Good morning, everyone.

June 3rd, 2026 land use and sustainability committee will meet will come to order.

It's 9 34 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lynn, Chair of the Land Use Sustainability Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the role?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Chairlin here.

Sure.

There are five members present.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you very much for coming to this Wednesday morning meeting to discuss land use.

As always, thank you to our city clerks, council central staff, the mayor's office, OPCD, OSE, Seattle City Light, and SDCI for helping us prepare for this meeting.

We'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on the agenda or items within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for today?

We have 30 speakers signed up.

Okay, 30.

So our uh procedures state that if we have between 30 and 60 speakers, then it's one minute per speaker.

So each speaker will have uh one minute.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The poll comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The poll comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

In person speakers will be called first, after which we'll move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear time when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not, and their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

Emily Johnson.

Hi there, thank you very much.

Um I uh spoke last week twice too, and so I'm kind of running out of things to say.

Um, but I wanted to say very specifically in terms of land use that we need to be really concerned about opportunity costs.

Um not only do you know would these uh projects take up space in the city of Seattle that then could not be used for housing uh and for light industrial and other uses, um, but more importantly, over time they would impose other costs on nearby uh uh housing or businesses in terms of uh sat lots of uh sound effects uh and also heat island effects.

We know that both of those are a major issue for data centers.

Um so you have to think about how you're ruining the neighborhood for other uses, uh, not just in that one very specific place, but in the surrounding area as well.

And then secondly, in terms of um uh it something to be really concerned about is stranded assets.

Uh we know there's a very good chance that there will be at least a deflation and maybe an outright crash uh in the AI and data center uh business coming up soon, probably following the um uh the um IPOs that are coming up, and so we yeah, we need to be really concerned about like what we're stuck with here in Seattle.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Rebecca Young followed by Laura Bird, Liesel Wingard, Patrick Schulster, and Audrey Gosslin.

Um good morning and thank you.

My name's Rebecca Young.

I'm a voter and resident in District 3 and here to express my strong support for the proposed data center moratorium.

Um these large data centers covered by the moratorium are just fundamentally different from existing data centers in Seattle, as I'm sure you all know.

They consume far more water and energy than the smaller centers due to the enormous energy demand and resulting heat generation required by AI.

I believe this your long moratorium will give the city time to understand the full potential impacts of these large centers on our grid, our water resources, the communities where these centers would be sited, and our critical climate commitments.

And given time, I'll just focus on water.

Washington is now in our fourth consecutive year of drought, and it's not going to get any better with the climate crisis.

Um, we need to understand that full on water needs and prioritize our communities, our um treaty with the tribes, and our um ecosystems.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Laura Byrd.

Good morning.

My name is Laura Byrd, and I'm a business owner living and working in Pioneer Square.

I'm here to ask the council to pass a moratorium on the data center construction.

There are hundreds of reasons of to be concerned about the overwhelming push to force AI into our lives.

I'm sure you've heard many of the reasons here and previously.

I came here today as an artist and a human being to ask you to think of the world that your grandchildren will be left with if we leave our environmental health in the hands of the same people who have put us in our current undeniable environmental decline.

There is a future where we make the right choice for our environment, our community, and our children.

Please be a part of the right side of history by passing a moratorium on the data center construction and work to enact policy that prioritizes people over big tech.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Liesel Wingard.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Lazel Weigant.

I'm a senior software engineer and member of Amazon Employee Used for Climate Justice.

I'm proud to live in a city where employees who speak out politically are legally protected against retaliation by their employers.

In my job, I see the consequences of all cost justified AI build out.

The biggest issue is a belief that AI should be how we solve everything while ignoring the resources that it costs.

This culture is omnipresent across tech.

That's why local governments in collaboration with community stakeholders should be setting the terms for data center build out.

Our city council should make sure that data centers are built the right way and offer value to the city.

This means renewable energy, job protections, climate mitigation, and AI safety committees.

Sustainability concerned tech workers like me have learned about responsibly built data centers around the world, but as a city we don't yet hold tech companies to higher standards.

Let's not let big tech burn Seattle to win the AI race.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Patrick Schulz Schleser, followed by Audrey, Sarah, Paul, and Betton.

Hi, my name is Patrick Schleser.

I'm a software engineer and member of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice.

I'm proud to live in a city where employees who speak out politically are legally protected against retaliation by their employers.

It's been reported that this year Amazon is spending 200 billion dollars on capital, with most of it going to data centers and AI.

Microsoft is spending 190 billion.

Meanwhile, the leaders at my company have laid off 30,000 corporate employees in the last eight months.

What that tells me is that big tech is desperate to build as much compute capacity as it can as fast as it can.

That desperation gives our city leverage.

Our city government should tell developers if you want it to build here, you've got to stop hiding on NDAs and shell companies.

You've got to provide 100% additional renewable energy to our grid.

You've got to provide good jobs building these things, and you've got to pay a new tax that funds city jobs every time you conduct a large layoff.

You've also got to have worker-led safety committees that report to the city so that any AI developed in your facilities is becoming a risk of the city, the city can prepare and intervene if necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Audrey followed by Sarah, Paul Ben and Jody.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Audrey Wangoslan.

I'm an electrical engineer specializing in power and renewable energy, and I live in District 2.

As an expert in the field of energy and sustainability, I'm here to urge you to approve the moratorium on data centers.

Big tech is pushing the development of AI data centers at breakneck speed for a simple reason.

They want to bypass legislation and regulation.

They do not want to do things democratically.

Our power group is already experiencing extreme strain prior to the advent of AI data centers due to growing electricity demands, extreme weather from climate change, and aging infrastructure.

These hyperscale large low data centers will take us one billion steps backwards in advancing our sustainability and reliability goals.

And I say a billion because that's the scale of a gigawatt.

A moratorium will give us time to ensure we have the right safeguards to protect our city from the environmental and financial risk of large low data centers.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sarah.

Hi, Chair Lynn.

I'm Sarah Lapis with Tree Action Seattle, and I am here in adamant opposition to CB 121215.

The opaque title of this bill hides the actual impact, which is to concentrate city power and eliminate citizen environmental review.

On Earth Day this year, following a record-breaking April heat wave, I was in your district prepping the ground for a pocket forest in Rainier Beach.

That same day, Earth Day, your staff attended a closed-door meeting with the mayor and developers, in which developer lobbyists identified SEPA, the state environmental policy act as a major obstacle to their plan.

Now you've introduced a bill that would remove our citizen rights to SEPA appeals related to the comp plan.

Studies have shown that environmental deregulation does not increase housing affordability.

There is no evidence to show that this bill would increase affordability, even though it would clearly increase profits for developers and the private equity firms that back them.

Your district has already suffered a disproportionately high cost of the public health and environmental damage that comes from putting corporate profits ahead of the public good.

This bell exacerbates that inequity, and we oppose it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Paul and then followed by Ben and Jody.

Annoying, right?

So this is the sound of a diet center.

This is a 60 decibels up to 93 decibels measured in Oshburn, Virginia.

This is audible up to two miles away.

And according to the CDC, this constant noise can cause stress, anxiety, heart disease.

And that's not the worst, actually.

Because after that, you have infrasound that goes way farther, including in the city, up to five miles away.

A constant harm, a constant buzz that you feel and has uncertain impact on our health.

And fun fact, it is not covered by TPCal zoning laws because it is not in the standard sound range.

Um that the heat three plus 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit with an AA data center in average goes up to six degrees Fahrenheit of uh heat increase as far as six miles away.

So say no.

They should just try to outpace the loan.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ben.

Um, good morning.

Uh my name is Ben Jones.

I'm the digital and communications director for 350 Seattle, testifying in support of the data center moratorium.

Today I'd like to underscore the urgency of this moratorium.

On May 19th, the day before this committee's last meeting, the private equity firm Kyle Lao Group filed an application for a nine-story data center at 3625 First Avenue South, the southeast corner of Highway 99 and the West Seattle Bridge.

The site permits allocate a quarter million square feet to data storage, which talking with friends who are electricians calculates to be a minimum of 25 gigawatts, which would be over the amended in amendment three of um additional 20 MVA.

Um, and so I would like to just say that this is um I hope this moratorium also includes that building.

But on the other hand, yesterday, Sketchett County also approved a data center mandatorium.

This council also leading on a county level and a state level, and I appreciate your leadership in a data center moratorium so far.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jody, followed by Steve, Elena, Elon, and Steve Zemke.

Steve Rubsell is before Steve Zemkey.

Uh, Jody.

I did.

I'm sorry.

I work here in May, so it's really hard for me to hear you.

Okay.

Okay, so my name is Jodi Lineman, and I'm a former school teacher.

And so one of the reasons why I wanted to come here is I wanted to talk to you about the economic problems with these data centers and AI.

My daughter has graduated twice from the University of Washington with honors, unable to get a job, therefore does not have health care.

Her friends are in the same situation.

The environment is just as bad, these data centers.

I have seen video after video of real people with sludge, yellow water coming out of their faucets when a data center has been built just down the road from them.

I have researched other countries to see what they're doing.

They were putting regulations, they're going slowly.

They're looking at the consequences of the human beings in human life.

And finally, I want to tell you a personal story.

My grandmother died 15 years ago.

One of the last things she said to me is don't ever forget the miracle of a glass of water.

We are forgetting that miracle.

Please vote for a moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Steve Rubsello, followed by Alina, Elon, and Steve Zemke.

We need a better Seattle.

We need a Seattle that really cares about that middle 80% plus.

You know.

Carrots for the very, very top, and oftentimes for very, very bottom, although you've almost destroyed the image if you can't get blood out of a turnip with your uh sugar tax.

I think that we need time to look at the electric rates, look at the water rates before you allow any more growth, and we should actually protect the citizens.

And let's take a look at what's really happening on your appeal system.

You're doing a fabulous job of keeping the public out of the process.

Design review has been destroyed.

It's harder to appeal, fewer things are appealable, and the citizens must put up what our masters want us to have.

And some people are not happy about that.

Why do you think Donald Trump rises?

Because people are not happy.

Why do you think we have rotating chairs in city government?

People are not happy.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Elena, followed by Elon and Steve Zemke.

Hello, my name is Elena Bryan.

I was born and raised in Seattle.

I work in tech, and I was laid off due to AI.

Um, I think that Seattle is a leader in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide and worldwide on climate issues, and we need to be aggressive in implementing policies that support the ethical development of tech.

So I really urge you to support the moratorium on data centers.

Thank you for your continued work and leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elon Robinson.

I'm a freelance graphic designer and a recent graduate of Seattle Central.

Uh my classmates and I have had a very, very difficult time finding work, uh, largely due to AI and a lot of the uh instability in the tech industry.

And I uh am additionally deeply concerned about uh the ability of this strong industry in Seattle to be able to dictate decisions about how our land is used.

Uh I have a background in housing advocacy and all of these concerns around land use and uh noise pollution, the ability of people to find a healthy space to live.

Uh it just doesn't make sense to me to accept additional data center build out without uh the kind of research that this moratorium I think would allow.

So I just wanted to say that I'm really in support of that, and thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TreePack and Friends of Seattle's urban forest, which I chair speaking in Houseville 121215.

You have a broken process here in passing legislation.

You want us to discuss, put comments out on what is just a line, no link, no bill.

The devil's in the details.

Why aren't you publishing at least your first draft?

How can you write memos on something that you don't have the language for what you're repealing, what you're dealing with?

Is it just my computer?

I cannot find links to this bill.

In the memo that you have, um, I found several errors.

I find 27 today, I find 2028 uh appeals, not 27.

When I average them out, I come with 110 days of delay, not 151.

I think the delay of a process so that people have to defend your legislation is not an excuse to void appeals.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Siraj followed by Scott and Michelle.

Uh good morning, members of City Howl, Council members.

I'm Raj, machine learning AI scientist, engineer, and small business owner.

I'm here asking you to support a strict moratorium on data center construction and permitting.

Here are straight facts you might like to hear.

I moved here in 2021.

Electricity prices have gone up 38.1% points since then, citing the CleanCon MIT data set.

This is due to the increased power transmission costs necessitated by private enterprise data centers costs being passed to everyday folks.

Do not worsen the affordability crisis.

Moratorium now.

Permitting a data center means that the same land cannot be used for homes unless they are tiny co-locations.

Data centers start around 10 acres.

That's about 80 Seattle uh single family sized homes per data center with dense housing.

That's one to 3,000 future Seattleites that you will vote to unhouse with every data center a proposal approved today.

Moratorium now.

I'm an AI researcher myself with a small business.

You naively think I want data centers, but even as me, I'm telling you that it is pennywise and pound foolish.

If as one person I can innovate AI chatbots without necessitating massive coal-rolling environment killer computers, so can one trillion dollar plus market cap Microsoft and Amazon issue a challenge to local tech leaders to actually innovate moratorium now.

Thank you in solidarity.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Should we um hold that until we're gonna have a separate property?

Oh, that we that we don't know.

We can hear just um hold on one second.

And so we should be making our decision based on uh what was in the record.

We do have uh a letter that I will be disclosing and putting on the record a little bit later.

Um, and so um, but we'll get to that later in the agenda.

Um, so clerk.

Do you have um anything further?

No.

Uh next up we have Michelle Houseman.

Okay.

Hello, thank you for taking my comment today.

My name is Michelle Housman, and I am here to urge you to vote yes on the moratorium of data centers.

While I am not aware of your motivations to become a city council member, I am hoping that it was to serve public good.

I am hoping that as an elected official, your intentions are to improve our city, improve the lives of our constituents, and to be a guardian of this beautiful land we call home.

As a kid, I would retreat to the woods when I needed to find some space.

I could create imaginary worlds among the dirt trees, dirt leaves, twigs, and trees.

My local park would host a yearly Easter egg hunt.

As a teen, I hung out at the community center.

I played tennis, I swam, I took dance classes, and I watched the old guys play cards.

In fact, I met my husband at the park.

These kinds of places matter today, and tomorrow.

Why am I telling you this?

Because we know that the environments in which we live are inextricably linked to our health throughout our lives.

I'm asking you to vote yes on the moratorium to take a pause to study the risk to our physical and mental health to document the effects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is our last in-person speaker.

We will now move on to our remote speakers.

First up, we have Sandy Sheller.

Hi, yeah, thank you so much.

I'm commenting on CB 121215.

Please do not remove citizen environmental review.

This bill is justified as bringing Seattle into parity with cities like Tacoma and Everett, which don't have citizen environmental review.

But these are not cities whose environmental policies we should emulate.

They're both home to many superfund sites and have ongoing industrial pollution.

In Tacoma, the State Department of Ecology is monitoring the smelter plume, which spread arsenic over a thousand square miles in Everett they're monitoring PCBs which contaminate almost 3,000 square feet of Powder Mill Creek.

For parity we should look to cities with established checks and balances for environmental protection like Olympia and Spokane where regular people who know what's going on in their communities have a role in protecting their local environment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Alice Lockhart.

Good morning committee members this is Alice Lockhart calling in from two blocks from Aurora from the Soap Soda zone which is been a little noisy lately I want to say I would vastly prefer to live here to living within any number of blocks of um of a data center particularly a you know one of the ones that are built in warehouses have you know um moreover so I want to commend you all on this moratorium I'm pretty sure you're going to pass it and kudos to the chair of this committee for moving quickly on this extremely important issue.

I would love it if additional matters of urgency are treated with equal urgency if MDAs could be quickly removed so that we could quickly know what if any additional data centers are proposed and for this committee to continue.

Thank you and if if you want to send us your the remainder of your comments for anybody who's unable to provide their full comments within the one minute please do send them by email to the committee thank you.

Next up we have June Bluesbruce.

Hello the City of Seattle is enacting huge changes that will affect every person and every aspect of the environment in our city in 2023 the council passed a tree ordinance that removed protections for trees on lots under development this measure allows 85 to 100% lot coverage in low rise and higher zones leaving no room for large mature trees.

The new companies these zones across the city the EIS for the plan was based on half as many additional dwellings as were eventually included there is no question that these changes will have adverse effects on the health and lives of people salmon orcas and other creatures the science is clear a council should focus on measuring reckoning with and acting to mitigate these adverse effects instead C D 121215 would take away the ability for citizens to file appeals to the hearing examiner while bills that affect the environment are being considered this is a bad idea oppose CD 121215 you need information.

Thank you next up we have Lucy Johnson.

Hi my name is Lucy and I'm testifying in favor of the moratorium on data centers I'm a recent biology graduate and I'm concerned about the impact of data centers on our human and wildlife communities I'm concerned about the documented cases of data centers polluting water and creating noise heard two miles away.

As a young person and a recent graduate who was raised in the beautiful Seattle area.

I urge you to prioritize our health by passing this moratorium on data centers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Julia Shuttler.

Hi, I'm asking you to reject C D 121215 and keep our right to protect through and protect the environment through appeals.

This bill affects all type 5 projects, including data centers, and this silencing mirrors what's happening with the Stratos Data Center in Utah.

This bill would remove a critical layer of environmental review.

There are already merited concerns that the cop plan phase one EIS was incorrect.

What happens if this is the case for phases three and four?

Only groups wealthy enough to afford a team of lawyers and formal court litigation could appeal.

In that way, this is a dangerous concentration of power.

Lastly, the appeal process on the chopping block is the only appeal tool that occurs before implementation.

If this bill passes and legislation to make our city more attractive to data centers is proposed, no one would be able to appeal until the legislation is passed and feasibly the process wouldn't be completed until a data center is built and the damage is done.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Phil Lewis.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Phil Lewis, and I serve as the Government Relations Chair for the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

I want to thank Council Members Lynn and Hollingsworth for bringing forward Council Bill 121214.

I'm here today on behalf of the Seattle Human Rights Commission to urge you to support the data center moratorium.

We are seeing across the country the impacts of rapid AI data center expansion on air quality, public health, utility costs, and community natural resources.

The story of AI intelligence is often told as one of innovation and progress, but behind every AI dentist data center is physical infrastructure that requires enormous amounts of energy, water, and land that our communities cannot afford.

And history tells us the burden of pollution producing infrastructure too often falls on black and brown in low income communities.

Environmental injustice justice advocates warned that data center development may be repeating those same patterns.

A moratorium is not anti-technology.

It is pro-accountability.

And Seattle has the opportunity to ask critical questions for the well-being of all Seattleites, and I urge you to support this moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Jennifer, please press the star six.

Okay.

We will move on to our next speaker.

Uh, and that is Renaissance 350.

Renaissance, I can see you're unmuted, but we cannot hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Lovely.

Uh Renaissance with 350 Seattle, and I'm in favor of the passage of the moratorium and work plan.

Thank you for taking on the data set issue with such a integrity and experience.

Truly back to our community.

Something I am particularly concerned with, however, is some of the particular language in the proposed legislation.

Three to be Seattle, among others submitted robust feedback to your office at the end of last week, but I would like to devote my time with you this morning to attachment a work plan for data center moratorium section three about the community benefits agreement.

We are highly concerned about the voluntary element.

There is no good reason to suspect that any corporation will voluntarily submit to pay for adding benefits to the community when their primary motivation is to make as much profit as possible.

As an example of this, Elon Musk instructed an SAI facility in Memphis, Tennessee, making a commitment to also construct water recycling facility so that we're not merely pumping water through it, a massive drain through the pountable water.

This is yet to happen.

But if language like changing voluntary to mandatory or should the shell will not get this passed.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alyssa Sutton.

Hi, my name is Liz.

I work as an accountant for my apartment in Capitol Hill, represented by Council Member Hollingsworth.

I'm asking you to vote in favor of a moratorium on data centers in Seattle.

Artificial intelligence is stealing many opportunities for human connection while harming our mental and physical health.

Why would we consider ginormous centers that suck our limited resources instead of creating spaces like transit centers, parks, affordable housing, or any other communal spaces that foster opportunities for human connection?

Please pass a moratorium on data center construction and work to prioritize the people of Seattle over corporations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Brian Deng.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Brian Dang.

I am a displaced tech worker and a lifelong artist.

I'll keep my comments short.

I am urging the city council to support the moratorium on data center construction in Seattle.

And I'll end my comment there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lauren Redfield.

Hello, can you have me?

Yes.

Great.

I am an energy project manager in resident of District 6 and a member of the Washington AI resistance.

I support the data center moratorium.

I recommend a few key improvements to the city's approach to large low data centers.

First, the definition to use megawatts instead of megawalt amvers and be based on facility scale net weather service interruptible.

Megawatts reflect real electricity demand and facility scale drives grid land use and environmental impact.

A clear threshold such as 20 megawatts or equivalent would improve clarity and align Seattle with state and regional frameworks, including Washington's HD 2515 and Oregon's Power Act.

Second, the moratorium process should include a community advisory board made with impacted communities, technical experts, and public interest stakeholders, residents not industry representatives.

Community input should be built into the process.

Finally, CBA should not replace regulation or weakened protections.

There is no public successful CDA model to date with data centers.

The burden should be on the developer to the project further Seattle's equitable development goals, and projects that do not further those goals should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Patrick Corwin.

Hi.

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Uh, Pat Corum from District One, and I'm uh support the moratorium.

Uh it's great to see uh a number of the points in the attached worksheet uh and that figuring out definitions is part of it, but I wanted to really call out how different these new AI data centers are than the ones that we've had.

Existing ones powering the web and the services that many of us uh use are mainly about retrieval, which is computationally very simple.

But these new hyperscale data centers focused on AI require lots of computational power and are massive drain.

It's like comparing a truck to or a semi-truck to a regular car, like literally taking 10 times the power.

But unlike a semi-truck versus a car, uh an AI computer is like roughly the same size as a regular computer, so in the same footprint is a massive load, and we want to make these uh data centers enormous.

So please support the moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Cedar.

Hello, my name is Cedar Bashu, and I am speaking on support of the moratorium.

Um data centers or mass surveillance centers as you're always also known as, have an extreme effect on the cost of local residents, causing their electrical bills to go way up.

We are in the midst of a four-year drought.

We have about six weeks left of food because farmers cannot afford to go to normally could, and um the fact that these data centers would be more of a drain on the water, and um the one that's being proposed, for instance in Utah would have the daily environmental impact of 23 atom bombs.

Um yeah, it would destroy many of our keystone species that we depend on for survival as a species ourselves.

So that is why I am in support of thank you.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

Today is a reminder that the small time landlords on the city council that already self-dealt with conflicts of interest and sabotage the comprehensive plan is getting away with it, and they're gonna try and expedite it with taking away the SEPA review on the interpretation of what constitutes twenty-first century first world quality housing.

And yet the people who are weaponizing the character of their dilapidated inflated house and the environment are bleeding their heart as a sugar-coated way of acknowledging that they themselves are greedy and trying to backstab using certain council members who put restrictions on the comprehensive plane that should be taken out.

A an insurance that we have low quality quadplex misinterpretations that cheat people out of quality living and make people live on the side of a toxic suited road in the main intersections, like this is the market, one of the worst places to live, but certain people think that's suitable for somebody else to live in because it's another form of redlining and it's unacceptable.

Thank you, David.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger.

Dave Gloger, please press star six.

Hello, this is Dave Gloger.

Good morning, council.

I my name is Dave Gloger, and I live in District 5.

And I'm asking you to oppose Council Bill 121215.

This is an anti-democratic legislation.

Council member council chair or um committee chair Lynn says that we need to do this to reduce costs and make things move faster.

Well, that's what happens in democracies.

We have to take time to do things.

If we wanted to reduce costs and make things move faster, we'd get rid of elections.

They take time and they slow things down, but that's part of our democracy.

And public hearings, that's part of the process too.

So, if we get rid of public hearings as long as long along with environmental reviews, I strongly urge you to oppose this anti-democratic measure one two, one-two-one-five.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alberto Alvarez.

Thank you.

These new data centers would be a bad deal for our city.

The high increase to our utility bills would be permanent, they won't provide enough long-term jobs to offset what our communities will pay for decades to come.

Not to mention the severe negative impact to the health of our environment.

These data centers are just high-tech mining operations, leaving our city drained and our pockets empty.

Billionaires and AI companies will take the profits and leave a scraps for us to clean up.

No data centers.

Not now, not ever.

Thank you and have a good day.

Next up, we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Okay, can you hear me that time?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So I filed the ORCA appeal that that's one two one two one K1215 appeal prohibition is in response to.

I wonder if Seattle is an environmental and equitable progressive city.

Now that the Orca appeal has one in the Court of Appeals, it was great to read the decision based in science, facts, and reason instead of right wing special interest pandering.

Instead of focusing on ending environmental oversight and preventing council from having the best information in front of them, why not just do a quality job on environmental review in the first place?

That would be the fastest and most efficient way to end appeal.

Seattle routinely commits errors such as claiming endangered species either never or rarely use Seattle as habitat, which is completely false.

Saying water contaminants are immediately diluted to all the levels when they reach receiving waters.

Please also end private meetings with developers.

This is still happening every month at SDCI.

Please walk the equity talk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our uh speakers.

Um, thank you, Clerk.

Um uh earlier just regarding um item number three.

I'm just gonna read something for the record now, just in case uh any member of the public does want to um rebut uh a letter so consistent with the quasi-digital rules of appearance and fairness uh doctrine.

I want to place on the record an ex-party communication that I received on May 4th, 2026 via email.

The email is from Jared Peckower, the project architect for 5201 Rainier Avenue South in support of the application by Eagle Rock Ventures in 5201 Rainier LLC to extend the contract rezoned originally approved by ordinance 125632.

A printing a printed copy is available today for viewing and will be placed into the procedural record.

Committee members attending in person have have printed copies, and a digital copy has been shared with a remote committee members.

I want to provide an opportunity for parties of record to rebut the substance of the communication on the record and invite anyone here to do so now.

I'll repeat the disclosure of an ex-party communication at each subsequent hearing.

And again, this is a uh uh May 4th, 2026 one-page letter that we received by email.

Just want to disclose it for the record.

And this relates to item number three um on the agenda today.

Okay.

Um, thank you so much.

Um for every for all the uh passionate public comments.

Um as there are no additional registered speakers, we will now proceed to our items of business.

Um we'll now move on to our uh let's see, our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one?

Item one council bill one two one two one four in ordinance relating to land use and zoning introducing a new definition for data centers adopting moratorium on the filing acceptance processing or approval of applications for the establishment or expansion of or change of use to data centers amending section 2384 A008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, approving a work plan, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by three-fourths vote of the city council for briefing discussion possible vote, and thank you.

Um, our presenters are uh joining us at the table.

Uh, when you're ready, um could you please go ahead and introduce yourselves?

HB Harper, Council Central Staff.

Good morning, Eric McConaughey on the council central staff.

Sorry.

It's on Sunari Marshall, I'm the executive operations manager in the mayor's office.

Good morning, Amity Strong, Seattle City Light.

Thank you so much.

Um we have um, let's see.

Um we have a presentation for today.

So there's no presentation no, no presentation.

Okay.

Um, so just uh any questions or comments from committee members.

Um we will have uh amendment two amendments that I'll uh be proposing in a moment, but just before we get kicked off on the uh amendments, any any questions or comments.

Okay.

Um well then let's let's get started.

I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill one two one two one four.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of council bill one two one two one four or um any comments before we move to the two amendments.

Okay, so before we vote on these amendments, uh we'll need to suspend the rules.

Hard copies of these amendments were were provided to each council office on this committee before the amendment deadline.

Council offices were also provided emailed copies of the amendments.

However, the email came after the amendment deadline.

Um if there are no if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow consideration of amendments that were not fully distributed for our council rules.

Okay, hearing no objection, the rules suspended, we'll proceed with the amendments.

Um I move to amend council bill uh one-two-one two one-four as uh presented in the circulated amendment number one.

Second.

It is moved and seconded uh to amend the bill.

Um, are there any comments?

Uh before we um yeah, before we move on to any comments, I'd like to have a little presentation from um council central staff on amendment one.

Sure, I'm happy to describe the amendment this morning.

So uh amendment one um adds a provision that clarifies uh and changes the substance of the ordinance such that an existing data center facility may be expanded by up to the threshold identified in the new definition, um, without counting the uh megavolt amperes of the existing data center as part of that um expansion.

So, in other words, a data center of any size that currently exists today can expand by up to that 20 megavolt ampere threshold in the definition.

So um it additionally adds a recital uh to sort of explain the why of that, you know, which is about supporting existing businesses that rely on data centers, including government entities, public safety, health care, all of the things that we know do rely on existing data centers today to allow those facilities to expand up to that threshold without counting again the megavolt amperes of the existing facility towards that threshold.

So I'm happy to answer questions if that doesn't make sense, but that's the substance of amendment one.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair Lynn, and thank you for the overview, HB.

I'm wondering if you can explain why the legislation uses megavolt amperes, I believe is the term, um, units as a term um over megawatt units.

I can I can give a try.

I think some of my colleagues may be best suited to do that.

Uh so I I will say uh how I've been thinking about it and working with with folks in City Light to try to describe this mega volt amperes as a good unit to describe equipment.

It's a way to it's a way to scale the equipment that's necessary for data centers.

To my right, is Andy Strong, who could probably do a better job of describing how City Light, for example, would look at this unit and what that means for the scale of uh a new data center.

Do you mind, Andy?

Is it okay?

Yeah, um, megaball amperes or or MVA uh typically takes into uh account power factors that adjust um the unit from uh a megawatt measurement to uh an MVA measurement.

Typically uh they're fairly close in size, but it allows for certain components and certain losses associated uh with service.

Great.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I know in a lot of the discussions and just briefing discussions that we've had on this topic.

I mean, it's it's been a bit of a learning curve, as we've come to understand the role of data centers that exist within our city, the um proliferation of them that's happening around the country now, and exactly where how they are utilized within our city.

So my final question is more to the the sponsor of the amendment, because as I understand it, your office has been doing some engagement on this topic.

So wondering if you can just speak to again um why this is coming before us today and kind of the software.

I heard HB kind of speak to some of the points around um allowing for um reasonable expansion within existing data centers because of the role they play in like um healthcare facilities, but I'm wondering if you can speak to some of the engagement.

Yeah, so um thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Part of the reason for uh this uh amendment is that we do have existing data centers, um, and I think as we heard from public testimony, um our existing data centers um play a very different role than uh this new type of megadata center that are really meant um to support this new uh rapid expansion of AI.

Uh some of our existing data centers um do support our own city data needs, our 911 call center, um, some of our businesses that have co-location needs, um, some of our healthcare facilities, educational facilities, and um for better or worse, we do know that uh uh we can take our data needs um throughout our society continue to grow.

And so the idea was we don't want to um uh preclude um this critical need for um for government for education for health care for for our businesses um while also and um also not wanting to basically uh distinguish between you know uh and is it an existing somebody who has an existing data center under the moratorium could build a uh 20 up to up to 20 MVA, you know, maybe uh a few blocks away, and that would be considered a new data center.

We don't want to sort of discourage them from doing the same thing sort of uh in their own building, um, just by adding on, maybe you know, if they're uh, you know, uh a 15 MVA to be able to add 10 more within their existing one versus forcing them to go build it uh next door.

Um again, this is only uh the whole moratorium is a temporary issue.

You know, we know that at the end of the day we need to come up with permanent regulations for all of this, permanent definitions.

Um, and so this was meant to um recognize again that we we may have some existing data centers that may want to do some some expansions during uh this time period and not wanting to preclude uh that from occurring um given given sort of the distinct nature of those ones versus uh the mega data centers that we're most concerned about.

Thank you for for that explanation, Chair.

I see the needle you're trying to thread, and I will be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rick.

Any other um questions or comments?

Um and just uh to to your uh question or comment on um megawatts versus MVA, um, I just want to clarify a little bit, or I think it's a little uh because this is a layout use moratorium, you know, we're really trying to come up with a definition that works for us in terms of our permitting process.

And uh so I was wondering if you could speak a little bit.

Uh you talked about MVA in terms of it's easier for us uh to understand that from an equipment perspective.

Um I suspect that megawatts is would be sort of a hard thing for us to know precisely in the same way when somebody's applying uh for a permit versus an MVA is maybe easier for us to sort of be able to define and or to say, hey, this one's clearly gonna be a certain MVA versus megawatts, might be more fluctuate and hard to know at the time of permit application.

Is that correct?

Could you sort of speak to that?

Um uh utility perspective, we can work with either term, but uh MVA is a more realistic look at what uh physical load might be.

Um it would be the preferred term when we are dealing with any customer of significant size.

If you look at our system overall, we may say at any one particular time, we have a X number of megawatt hours being used to serve the city of Seattle.

But NBA for a typical customer is a preferred term.

Okay.

Thank you.

And if I might offer um section seven of the bill requires that SDCI, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections amend the intake submittal checklist for land use permits to require that information on electrical capacity in megavolt amperes is disclosed and required as part of a complete land use application.

So that requires the applicant to identify the megavolt amperes that they anticipate for their facility as part of submitting for a land use permit.

Thank you so much.

And just one final question.

Could you just speak to a little bit of sort of that equipment requirement and what that entails for large load customers?

Yeah, you know, we've uh Seattle City Light introduced uh new large load policy um uh language to the mayor's office earlier, and they're taking a look at it from their perspective of benefits to the city of Seattle.

Um we're proposing that uh any new large load greater than uh 10 MVA define that level of service and that type of a load uh with how our system is currently set up would require uh direct transmission service, and um at that transmission level, the customer would need to provide some type of substation and um switch gear systems that would be able to do the conversion and serve the load uh that's being requested.

Okay, thank you.

Um there's no further um comments or questions.

I move to amend uh council bill one two one two one four.

Um let's see.

Oh, we I think we already moved in uh seconded.

So will the clerk please call the role on adoption of amendment one.

Vice Chair Strass.

Yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes, Council President Hongsworth.

Yes, Councilmember Rink.

Yes, Chair Lynn, yes, sure.

There are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries amendment one is adopted.

And so um, I'd now like to move to amend council bill one two one two one four as presented in the circulated amendment two.

Second, thank you.

Is movement seconded to amend the bill.

Um, could we uh please have a brief presentation on amendment two?

Happy to do that.

So the Office of Sustainability and Environment is added into the work plan via amendment two.

Uh, it's first added in the top section of the work plan where sort of the general departments that we anticipate being in the lead on this work um are listed, and then specifically in section three of the work plan related to developing a community benefit framework, uh OSE is placed sort of in the lead on that work in that in that section of the work plan, uh, according to this amendment.

Um for our OSE um representative, uh, could you just give a brief uh overview of anything that uh any considerations you you have about data centers or uh thoughts about um uh taking this role in our work plan?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Lynn.

Um the Office of Sustainability and Environment is deeply committed to understanding the complexities of data centers, and particularly engaging with community members, um, some of whom have testified today.

Um, some of our uh experiences working deeply with community can help daylight some of these issues, um, particularly around noise.

Um we heard a lot today about rate payer protections, um, particularly with resources uh related to energy, electricity, um, capacity of electricity as well and um water resources, those tend to be coming up to the top, but some other considerations would be around the impacts of heat as a lot of these data centers need to be cooled.

The CPUs and the GPUs of these systems need to be cooled on an ongoing basis, um, and that does create heat.

And is as you know, we have heat islands um within the city of Seattle, many of which um uh are within overburdened communities, and so we feel that the heat island or the heat that these data centers put out can exacerbate the heat island um impacts and create additional needs for cooling residential spaces and other um adjacent buildings.

So that sort of as like a circular issue that we want to ensure that we tackle.

Um some other things that come up are like e-waste, for example.

So data centers are constantly updating their servers.

Um we have strong uh state laws with the Department of Ecology that you know we have e-waste laws and e-waste processes, but um it could pose an additional um issue in terms of how large uh uh amounts of e-waste are handled through the city and through um existing uh decommissioning companies that help pull um you know some of these components apart to secure lead and mercury and other toxins.

So that is of um of importance.

And I think that another issue that we want to uh that that's concerning is that just overall development and the impacts to our city trees um and urban forestry as we're trying to really increase the canopy and increase the number of trees in Seattle, any development that might be at a large scale would impact.

Um but we also recognize as you pointed out, Chair Lynn, earlier about there are um specific um you know co-location existing data centers that provide a fundamental use to businesses and governments, and so we want to make sure we're taking a balanced approach.

Um, but section three really is giving us the ability to have the conversations with community members, tribes, impacted tech companies, um the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, King County.

This is a complex issue that requires a lot of coordination, and so we want to make sure that we're having that space to daylight some of these things that we may not know.

Um, the other thing is we can inform through this process and support other departments like Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light and SDCI that are all named in this moratorium, cross-pollinate the information that we're able to pull.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair Lynn.

I want to start off by just stating my strong support for this amendment and appreciation to you for putting this before us and explicitly stating office of sustainability and environment's role in this work.

Um I have heard council president Hollingsworth uh speak to this very clearly as well as some of our public commenters today.

Just the matter of environmental justice as it relates to data centers and the fact that we're seeing across the country that data centers coming online are disproportionately harming the climate environment around communities of color, and we've seen really incredible leadership also coming from the tribes in terms of regulating and managing data centers.

So really um pleased to see that we'll see OSE take a uh leadership role in convening departments.

I know we've seen OSE um do interdepartmental work together really well, and would also just note for the record as I understand it, OSC is currently collecting information as it relates to the climate action plan right now.

So I'm stating that publicly while we have so many folks in the room right now who are really interested and care about our climate that is open right now for public comment.

Um I don't know if there's any specifics right now what that OSC is collecting as it relates to data centers, but I just wanted to bridge that gap share that there's a further engagement process on the climate action plan that OSC is leading in.

So I don't know if there's anything to share on that note, but want to open up that opportunity.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Um, thanks for mentioning the climate action plan.

So our office is currently have a survey out that is open to the public and we want to hear um folks' ideas and thoughts, and that might include data centers.

Um I will just say that our initial work happening within the city of Seattle does name uh data centers as a key climate action.

Um, that would be in our climate action plan.

We still need to work out the details, but we do want to hear from the public.

There is a survey that is available.

Um, I don't have the website off the top of my head, but um that is something that uh we can uh provide, and that might be you might be able to link that um on the website.

Fabulous, thank you.

Um, I know we've posted it to um our socials and we'll continue to boost it until it closes.

Um and so thank you, thank you for that, and thank you again, Chair, for bringing this amendment before us.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Any other um questions or comments?

Uh uh I would just like to say uh thank you um to OSE for uh being willing to step up and lead in this regard.

Uh to your point, Councilmember Rink.

I think one of the um reasons we were excited to um ask OSE to help lead us in this work is um because of the connection to our climate action plan.

Um we certainly I'm certainly concerned about uh the impact of uh megadata centers and and what that could mean um if they uh you know end up powering um their their uh energy needs with you know some sort of uh fossil fuels, whether it's generated in this state or maybe generated elsewhere, or uh the backup generators or um and what that it's gonna do to our grid.

Um and um so you know understanding that close connection um also just understanding that this is uh a regional statewide issue, and um you all have experience uh with that work um because of your um leading on things like climate uh climate action and uh so you know really um and thank you again to to all the public commenters uh this is really gonna be a regional um statewide multi-state issue probably that we need to figure out um and so look forward to leveraging your experience and expertise there along with um our our utility partners who uh are also very used to working with um many of our other uh utilities across the region.

Um so um and to just some of the public comment around the work plan.

Um it is um still certainly a work in progress, and and despite sort of the work plan that we have on on paper, you know, we we can do a robust engagement um with the community on on that and and certainly intend to do so.

Um so I want to say thank you to to the comments that we got and proposed amendments uh for the work plan, and even though we did not include all of them, uh we certainly um those are things that we we hope to uh to consider as part of the work plan.

Um if there's no further questions or comments, um, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment two?

Vice Chair Strauss.

I'm sorry, we did not hear that.

Let's see.

Um will I'll say it again.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment two?

Vice Chair Strauss.

I'll uh councilmember Foster.

Yeah.

Yes, Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chairlin.

Yes.

Okay, the motion carries amendment two is adopted.

Uh any final comments before you vote on Council Bill.

Okay, thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that council bill pass a bill as amended?

Vice Chair Stross.

I Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chairlin.

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

The motion carries, and the committee recommendation that council bill pass the bill as amended will be sent to the June 9th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Uh, thank you, colleagues, and thank you uh to our presenters and all the members of the public who have been very engaged with this topic.

Okay.

Um we will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two?

Agenda item two, council bill one two one two one five in order to lead to land use decisions amending sections 2376-050, 2376, 062, and 2505680 of the COMS will code to clarify processes for the city for the council land use decisions for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Um, well, our presenter please introduce himself.

Mishwoodson council central staff.

Thank you.

And um I believe we do have a presentation this morning.

Thank you so much for um preparing that, and thank you, Councilmember Vice Chair Strauss uh for asking for the presentation.

I think that will help uh help us guide uh this discussion.

Um, please proceed when you're ready.

Yeah, and before I jump into the presentation, I just want I heard some comments uh that uh people were having a difficulty finding the legislation.

Um if you go to the agenda, um there is a link here uh right next to the number two uh where it says council bill one-two one-two one five, that will bring you to the uh text of the legislation.

Thank you.

Oh, and uh I guess I wasn't sharing my screen, so that may not have been particularly visible.

Let's um let's try it again.

Yeah, um, there we are.

So uh here um on page four where it lists council bill one-two one-two-one five.

Uh there's a link um right here uh next to the number two that brings you to the text of the legislation.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, and then my presentation is here.

I think.

And colleagues, as we um proceed with the discussion, uh feel f uh feel free to chime in with questions or comments as we go along.

Uh uh wanna have a more free-flowing uh discussion here.

Apologies.

Uh, here we go.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you so much.

So uh council bill one two one two one five um intends to remove impediments to the council considering land use legislation in a timely manner.

Uh it does that by amending um the or removing the ability to for uh CEPA appeals uh prior to council uh consideration of legislation and removes the requirement that directors reports be prepared for uh council generated land use legislation.

Um as background, uh the state environmental policy act requires review of environmental impacts of some governmental actions.

Uh many governmental actions as we discussed last time I was here, like adoption of the city budget are categorically exempt and not considered under environmental review, but uh most land use legislation the council uh considers is subject to environmental review.

Um there's a threshold uh determination that occurs early in the environmental review process.

Um, if there's a potential for significant adverse impacts from the proposal that's being considered, an environmental impact statement is required.

Otherwise, a determination of non-significance is published.

Uh the state environmental policy act allows appeal of final environmental documents in most cases.

Uh the state legislature, as I think I discussed last time, has started to say that some types of actions that are less likely to have significant environmental impacts like the development of housing in urban areas are not allowed to go through uh judicial appeals.

Um CIFA allows the option for jurisdictions to use an environmental appeal process and administrative appeal process.

So in Seattle, that looks like allowing an appeal to the city's hearing examiner.

Um currently, Seattle does allow um administrative appeals for most CEPA actions or for um publications of determinations of non-significance and publications of final environmental impact statements.

Council Bill, which is in front of you now, would remove the that CEPA administrative appeal for adoption or amendment of development regulations and the comprehensive plan.

Other types of actions would still be subject to administrative appeal.

Projects that undergo that are determined by the lead agency, whoever's proposing the legislation, to be unlikely to have significant adverse environmental impacts go through this process.

If they've received comments that indicate that they should do more analysis, they will pull back their anal their determination of non-significance and publish a new one after doing more review.

After that 14-day period, there's the opportunity to appeal the DNS to the hearing examiner.

Any member of the public may file an appeal.

And then where state law allows, there's an opportunity to appeal after council action to the Growth Management Hearings Board or the courts.

And where the state allows they would have the opportunity to appeal the determination.

EIS is a similar process, more opportunities for comment.

These are projects where there is the possibility that there could be significant adverse impacts from the legislation.

After a draft EIS is published is the main opportunity for comment on any concerns about the environmental review that's been that's been done.

Each of those comments are responded to by the people preparing the EIS.

And then there's another comment period after publication of the EIS opportunity to appeal currently to the hearing examiner council review where there's further opportunity to comment, both at public hearings and during council comment periods, and then uh where state law allows uh opportunity to appeal to the growth management hearings board or the courts.

Um basically same change on uh for uh EIS's the under Council Bill 121215.

The um administrative appeal would be removed, but the other opportunities for comment and appeal uh where they exist would remain.

This table uh shows that my addition skills are not always accurate.

Um there's 28 appeals listed here.

Um these are the appeals uh from the last 10 years uh to the hearing examiner, and the outcomes of those appeals, most appeals are dismissed or withdrawn, or the lead agency's decision environmental review it has been upheld.

There's only three cases where um the hearing examiner determined that um more analysis was required.

Um those cases also by far take the most time.

Um I looked at the three central Puget Sound counties and the seven largest cities in the state outside of Seattle to see what their processes were for um do include CEPO appeals, and Seattle would be listed there as well currently, and five do not.

The second part of the bill um amends a requirement for director's reports for council land use actions.

Um under the code, the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections is generally required to prepare a director's report for most land use legislation.

Um the Office of Planning and Community Development, when they're the lead on a proposal, um, will prepare a director's report on their legislation.

Um we were surprised last year with uh uh result from the growth management hearings board, which determined that council generated land use legislation also uh is required to have a director's report from the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections reading the code.

I think that's probably the correct interpretation of what our code currently says, but it was not our practice to ask for those directors reports.

Um director's reports are a voluntary aspect of our code.

Um and uh the requirement for a director's report provides the executive an opportunity to sort of um get ahead of the council and basically um provides them an additional point of a veto point on council generated land use legislation if they choose to use that opportunity.

Uh council bill one-two-one-two-one five would make directors reports for council generated late legislation voluntary voluntary, but still uh identify that council members may request a report from the department, um, and they would continue to be required for any executive generated legislation.

Any questions?

Thank you, that was a lot.

Um colleagues, um, council member Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for the overview there.

I um I wanted to just see the slides change on my screen.

Um, I was actually gonna start at the end just in terms of the director's reports, and I think you already just clarified this, but one of my questions I had coming in is we're we're sort of um looking to update this to be aligned with what our practice already was to be, and so it's it's not necessarily a change in practice, it's a clarification in the code to bring the code into alignment with the existing practice.

Is that correct?

Correct, yeah.

Before last year we weren't receiving director's reports on council generated legislation.

Right.

And thank you.

And then there's nothing prohibiting a council member from requesting that director's report, it's just clarifying that it's optional and available upon request.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then the only other question that I had, if you can go back to the um slide that had the cities on it.

I think it was maybe your slide nine.

There we go.

Um, and so do we, and I apologize for not asking this question in advance, but do we know for the the cities that um are without the administrative CEPA repeals?

Do we know if that's a recent change or if that's just been their historic practice?

I think it's a historic practice, but I didn't actually look at the dates where they adopted that.

That's okay, and I didn't give you a heads up.

I was gonna ask that question of like time and date of when these cities implemented this practice.

Um, but I I also believe it's been their their practice in that in the sense of sort of larger cities that we've been a bit of an outlier um in terms of this ability to appeal to the hearing examiner, given that we still have the ability for um appealing to the state.

So um just wanted to um bring that up as I look at you know, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, Vancouver, um cities that are able to manage their CEPA process without going through this administrative or hearing examiner based repeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments?

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you for um bringing this to us again just for briefing and discussion on this particular topic.

I I appreciate time and committee for us to really unpack all of this.

And um I think the element here related to directors' reports is one that um is just another element of this bill in consideration.

And I'm wondering, so just hearing this point about um how the decision from last year has kind of influenced our practices with directors' reports.

Um is it my am I correct in an understanding that under current code could council be prevented from proceeding on council generated land use bill by the mayor's office if they refuse to send a director's report given this change in this decision?

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah, it is a requirement before the council could act.

Understood.

Okay, thank you.

That was a clarifying point.

I wanted to make sure I had a better understanding of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I have a few sort of questions and comments.

Um, so SEPA, um, just want to double check.

Um, we still are required to do uh CEPA for council legislation, council land use legislation.

This does not prevent conducting CEPA review.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Um and CEPA, could you talk a little bit about um does what is the purpose of SEPA?

Does it dictate that we uh take certain actions?

Is it is CEPA the primary way that we address um that we have requirements around environmental impacts?

Uh so the purpose of CEPA is twofold.

Um it uh identifies potential impacts of actions the uh city is considering um and provides that information to decision makers so they can make an informed decision, and it also identifies ways to mitigate those impacts, and um the city can rely on the environmental review um as um sort of providing a menu of uh mitigation measures uh when significant adverse impacts are likely.

So it's primarily an information tool, doesn't sort of require us to do any sort of specific mitigation necessarily.

Correct.

And um where do we require uh environmental sort of mitigation in our codes?

Could you just score in general?

You know, we've heard about stormwater uh uh concerns, um, uh other sort of um impacts around trees.

Could you just speak in general where those requirements live?

Um in general, um we have uh most of the requirements are in either Title 22 or Title 25 of the Seattle Millen SOPO Code.

Title 25 includes our environmental regulations, including uh regulations about protection of trees, uh development in environmentally critical areas, um, and uh historic preservation uh protections.

Um Title 22 are our building and construction codes, and they would include uh measures related to on-stite on-site stormwater retention and detention.

Uh energy um impacts uh would be mitigated through there.

And then there's also, for example, development on shorelines is regulated under the Shoreline Management Act, and those regulations are in Title 23.

Does this bill would if this bill passes, would this change any of those substantive requirements?

No.

Thank you.

And earlier you said that um the state legislature legislature has started um precluding appeals of uh housing in urban areas uh because um because we already have a good handle on what those environmental impacts could be, or it's some sort of polities decision that uh the state legislature has decided that uh essentially the juice isn't worth squeeze there, that the benefits of that environmental review are not worth um uh going through that process when it's um housing in urban areas, is that correct?

Correct, thank you.

Um so just uh um if so the the just want to talk about sort of the process.

So um we will still go through a CEPA process for legislative actions.

Um things like um uh that have a are anticipated to have a significant environmental impact would go through this EIS process.

Um there would still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the EIS, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, and there would still be a uh possibility for departments to uh respond to those comments to update the the environmental impact statement in response to those comments, is that correct?

For an EISA, we're required to respond to each and every comment.

Okay, thank you.

Um just in terms of uh the CEPA appeals to the hearing examiner, uh, appeals that are dismissed outright, um, those are typically shorter versus the the appeals that um go uh to sort of a full substantive record is is that correct?

Yeah, there's generally a threshold decision um in front of the hearing examiner.

Uh often they are dismissed because the appellant um does not have uh sort of likelihood of harm from the action.

Um that's sort of the most common reason why it would get dismissed.

Um thank you so much.

Um thank you, colleagues.

If there's no uh further comments or questions, um we will be having an additional briefing and then also a public hearing on this matter.

Um I do just want to just state for the record that on a personal matter, I do care deeply about the environment.

I care deeply about um our salmon, our orca, our trees.

Um it is not my intent uh with this bill to uh do anything that would um uh affect our robust environmental protections, um, and I would love to work with any member of the public who is interested in um uh uh doing better in terms of our our city planning in terms of um our growth uh and protecting the environment and and protecting endangered species uh to work together.

Um, and uh we're trying to figure out how best to do that.

I think Office of Sustainability and Environment, who was here earlier, um, will uh hopefully be strong partners in that work as they work on updating um their climate action plan.

Um for me, uh just the reason one of the reasons I am proposed proposing this bill is um I I unfortunately think it's a little bit misleading.

I don't think these uh hearing examiner appeals do uh benefit anyone.

I don't think that they result in better environmental uh protections for our city, and uh but they do result in significant delays.

Uh I personally believe that they uh in many ways are anti-democratic, contrary to some of the public comment here.

Um, I find it odd that a single person can delay uh the elected representatives for a city of 800,000 from taking action for six months or longer on, you know, these are hard decisions for us.

Um, there are not easy answers for any of uh these legislative actions.

There are pros and cons to these approaches, um, and that is why we have electeds.

Uh that is why we have a democracy.

Um, and you know, we've had um just to speak through our comprehensive plan process.

Um, I think that process started in 2022.

We are now in 2026.

Uh, I think we're probably gonna be 2027-2028 before we get through that process.

It's supposed to be uh once every 10-year process.

It looks like it's take probably gonna take us at least uh six years, if not longer.

Um so these are hard, and you know, we always need to do better in terms of our process, and and I I deeply believe in the importance of engaging with the public.

Uh, that's a commitment that um I'm gonna continue to make uh to the public.

Uh again, I don't believe uh these hearing examiner appeals um do um benefit our community in terms of that engagement.

So just wanted a little bit of commentary uh for for my uh colleagues, uh council member Foster.

Did you have a comment?

I'm just gonna be very brief.

Uh Chair, I'd say thank you.

I appreciate you bringing this forward, and I appreciate you uh having it here for briefing and discussion.

I know we talked about it a little bit at committee two weeks ago, and um I especially appreciated what you shared in committee a few weeks ago, highlighting the number of actions that are not eligible for hearing examiner review.

And one of the things that I often think about is um the impact of uh of sprawl on our environment.

Um, and you know, when we think about the folks who whether they get displaced from the city because the price of the cost of living, or whether that is that we're not building enough housing in our city fast enough to accommodate our growth, and people are commuting in from outside of the city with higher vehicle miles traveled.

Um, all of that has an impact on our climate and an impact on our environment.

And I just appreciate the thoughtfulness that you are bringing forward um with this um with this change, and um, and frankly, this change that would bring us up to speed and into alignment with a lot of other um large cities in our state.

So just uh felt compelled to say that as you were saying sharing your your closing comments, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

And you did remind me of something that I do just want to say for the record.

I I mean I am uh as we think are about of our environment.

I'm deeply concerned that uh we are barreling forward towards a climate crisis, and uh that is largely because of uh many of the decisions of the past.

Uh the decisions uh where we, you know, most of our city was built prior to any sort of environmental regulations, and uh just because of the nature of our land use code, basically we have requirements for for new developments, and those are much more robust in terms of our energy code requirements and sort in terms of our storm water uh mitigation.

Um but those requirements don't apply to uh most of the uh existing development that was, you know, at least uh developments that were built before these requirements were put in place.

And so, in many ways, um, you know, status quo for me is not acceptable that that would just result in us barreling forward uh again towards climate crisis, and uh we need to move move forward uh thoughtfully, but also we do need to move forward.

We need to move forward to a future city that um where we are not so dependent on vehicles as our primary mode of uh transportation, where our our um new buildings or are more green, uh are more climate friendly, uh, where our new developments do have better stormwater and one that has a robust tree coverage uh as well.

And so I look forward to continuing to engage with the public on how to make that a reality, but I don't think status quo uh is gonna get us there, and I don't think um just locking in our existing sort of damage from our built environment is gonna get this there either.

Um so thank you.

Okay, uh gonna get off the soapbox.

Um moving on to our next item of business.

Uh will the clerk please read agenda item three.

Agenda items three and four.

Clerk file 314549 application of Eagle Rock Ventures and 5201 Rainier LLC for an extension on the contract rezon of the property at 5201 Rayner Avenue South original contract rezon application approved through clerk file through and four three one one in ordinance one two five six thirty-two, project number three zero one eight three seven eight-lu type four and council bill one two one two two zero and ordinance relating to land use and zoning, approving the extension of the contract rezon approved by ordinance one two five six three two and accepting an amended property use and development agreement for property related 5201 reader avenue south application by evil rock ventures in 5201 reader LLC clerk file 314549 SDCI project 3018378-LU for briefing discussion and possible vote thank you so much and and just hold on one uh second to our presenter um I would like uh so this is a contract rezoned it's a unique type of quasi-judicial action um and I would just like to clarify that we are allowed to hear comments in open session including by the proponent pri by the proponent um so I would like to uh allow the proponent to come up and speak if you would like or anybody else in the public uh who wants to speak to this item on the agenda.

Thank you.

Council members um I'm Scott Shapiro can you hear me?

I'm Scott Shapiro I'm the co-managing partner of the project at 5201 Raynor Avenue South in the Columbia City neighborhood.

This is uh a shovel ready 111it uh workforce housing project um that has all types of units including three bedroom units um and we will participate also in the MFTE program making 20% of the units even more affordable um our ask today is for a MUP extension of four years the MUP extension in the draft ordinance has two years uh the code allows the council to grant a four year extension um you have the discretion to grant that extension and we ask you to do that for four years why four years um unfortunately currently the the project is not financeable today um so we can't construct the project we cannot sell the project again the financing is challenging for a variety of reasons in the in the economy today um some of those reasons you know um MHA fees which were actually added during our permitting process originally um it wasn't in uh anticipated when we started the entitlement process skyrocking skyrocketing and construction costs um plateaued rents high operating costs and then high interest rates again two this is a two year extension on the table we are questing a four years to give us time we understand that the council is considering um a reduction or temporary reduction MHA fees that will be helpful for our project and for other projects in the city to be able to create housing unfortunately that alone is not enough to to make it work today but it is would be a positive step for our project and other projects um the the issue is again you know construction costs rents and interest rates and these three items are beyond the council's control and so we anticipate that more time will be needed than the next two years.

We do not expect construction costs or interest rates to settle down during the erratic Trump administration.

So again a four year extension will make it more likely we can bring these 111 units to fruition it also means we don't need to repeat this process two years from now using SDI staff time central staff time and the council's time thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well our presenter please uh introduce yourself and uh cade O'Fraven council central staff thank you um and I'm I'm not sure uh I know we had a briefing before um uh not sure if you have any um sort of overview for us or otherwise we can just move straight to to questions sure I maybe uh Mr.

Shaper's who uh provided some um overview maybe I'll just provide a little bit more of the permitting and legislative history here and then talk about um uh two action items that are in front of the committee today uh one is action on the clerk's file and the other is on a council bill and I'll briefly describe what the council bill does.

It's uh pretty straightforward but um uh stepping back here to some of the permitting and legislative history in 2018, the council passed an ordinance one two five six three two uh which rezoned aside in Columbia City from neighborhood commercial two uh to neighborhood commercial three, and also applied uh the mandatory housing affordability program uh to that site and uh accepted a property use and development agreement.

So with every contract rezoned, there is an associated PUDA property use and development agreement, and that is the contract and contract rezon.

Um the the application was for development uh that would include um 104 apartment units, three live work units, and some uh commercial space.

And the applicant has since Mr.

Shapiro has since applied for a building permit application, which is still active, and that um application is ready for issuance.

A building permit application extends the life of a master use permit, and so that master use permit is not actually um expiring.

Um this quasi-judicial action and sort of it's sort of contract reason light, quasi-judicial action light.

Um, it's a minor amendment to a PUDA that allows the council to hear uh comments from uh not just parties of record, but members of the public.

Um as part of the process, the council also solicits a recommendation from STCI, and that recommendation is attached to the agenda as well as public comment that STCI received in considering um the extension request and deciding whether or not to um extend the contract free zone.

There are essentially three criteria that the council uses the reason or the basis for the application, whether it's reasonable under the circumstances to extend the extend the term of the contract rezone, um, whether or not there are changed circumstances that support an extension, and whether additional time is reasonably necessary to comply with conditions of approval adopted by the council that is required to be fulfilled prior to expiration of the council land use decision.

The conditions of approval here are uh memorialized in the property use and development agreement, and they include uh developing the site um consistent with the master use permit that was issued uh for the development and also compliance with MHA.

Um so there's a recommendation from um SDCI.

Uh, that recommendation is actually silent on the length of the contract rezone extension.

Um the default in the land use code is for two years, but there is authority for the council to go longer than that.

So a couple of decisions, um, one uh would be on whether or not to grant the rezone extension, and that would be an action on the clerk's file.

And the other, um, assuming that the decision is to grant the rezone extension, that's effectuated through the council bill one two one two two zero um that would extend uh the term of the contract rezoned by two years, and also accept a modified property use and development agreement that just reflects that extension.

Uh so that's that is it, unless you have questions for me.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Um, yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And um, as always, thank you for the presentation and the work central staff.

I just wanted to clarify just the comment that we heard today regarding uh the potential for um for four years.

I know that we're looking at this as a two-year uh extension.

Is there um anything in this two-year extension that would preclude us from providing another extension leader should it be needed?

Uh no, nothing to preclude you from doing that.

Um the it's it there it requires a change to it's requires a legislative change.

Um so that there is some legislative efficiency issues there, but not necessarily a prohibition against that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Any other questions or comments?

Um, okay.

Um I'll have some comments a little bit later, but uh uh first would like to vote on the clerk file, clerk file 314 549, and then vote on the council bill.

Council bill one two one two two zero.

Um I move that the committee recommends granting the extension and council uh file three one four five four nine.

Is there a second?

Second, it is moved and it is moved and seconded to recommend granting uh CF 314549.

Are there any final comments?

Um I'll just provide a quick final comment.

Uh thank thank you for uh bringing this forward for the work on this.

Um I do uh just want to note that uh certainly understand the difficulties of uh developing um in the city.

There are many barriers, and uh just want to recognize that, including you know current interest rates, the tariffs, and um all the uncertainty in um our economy and so um uh you know I I think uh in my opinion, um I understand the request for a four-year extension.

I'm hopeful um that a two-year extension um that something will be possible.

I I do see it um uh that part of our job is to make it easier um for developers to build housing, and there are many there's many different things to do that.

Um, and so hopefully uh we can continue to work on that um over these next two years to allow this to move forward, and as council member foster mentioned, um we do have the the opportunity if necessary and and if it's desired to do so to uh have an additional extension.

Um that uh will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to grant the clerk file.

Vice Chair Stress.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes, Council President Hollingsworth, Councilmember Rink.

Yes, Chair Lincoln, yes, Chair.

There are four votes in favor.

Okay, the motion carries, and the committee recommendation that the council grant the clerk file will be sent to the June 9th, 2026 city council meeting.

Um I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 121 220.

Is there a second?

Second, okay.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of council bill one two one two two zero.

Are there any final comments?

Uh okay.

Will the clerk please call the uh roll on the recommendation that council bill pass the bill?

Vice Chair Strauss.

All right.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Chairlin.

Yes.

Chair there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, the motion carries in the committee recommendation that council basketball will be sent to the June 9th 2026 city council meeting, assuming timely execution of the property use and development agreement.

Okay.

Uh we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Okay, hearing no further business, come before the committee.

We are adjourned.

Our next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, June 17th at 9 30 a.m.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Chair.

Um