The Auburn City Council recently approved a new Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance despite significant public concern and requests for stronger protections, more study, and a slower process.

 

Many Auburn residents support innovation and responsible energy policy. But large battery storage facilities are not simple warehouses or harmless infrastructure. They can involve serious long-term community impacts that deserve careful review before rules are finalized. Residents raised concerns about:

- Fire risks and emergency response readiness

- Toxic smoke and contaminated runoff during battery fires

- Setbacks from homes, schools, parks, and neighborhoods

- Noise, industrial impacts, and quality of life concerns

- Environmental impacts to land and water

- Long-term decommissioning and financial liability

- Whether Auburn moved too fast without enough independent review

 

These concerns were not fully addressed, and so we Are asking Auburn leaders to:

 

 1. Pause Further Action

 

Temporarily halt implementation and any approvals tied to the ordinance until public safety concerns are reviewed.

 

 2. Amend the Ordinance

 

Auburn’s new Battery Energy Storage System ordinance includes some baseline requirements such as UL 9540 equipment listing, general requirements tied to state fire code standards. Those are a starting point — but they are not enough for utility-scale battery facilities placed near neighborhoods and growing communities. The ordinance still leaves major gaps that should be corrected immediately.

 

We Are Requesting the Following Amendments:

 

⚠️ Establish a Minimum 1,000-Foot Residential Buffer-

 

The ordinance currently relies on the underlying zoning setbacks, not a meaningful public safety buffer from homes, schools, parks, childcare centers, hospitals, and senior housing. That is inadequate for an industrial battery use with potential fire, smoke, evacuation, and nuisance impacts.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require a minimum 1,000-foot setback from sensitive uses for Tier II and Tier III BESS facilities.

 

⚠️ Require Independent Toxic Plume / Dispersion Modeling-

 

The ordinance references hazard mitigation plans and UL testing, but it does not require project-specific plume modeling showing how smoke, toxic gases, or particulates could travel during a battery fire under Auburn weather conditions. Residents deserve to know real impact zones before approval.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require third-party modeling of:

• thermal runaway smoke plume travel

• toxic gas release scenarios

• prevailing wind conditions

• evacuation radius estimates

• nearby homes / schools impact areas

 

⚠️ Require Full Safety Analysis Before Final Approval-

 

The ordinance requires certain submittals, but it still allows too much reliance on future documentation and agency review later in the process. Public safety evidence should come before approvals, not after.

 

Amendment Requested:

No Tier II or Tier III BESS project should receive final land use approval until complete submission and review of:

• hazard mitigation analysis

• fire response plan

• emergency evacuation strategy

• site access plan

• water supply analysis

• chemistry-specific risk profile

 

⚠️ Battery Chemistry Disclosure-

 

The ordinance requires UL listed systems but does not clearly require upfront disclosure of battery chemistry (LFP, NMC, sodium-ion, etc.) even though fire behavior and toxic byproducts differ.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require applicants to disclose exact battery chemistry and container/system specifications before review.

 

⚠️ Independent Fire Department Sign-Off-

 

The ordinance references fire code compliance, but local fire readiness should be explicitly addressed.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require written confirmation from fire agencies regarding:

• staffing capability

• training readiness

• water supply adequacy

• access routes

• suppression strategy

• mutual aid needs

 

⚠️ Stronger Environmental Protection Language-

 

The ordinance mentions containment and spill neutralization, but battery fires can involve contaminated runoff and post-incident cleanup challenges.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require project-specific plans for:

• contaminated fire-water runoff capture

• groundwater protection

• stormwater system isolation

• creek/wetland protection

• post-fire soil testing

 

⚠️ Increase Decommissioning Security-

 

The ordinance includes a 125% decommissioning bond, which is a good start. However, battery disposal costs, hazardous material handling, inflation, and site restoration can rise significantly over time.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require:

• periodic bond recalculation every 3 years

• inflation indexing

• hazardous waste disposal assumptions

• full site restoration costs

 

⚠️ Conditional Use Review for Larger Facilities-

 

The ordinance allows some Tier II uses administratively in certain zones. Large battery projects deserve public hearings and case-by-case scrutiny.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require Conditional Use Permit / public hearing review for any Tier II or Tier III facility above specified MWh thresholds.

 

⚠️ Ongoing Noise Enforcement-

 

The ordinance sets decibel limits, but inverter hum and nighttime noise complaints are common concerns.

 

Amendment Requested:

Require:

• post-installation sound testing

• nighttime standards

• complaint response timelines

• penalties for repeated exceedances

 

⚠️ No Battery Energy Storage Siting in R-3 Residential Zones-

 

The current ordinance allows certain battery storage uses in R-3 zoning, which is intended for residential neighborhoods and areas where people live, raise families, and expect residential compatibility. Industrial battery storage uses do not belong in higher-density residential districts. Even smaller facilities can create concerns involving:

• proximity to homes 

• noise and inverter hum 

• fire response access 

• evacuation complexity 

• property value concerns 

• incompatibility with neighborhood character

 

Amendment Requested:

Remove Battery Energy Storage Systems as an allowed use in R-3 zones and prohibit Tier II and Tier III facilities in all residential zoning districts.

 

 3. Form an Independent Public Subcommittee

 

Include residents, fire professionals, planners, environmental experts, and community stakeholders to study the issue and recommend safer, smarter policy options.

 

🏔Why This Matters🌲

 

Once these facilities are approved and built, the consequences are long-term. Auburn has one chance to get the rules right before projects move forward.

 

Before Auburn is asked to host one Battery Energy Storage System project—or several—the City should first require clear proof that these facilities serve a real local need and provide direct, measurable benefits to Auburn residents. Our community should not become the place expected to carry the burden of multiple industrial battery sites while neighboring cities have chosen to pause, study the risks, or adopt stricter protections. Auburn families deserve to know whether this ordinance could make our city the easiest target for projects others are unwilling to accept. If these facilities bring long-term land use impacts, safety concerns, and neighborhood consequences, then Auburn leaders must honestly answer why Auburn should bear that load, how many projects could follow, and what lasting benefit residents receive in return.

 

This petition is NOT anti-storage. It is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-community voice.

 

If you believe Auburn residents deserve better safeguards and a meaningful say in decisions that affect their neighborhoods, please sign and share.

 

Tell Auburn leaders: Pause. Amend. Listen.

 

#AuburnWA #AuburnWashington #DowntownAuburn #SouthAuburn #NorthAuburn #LakelandHills #LeaHill #WestHillAuburn #AuburnCommunity #AuburnNeighbors