Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the BESS Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maple Valley holds public hearing on six-month moratorium proposal for battery energy storage systems
Summary
At its Sept. 9 meeting, the Maple Valley City Council held a public hearing on Ordinance O-25-854, which would impose a six-month emergency moratorium on accepting applications for Battery Electric Storage Systems (BESS) while the city develops interim regulations. Two members of the public opposed BESS and council later asked staff to add a BESS code amendment to the Planning Commission workplan.
Maple Valley’s City Council heard public comment Sept. 9 on a proposed emergency moratorium that would stop the city from accepting building permits and other applications for Battery Electric Storage Systems for six months while interim development regulations are drafted.
The public hearing concerned Ordinance No. O-25-854, described in the agenda materials as establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on BESS acceptance until the city adopts interim development regulations, with a six-month effective period. Council opened the hearing at 8:06 p.m. and closed it at 8:14 p.m.; no formal vote on the ordinance is recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
Two attendees spoke during the hearing. James DeLay of Covington said he opposed BESS facilities and expressed gratitude that the city was considering a moratorium. Bonnie Helms of Yelm said she was “totally opposed to lithium BESS,” voiced worry about impacts to surrounding communities and suggested the council explore alternatives. Both speakers’ remarks were entered into the public record in the minutes.
Separately in the meeting’s manager-report section, Economic and Community Development Director Doug McIntyre asked the council to add a BESS Facilities Code Amendment to the Planning Commission workplan; the council approved adding that item to the workplan. The minutes show that staff will pursue code amendment work through the Planning Commission process, which is a procedural step before any permanent regulations would be adopted.
The minutes do not record a council vote adopting or rejecting Ordinance O-25-854 on Sept. 9; they record only the public hearing and the workplan referral. The City’s next regular meeting and planning calendar will determine when interim regulations or an ordinance vote might appear on a future agenda.
