Good afternoon, and thank you for being here today.

For the record, my name is Sharon Durkin, District Eat City Councillor, and I'm the chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Planning Development and Transportation.

Today is October 19th, and the exact time is two.gov backslash city dash council dash TV and broadcast on X divinity channel eight, RCN channel eighty-two, files channel nine sixty four.

Written comments may be sent to the committee email at CCC.gov and will be made part of the public record and available to all counselors.

Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing.gov for the link, and your name will be added to the list.

Today's hearing is on Docket one seven one eight.

I'd like to give them each an opportunity to give an opening statement.

Municipalities across the country are confronting the rapid growth of tech infrastructure and what to do about data centers.

We've all read headlines about massive facilities moving into communities, consuming public resources, and causing local disruption.

Data centers consume significant amounts of water and electricity, and we need to guard against overuse of these finite resources.

They could also generate noise and affect residents living in nearby communities.

People are right to be cautious, and they should have a voice in these decisions.

But there's no need to be alarmed or move too quickly.

Under Boston's current zoning rules, data centers are conditional, meaning we can evaluate them proposal by proposal.

The governor has given us local control, and should we should use that authority to develop an informed framework that determines what level of impact is too great and determine what are we exactly trying to protect against.

Large hyperscale data centers, the centralized facilities that other cities have banned, are unlikely to come to Boston given our high land and energy cost.

But we need to understand what facilities could threaten our natural resources, drive up energy prices, or put our climate goals at risk, or harm our communities.

It's important to note that any large facility would be subject to Article 80 and environmental review.

A green noise-free facility that supports research at Boston University, Northeastern, Harvard, UMass, MIT, and Yale.

Holy Elk has since moved to ban data centers.

I raise this example because it shows why we need to look carefully at what we are regulating.

There is nuance here, and you want an often nuances overlooked in policy conversations.

We shouldn't make that mistake here.

Data centers help power the infrastructure behind modern life.

They support our government, hospitals, universities.

Think about how much computing power is needed to process an MRI or a CAT scan.

How would the proposal before us affect our academic and healthcare institutions?

Would it still allow for inference points and last mile computing?

Boston is home to a thriving research, technology, and healthcare ecosystems, and we need to understand the amplifications these sectors to these sectors before moving forward.

We should pursue an approach that accommodates the future of these technologies and supports Boston's competitiveness while protecting our environment and serving our communities.

This means prioritizing research, resource efficiency, equitable access to affordable, clean energy, responsible local development, and better study services.

I want to make sure that any proposal we move forward accomplishes these goals, rather than simply checking a box off of a political list.

There are other approaches we consider too, including a locally a threshold-based local permitting option, which was a suggestion from a professor that I spoke with prior to this hearing.

That's why I'm looking forward to hearing from our city officials, our panelists, and members of the public.

I hope today's conversation brings all perspectives to the table and helps us better understand how data centers function and could function in Boston, which impacts are too great, and how we can regulate them thoughtfully.

So we have uh counselor, we've been joined by Councillor Rusi Louis Gen.

Uh, we're gonna start with the lead sponsor for a two-minute opening statement, Councillor Minyard Colpepper.

Thank you, Chair Durkin for holding this hearing.

Also want to thank the administration,

our

panelists, members of the public for participating in today's discussion.

I followed the zoning amendment because as data centers continue to expand across Massachusetts and the country.

I believe Boston needs to decide proactively whether this is an appropriate land use for our city.

Rather than waiting for major development proposal that already before us.

Data centers can place enormous demands on electricity, water, sewer infrastructure, and the electrical grid while occupying substantial amounts of land.

Boston is already an incredibly dense city with limited developable land and significant infrastructure needs.

We should be prioritizing the limited space and capacity for housing, jobs, community development, and other uses that provide more direct benefits to our residents.

We've also seen communities like low race concerns about noise, air pollution, backup diesel generators, and the lack of meaningful community involvement in decisions about data centered development.

These concerns are particularly important for environmental justice communities that already experience disproportionate environmental burdens.

This is also a matter of civil and rights and equity.

As low-income communities and historically marginalized populations are too often bearing the brunt of environmental and economic costs of development, but I'll share proportionately in the benefits.

We have a responsibility.

That is why this amendment proposes defining data centers, enforcing zoning code, and making them a forbidden use citywide while protecting ordinary server rooms, computer infrastructure that support existing businesses, educational institutions, and other lawful uses.

I recognize that there are different perspectives on whether an outright prohibition, a moratorium, or more stringent zoning regulations would be the most effective approach.

I look forward to hearing from our panelists about these alternatives and what protections Boston should consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Counselor Flynn.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say thank you to Councilor Cole Pepper and Council Warrell for bringing this important subject forward.