diminish the operational capability of regional critical infrastructure.

To be absolutely clear, the Board supports projects that “make progress towards the City’s green energy goals” and “provide grid resiliency”, but such projects must first be submitted to a rigorous, comprehensive and professional risk assessment.

Respectfully submitted,
Cosmo Perrone
President, the Hideaway HOA
103 Sanderling Lane
Goleta, CA 93117
562-481-2494

Agenda Item TBD

PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: Peter Imhof, Director of Planning and Environmental Review

CONTACT: Mary Chang, Supervising Senior Planner
Travis Lee, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 22-___, entitled “ A Resolution of t he City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Initi ating the Processing of An Ap plicant-Requested General Plan Amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Via jero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA”

BACKGROUND:

General Plan Amendment Initiation
The City of Goleta adopted the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan) on October 2, 2006. The General Plan contains the following seven state-required Elements, and two optional Elements as follows: Land Use Element, Open Space Element, Conservation Element, Safety Elem ent, Visual and Histori c Resources Element, Transportation Element, Publ ic Faciliti es Ele ment, Noise Element, and Housing Element. The Land Use Element includes a Land Use Plan Map (Figure 2-1), which identifies a l and use designation for each parcel in th e City. Since its adoption, the General Plan has been amended on 24 occasions. The most r ecent amendment occurred on October 19, 2021.

The General Plan Amendment (GPA) process is governed by Article 6 of State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65350 et seq.). Pursuant to state law, GPAs require the Planning Commission’s consideration and recommendation.

However, the final decision is a legislative action and is reserved for the City Council to make.

Before a GPA can be consider ed, it must be initiated applying procedures established by City Council Resolution No. 12-13 for the initiation process, a s codified in G oleta Municipal Code (G MC) Section 17.67.030. These procedures require that all requests 1 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

for GPAs be referred to the City Council fo r initiation at a public hearing prior to processing. Resolution No. 12-13 and GMC subsection 17.67.030(B) provide five factors the City Council must consider for the initiation of a GPA. These five factors are:

1. The amendment proposed appears to b e consistent with the Guiding Principle s and Goals of the General Plan;

2. The amendment proposed ap pears to have no material effect on the community or the General Plan;

3. The amendment proposed provides additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy;

4. Public facilities appear to be available to serve the affected site, or their provision will be addressed as a component of the amendment process; or

5. The amendment proposed is required under other rules or regulations.

Once initiated, the applicant can apply for the GPA and associated planning permit s related to the in tended project. Once sub mitted, staff would r eview and analyz e the application a long with the environmental d ocument. The Design Review Board would review and make a recommendatio n to the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the appropriateness of the design components such as bu ilding/wall design, landscaping, and lighting, etc. The request along with the environmental analysis would be considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing, which will then make a recommendation to the City Council. The Cit y Council takes final action on all the project components at a public hearing.

Site Information

The 2.1-acre subject parcel i s currently vacant and located south of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and north of Hollister Avenue along Viajero, which intersects with Campesino Dri ve (see Figure 1 : Subject Par cel Location ). The current Gen eral Plan land use designation and zoning at the subject site is General Commercial (C-G). Land uses surrounding the subject site i nclude Public/Quasi-Public (P-QP) to the west (peaker plant), C-G to the south and east (vacant parking lo ts), and Union Pacific Railroad/Highway 101 to the north. The area surrounding the subject sit e and existing land uses of those sites are shown in Figure 1 with the subject parcel outlined in red.

While the land use designation for the parcel located to the south (079-210-056) of the site is C -G, on M ay 19, 2019, the City Council adopted R esolution No. 19-30 (Attachment 4) initiating a GPA to change the land use designatio n on a portion of this site from C-G to either Business Park (I-BP) or Office and Institutional (I-OI) to allow an applicant (Sovereign Energy) to pursue a battery storage project on th at property. That application has not been submitted and the GPA Initiation remains in effect on that site.

2 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

Figure 1: Subject Parcel Location

DISCUSSION:

On September 20, 2021, Tim Murphy of ERM-West (Agent) submitted a request for the initiation of a GPA on behalf of GenOn Holdin gs, LLC (prope rty ow ner). The GPA initiation request is to st udy a change to the la nd u se desi gnation, as established on 3 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

General Plan Figure 2 -1, Land Use Plan Map, at Viajero (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 079-210-053) from C-G to either I-BP or I-OI. The existing land us e designation does not allow for Major Utilities uses, which is the use category that is needed for the applicants intended battery storage project.

General P lan Policy LU 3.7 d efines the intent of t he C -G land use designa tion as follows:

The purpose of this category is to provi de app ropriate sites to accommodate a diverse set of commercial uses that do not need highly visible locations, such as wholesale trade and service commercial, or that may invo lve activities that re duce compat ibility with other us es.

Appropriate sites are in locations that may have limited suitability for other more retail-oriented uses. General commercial uses may serve as a buffer between industrial acti vities or m ajor transpo rtation corridors and residential areas. The following criteria and standards apply to lands within this designation:

a. The permitted uses in this classification have similar charact eristics to some industrial use s, and mixed -use deve lopments th at include residential uses, excep t for assis ted l iving residentia l uses, are not allowed.
b. While General Commercial uses do not usually generate high volumes of traffic, sites within this desig nation should be accessible from major arterials in order to mi nimize the n eed for traffic to pas s through residential areas on local streets.
c. Uses that re quire access by heavy vehicles s hall be permitted only in locations where th e street can support such heavy vehicle traffic and such uses would be compatible with adjacent uses.
d. Heavy commercial use s that may cause noise, air emis sions, hazardous materials , or e xcessive light and glare s hall require approval of a conditional use permit.

Allowable uses within C -G are listed in General P lan Table 2-2, Allowable Uses and Standards for Commercial Use Categories. Table 2-2 is provided as Attachment 2.

General Plan Po licy LU 4.2 defines the intent o f the I-BP land use designation a s follows:

This use designation is intended to id entify lands for attractive, well - designed busine ss parks that provide emp loyment oppor tunities to the community and surrounding area. The in tensity, design, and landscaping of development shou ld be consistent with the character of existin g development currently located in these areas. Uses in th e Business Park designation may include a wide variety of research and development, light industrial, and offic e uses , as well as sm all-scale commercial uses that serve the needs of business park em ployees. In addit ion, lands designated w ith a Hotel Overla y may in clude transient lodging t hat emphasizes extended stays, as se t forth in LU 1.12. Activities in business 4 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

park areas shall be conducted primarily indoors, and outdoor stora ge, processing, manufacturing, and vehicle repair are prohibited.

General Pla n Policy LU 4.3 defines the inten t of the I-OI land use designation a s follows:

This designation is intended to provide areas for existing and future office- based u ses. Uses all owed include moderate-density busines s and professional offices, medical and medical-related uses, hospitals, research and development, services or iented primarily to employees (s uch as day care centers, restaurants, personal and professional services), and public and quasi-public uses. In ad dition, lands designated with a Hotel Over lay may include transient lodgin g and related uses. Mixed-use developments with r esidential uses on the same si te may be permitted a t appropriate locations where th e residential uses are compatible with adjacent us es and do not break up the continuity of office and institutional uses.

Allowable uses within I-BP and I -OI are l isted in General Plan Table 2 -3, Allowable Uses and Standards for Office and Industrial Use Categories . Table 2-3 is provided as Attachment 3.

As previously noted , the Council must consider a specific set of five factors wh en determining whethe r to in itiate a GPA. Pursuant to Resolution 12 -13 and GMC subsection 17.67.030(B), s taff presen ts the fo llowing discussion of the GPA initiation factors for City Council consideration:

1. The am endment prop osed appears to be consist ent with the Gu iding Principles and Goals of the General Plan.

The proposed amendment may be consistent with several of the Guiding Principles and Goals of the General Plan as follows: a) the proposed amendment appears to conform to Land Use Element Guidi ng Principle an d G oal 4 to “Maintain economic p rosperity with a sustainable economy that is not based on growth”; b) Land Use Element G uiding Principal and Goal 6 to “Maintain a balanced commu nity, with an appropriate mix of resid ences, workpl aces and services” as the proposed land use designation chan ge would potentially provide for a wi der variety of employment o pportunities in western Goleta ; and, c) Land Use Element Guiding Principle and Goal 10 to “Ensure that all new development and changes to existing development a re compatible with the characte r, scale, and design for the neighborhood” as the proposed land use designation change to either I -BP or I -OI would potentially be le ss visually impactful to the adjacent uses due to the prohibition of outdoor storage or outdoor industrial uses.

The purpose of initiating this GPA is to allow the property owner to submit for a project that w ould be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Energy st orage systems store power d uring peak generation, including p ower generated by renewable s ources, and discharge t his power when needed . The current General Plan designation does not a llow Major Utilities at this location . 5 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

Amending t he General Plan would all ow a proj ect to move forwa rd to be consistent with the gu iding principles and g oals of th e Ge neral Plan. The proposed energy storage facility will serve as a critical piece of infrastructure to achieve th e City’s commitment to reach the City’s commitment to 100% renewable power by 2030.

2. The amendment proposed appe ars to ha ve no material effec t o n the community or the General Plan.

It is an ticipated that the proposed amendment from C-G to ei ther I-BP or I -OI may have no mater ial effect on the community or the General Plan because the change will only apply to an approximately 2.1-acre site. While the change will be to a different land use type, there are approximately 84.5 acres of C -G- designated land within the City. This proposed GPA would decrease the amount of land planned for C -G uses by 2.49% and there would remain sufficient land to support the types of commercial uses envision ed under the General Plan citywide. Additionally, given the nature of the uses allowed under th e C-G, which include wholesale trade and service commercia l, that are more industr ial in nature, a change to either I-BP or I-OI, which are more business -oriented, would not be significant. As a result, the change would not cause a fundamental shift in the overall l and use pa ttern in the city. The site would sti ll be considered for development, just with a diff erent range of uses than original planned for this area of Goleta. As mentioned, the change would modify the allowed uses on the vacant subject parcel by reducing the amount of Retail Trade and Services use s, eliminating the Transien t Lodgin g & Services and Wholesale Tr ade & Storage uses, introducing Industrial (Manufacturing) , Transportation & Utilities uses , and introducing Residential uses if designated I-OI.

C-G allows mixed -use development, including up to 20 dwelling units per acre.

However, the residential use in the se mixed-use developments is limit ed to assisted living uses. I-OI also allows mixed-use residential development up to 20 dwelling units per acre but does not limit the residential uses to assisted living.

As such, a chan ge to I-OI represents a potentially broadening of the allowance for various types of housing on the site, while not changin g the maximum residential density. In contrast I-BP does not allow residential development, even as part of a mixed -use project, except for caretaker units. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66300(b )(1)(A), the City is g enerally prohibited fro m changing the General Plan land use desi gnation of a p arcel to reduce the intensity of the land use designation. Under this provisio n of State law, re ducing intensity includes reducing the allowed density on the parcel. Should the C ity allow a reduction of density, which a change from C -G to I-BP would include, the City would be obligated to change “the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure there is no net loss i n residential capacity.” (see California Government Code Section 66300(i)(1)). Due to the loss of housing capacity and the implications under State law described above, a n amendment to I-BP would likely have a material effect on the community and the Gener al Plan because it would likely require the City 6 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

to redesignate another site that did not previously allow housing in order to allow residential uses.

Pursuant to Tables 2 -2 and 2 -3 of the General Plan, maximum allowable height is 35’ across C -G, I-OI, and I -BP Additionally I-BP has a maximum lo t coverage ratio of 0.35, I-OI has a maximum lot coverage of 0.40 , and CG does not have a maximum lot coverage ratio.

3. The amendment proposed p rovides additional pu blic bene fit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy.

The proposed zoning change from C-G to either I-BP or I-OI provides additional public benefit to the community because the uses allowed under the I-BP or I-OI land us e designat ion are potentially more compatible with the adjacent us es.

While I-BP does allow for manufacturing, no noxious impacts are allowed, and all activities must be conducted primarily indoors. Given th e nearby residential, institutional, and open spa ce uses, t he requirement for uses to be condu cted indoors in the I -BP designatio n may improv e t he potential visua l compatibility with adjacent uses compared to the current designation.

I-OI is generally intended for service-related office uses but does all ow for research and development and other tec hnology-based uses, limited retail trade, and residential uses up to 20 dwelling units per acre, which is potentially compatible with adjacent developments. See above for the discussion of loss of potential residential capacity with a change to I -BP and the consequences under State law . Both I -BP and I-OI are intended to serve as j ob cen ters, so the amendment has t he potential to provide a com munity benefit through expanded employment opportunities in the community.

While the C -G is a commercial designa tion, various industrial -related uses are allowed including: s everal a uto-related uses , including retail automoti ve sales and rentals, auto re pair and pai nting, auto wrecking ya rd/junk yard and au to service (gas) s tations; s everal wholes ale trad e and storage uses including general wholesale trade, g eneral and se lf-storage wa rehousing, and o utdoor storage.

In additio n, the proposed change to eit her I -BP or I-OI would a llow for consideration of a ma jor utility projec t, such as a battery storage project, that would improve the City’s emergency prepare dness and make progress towards the City’s green energy goals. A battery storage project could have the benefit of providing better electricity grid resiliency at the northern most section of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) jurisdiction by storing c lean energy and addressing constrained grid o perations. Western Golet a is the furthest area SCE se rvices and providing battery storage capacity would bolster its commitment to serve the community. Since Major Utilities is not a permitted use under the current land use designation of C-G, a change to I-BP or I-OI would facilitate the consideration of a Major Utilities project subject to a Major Conditional Use Permit at this subject site.
7 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

4. Public fa cilities appear to be ava ilable to serve the affected site, or t heir provisions will be addressed as a component of the amendment process.

The parcel is currently vacant, and all public fa cilities required to serv e the site are in the i mmediate area. In addition, the provision of public facilities wo uld be addressed as a component of the amendm ent and Conditional Use Permit process, for a which a Major Utilities use ( i.e., a battery storage pro ject) would require if it were to be located on a site zoned in the I-BP or I-OI districts.

5. The amendment proposed is required under other rules or regulations.

The proposed GPA is not required under other rules or regulations.

Based on the analysis of the five factors above, staff recommends initiating the GPA, to change the land use de signation of the site from C-G to I-OI, but not i nitiate a potential change to I-BP. The elimination of I-BP as a future land use is ba sed on the potential loss of the site as a long -term potential housing site and the implications of removing residential capacity on the site under State law. A draft resolution for the G PA initiation from C-G to I-OI is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. Section E of the Resolution requires that the applicant submit an application for the GPA and battery storage project within two years of a doption of the Resolution. If that were not to occur, then t he Resolution would expire.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The initiation of a GPA is not a proj ect under th e California Environmental Quality Act because the init iation merely instructs staff to consider the amendment and does n ot obligate the City to any further action in the futur e and do es not res ult in any d irect physical change in the en vironment or a ny reas onably foreseeab le change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

The case processing costs associated with the initiation of the proposed GPA for the Viajero site are being are being borne by the Applicant.

8 Meeting Date: May 17, 2022

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to initiate processing of the requested GPA. If not initiated, the parcel and it s zoning designation will rem ain unchanged. If initiated and upon applicat ion submittal, City staff would proceed with ca se pro cessing, including environmental revie w and a GPA for Plann ing C ommission’s con sideration and recommendation to the City Council for final action.

Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:

___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Michelle Greene
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 22-___, entitled “ A Resolu tion of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Initiating the Processing of An Applicant-Requested General Plan Amendment for an u naddressed parcel on Viaj ero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA”

2. General Pl an Table 2-2 Allowable Us es a nd S tandards for Commercial U se Categories

3. General Plan Table 2 -3 Allowable Uses and Standards for Office and Industrial Use Categories

4. Council Resolution 19-30

5. Staff Presentation
9 Resolution No.22-_ Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment for APN 079-210-053 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,

CALIFORNIA, INITIATING THE PROCESSING OF A N APPLICANT -

REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AN UNADDRESSED
PARCEL ON VIA JERO KNOWN AS APN 079-210-053; CASE NO. 21- 0003-GPA

10

RESOLUTION NO. 22- _

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,

CALIFORNIA, INITIATING THE PROCESSING OF A N APPLICANT -

REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AN
UNADDRESSED PARCEL ON VIAJERO KNOWN AS APN 079-210-053; CASE NO. 21-0003-GPA

WHEREAS the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan) is the City’s official policy that guides land use and physical development of the geographic area of the incorporated City limits; and

WHEREAS California Government Code Section s 65350 et seq. authorize cities and counties to prepare, adopt and amend General Plans and their elements; and

WHEREAS California Government Code Section 65358(a) reads, “If it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body. Notwithstanding Section 66016, a legislative body that permits persons to request an amendment of the General Plan may require that an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the amendment be deposited with the planning agency prior to the preparation of the amendment”; and

WHEREAS City Council Resolution No. 12-13 and Goleta Municipal Code Chapter

17.67 establish a procedure for the initiation of processing of requests for a General Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS City Council Resolution No. 12 -13 and Goleta Municipal Code subsection 17.67.030(B) require the City Council to consider certain factors for the initiation of General Plan amendments, including consistency with the Guiding Principles and Goals of the General Plan, no material effect on the community or the General Plan, providing additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy, availability of or the future study of the availability of public services, or rules or regulations that may drive the need to amend the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, Tim Murphy of ERM-West (Agent) submitted a re quest for the initiation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the land use designation to Assessor’s Parcel Number 079 -210-053 (Site) on behalf of GenOn Holdings, LLC (property owner); and

WHEREAS the existing General Plan land use designation for the Site is General Commercial ( C-G) and the Applicant is seeking the initiation of a General Plan Amendment affecting Figure 2 -1 of the Land Use Element to change the land use designation from General Commercial (C-G) to either Business Park (I-BP) or Office and Institutional (I-OI) to allow Major Utilities as a permitted use on -site for a future battery storage project with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

11

WHEREAS the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 17 2022, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and

WHEREAS the City Council considered the entire administrative record, including staff reports, the General Plan, and oral and written testimony from interested persons.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. General Plan Initiation Factors
The City Council makes the following statements regarding the initiation factors outlined in City Council Resolution No. 12-13 and Goleta Municipal Code Section

17.67.030:

(a) The amendment proposed appears to be consistent with the Guiding Principles and Goals of the General Plan.

The proposed amendment may be consistent with several of the Guiding Principles and Goals of the Gene ral Plan as follows: a) the proposed amendment appears to conform to Land Use Element Guiding Principle and Goal 4 to “Maintain economic prosperity with a sustainable economy that is not based on growth”; b) Land Use Element Guiding Principal and Goal 6 to “Maintain a balanced community, with an appropriate mix of residences, workplaces and services” as the proposed land use designation change would potentially provide for a wider variety of employment opportunities in western Goleta; and, c) Land Use Element Guiding Principle and Goal 10 to “Ensure that all new development and changes to existing development are compatible with the character, scale, and design for the neighborhood” as the proposed land use designation change to either I -BP or I -OI would potentially be less visually impactful to the adjacent uses due to the prohibition of outdoor storage or outdoor industrial uses.

The purpose of initiating this GPA is to allow the property owner to submit for a project that would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Energy storage systems store power during peak generation, including power generated by renewable sources, and discharge this power when needed. The current General Plan designation does not allow Major Utilities at this location. Amending the General Plan would allow a project to move forward to be consistent with the guiding principles and goals of the General Plan. The proposed energy storage facility will serve as a critical piece of infrastructure to achieve the City’s commitment to reach the City’s commitment to 100% renewable power by 2030.

(b) The amendment proposed appears to have no material effect on the community or the General Plan.
12

It is anticipated that the proposed amendment from C -G to either I -BP or I-OI may have no material effect on the community or the General Plan because the change will only apply to an approximately 2.1-acre site. While the change will be to a different lan d use type, there are approximately 84.5 acres of C -G designated land within the City. This proposed GPA would decrease the amount of land planned for C -G uses by 2.49% and there would remain sufficient land to support the types of commercial uses envision ed under the General Plan citywide. Additionally, given the nature of the uses allowed under the C-G, which include wholesale trade and service commercial, that are more industrial in nature, a change to either I -BP or I-OI, which are more business - oriente,d would not be significant. As a result, the change would not cause a fundamental shift in the overall land use pattern in the city. The site would still be considered for development, just with a different range of uses than original planned for this are a of Goleta. As mentioned, the change would modify the allowed uses on the vacant subject parcel by reducing the amount of Retail Trade and Services uses, eliminating the Transient Lodging & Services and Wholesale Trade & Storage uses, introducing Industri al (Manufacturing), Transportation & Utilities uses, and introducing Residential uses if designated I-OI.

C-G allows mixed-use development, including up to 20 dwelling units per acre.

However, the residential use in these mixed -use developments is limite d to assisted living uses. I-OI also allows mixed-use residential development up to 20 dwelling units per acre, but does not limit the residential uses to assisted living. As such, a change to I -OI represents a potentially broadening of the allowance for v arious types of housing on the site, while not changing the maximum residential density. In contrast I -BP does not allow residential development, even as part of a mixed -use project, except for caretaker units.

Pursuant to California Government Code Sectio n 66300(b)(1)(A), the City is generally prohibited from changing the General Plan land use designation of a parcel to reduce the intensity of the land use designation. Under this provision of State law, reducing intensity includes reducing the allowed dens ity on the parcel. Should the City allow a reduction of density, which a change from C -G to I-BP would include, the City would be obligated to change “the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure there is no net loss in residential capacity.” (see California Government Code Section 66300(i)(1)). Due to the loss of housing capacity and the implications under State law described above, an amendment to I -BP would likely have a material effect on the community and the General Plan in that the City would likely be required to redesignate a site where housing was not previously allowed in order to allow residential uses

Pursuant to Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of the General Plan, maximum allowable height is 35’ across CG, I-OI, and I-BP. Additionally I-BP has a maximum lot coverage 13

ratio of 0.35, I-OI has a maximum lot coverage of 0.40, and CG does not have a maximum lot coverage ratio.

(c) The amendment proposed provides additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy.

The proposed zoning change from C-G to either I-BP or I-OI provides additional public benefit to the community because the uses allowed under the I -BP or I- OI land use designation are potentially more compatible with the adjacent uses.

While I-BP does allow for manufacturing, no noxious impacts are allowed, and all activities must be conducted primarily indoors. Given the nearby residential, institutional, and open space uses, the requ irement for uses to be conducted indoors in the I -BP designation may improve the potential visual compatibility with adjacent uses compared to the current designation.

I-OI is generally intended for service -related office uses but does allow for research and development and other technology -based uses, limited retail trade, and residential uses up to 20 dwelling units per acre, which is potentially compatible with adjacent developments. See above for the discussion of loss of potential residential capacity with a change to I -BP and the consequences under State law.

Both I-BP and I-OI are intended to serve as job centers, so the amendment has the potential to provide a community benefit through expanded employment opportunities in the community.

While the C-G is a commercial designation, various industrial-related uses are allowed including: several auto -related uses, including retail automotive sales and rentals, auto repair and painting, auto wrecking yard/junk yard and auto service (gas) stations; sever al wholesale trade and storage uses including general wholesale trade, general and self -storage warehousing, and outdoor storage.

In addition, the proposed change to either I -BP or I -OI would allow for consideration of a major utility project such as a ba ttery storage project that would improve the City’s emergency preparedness and make progress towards the City’s green energy goals. A battery storage project could have the benefit of providing better electricity grid resiliency at the northern most sectio n of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) jurisdiction by storing clean energy and addressing constrained grid operations. Western Goleta is the furthest area SCE services and providing battery storage capacity would bolster its commitment to serve the commu nity. Since Major Utilities is not a permitted use under the current land use designation of C -G, a change to I -BP or I -OI would facilitate the consideration of a Major Utilities project subject to a Major Conditional Use Permit at this subject site.
14

(d) Public facilities appear to be available to serve the affected site, or their provisions will be addressed as a component of the amendment process.

The parcel is currently vacant and all public facilities required to serve the site are in the immediate area. In addition, the provision of public facilities would be addressed as a component of the amendment and Conditional Use Permit process.

(e) The amendment proposed is required under other rules or regulations.

The proposed GPA is not required under other rules or regulations.

(f) The foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Action
The City Council hereby authorizes staff to initiate processing of a proposed General Plan Amendment of an unaddressed parcel on Via jero known as APN 079-210-053 to change the land use designation on Figure 2 -1 (Land Use Plan Map) of the General Plan from C -G to I -OI. The initiation of the General Plan Amendment does not suggest how the City Council may ultimately act on the General Plan Amendment when it is brought forward for City Council consideration. The initiation of the General Plan Amendment shall not influence the City Council’s consideration of the General Plan Amendment.

SECTION 3. Effective Date
This Resolution becomes effective upon adoption.

SECTION 4. Time Limit
The initiation of this General Plan Amendment will automatically expire after two (2) years from the date of this Resolution , if an application for the GPA is not submitted to the PER Department during this timeframe.

SECTION 5. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

SECTION 6. Records
The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B, Goleta CA 91711.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May, 2022.

15

_____________________________

PAULA PEROTTE, MAYOR

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ ___________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.

CITY OF GOLETA )

I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of May, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

(SEAL)

__________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ

CITY CLERK

17 Resolution No.22-_ Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment for APN 079-210-053 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 2

GENERAL PLAN TABLE 2-2

ALLOWABLE USES AND STANDARDS FOR

COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORIES
18 19
Resolution No.22-_ Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment for APN 079-210-053 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 3

GENERAL PLAN TABLE 2-2

ALLOWABLE USES AND STANDARDS FOR

OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL USE CATEGORIES

20 21
Resolution No.22-_ Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment for APN 079-210-053 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19-30

INITIATING THE PROCESSING OF AN

APPLICANT REQUESTED

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
22 23
24 25
26 27
Resolution No.22-_ Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment for APN 079-210-053 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 5

Viajero GPA-I

Staff Presentation

28 Consideration of Initiation of a
General Plan Amendment for
an unaddressed parcel on
Viajero known as 079-210-
053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA
City Council
May 17, 2022
Presentation by:

Mary Chang, Supervising Senior Planner
Lisa Pr
asse, Current Planning Manager
Travis Lee, Associate Planner
29 Purpose of General Plan Amendment Initiations
•Allows for early public input
•Affords the City Council with the opportunity to deny the initiation of process
ing a General Plan Amendment (GPA)
•Provides staff direction to process the GPA request for further study •In all cases, initiation does not mean or imply that a requested amendmen
t will eventually be approved
2 30
General Plan Amendment Request
•The current General Plan land use designation is General Commercial (C-G)
•The applicant desires a future utility scale energy storage project, which
is allowed under Business Park (I-BP) and Office and
Institutional (I-OI)
•The applicant is requesting Council initiate a General Plan Amendment to
study a change from C-G to I-BP or I-OI to allow Major Utilities as a permitted use on-site for a battery storage project
3 31
Subject Parcel
4 Highway 101
Ellwood School
Hollister Avenue
32 Land Use Designation Legend:
• Blue: Public/Quasi-Public (P-QP)
• Orange: Planned Residential (R-P)
• Red Stripe: General Commercial (G-C)
• Yellow: Single-Family Residential (R-SF)
• Green: Open Space (OS-AR/OS-PR)
5 Proposed Land Use
and Zoning
Designation: I-BP or I-
OI
33 Background
General Plan was adopted in 2006
•Western Goleta is furthest area Southern California Edison services •Applicant proposes battery storage to bolster grid resiliency •Current General Plan land use designation does not allow Major Utilities
as either a permitted or conditionally permitted use type on- site
6 34
Initiation Criteria
Per Council Resolution 12-13 and Chapter 17.67, five factors to initiate a General Plan Amendment:

1.The amendment proposed appears to be consistent with the Guiding Principles and Goals of the General Plan

2.The amendment proposed appears to have no material effect on the community or the General Plan

3.The amendment proposed provides additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing land use designation or policy

4.Public facilities appear to be available to serve the affected site, or their provision will be addressed as a component of the amendment process or

5.The amendment proposed is required under other rules or regulations 7 35
Initiation Criteria for the Proposal
Factor 1: Land Use Element Guiding Principle and Goals (GPG) •GPG 4 “Maintain economic prosperity with a sustainable economy that
is not based on growth”
•GPG 6 “Maintain a balanced community, with an appropriate mix of residences,
workplaces and services”
•GPG 10 “Ensure that all new development and changes to existing developmen
t are compatible with the character, scale, and design of the neighborhood”
If initiated, staff would further evaluate consistency with Guiding Principles
and Goals in more detail
8 36
Initiation Criteria for the Proposal (cont.)
Factor 2: Effect on Community or General Plan
•Not a fundamental change to the City’s overall land use pattern as pro
vided for in Figure 2-1
•The allowable uses under I-BP and I-OI may be less impactful than the C-G
use
•However, I-BP would represent a loss of housing potential since resi
dential uses are not allowed
9 37
Initiation Criteria for the Proposal (cont.)
Factor 3: Public Benefit
• The proposed amendment may provide public benefit to the community as the uses
allowed under the I-BP and I-OI land use designations are potentially more compatible with the adjacent uses
• The proposed amendment may expand employment opportunities in the community
• The proposed amendment will allow for utility projects which may help to improv
e the resiliency of the local electrical grid
• The proposed amendment will allow for residential uses if the land use designation
is changed from C-G to I-OI
38 Initiation Criteria for the Proposal (cont.)
Factor 4: Availability of Public Facilities
•The subject site is near Hollister Avenue, a main arterial in the City, with
proximity to public services including the electrical distribution network needed
Factor 5: Other Rules and Regulations
•The amendment proposed is not required under other rules or regula
tions
11 39
Process, If Initiated
•Initiation is the first step of the planning process
•Staff will:
Process the GPA request with associated project applications Review for consistency with the Sovereign Energy Storage Project Conduct environmental review for the GPA (and other associated components) Consult with other agencies
12 40
Process, If Initiated (cont.)
•Design Review Board will make a recommendation on the design to the Planning Commission a
nd the City Council
•Planning Commission will consider the GPA and related actions and mak
e a recommendation to the City Council
•City Council will consider the GPA and related actions; will be the decisionmak
er for all project components
13 41
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 22-__, entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Initiating the Processing of An Applicant-Requested General Plan Amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA 14 42
Questions?
15 43
The business of sustainability
© Copyright 2019 by ERM Worldwide Group Limited and/or its affiliates (‘ERM’). All Rights Reserved.

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of ERM.

GenOn
General Plan Amendment
Initiation Application
21-0003-GPA
Battery Energy Storage
Goleta City Council Hearing
April 19 2022
44 www.erm.com
Future Battery Energy Storage
 GenOn is developing a 30 MW battery storage project
 Western portion of a 2.1- acre undeveloped parcel (APN 079-210-053)
 Access from Viajero Drive or Ellwood Generating Station  Multiple modular battery units in open plan or enclosure  Visual screening and landscaping
 Potential lot merger with Ellwood Generating Station
 Independent operation from Ellwood Generating Station  Tie-in to SCE 69 kV lines on Las Armas Rd. avoids the need for linear infrastructure
 Enables grid reliability and renewable energy
integration; contributes to SB 100 Renewables Portfolio Standards goal of 60% by 2030(https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Overview/)  SCE interconnection process underway with System
Impact Study and Facility Study completed
GPAI site (green line) is an undeveloped 2.1-acre parcel. GenOn’s Ellwood Generating Station is on the adjacent parcel.
45 www.erm.com
GenOn Battery Storage Setting
 Undeveloped land at northwest terminus
of Viajero Drive
 Current General Plan designation:
 C-G General Commercial
 Current Inland Zoning:
 CG General Commercial (per New Zoning
Ordinance effective April 2020)
 Site features
 Primarily ruderal vegetation
 Minor wetland feature near the south edge
and willow stand in SW corner
 Eucalyptus near south and west perimeters
 Nearby land uses: utility (Ellwood
Generating Station), residential,
commercial (parking), institutional,
UPRR, Highway 101
Site views: Left photo view to southeast. Right photo view to southwest. Ellwood Generating Station is visible along west edge of property (right side of photo). 46 www.erm.com
General Plan Amendment Initiation
 General Plan Amendment (GPA) Initiation application 21-0003- GPA filed September 20, 2021 with supporting policy analysis per City Council Resolution No. 12-13 (GMC 17.67.030)
 GPA would amend Land Use Element (LUE) Figure 2-1 to
change the land use designation from General Commercial (C- G) to either Office and Industrial (I-OI) or Business Park (I-BP)  These designations are consistent with other recent GPAI applications for battery storage
 GPAI application provides policy analysis and anticipated process  Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan process
 CEQA review and process steps
 Project description
 Environmental issues and supporting studies
 Mitigations and compliance plans
47 www.erm.com
GMC 17.67.030 General Plan Amendment Initiation Factors (per Resolution No. 12-13)
Factor 1 The amendment proposed appears to be
consistent with the Guiding Principles and Goals of the General Plan.

Factor 2 The amendment proposed appears to have no
material effect on the community or the General Plan.

Factor 3 The amendment proposed provides additional
public benefit to the community as compared to the
existing land use designation or policy.

Factor 4 Public facilities appear to be available to serve the affected site, or their provision will be addressed as a component of the amendment process; or.

Factor 5 The amendment proposed is required under
other rules or regulations.

GPA would conform with City goals of balanced
development and result in fewer vehicle trips vs
potential commercial uses.

GPA would affect one parcel; remaining city parcels
would support envisioned commercial uses. Size, bulk
and scale would be subject to Design Review Board
approval.

Public benefits include improved electrical grid reliability which can improve emergency preparedness and
progress the City toward its green energy goals.

Access via Hollister Ave. and Viajero; minimal water
and sewer demand. Battery storage would improve grid
reliability.

Not applicable. The GPA is not required under other
rules or regulations.

A General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Industrial (I-OI or I-BP) would meet the City’s 5 Factors:
https://qcode.us/codes/goleta/view.php?topic=17-v-17_67-17_67_030 48 www.erm.com
Next Steps
 Upon GPAI approval, GenOn will file GPA and CUP applications with supporting studies for concurrent review and processing  Applicant contacts
 Jon Sacks, applicant: [email protected]
 Patrick Verdonck, project design support: [email protected]  Tim Murphy, permitting support: [email protected]
 Nikki Payne, permitting support: [email protected]
 Questions?
49 1
From: David Cutaia
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:01 AM
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: Battery storage facility and rezoning- March 17 Board meeting From: [email protected] <dva
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 8:22 AM
To: [email protected]; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]>
Subject: Battery storage facility and rezoning‐ March 17 Board meeting To Goleta City Council members,
I want to strongly voice my opinion on the upcoming issue to be discussed at the March 17 Board meeting concerning the proposed change in zoning and allowing the placement of lithium battery storage facility at 1780 Hollister Avenue.  I find it very disturbing that we are going through this again after the previous 2019 decision by the Board not to allow the zoning change and placement of a substantially smaller lithium battery storage facility at this site. The reasons at that time were safety hazards and fire risks to local housing, school, senior living facility and Elwood preserve.  The reasons for rejecting the zoning change and risks with this type of facility at this location have not changed since that time.  In fact, the safety concerns with such a facility have only increased with the increase in size of the proposed new facility along with a concomitant increase in noise levels.  I am unable to attend the meeting on the 17th but want to adamantly object to approving the change in zoning and allowing the placement of this facility at this site. If a battery storage facility is deemed “absolutely essential” to the community, an alternate site with less risk to the community and a more appropriate zoning should be identified and pursued.

Thank you for your consideration,
Dennis Van Epps
[email protected]
Elderberry Drive
Goleta, California
1 From: David Cutaia
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 2:10 PM
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: Stop the building of a proposed battery storage plant very near our community From: Joh
n Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]>; Paula Perotte <[email protected]> Subject: Stop the building of a proposed battery storage plant very near our community Dear Mayor Perorre and Council Members,
I write as a concerned homeowner in the Bluffs residential tract and resident of Goleta. I oppose the plan amendment as well as the necessary zoning change proposed for the 30 MW Lithium Ion battery storage on a vacant lot adjacent to the Peaker Plant. This land is not zoned for this type of facility, there are residential areas, large tree groves and Ellwood preserve across the street. This would increase the risk of fire or hazards from this proposal.

This is a bad idea as this proposed development is in the midst of residential neighborhoods, the Ellwood elementary school, the Ellwood open space and the Mariposa assisted living facility. The potential fire hazards, danger to the public, and inappropriate zoning purpose is not a good idea.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and our recommendation Council not approve this development request.

Regards,
John Morgan
805.660.1138
1 From: Mark Albertson <m
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Subject: Zoning Change to Accommodate BESS
Dear Councilmember Kasdin,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of parcel APN 079‐210‐053 to accommodate construction of a lithium ion battery energy storage system.  My opposition is based on well‐recognized fire and hazardous materials risks associated with such facilities (reference fires at such facilities in Monterey County in 2020, Flagstaff Arizona 2012 and Surprise Arizona 2019). While I recognize a need for such facilities as our power grid moves towards more sustainable sources of electricity, such a facility placed in a primarily residential neighborhood seems to be recklessly dangerous and totally unacceptable.

The proposed facility that would be permitted by the zoning change would be adjacent to residential properties to the west, proximate to residential properties to the south, adjacent to a senior living facility to the east and in close proximity to an elementary school with an enrollment of over 400 students. Further, the parcel is adjacent to a grove of highly flammable eucalyptus trees which exacerbates the concerns of the recognized fire risk of large scale lithium ion battery energy storage systems such as that proposed.

Whatever the Council’s expectation for development in the immediate area of the parcel in question at the time of the 2006 General Plan zoning, the neighborhood has developed as an important residential neighborhood within the city limits of Goleta. Introduction of a heavy industry use in a now primarily residential neighborhood would unnecessarily expose a sizable population to extreme fire risk and hazardous materials exposure and unfavorably alter the character of western Goleta, possibly resulting in reduced property values for property owners.

City Council holds the responsibility of determining a need for such a facility within the City, however, City Council also holds the responsibility of responsibly siting such a facility. The facility, if allowed, should only be placed in a primarily industrial, and preferably heavy industrial, district of the City.

Respectfully,
Mark Albertson
‐‐
Mark Albertson
7771 Heron Court, Goleta, CA  93117
760.668.6333
[email protected]
Fro
m: Ken Pearlman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 8:30 AM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Travis Lee <[email protected]>; Mary Chang <[email protected]>
Subject: GenOn Battery Storage Project (Error Correction) Dear Mayor Perotte and Council Members:

I
write to correct an error in my previous letter (of May 14, below) on this subject, in which I referred to the GenOn subject property as lying within the California Coastal Zone, which is not the case. The project site in fact lies just outside the Coastal Zone boundaries immediately to the west (Las Armas Rd.) and south (Hollister Ave.). However, it remains the case that many of the properties alluded to in my letter (the quiet residential neighborhoods of The Hideaway, The Bluffs, and Santa Barbara Shores; and the Sperling Preserve), as well as the Sandpiper Golf Course, that would be adversely affected—and endangered—by the battery storage project are themselves located within the state-protected Coastal Zone.

Sinc
erely,
Ken
neth Pearlman
33 Sanderling Lane
Goleta, CA
From: Ken Pearlman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 5:30 PM
To: 'Perotte Paula'; 'Kyle Richards'; '[email protected]'; 'James Kyriaco'; 'Kasdin Stuart' Cc: 'Imhof Peter'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: GenOn Battery Storage Project
Dear Mayor Perotte and Council Members:

I a
m writing to urge you to reject the request by GenOn to initiate a General Plan Amendment that will be considered in agenda item 22-134 at the May 17 City Council meeting. I am a homeowner in The Hideaway, nearly adjacent to the subject property. GenOn, which owns the peaker plant on Las Armas Rd., is seeking to install a large 30 MW lithium ion battery storage facility on a vacant lot adjacent to the peaker plant. Current zoning for the lot does not permit the proposed industrial project.

GenOn’s proposal is a very bad idea for multiple reasons. It would construct a noise-generating industrial facility in the midst of residential neighborhoods, the Mariposa elder care facility, the Ellwood elementary school, and the nearby Sperling Preserve—all within the sensitive and state-protected California Coastal Zone.

The r
isk of fire and/or explosion from lithium ion battery storage facilities is real. (See, for example, https://www.powermag.com/protecting-battery-energy-storage-systems-from-fire-and-explosion- hazards/.) An even larger battery storage facility installed at Moss Landing in Monterey County in 2020 has already experienced two serious fires (https://www.ksbw.com/article/second-battery-malfunction- in-less-than-6-months-reported-at-moss-landing-power-plant/39083568#). These inherent risks are compounded by the fact that the proposed GenOn project site is bordered by a grove of large, highly flammable eucalyptus trees.

For the above reasons, in 2019 our community opposed a battery storage project proposed by the Enel Green Power Company, which had sought to build on the Delwiche property, also located on Las Armas Rd. Hideaway community representatives met with Enel representatives and convinced them to construct their facility elsewhere in Goleta. The current GenOn proposal is three times larger than the proposed Enel project.

The zoning for both properties should only allow for housing, mixed use, or other use that is compatible with our quiet residential neighborhood. A 30 MW battery storage facility is clearly at variance with such usage. Most of our community members support renewable energy projects, but it is improper to locate this project so close to residential neighborhoods, an elementary school, an elder care facility, and a nature preserve.

I a
ppreciate your diligent and thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Ken
neth Pearlman
33 Sanderling Lane
Goleta, CA
From: Lisa Prasse
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: FW: GenOn Battery Storage Project
Date: Friday, May 13, 2022 5:05:35 PM
FYI
From:

Peter Imhof <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Lisa Prasse <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: GenOn Battery Storage Project
FYI, public comment
From:

MVM SYNDICATE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Robert Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Travis Lee <[email protected]>; Mary Chang <[email protected]> Subject: Re: GenOn Battery Storage Project
Dear Mayor Perotte and Council Members:

I live at 82 Sanderling Lane and support Robert Miller’s position. My husband Mark and I do not see the fit in the neighborhood. When you decided to build the Hideaway complex, it was also a decision to develop compatible projects with a residential emphasis surrounding our area. We purchased our homes with the knowledge that the NRG plant was going to be shut down and Veneco processing plant would be dismantled. Let’s not go backwards.

Melissa V. Moreno
On May 13, 2022, at 13:09, Robert Miller <[email protected]> wrote:



Dear Mayor Perotte and Council Members
I write concerning agenda item 22-134 scheduled for consideration at the May 17 Council Meeting. I and many other residents of western Goleta strongly object to GenOn’s request for initiation of a General Plan Amendment.

As you know, GenOn, a
very large Texas energy company and owner of the peaker plant on Las Armas Rd., seeks to install a large 30 MW lithium ion battery storage facility on a vacant lot adjacent to the peaker plant. Current zoning for the lot does not permit the proposed industrial project.

GenOn’s proposal to install the battery storage facility is a terrible idea. It would construct an industrial facility in the midst of residential neighborhoods, the Mariposa care facility, the Elwood school and the nearby Elwood nature preserve.

Also, the fire risk from a lithium ion battery storage facilities is real. An even larger battery storage facility installed at Moss Landing in Monterey County in 2020 has already experienced two serious fires. I note that the site for the GenOn project is bordered by a grove of large, highly flammable eucalyptus trees. While it has been noted that the natural gas fired peaker plant already presents a significant fire risk to the area, that is not a reason to increase the risk.

For the same reason, in 2019 we opposed a battery storage project proposed by the Enel Green Power Company, a large Italian power company. Enel sought to build it on the Delwiche property, also located on Las Armas Rd. (The Delwiche property was the site of the proposed CHP facility.) We met with Enel representatives and convinced them to construct their facility elsewhere in Goleta. The current GenOn proposal is three times larger than the proposed Enel project.

The zoning for both properties should only allow for housing, mixed use or other use that is compatible with our neighborhood. A 30 MW battery storage facility is clearly not. At a time when we need more affordable housing, the GenOn and Delwiche vacant parcels present an ideal location for residential development.

As we said in 2019, we 100% support renewable energy projects, but it is wrong to locate this project so close to residential neighborhoods, an elementary school, an elder care facility and a nature preserve.

Thank you for your consideration.

Robert K. Miller
Hideaway Resident
562.682.1436
[email protected]
From: Robert Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Travis Lee <[email protected]>; Mary Chang <[email protected]>
Subject: GenOn Battery Storage Project
D
ear Mayor Perotte and Council Members
I w
rite concerning agenda item 22-134 scheduled for consideration at the May 17 Council Meeting. I and many other residents of western Goleta strongly object to GenOn’s request for initiation of a General Plan Amendment. As you know, GenOn, a very large Texas energy company and owner of the peaker plant on Las Armas Rd., seeks to install a large 30 MW lithium ion battery storage facility on a vacant lot adjacent to the peaker plant. Current zoning for the lot does not permit the proposed industrial project.

G
enOn’s proposal to install the battery storage facility is a terrible idea. It would construct an industrial facility in the midst of residential neighborhoods, the Mariposa care facility, the Elwood school and the nearby Elwood nature preserve.

Als
o, the fire risk from a lithium ion battery storage facilities is real. An even larger battery storage facility installed at Moss Landing in Monterey County in 2020 has already experienced two serious fires. I note that the site for the GenOn project is bordered by a grove of large, highly flammable eucalyptus trees. While it has been noted that the natural gas fired peaker plant already presents a significant fire risk to the area, that is not a reason to increase the risk.

F
or the same reason, in 2019 we opposed a battery storage project proposed by the Enel Green Power Company, a large Italian power company. Enel sought to build it on the Delwiche property, also located on Las Armas Rd. (The Delwiche property was the site of the proposed CHP facility.) We met with Enel representatives and convinced them to construct their facility elsewhere in Goleta. The current GenOn proposal is three times larger than the proposed Enel project.

The
zoning for both properties should only allow for housing, mixed use or other use that is compatible with our neighborhood. A 30 MW battery storage facility is clearly not. At a time when we need more affordable housing, the GenOn and Delwiche vacant parcels present an ideal location for residential development.

A
s we said in 2019, we 100% support renewable energy projects, but it is wrong to locate this project so close to residential neighborhoods, an elementary school, an elder care facility and a nature preserve.

Thank you for your consideration.

R
obert K. Miller
Hideaway Resident
562.682.1436
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Lori Z <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 11:04 AM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed GenOn Battery Plant
D
ear City of Golita Representatives,
M
y name is Lori Zimmerman. Last month my husband (David Zimmerman) and I moved here to beautiful Goleta. I have lived my whole life in Northern California. The area from which I come is very condensed with little privacy and little exposure to nature. My husband and I carefully and intentionally sought out a new home that would provide us with very close proximity to nature and a location that would be far from industry and fire dangers. We initially looked in some neighborhoods of Santa Barbara but those were stamped with “high fire hazard“ labels. Therefore, we were thrilled to discover The Bluffs community with a nature preserve on one side and that it is classified as a low fire hazard area— reflected in our homeowner’s insurance.

A
fter being here only a few weeks, my heart sank to learn of this proposal for a lithium battery plant. I am hoping you all will take into consideration the degradation that would be caused by allowing this industry to move forward here. Some of the most unique hallmarks of this area will be greatly jeopardized. Plus, the appeal to move here will be greatly diminished and likely cause housing prices to drop and insurance premiums to increase. Having this battery plant so close to a school and senior living community would bring increased danger to them as well as to the nature preserve and The Bluffs homes. Santa Barbara County already has so many high risk fire hazard neighborhoods, please do not add this one to the list.

Tha
nk you for hearing me out.

Sinc
erely,
Lori Zimmerman
7732 Kestrel Lane, Goleta
From: Barbara Tigert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>
Subject: "Subject: Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment" Case #21-0003-GPA D
er Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
I a
m a homeowner in The Hideaway Community Development. I am asking you to please reconsider your position on the Recommendation for Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210-053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA.

If approved, this amendment would jeopardize our development, the Bluffs home development, the Ellwood School students and staff, and the Mariposa Retirement community.

GenOn's desire to install a battery energy storage system (BESS) would likely cause danger to the surrounding properties I mentioned above because they are susceptible to fire and toxic releases.

I fully support Goleta's Green Energy goals, but the above Amendment before you on May 17, 2021 does not qualify; in fact, it is a step in the opposite direction.

Please vote No on the Amendment Case No. 21-0003-GPA. It is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Sincerely,
Barbara Tigert, property owner @ 13 Sanderling Lane, Goleta, CA 93117

Chair
Katie Davis
Vice-Chair
Jim Hines
Secretary
Gerry Ching
Treasurer
Jim Taylor
At Large
Elizabeth Lamar
At Large
David Gold
At Large
Alex Pujo
Arguello Group Rep
Rebecca August
SB Group Rep
Martha Sadler
Conejo Group Rep
Nikki Stokols
Ventura Network Rep
Elizabeth Lamar
PO Box 31241
Santa Barbara CA
93130-1241
May 13, 2022
Goleta City Council
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Via email: [email protected]
Re: May 17 Item C.2: Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210- 053; Case No. 21-0003-GPA - SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Perotte and Goleta City Council Members:

We support the staff recommendation to adopt a General Plan Amendment on Viajero to allow for a battery storage project.

This large, flat property between the freeway, parking lots and power plant with associated grid infrastructure is a good fit for the battery storage we need for resiliency. The peaker plant was slated for retirement but is being kept online by CAISO for resiliency reasons. Running it less often would be a net benefit for the surrounding community.

Several studies conducted on behalf of utilities, industry organizations and regulators have found that batteries will play a key role in integrating and balancing increasing amounts of solar and wind electricity generation on the grid to ensure reliable power supplies to all customers when power is needed.

To date, this integration and grid balancing has largely been done by natural-gas fired peakers. However, as costs come down, battery energy storage projects are becoming viable alternatives for the additional balancing capacity that will be needed to integrate the increasing amounts of wind and solar energy.

In addition, economic dependence on electricity is increasing with decarbonization goals (EVs, electric heat, etc.). The importance of reliable electricity is only increasing, and batteries will provide the fundamental matching of intermittent supply and increasing demand. What’s more, they are essential if Goleta is to achieve its goal of 100% renewable energy.

Sincerely,
Katie Davis
Chair, Sierra Club Los Padres Chapter
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties
From: Donald Nose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 12:38 PM
To: [email protected]; Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; [email protected]; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]>
Cc: Lisa Sugimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to General Plan amendment for unaddressed parcel on Viajero

Dear Goleta Mayor Perotte, Council Members and City Manager, As local residents, my wife and I are 100% in support of more green energy and decreasing our overall carbon footprint in the community and in the world. However, the recent proposal to locate a 30MW Lithium Ion Battery storage facility in the above undressed parcel on Viajero is not a good fit for the area given it’s proximate location a Public School, senior assisted living facility, butterfly preserve and other residential communities. .

I oppose the approval of this site for this amended use for the following reasons:

1. First and Foremost, there has been a recent history of fires in these types of facilities so much so the FEMA issued a bulletin and funded a grant to study the unique problems associate with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Fires (see attached exhibit). They noted the following:
o There has been a dramatic increase in the use of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
o Most of these systems consist of multiple Lithium-ion battery cells o Unfortunately, these cells can experience thermal runaway which causes them to release very hot flammable, toxic gases
o In large storage systems, failure of ONE lithium cell can cascade to include hundreds of individual cells. The hot flammable gases can result in an explosion, or a very difficult to extinguish fire.
o Although fire service routinely responses to explosive scenarios, such as those associated with natural gas leaks, standard operating procedures do not exist for scenarios like Battery Energy Storage Systems for which there is no way to cut off the gas supply
o The Fire service is unaware and inexperienced with the fire and explosion hazards of BESS
o In addition to the above, there remains many questions about the toxicity of the battery vent gas.

2. This land is not zoned for this type of facility and given the potential risks it does not seem appropriate to amend the zoning to accommodate such a high risky use.

3. GenOn is proposing to install a large 30MW storage facility which is almost 3 times larger than one that was considered in 2019 and not approved

4. While GenOn owns the land where they are proposing to build, in the event of a fire or toxic gas leak the outcome could very well be catastrophic beyond their owned land.

Please do not approve this request for an amended land use and look to find alternative areas to locate a BESS facility with much less risks to the surrounding community.

Don Nose
7726 Kestrel Lane
Goleta, CA
949-394-2179

Emerging Hazards of Battery Energy Storage
System Fires
Grant Number: EMW-2016-FP-00833
Principle Investigator: Ofodike Ezekoye Ph.D., P.E.

University of Texas at Austin
In April 2019, an unexpected explosion of batteries on fire in an Arizona energy storage facility injured eight firefighters. More than a year before that fire, FEMA awarded a Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S), Research and Development (R&D) grant to the University of Texas at Austin to address firefighter concerns about safety when responding to fires in battery energy storage systems of all sizes. Professor O.A. (‘DK’) Ezekoye is working with other engineers, firefighters, and industry partners to develop a better understanding of the magnitude of the fire hazards.

There has been a dramatic increase in the use of battery energy storage systems (BESS) in the United States. These systems are used in residential, commercial, and utility scale applications. Most of these systems consist of multiple lithium-ion battery cells. A single battery cell (7 x 5 x 2 inches) can store 350 Whr of energy. Unfortunately, these lithium cells can experience thermal runaway which causes them to release very hot flammable, toxic gases. In large storage systems, failure of one lithium cell can cascade to include hundreds of individual cells. The hot flammable gases can result in an explosion, or a very difficult to extinguish fire.

Although the fire service routinely responds to explosive scenarios, such as those associated with natural gas leaks, standard operating procedures do not exist for scenarios like a battery energy storage system for which there is no way to cut off the gas supply. The fire service is unaware and inexperienced with the fire and explosion hazards of BESS.

The FP&S R&D study started with a laboratory test in which a single cell failed in one commercial storage module containing a total of 14 cells. In one of the early tests, when a single cell failed, smoke and gases were released that ignited and burned intensely for 12 seconds. Toxic smoke and gases filled the test space.

The research team has subsequently connected small-scale battery failure test results to large scale fire and explosion consequences associated with these systems.

Through this research, one of the biggest lessons learned for the fire service is that the utilities and commercial entities that own large battery systems are equally unfamiliar with the potential fire hazards. As well, there remain many questions about the toxicity of the battery vent gas.

From 2014 to 2018, residential BESS installations have increased by 200% annually.

Further research into residential BESS hazards is essential as BESS hazards could eventually become a regular part of dwelling fires.

According to Professor Ezekoye, the results of this study will lead to wider awareness of the BESS hazards, a greater understanding of the underlying fire behavior of these systems, and eventually the development of safe standard operating guidelines and procedures for firefighters.

From: David Paul Zimmerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Michelle Greene <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed GenOn Battery Plant
Dear City of Golita Representatives,
You've received an email from my wife Lori earlier today about the Battery Storage Project proposal. I am in complete agreement with her email. I would like to add my great concern for the additional risk you are taking on for the City of Goleta, and for the homeowners and public property in the area around that parcel in your decision to rezone it.

The idea that rezoning this parcel allows for other uses beneficial to the City and the area can't be dissociated from the risk that you then also permit around lithium-ion battery dangers. Anyone familiar with the long drama around the Boeing 787 knows that they were extensively grounded due to faulty design of the system around their lithium-ion batteries, which then extended to safety retrofits on the Boeing 737 MAX. Even beyond that, airlines won't allow you to pack batteries in checked luggage, carry-on only with limits. Furthermore, our movers wouldn't even allow us to include lithium-ion batteries -- or any batteries -- as they classified them as "hazardous materials" (per the U.S. Secretary of Transportation), and we had to hand-carry them separately. All of this is just a small slice of the data that is available about commercial lithium-ion battery risks.

On top of that are more consumer-grade risk stories that make the news about Tesla lithium- ion batteries, and other consumer applications. While not entirely apples-to-apples with the commercial use here, they further underscore the fact that approving this this proposal isn't just a safe plug-and-play authorization for the City. It also doesn't require a lot of research (for example, from the NTSB and FAA) to discover that landing a lithium-ion battery facility in Goleta would require special handling of a fire event.

If the answer is that we would trust the operations of the facility to maintain the safety of the nearby area -- school, residences, protected environments -- that would be at odds with who has accountability for the safety of the area. Expecting that this accountability would wholly or even substantially lie with the maintenance and operation of the facility on this parcel is not realistic.

I am decidedly against this kind of rezoning towards this end.

Sincerely,
David Zimmerman
7732 Kestrel Lane, Goleta

16 May 2022
G
oleta City Council
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Via email: [email protected]
Re:

Support for General Plan Amendment accommodating battery storage on undeveloped land next to Ellwood gas peaker plant.

D
ear Mayor Perotte & Councilmembers:

T
he Clean Coalition strongly supports the staff recommendation to adopt a General Plan Amendment to accommodate the battery storage that is proposed to be sited next to the Ellwood gas peaker plant, for the following reasons:

1. B
attery storage projects are key to the Community Microgrid that will provide renewables- driven energy resilience to the highly transmission-vulnerable Goleta Load Pocket, which spans 70 miles of coastline surrounding the City of Goleta.1

2. T
his battery storage project will accelerate the transition away from natural gas, which is neither safe nor resilient.2

3. T
his battery storage project will help obviate the Ellwood gas peaker plant and keep it on schedule for decommissioning. Note that all gas peakers pose major health and safety threats, and the Ellwood gas peaker is sited adjacent to this proposed battery storage project.

Battery Storage is key to Energy Resilience in the Goleta Load Pocket T
he Goleta Load Pocket (GLP) spans 70 miles of coastline, from Point Conception to Lake Casitas, encompassing the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. 1 “A battery storage project could have the benefit of providing better electricity grid resiliency at the northern most section of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) jurisdiction by storing clean energy and addressing constrained grid operations.” (Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment, at page 25) 2 Approving this General Plan amendment is a logical next step, following the City’s laudable passage of an all-electric reach code for new constructions.

Pa ge 2 of 4
Be
cause the GLP is a highly transmission-vulnerable, disaster-prone region, the GLP Community Microgrid is being designed to deliver an unparalleled trifecta of economic, environmental, and resilience benefits to the GLP. Important to know is that the GLP’s only connection to the transmission system is routed through the heart of fire, landslide, and earthquake zones via the Goleta Substation, which is located atop Glen Annie Rd. The highly vulnerable transmission route is shown as a purple line in the maps above and below, and as can be seen in the fire risk map below, the GLP’s transmission connection is routed through a treacherous fire zone.

I
n order to achieve indefinite renewables-driven backup power that provides 100% protection to the GLP against a complete transmission outage (known as an “N-2 event”), 200 megawatts (MW) of solar and 400 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy storage needs to be sited within the GLP.

A
t 30 MW, the GenOn battery storage project alone will fulfill close to 10% of the 400 MWh of energy storage needed for the GLP Community Microgrid. Extensive details about the GLP Community Microgrid are available at this website:
https
://clean-coalition.org/community-microgrids/goleta-load-pocket/ Natural gas is neither safe nor resilient
F
uture generations will be asking why their preceding generations allowed massive quantities of toxic chemicals to be injected into the earth, and to contaminate ungodly volumes of water, in pursuit of a poisonous and highly flammable gas that would be routed through our neighborhoods and into our homes. In recent years there has been numerous gas pipeline explosions, such as on 13 September 2018 in Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts, where there were over 80 individual fires, 30,000 people forced to evacuate, and even a death. Also, on 17 February 2017 a natural gas pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan in Refugio, Texas exploded creating a massive fire. This explosion shook homes 60 miles away. Not to be forgotten, the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion obliterated a residential block of homes killing 8 people and injuring 51 more. There are dozens of additional deadly examples just within recent years.

2 010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion
B
eyond natural gas being unsafe, it is inherently not resilient. The reality is that major disasters such as earthquakes disable gas infrastructure for far longer periods than electricity infrastructure. As illuminated in the chart below from a San Francisco study, natural gas service requires 30 times longer to restore to the majority of customers than is required for electricity service. Worth repeating is the fact that gas infrastructure is also extremely vulnerable to fires, landslides, as well as terrorism.

S
ource: The City and County of San Francisco Lifelines Study Battery Storage will help obviate the Ellwood Gas peaker plant T
he battery storage project under consideration will be sited adjacent to the Ellwood gas peaker plant that is scheduled to be decommissioned within the coming years. California regulators, however, have allowed extensions to the decommissioning date before and could allow the Ellwood gas peaker plant to operate until there is a viable alternative for GLP energy resilience.

Pa ge 4 of 4
A
lthough most people agree that renewable energy is the foundation of the energy system of the future, few people know that the GLP offers one of the best opportunities to realize this future within a few years via solar and storage. In addition to the California Building Standards Commission that mandated solar on all newly constructed homes starting in 2020 (and new commercial properties soon thereafter), the GLP has immense solar siting opportunities on existing commercial-scale properties. The Clean Coalition has conducted a preliminary solar siting survey indicating that getting to indefinite renewables-driven backup power for the GLP will require 200 MW of additional solar being sited within the GLP. Importantly, 200 MW represents only about four times more solar than what is already deployed within the GLP today, and attaining this 200 MW will require less than 10% of the solar siting potential on commercial-scale rooftops, parking lots, and parking structures within the GLP.

I
n order to fully achieve indefinite renewables-driven resilience for the GLP, 400 MWh of energy storage will also be required. The 30 MW battery storage project under consideration makes a significant contribution to meeting the GLP Community Microgrid energy storage requirement, which in turn will accelerate the Ellwood gas peaker plant decommissioning. For a comparison of a similar- sized front-of-meter energy storage project, we suggest that the Council consider the Vallecito Energy Storage Resilience (VESR) project, one of the projects procured by SCE as part of 195 MWh deployed throughout the region over the last few years. VESR was deployed in Carpinteria in January 2021. 3 T
he Clean Coalition believes that the GenOn energy storage project is significant to the GLP Community Microgrid, which is staging to showcase the electricity system of the future while obviating gas peaker plant alternatives. Hence, the Clean Coalition encourages your full support.

Sincerely,
Be
n Schwartz
Policy Manager
Clean Coalition
3 https://clean-coalition.org/news/vallecito-energy-storage-resilience-vesr-project-online-december/ Susan Eng-DenBaars
283 Elderberry Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
M
ay 16, 2022
D
ear Mayor Perotte and Council Members,
I
am writing to you as a concerned homeowner and parent about the GenOn proposed Battery Storage Project. I and many other neighbors vigorously oppose GenOn’s request for initiation of a General Plan Amendment. This large Texas energy company would like to install a huge 30 MW lithium-ion battery storage facility on a vacant lot adjacent to the peaker plant that they already own. The current zoning for the lot does not permit the proposed industrial project.

T
his is a horrible idea! Nearby in the area is Ellwood Elementary School, Mariposa care facility, the Ellwood nature preserve and residential neighborhoods.

T
he potential for fire is very real and high. There have been two serious fires in a battery storage facility installed at Moss Landing in Monterey County in 2020. A lithium battery facility in Chandler, Arizona as recent as April 2022 also had a fire. In this case the neighboring area was evacuated and road closures occurred due to the dangerous chemicals. How can you possibly consider changing the zoning that would allow such a potentially dangerous facility so close to children, non-ambulatory and assisted living individuals and families? I
support renewable energy projects completely. However, we need to be prudent when determining viable locations. This projected zoning change is not suitable for the area.

Sin
cerely,
S
usan Eng-DenBaars
From: Michael Chiacos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 5:08 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Roger Aceves <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]> Subject: CEC comments on General Plan Amendment for Battery Storage Plant Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
C
EC supports the staff recommendation to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the battery storage project. Please read the attached letter describing our support.

Sin
cerely,
Michael Chiacos
Director of Climate Policy
Community Environmental Council
1219 State Street, Suite A, Santa Barbara CA 93101
(805) 9
63-0583 x204 | (805) 284-4179 (Cell)
F
acebook | Instagram | Twitter| LinkedIn
C
EC advances rapid and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. See our impact report to learn why we are a 2020 California Nonprofit of the Year, a 2020 City of Santa Barbara Climate Hero, and a recipient of the highest possible ratings from Charity Navigator and Guidestar.

CEC (por sus siglas en inglés) avanza soluciones rápidas y equitativas a la crisis climática. Vea nuestro informe de impacto para saber por qué somos la Organización Sin Fines de Lucro del Año 2020 de California, el 2020 Ciudad de Santa Bárbara Héroe del Clima y tenemos las calificaciones más altas posibles en Charity Navigator y Guidestar.

May 16th, 2022
City of Goleta City Council
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Via Email to [email protected]
Re: May 17 Item C.2 – General Plan Amendment for a parcel on Viajero known as APN 079-210-053
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
Community Environmental Council (CEC) supports the staff recommendation for a General Plan Amendment to allow for the battery storage project to be considered. New battery storage projects in Goleta could help reduce usage of the natural gas Ellwood Peaker Plant adjacent to the site, and contribute to permanently retiring it. This project would also help provide resiliency to the region and help integrate more wind, solar, and other renewable energy into California’s grid. Projects like this are necessary to help Goleta meet its 100% renewable electricity by 2030 goal.

The project parcel borders the freeway, the Ellwood Power Plant, and is surrounded by parking lots. It’s location adjacent to the existing natural gas power plant means that robust grid infrastructure is already in place. Battery storage plants operate with very little impact and avoid the pollution from combusting natural gas at the existing Ellwood Peaker plant.

While there have been a few highly publicized battery plant fires in the United States, these issues are extremely rare. The industry is quickly learning and adopting appropriate safeguards to make incidents even rarer. The reduction in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from not running the Ellwood Peaker Plant is a guaranteed regular benefit to the City of Goleta.

Sincerely,
Michael Chiacos
Director of Climate Policy

From: Julie Solomon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:48 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Cc: steve solomon <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Amendment (GPA) for an unaddressed parcel on Viajero Drive to change the land use designation from General Commercial (C-G) to either Business Park (I-BP) or Office and Institutional (I-OI) to allow the applicant to pursue a battery storage p

Honorable Members of the Goleta City Council,
We are nearby residents to the above referenced general plan amendment and strongly oppose the land use designation change.

This is a residential neighborhood and a battery storage facility is a dangerous and unappropriate use of the site. It is within close proximity to Ellwood Elementary School and a Senior Living Facility in addition to many, many private residences, a golf course and the beach.

Another site should be found for the facility. It does not belong at the proposed site due to public safety concerns.

Thank you,
Julie & Steve Solomon
275 Elderberry Drive
Goleta CA 93117