Massive 245,000-Square-Foot Warehouse Approved in Santa Maria After Heated Debate

The Santa Maria Planning Commission has greenlit a delivery package warehouse project on Stowell Road after a heated public hearing on May 6, 2026.

The proposed warehouse is expected to be built on a 32-acre site at 1680 W. Stowell Road in Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County. The site, consisting of two vacant parcels, was earlier used for row crop production and is located within a heavy commercial manufacturing designation.

Planned structures at the site include a 245,000-square-foot distribution facility with a 169,000-square-foot main warehouse, metal canopies for delivery van loading, a fleet service center for vehicle repairs, and an automated vehicle inspection building.

According to the details presented to the commission, the main warehouse will be designed to receive packages from 34 tractor-trailer trucks every day, mostly between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., and dispatch up to 345 delivery vans. It will also use at least 100 private carriers for deliveries in the afternoon.

Proposed by project developer Seefried Development Management Inc., the warehouse will be leased to e-commerce and logistics giant Amazon, according to the Santa Maria Times. Although Amazon’s name did not appear in meeting documents, the facility was extensively discussed as being a logistics hub for Amazon.

City staff said the facility’s peak traffic hours for delivery vans will be around 10 to 11 a.m. The timing was specifically planned to avoid overlaps with the community’s peak traffic or local school hours.

The Planning Commission approved the development permit in a 2-1 vote.

Economic Benefits

Benefiting the community, the project will create around 300 permanent jobs and 500 contracted positions.

The average compensation will be approximately $29 per hour, along with benefits like tuition reimbursement and skill training.

The project’s total estimated economic output is $73.4 million, with roughly $3.7 million generated in state and local taxes.

Additionally, the developer will pay more than $10 million in local fees and infrastructure upgrades.

Residents Raise Concerns

Despite the projected economic gains, many residents, teachers, and students urged commissioners to reject the project.

Commissioners noted the large and unusual amount of public participation in the hearing, with some commissioners describing it as the biggest crowd in their memory.

A major point of contention was traffic safety along Stowell Road, especially for students walking or biking across Stowell Road to nearby schools.

Teachers and students from these schools expressed fear that the high number of delivery trucks would increase the risk of accidents, particularly since students cross roads with distractions (like earphones) and throughout the day due to staggered school schedules.

Raising concerns over the infrastructure strain, residents pointed to deteriorating road conditions and a lack of adequate sidewalks in some areas.

Several speakers argued that the site was a poor selection for a project of this scale, suggesting that it should, instead, be located east of Highway 101 to provide better direct access to the freeway and ease congestion on city streets.

A section of public speakers raised alarms over air pollution, noise, and water consumption. Additionally, labor advocates criticized working conditions usually associated with big delivery centers.

Mitigation Measures

To mitigate the traffic impacts, the developer is required to optimize signal timing along the traffic corridor and finance a pedestrian beacon or traffic signal at the Stowell-Thornberg Roads intersection to ensure students’ safety.

The commission also certified the project’s Environmental Impact Report, which identified major unavoidable impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled.

However, the commission adopted a statement of overriding considerations, determining that the project’s economic and employment benefits outweighed the impacts.

Lone Dissenting Vote

Planning Commission Chair Esau Blanco was the only member to vote against the project.

Explaining his opposition, he said the property was “not the best site” for such a large-scale facility.

Observing that the city has “no experience” with a development of this scale, he noted the massive footprint of the project, which was nearly “four football fields of warehouse space.”

He expressed skepticism over the assurance of jobs and concluded that there was “no guarantee” that the projected job numbers would exist in perpetuity.