Land Use and Sustainability Committee 5/20/2026

Good morning, everyone.

The May 20th, 2026 Land Use and Sustainability Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lin, chair of the Land Use Sustainability Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Here.

Council Member Foster?

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Chair Lin?

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

So I just want to give a little bit of heads up.

We've got kind of a lot of interest in a few items today.

We have a preliminary discussion around our SEPA proposal.

I do just want to make it clear that there will be a public hearing.

We are anticipating July 1st.

for a public hearing on that, so there's plenty of time to continue to engage with us on that, but I appreciate that there's a lot of interest here today.

We also have a public hearing on our housing opportunities legislation, so that will be after the public comment on the other two items on our agenda.

The third item is our proposed data center moratorium.

With that, we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

As mentioned, please hold comments regarding item one, Council Bill 121196 regarding housing opportunities legislation until the public hearing, which will be held following the hybrid public comment period.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We currently have 18 public comment speakers in person and 21 remote.

Okay.

Given that there are between 30 and 60 speakers, we will unfortunately have to limit time to one minute per speaker.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public 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 a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

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

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

That is Maximilian Banaj.

Hi, counsel.

There are two mics, and you do need to speak closely into the mic for us to hear it.

Thank you.

Good morning, counsel.

I am here to advocate for a moratorium on AI data centers.

I'm doing this because I find myself in an increasing population of people who underestimate the severity of the situation that we're in with AI.

and I'm here to make sure that you guys are not some of them.

Peter Thiel, for some of you who do not know, is an AI weapons contractor who does a lot of business with United States government.

When asked if humanity should endure or not, he essentially said, I don't know.

Anthropic CEO says that they don't know what they're building anymore.

I am very scared about the future, and I love this city, and I just want to make sure that we are treating this legislation with the severity that we should.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Emily Johnson, followed by Jake Douglas, Steve Rubstallo, Rachel Nathanson, and Ben Jones.

Thank you.

First, I want to thank you for acting quickly towards a moratorium.

But I'm concerned about Section 1B, which makes a point of saying that data centers contribute to economic growth by enabling businesses to access much needed processing and storage capacity.

This is a misunderstanding, one which tech companies have encouraged.

Storage is not what these newer data centers are for.

They're for large language models, which require vast amounts of compute and electrical power, because their function is to process the entirety of the human knowledge available on the internet, and then to spit out answers likely to please us.

Machine learning has some transformational uses in science and medicine, but few, if any, of those rely on large language models.

Instead, they're trained on much smaller data sets that represent, for example, the sum total of breast cancer scans in the world.

This concern doesn't relate directly to .

but it does speak to why we need to approach the supposed necessity of these data centers with a gimlet eye.

Their goal is not to build useful tools.

Their goal is to throw so much money and power at a massive computer that it can compute and thus dominate the economy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And please go ahead, if you're unable to provide your full comments, please feel free to email them to us.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Jake Douglas.

I live in West Seattle, and I'm here on behalf of Unit Here Local 8, which is the labor union for hospitality workers in Washington and Oregon.

Our union strongly backs the city's proposed moratorium on new data centers.

Seattle's cost of living is already crushing Unite Here members, most of whom are low-income immigrants and people of color.

In Portland, home electric bills have gone up 50% in the last few years, thanks almost exclusively to the reckless build-out of new data centers there.

We can't afford that here.

If we let tech billionaires bring massive new data centers to Seattle, then housekeepers, cooks, and servers will bear the brunt of higher energy costs, displacement, and accelerated climate change.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn, Council Member President Hollingsworth, and Mayor Wilson for your leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Steve Rubstello followed by Rachel Nathanson, Ben Jones, Neil Patel, and Juliana Bernardo.

It wouldn't be too difficult to limit data centers.

All you have to do is charge for electricity correctly.

The citizens of the city own the utility, yet they pay the highest rates to the utility.

I don't know of any other business where the owners charge themselves more than they do other people.

Water, same thing.

If we add a reasonable policy that way, we might be less in danger of having a lot of these centers around.

And by the way, you might as well also have noise ordinances that really work.

If you did these things, I think that we would drop from the list of places they wanted to be.

And I think the citizens of the city of Seattle would actually get a benefit.

Because if you charge the people who are using it who are not them more money, you can charge them less.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rachel.

Citizens were given 48 hours to respond to CB 12-12-15, no meaningful public input.

This is on top of secret meetings held by the mayor, a meeting that my council rep was not invited to and didn't even know about.

At last week's hearing, I heard several council members say, we must do better.

For two years, we've been battling the Trump administration policies that are taking away our democratic rights, including environmental protections.

Quietly removing Type 5 legislative decisions from the current appeal process does just that, takes away environmental protections.

This looks bad.

There is an appeal to the Comp Plan EIS currently being heard in court, and yet this legislation would remove the ability for such an appeal.

While you may feel such checks on city actions are not needed, we citizens have few options to be heard and be involved.

Please do not remove one of them.

If an EIS reveals impacts that deserve correction, citizens should have a path to challenge whether those impacts were properly studied and addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I'm just gonna note for folks interested in data centers that at 2 p.m.

today, there's also a resolution being considered, and Council Member Juarez is, she's chair of that committee on some of these issues as well, including the rates.

So I just wanna note that for the record.

Thank you, please proceed.

Good morning.

My name is Ben Jones.

I'm the Digital and Communications Director for 350 Seattle.

Could you come a little bit closer?

Closer?

How's that?

Good morning.

My name is Ben.

I'm the Digital and Communications Director for 350 Seattle.

Good to see you again.

I'm testifying in support of the moratorium on data center construction.

At this point, this council and the mayor have received over 90,000 messages in support of a moratorium.

And in the conversations of our mobilizing around that, we hear again and again from people that these data centers feel like gifts to the rich and gifts to billionaires, and that people feel powerless to stop them and don't see any benefit in these facilities for themselves or for their city.

Last year, half of all proposed data centers were withdrawn.

We're in the midst of a national backlash against this technology, against these facilities.

And I think this moratorium is an opportunity to show the world, that even here and sort of the home of big tech, that people reject these projects, that this council rejects these projects, something different for our community and city.

And so I urge this council to show leadership, to protect our city, to protect our water and to keep this process going.

And thank you for moving quickly on this.

Thank you.

Next up we have Neil Patel followed by Juliana, Sabrina and Cedar.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Neil Patel.

I'm a board member of the Georgetown Business Association and a 16-year veteran of the tech industry with eight years at Google and five and a half years at Amazon, speaking in support of a moratorium on data centers because data centers do not actually create jobs.

They have never been designed to.

A well-designed data center is highly efficient, it's fault tolerant, and it's self-sufficient enough to be maintained either remotely or by a visiting team.

To be clear, this means every property that becomes data center no longer creates jobs, no longer creates art, no longer creates industry, or houses people, or creates lunchtime crowds that generate sales tax, or revenue, or visits to local businesses.

It just costs money.

That money comes from public infrastructure.

It comes from lost sales tax revenue.

But to put a finer point on it, it undoes all of the good work this committee did last November when it passed a rebalancing package that established climate security funding, disaster prep, and food access.

Georgetown now has 21 weeks of farmers markets that are EBT eligible because of its committee.

Let's not undo your great work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Juliana Renato.

I'm a resident of the Central District.

I'm an environmental advocate with a vested interest in hyper-local instances of environmental racism here in the city of Seattle and the surrounding district.

I know, unfortunately, Ms. Hollingsworth isn't here to join us, but we've connected on that before.

I'm here in support of the moratorium against data centers.

I'm concerned new data centers would expose our BIPOC neighbors to exponentially greater harm through the creation of large heat islands, as well as an increase of air, water, noise, and light pollution, undoing all of the city's efforts towards achieving an environmentally just Seattle.

I urge the council to adopt this moratorium.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sabrina, followed by Cedar, Audrey, Renaissance, and David.

My name is Sabrina Kasbah.

I have a slightly different issue.

I saw that today we're talking about land use and zoning in a few different areas.

Talking about land use and zoning appropriately, I wanted to talk about an issue from last decade, the closing of the Russian embassy.

And here in Seattle, it's the only embassy in the West Coast.

And it created a pocket diaspora of a lot of Russians that are used to having the embassy in Seattle.

The only other embassy in the US is in Washington, DC.

I was hoping the council could keep that on the back burner.

and hopefully get that embassy reopened.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Cedar.

Since I only have a minute here, I'm gonna get down to the brass tacks.

I thought I'd have three, but to start off with, implementing the mass surveillance centers, also known as data centers, would further encourage the lack of resources that we are experiencing in this country.

We are projected to go through a food shortage in the fall, so this will also hurt our food and water crisis that we are already going through in many places in America.

Surprisingly though, this would fit quite well the history of genocide in this country.

We've always been a white power structure here and it looks like we're gonna keep going that way, especially if the data centers are implemented because with the lack of resources is going to lead to more fascism, which is never a good thing.

My certain parts of my wealthy family, though, would enjoy this, which is why I no longer talk to them.

And because they would, they've been- Thank you, Cedar.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Audrey, followed by Renaissance, David, Alicia, and Jacqueline.

Good morning, Council.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Audrey Wanguslan.

I'm an electrical engineer specializing in power and renewable energy, and I live in District 2. I sit on the board of directors of 350 Seattle, and I lead Out in Climate, an organization for LGBTQ plus folks who work in climate and sustainability.

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

A phrase often uttered within the tech industry is, move fast and break things.

We must not let them move fast and break our critical energy infrastructure.

Our power grid is not prepared to handle large low data centers.

Data centers in Seattle would mean higher energy prices for Seattleites who are already strained by the ever increasing cost of living, exacerbated by the conflict in Iran.

Data centers in Seattle would also mean our fresh water would be spent on cooling privately owned servers instead of nourishing our communities, farmers and fisheries.

We could become untenable since Washington has declared a statewide emergency for drought.

for 2026. So a moratorium would give us the time to ensure the right safeguards to protect our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger.

My name is Renaissance.

My apologies, go ahead.

My name is Renaissance.

I'm an organizer with 350 Seattle, and I am in favor of the moratoriums against the data centers.

Now, it's not that data centers do not provide some benefit to our society, but the cost and the negative impacts of the data centers, especially right now and especially given our circumstances, are simply too great to justify the expense.

The loan to afford this cost, as often the case, will come from the poorest and the most marginalized and vulnerable among us without our consent.

The city will be permitting the stealing from our power supply and ability to afford that power.

Prices are already rising and in some cases spiking like with gas.

The city will be permitting stealing from our precious water supply.

A drought has already been declared by the Department of Ecology in Washington State this year and that is only going to get worse with climate change.

we can't be able to not completely stop the proliferation of data centers and AI nationally and globally, but perhaps we can at least establish protections, limitations, and a framework for them to provide more holistic benefits and harms to our local communities and perhaps even serve- Thank you, Renaissance.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger followed by Alicia Ruiz, Jacqueline Gordon-Thomas, and Jennifer Godfrey.

Good morning, Council.

I urge you to vote no on Council Bill 121215 that removes the appeal process for EISs.

The supporting document and presentation for this bill claims that appeals have been filed to slow Council consideration supporting affordable housing.

However, there's no proof of this, but the city is alleging this is fact.

Appeals are filed because people care about the environment, not to block affordable housing.

The document also claims the bill will align city code with state code.

This is also not true.

This bill and its supporting documents are typical of the federal government, full of lies and deceptions.

I thought Seattle and Progresos cared about the environment, but this is an attempt to exempt city residents from environmental protections.

And for the record, the current appeal against the EIS is due to legal delays by city attorneys, not the appeal process.

Despite the appeal, thousands of development applications have come in from phase one of the comp plan.

Vote no on Council Bill 121215. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz with Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King and Kittitas counties.

We're here today in strong support of Council Bill 12-1215.

Seattle has been at risk of missing state mandated deadlines for updates to its land use regulations.

Administrative SEPA appeals of legislative actions have added months of delay to that process.

Importantly, state law doesn't require these appeals and full environmental review remains intact under this bill.

Seattle is simply choosing to remove a redundant procedural policy, one that duplicates protections already built into the system.

This brings Seattle in line with King County, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett, all of which already exempt legislative SEPA decisions from administrative appeal.

That's not a rollback of environmental standards and environmental review remains fully intact.

This is a procedural reform that lets Seattle act when the law states it must.

This bill will help rein in unnecessary delays and every day delayed is another delay where a family goes without a roof over their head.

That's why we support this bill.

It makes just a little easier.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jacqueline followed by Thomas, Jennifer and Jackie.

Hello.

I'm Jacqueline Gordon.

I'm from District 4, and I support the data center moratorium.

I work for a tech company, and while AI has yet to make my job any easier, it has given our bosses an excuse to lay off hundreds of employees.

Every day I hear, AI is the future, so what is that future?

A future where citizens have astronomical power bills, a future where all good jobs have been eliminated as many tech CEOs openly gloat about wanting.

Being here is not how I want to spend my limited days off every year, but I am coming from Northern California originally, a place that I left because of wildfires exacerbated by climate change.

And right now, in Northern California, in Lake Tahoe, a utility company is preparing to cut power to people's homes to divert to a data center.

We do not have time to trust what tech companies say they will do and how responsible they will be.

They have continually lied to us every step of the way.

AI may be investing in the future, but that future is a rising sea and a sinking ship.

Thank you.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Thomas Meyer.

I live in District 2. I'm an organizer with Food and Water Watch.

Food and Water Watch is a national environmental and economic justice group fighting for safe food, clean water, and a livable climate.

We have about 12,000 members and supporters in Seattle.

I'll just share one fact from Food and Water Watch's recent report laying out why a data center moratorium is urgently needed here in Seattle and across the country.

It's estimated that US data centers could use as many as 720 billion gallons of water each year just for cooling.

This is enough water to meet the indoor needs of 18 and a half million American households, which, if you can do the math, is six times as many households as the entire state of Washington.

So for that reason and many more, I urge you to support a moratorium on data centers in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I am aware that Bill 121215 is a response to my environmental appeal.

In the Court of Appeals, Judge David S. Mann asked, how will counsel know they've got the best information in front of them?

City Attorney could not answer that.

If we want clean air and water, we can't keep letting the people who profit most decide these things for us.

Here is a recording from my Court of Appeals hearing.

That was not recorded.

to allow the city to have the best information before it's decided.

And then once the city makes that decision, fine, the legislature's taken away and you can't do that.

Why wouldn't the legislature still allow the city to still have the best information in front of it?

So we could just say, the legislature could just say, SEPA is done.

They could.

It is the legislature's prerogative.

Right, but they didn't.

They passed this statute.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jackie Borges.

There's a 2025 survey that was created by the Seattle Metro Chamber.

In it, 75% of the people that live in the city that responded to the survey said that the environment and outdoor access is the top reason for living in Seattle, along with neighborhoods and culture, which includes tree canopy, and an additional 10% chose Seattle for its climate, just like the other Jackie that just spoke.

75% of our residents claim that they want to be here because of our environment.

However, 12-12-15 takes away the right for people to appeal and have the ability to appeal when something is going counter the environment.

So if this is our city, our people, 75% are saying the environment matters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lauren Redfield followed by Susan Fedor and Paul Gosselin.

Hi, my name is Laura Nerdfield.

I'm a renter and resident of District 6 in Ballard, born and raised in Seattle, and a project manager for an environmental NGO with a background in economic development.

I care deeply about the long-term resilience of our communities and urge council to move forward with this moratorium, but I take issue on Section 1B, the assumption that data centers contribute to economic growth.

We've seen the massive rollout of data centers across the country.

However, there is major uncertainty around the long-term profitability of the AI sector.

Bain & Company projects AI firms could face an $800 billion annual revenue gap by 2030, and Goldman Sachs has questioned whether AI investment will deliver projected returns.

Do we really want our energy and water systems embedded in that sector and protected when the bust occurs?

This moratorium is an opportunity for thoughtful governance that puts durable community needs first rather than throwing our city into another technological gold rush.

I urge the city to counsel to move forward to the moratorium.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Susan Fedora followed by Paul Gosselin.

Good morning.

Council Bill 12-1196 jumps ahead of the mayor's own comprehensive plan process, upzoning seven areas of the city now with no community input, no racial equity analysis.

Could you hold on one second?

Sorry.

We have a public hearing for that bill, so it'd be better if you could speak during- I apologize.

No, yeah, it's all good.

Is this Council Bill 12-1215?

May I speak to that then?

Yes.

Yeah, that would be better.

And then you can sign up during the public hearing for the- Thanks for the pause button.

Appreciate it.

Provision in Council Bill 12-115 eliminates a constituent's right to appeal environmental determinations led by the Comprehensive Plan.

amendments to the hearing examiner.

I'm curious to know the rationale behind this exemption as it undermines residents' ability to hold government accountable by limiting any legal recourse, especially when the voices that carry environmental wisdom and expertise, such as leaders from our indigenous communities and the Urban Forestry Commission, have not been welcomed to the closed-door planning discussions.

Environmental groups asking for a seat at the table were actively dismissed.

With housing stock well above last year and unemployment rates raising, this is an opportune time to pause and fully consider future climate implications.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

People here have raised many issues with data centers.

I just wanted to warn against the foolish idea that we can avoid all of that with proper regulation set where we authorize data centers.

In Mississippi, Elon Musk data center have been running gas generators without authorization.

In Fayetteville, Georgia, they discovered that another data center stole 30 million gallons of water.

My point is, those people have a recurring strategy.

Break things, break the law, and maybe ask for forgiveness later.

And the current administration has only worsened the situation.

That's just my whole point.

Don't try to regulate and hope it will be OK.

They don't care.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is our last in-person commenter.

We will now move on to our remote commenters.

We'll start with Emily Ponkey.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Emily Panky.

I'm here to oppose both CB 12-1196 and CB 12-1215.

I'll withhold my comments on the first till later as instructed.

Seattle's growth policy should be grounded in transparency, equity, and meaningful community engagement.

Instead, both these proposals move major land use changes forward while reducing public accountability and limiting the ability of residents to participate in decisions that will shape our neighborhoods for generations.

12-12-15 will remove the public's ability to appeal EIS statement tied to comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations.

This is a giveaway to developers and deeply concerning.

Seattle's environment are trees, neighborhoods, walkability, clean air, and access to green space.

They make this city special.

Indeed, many of the objections to data centers share these concerns.

These are not obstacles to growth.

They are part of what everyone who lives here wants to benefit from.

Do not advance this proposal until there's genuine community partnership, equity review, and transparent engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Andrea Bredov.

Andrea, please press star six.

Hello, my name is Andrea Breda and I'm here to support the proposed legislation CB121196 and the related Fremont-Stoneway rezone.

I own four parcels located on one of the blocks that is being considered for the Fremont rezone.

This block is located between North 34th, North 35th, Stoneway and Woodland Park Avenue.

I'm a fourth generation owner and manager of these properties.

My great grandparents first bought one of the parcels and made it their home in 1912. I have watched the neighborhood and community evolve over four decades.

My view is that the highest and best use for the redevelopment of the block will enable the production of additional housing.

Ideally, this future development will support entry-level home buyers, small business, and also emphasize public space and attractions for the local and greater Seattle communities.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Cindy Shetler.

Hi, good morning, council members.

This is Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

Please do not allow CD 12-12-15 to advance.

As you just heard, the ORCA appeal of the Comp Plan EIS was heard at the Washington State Court of Appeals.

Judge David Mann asked Seattle City's attorney three times, why wouldn't the City Council want to have the most accurate information available?

He did not get an answer.

But we have the answer.

It's the right to appeal to the hearing examiner.

It's an independent opportunity to identify errors in an EIS before legislation is adopted.

Without it, Council would be forced to rely on a firehose of public comments to uncover EIS errors, which is an inefficient and unreliable way to evaluate complex environmental legislation.

Good decisions depend on good information.

Please preserve this important check and vote no.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Judy Benditch.

Good morning.

I'm Judy Benditch.

I've been a resident of Seattle for, well, close to some people's lifetimes.

I would like you to nix, just as the previous speaker said, and review is a check.

It makes sure our public agencies actually work for the people and come clean.

If OPCD misses critical points or mischaracterizes the facts, there's a remedy.

And I just have to say I agree with some of the earlier speakers.

This reminds me of the federal government's justification to avoid court review for immigrants.

The reasons given are it's such a bother.

It costs money and we have better things to do.

Well, the better thing to do is to do it right in the first place so that you don't need an appeal.

So please mix it now.

It shouldn't go any further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Shane Broughton.

Hi, good morning, counsel.

I'm here to oppose 12-12-15 and also talk about 12-12-14 with the data centers.

I am just a security guard and a musician.

I'm 25 years old, so I know I'm probably one of, if not the youngest person in here.

When I was younger, I didn't know what was going on, but in 2010, Citizens United case happened, and that was a landmark decision that allowed corporate money to be as powerful or mostly more powerful than the people's voices.

And I'm seeing that again today with these new data centers coming all across the country.

And I really don't think that we should be allowing corporations to override the people's decisions.

Everyone I know is against this.

And I thank you guys.

Every single person who has been in here, been speaking so, so wonderfully.

And thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Patrick Corwin.

Hi, I'm Pat Corwin.

I'm a computer programmer and have been for two decades.

I'm supporting the data center moratorium.

These large data centers aren't like the data centers that we already have.

Once built, they don't provide jobs, but instead have an insatiable need for energy and resources.

And if we're to believe the tech companies, their aim is for AI replacing as many jobs as possible.

We already know from others' misfortune the toll data centers of rising energy costs, illegally tapped water lines, ruining of the environment, and avoiding taxes.

Tech companies like to brag that they can do things, quote, unquote, at scale.

that AI can't provide safe online spaces and instead have made ransomware and deepfakes possible at scale.

No thanks.

We do not need large data centers.

Also concerning is CB1215 removing the ability for environmental assessment, environmental impact statement appeals.

As a nation, we've already spent decades trying to undo the harm we've done from well-intentioned actions like straightening rivers.

Data centers and many other industries have proven they cannot be trusted, so we need as many checks as possible.

Thank you, Patrick.

Next up we have Irene Wall.

Good morning.

My name is Irene Wall.

I live in District 6 and I urge you do not advance CB 12-1215.

This ill-conceived legislation It reads like an attack on the integrity of citizens who, in good faith, have relied on the accountability mechanisms of SEPA to intervene when the city decisions are in clear error, and that does happen.

For the past several years, there's been a creeping erosion of citizen engagement when decisions are made, both large and small.

SEPA has been jettisoned as unnecessary in light of other, quote, regulations that allegedly prevent harm, but the harm remains.

Just look at the rapid loss of mature trees despite the tree protection ordinance.

Design review has been eviscerated.

The clerk's office lists 67 boards and commissions and every one of them has multiple vacancies.

The current Damn the Torpedoes full speed ahead approach to radical rezoning requires...

Thank you.

Next up we have Logan Schmidt.

Morning, Chair Lynn.

This is Logan Schmidt with MBAC speaking on behalf of CB121215.

This bill makes targeted common sense reforms to how the City processes Type 5 land use decisions, and we believe it will meaningfully improve Seattle's ability to update its land use regulations on time.

First, exempting SIPA threshold determinations and EISs for comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations from hearing examiner appeals is not a rollback of environmental standards.

is the elimination of a procedural bottleneck that has put Seattle at risk of missing state-mandated deadlines.

And Seattle would join King County, Bellevue, and others in recognizing that.

Second, the bill preserves the council member discretion by allowing any member to request a director's report when they believe one would be useful, ensuring that flexibility exists where it's warranted without making a default requirement for every council-generated action.

Faster, more predictable land use processes benefit everyone, especially when state law is already driving the timeline.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Carter Nelson.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee.

Carter Nelson on behalf of Mayo, Washington State, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, commenting in support of Council Bill 121215. We appreciate the Council's efforts to improve the predictability and efficiency of Seattle's land use processes.

This proposal reflects an established approach already in place across the region.

King County, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett all exempt legislative SEPA decisions from administrative appeal.

And this legislation would bring Seattle into alignment with that regional practice.

This legislation also addresses a procedural gap that can create avoidable delays.

Reducing these barriers is critical to housing production.

Our members see firsthand how duplicative or prolonged review processes add cost, delay timelines, and introduce uncertainty that can prevent projects from moving forward.

By clarifying and streamlining the Type B process, this still supports a more efficient pathway for updating regulations that enable housing and aligns with broader goals to facilitate taller, denser, and faster development, benefiting both those building housing and future residents of our city.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Bonnie Williams.

Bonnie, please press star six.

Bonnie, we will come back to you.

Next up, we have Layla Kademi.

Carolyn and committee members, my name is Layla Kademi.

I'm a land use attorney at Hillis, Clark, Martin, and Peterson commenting in support of CB 12-1215.

Seattle is risking non-compliance with state deadlines for updating land use regulations in part because administrative SEPA appeals for legislative actions add months to the process.

State law does not require these appeals but instead makes them optional and peer jurisdictions like King County and Bellevue do not allow them.

This will align Seattle with the regional norms.

Today these appeals are often dismissed by hearing examiners but determining whether they're allowed still takes time This bill removes that delay and updates process by eliminating the director's report requirement for type five council actions while preserving it when useful.

This is only procedural reform with CIPA reviews still fully intact.

This will help keep regulatory updates and housing production on track, reflective of the mayor's taller, denser, faster agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jeff Briggs.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Hi, this is Jeff Briggs.

I live in Seattle.

I'm going to add to the skepticism that people have expressed toward 121-215, but I will hold my comments about that and express more my disappointment with how that's been evaluated for counsel.

So I'm looking at the summary document, which has the alleged appeals have been filed in order to support development of basically to be obstructionist.

And I'm asking like who this is alleged by and against toward whom it's alleged.

This seems more editorializing than actual analysis.

It also says directly that this would align the state or the regulations with state regulations, while the same document also states that this would apply to all type five, not just affordable housing.

So it seems to me that the analysis that's being presented to council is inaccurate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ruby Holland.

Yes, my name is Ruby Holland.

I strongly oppose CB121215, which limits the right to appeal.

I strongly oppose the coordinated effort by council members, Rink and Foster, who attacked a tax successor that has kept Seattle's homeowners from getting displaced by stabilizing our property taxes.

merely so they can force Seattle's homeowners out of badly needed lots.

There is a seed of corruption and a lack of transparency taking place within the city council that wasn't present prior to January.

What's changed?

Who is eroding the public's trust?

I promise you that a city council run by closed-door meetings, backdoor deals, and political assassinations will not survive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jessica Dixon.

Jessica, it does not look like you are called in.

We will...

come back to you.

Next up we have Nevi Archanta.

Hi everyone, can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, can you hear me?

Okay, amazing.

My name is Nivi.

I'm the founder of Soapbox Project, Seattle's most joyful community space for climate and civic action.

And I wanted to call in in support of a data center moratorium, also in support of Fremont rezoning, which I didn't know was on the agenda.

Oops, but I live in Fremont on Stoneway.

All my comments are about how Seattle is going to be a major climate migration hub, and it's time for us to step up to our role of what I believe is the best city in the US.

New York has nothing on our mountains and our air and our spring.

And if we build data centers and we take power away from the people, we are allowing these massive companies to bully us and steal our resources and chase a bubble that we don't even know will exist.

And so I strongly support a data center moratorium and I overall support the people being able to weigh in on what matters to us as a city, including housing and transit and green spaces.

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Moring.

Hi, this is David Moring.

Deregulation kills.

In 2014, the Oso landslide killed over 40 residents and permanently buried new homes.

The state of Washington has paid extensively for this loss of property and loss of life.

I am here to ask you and urge you to cancel CB 12-12-15 that eliminates the right to appeal the comp plan.

I am one of many thousands of Seattle homeowners who have signed a waiver at the closing after the purchase of my townhouse because it was built on the Seattle designated landslide area.

Again, the regulation kills.

Appeals do not delay city decisions how to grow, but they inform us, they inform you of city decisions.

Appeals are to protect the public's health, life, and safety.

Your role is to protect the public, not to cater to lobbyists tripping saddles from its right to protect themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica, it looks like you're back here.

We will go to you.

Jessica Dixon, please press star six.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, good morning, Council.

My name is Jessica Dixon and I'm asking Council Members to oppose Council Bill 1-2 1215, specifically the provision exempting environmental threshold determinations and environmental impact statements associated with comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations from appeals to the Seattle hearing examiner.

This provision would eliminate a critical check on developers, legislators, and regulators, one that exists to ensure accountability under Washington's environmental laws before any damage has been done.

Removing the right to appeal environmental determinations is not a procedural technicality.

It is removal of a meaningful avenue for residents to hold government and private interests accountable when Seattle's environmental standards are at stake.

Our city can and should grow over time, but unchecked growth, shielded from legal scrutiny threatens public health and the survival of all living things that we share this city and the sound with.

Developers do not bear the burden of stewarding this city for future generations.

We the residents do, and you our elected representatives are entrusted to protect that responsibility on our behalf.

Please remove this exemption.

Thank you.

Next up we have Steve Zemke.

Good morning, this is Steve Zemke speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's River Forest.

I could not find any version of Council Bill 12-12-15 online.

You were discussing a bill that the public is unable to see.

You have a summary and fiscal note, but no working link to this bill.

Removing director's reports would deprive the council and public of information.

Exempting environmental threshold determinations and EIS's associated with comp plan amendments and development regulations from appeal sounds like something out of Trump's MAGA handbook that the public could no longer appeal decisions made by the council.

We oppose this legislation and question why you are moving forward on removing environmental protections and safeguards and the right to appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have David Haynes.

Thank you, David Haynes.

It's unsustainable to put up with the horn honking train that passes through the Mariners baseball area when they don't even need to honk the horn.

It's scientifically proven that if you're subjected to decibel levels of 110 to 150, which the train spews, it takes away your focus.

And you see how many times, year in and year out, it gets worse with the Mariners constantly flaking and people getting shit-faced drunk inside the stadium.

That train track runs right next to the stadium.

You can smell the toxicity and the soot permeating an area.

And when it honks its horn, when you're sitting in that metal facility, it echoes, especially next to a body of water.

And it has destroyed the mental health of the players.

Sometimes it has a negative impact on the visiting team, but 81 times for the Mariners, it's too much.

We need a law to put an end to their abuse.

Thank you.

Next up, we have June Blue Spruce.

Thank you.

I just want to ask a quick procedural question before I speak.

And that is, I signed up, I think, for the public hearing as well as the public comments.

Is there a separate sign up?

Can you clarify that?

You can sign up for both, so there should be a separate sign up for the public hearing.

So if you want to do public comment now on the SEPA and the data center, and then we're going to do the public hearing next.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I urge the Council to take two actions for environmental justice.

Pass the moratorium on building data centers in Seattle.

Their unproven benefits do not justify the huge environmental and economic costs which will fall in the most vulnerable communities.

Reject Council Bill 121215. This bill would remove the ability for residents of Seattle to appeal legislation under consideration by the council to the Seattle hearing examiner.

Legislation could only be appealed after what's already passed.

This would remove an important avenue to hold the council responsible to remove environmental safeguards at its time of increasing environmental crisis is short-sighted and anti-democratic.

People need housing, yes, housing that is both livable and environmentally sustainable.

Heat islands are deadly for people in housing as well as for unhoused people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our public commenters.

Okay.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

We'll now move to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 121196, in order to land use and zoning, rezoning certain land in the University District, the Fremont neighborhood, the Madison slash Miller neighborhood, the Brainer Beach neighborhood, and the downtown neighborhood, rezoning land and amending development centers to increase housing supply support, multi-purpose redevelopment on certain sites with community-based uses, remove code barriers to passive house, modular and mass timber construction, and to conversion from commercial space to housing in more zones, and incentivize community serving uses along with the construction of more housing in certain areas.

For public hearing, briefing, discussion, possible vote.

Okay, as presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on council bill 121196 regarding the housing opportunities legislation.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

Chair, we have roughly 23 commenters.

Okay.

Each speaker will be provided two minutes and clerk, I now hand this over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second chime will be your notice that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment relating to Council Bill 121196, the Housing Opportunities Legislation, is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

First up, we have Ian Morrison.

He will be followed by Marta, Bob, Oliver, and Kyler.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

My name's Ian Morrison.

opportunities legislation and asking the council to or the committee to move it forward today because we are in a housing crisis and this is an exceptional piece of legislation that we appreciate the council and the mayor's leadership on.

This is a piece of legislation that is answering the call to say when we need to build housing, we need to build housing and set the table with zoning that allows for housing everywhere, housing around transit and housing that answers the call that the state has given us of how do we incentivize housing using mass timber passive house and removing barriers to affordable housing.

And so this bill is an amalgamation of many great ideas.

Up zones for targeted areas, including for our nonprofit partners in the Central District, for affordable housing in the Rainier Beach area, for housing around the Stoneway corridor with Brooks headquarters, where if you look at this at 36th and Stoneway, there's housing one block to the north.

There's housing one block to the east.

But there is a couple of vacant warehouses where surrounding this area is housing.

And it's in an area where there's vibrancy, there's amenities, there's the beautiful waterfront and the parks and Gasworks parks there.

This is where we want housing.

So we would ask that the Council has done great work on this.

There's been great outreach.

There's been, as you've heard, there's been a SEPA opportunity.

There was no SEPA comments.

There was no SEPA appeal.

So this is not a case of a process that has not allowed for engagement.

It is a process that has allowed for the ability for housing to move quickly, and especially it's incentivizing housing and the development of housing in the next couple of years.

So for these reasons we would ask that the council move this forward so that we can actually start to see cranes moving and opportunities for people to move into new housing throughout the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Marta followed by Bob, Oliver, Kyler, and Vinay.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Marta, and I live in Fremont.

I'm here a part of the For Seattle project, and I'm also here asking you to support the housing opportunities legislation.

As you heard previously, and for me personally, I'm part of the Stoneway corridor area, and part of this package addresses current zoning limitations in that space.

It's a corridor that I frequent with all my friends.

We walk, run, go to the restaurants and I would love for more and more residents to be able to live near this wonderful space and many like it across the city.

I'm excited about the possibilities that this legislation brings for a new mix of homes that will give folks of all income levels a chance to live near the transit, their work, parks, and more.

I believe the housing opportunities legislation is an important step to ensure we act with urgency in addressing such a critical issue.

I hope you'll move this forward.

Thanks for your commitment to the city and all the work that you do.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to spend a minute or two with you.

My name is Bob Elward.

I live in West Seattle, and I have been the beneficiary of decades of housing policies that have benefited me greatly.

Today, I'm here to ask you to please support the HOP legislation because what I do now is I sit down with my daughter, her husband, and their friends, and inevitably we talk about politics and it turns to housing and the incredible obstacles that they are going to be facing as they raise their families and want to stay in Seattle.

HOP gives us a first, you know, maybe small paper cut to start solving some of the issues that this next generation of citizens are going to be facing.

And so I really urge you to please get behind this, find other HOP-like amendments to do to the policy, and I wish you well.

And also, thank you for your public service.

I can't imagine giving up the time, effort, and energy it takes to become elected and to serve day in, day out.

I hope you share my opinions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Oliver followed by Kyler, Vinay, Steve, and Lisa.

Good morning.

Thank you, council members.

I'm here in support of the HOP legislation and I live in Mount Baker in District 2 and I ride my bike to City Hall because the parking around here sucks.

But if you ride your bike from Mount Baker, you go you know, a little bit on Rainier Ave, you go through Jose Rizal Park, you go through, you go by 12th and Jackson, you go by 4th Avenue, or you come up 4th Avenue, and you see again and again why we need more housing in this city.

I hope you guys try riding your bike at some point, because it's a really, it's like a front and center view of what we need.

And there are a lot of big, hard things we need to do.

We need to continue moving forward the comp plan, I mean there's a lot of intensity around data and there's all these big hard issues.

I feel like this is an easy one.

These are like a few targeted up zones that are going to get us thousands of new homes for people over the next few years.

So I hope you'll support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kyler.

I'm a D3 resident in Capitol Hill, and I'm here to support the HOP legislation as well.

Housing starts and new permitting is at a standstill in the city, which is terrible news for all of us who rent.

Pretty much means that in the next two to three years, we will see skyrocketing rents once again.

This is not just my hypothesis, this is both what developers and landlords and the city are planning on happening.

We're baking this into our plans.

So we should be doing everything possible to keep people from getting pushed further to the margins in the city.

I don't want to see more people have to move out of the neighborhoods they call home.

I don't want to have to see more people become homeless.

At the same time, tangentially, we're not going to get new permanent supportive housing a handful of years, thanks to the Trump administration, so we will not be prepared for the influx of additional homelessness.

This is an opportunity to build housing now in places that people want it.

I particularly want to highlight that it also makes passive house, highly energy efficient housing, modular construction, mass timber construction, which is gorgeous.

I wish I could live in one.

It makes it much more likely to get built due to design review changes.

We should encourage that as much as possible.

That's the future.

Let's build a pipeline of really, really great dense housing.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And just for the record, I'd like to note that Council President Hollingsworth joined us about 10 to 15 minutes ago.

So thank you for joining us.

Next up, we have Vinay followed by Steve, Lisa, and David.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Vinay Mascarenas, and I live in Mount Baker.

I'm here this morning with For Seattle.

I'm asking you today to pass the HOP legislation.

My wife and I both work in primary care in the Seattle area.

Over the past 10 years, we've said goodbye to many colleagues of ours who have left Seattle because they can no longer afford to live here.

The cost of housing was always their number one issue.

Just last week, a medical assistant in my wife's practice announced that she's moving her family to Texas.

We must do more to make Seattle affordable again.

Passing HOP is a constructive step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Reddick says we're number four on the list of cities that people are leaving.

Now, that isn't the whole story because, yes, we still have people coming in.

But what it does say is the boom is slowing immensely and that fewer people are coming in than are leaving.

And we talk about housing here is like we build more and it'll get cheaper.

I can tell you that philosophy has not worked.

I dare you to look at what has happened to Seattle Housing under that philosophy.

It has continued to go way, way up.

So my next question is, housing for who?

Now, if you make $150,000 a year, you have housing.

Are you going to build housing for people who make $50,000 a year, $45,000 a year, $60,000 a year.

That is the real question.

The other thing is, as a Seattle citizen, I'm feeling like a dog treat.

The big dog seems to be the developers.

and as I look at your agenda, obscene profit seems to be the gold because the market price does not go down when you subsidize them.

They simply take the extra money and put it in their pocket.

A while back, I heard one was growing about 400% profit.

Is that too much?

Is it just a new floor?

Let us take a look at whether we're going to actually see housing for people who really need it.

Working class people who have done a very good job to eliminate from the city.

You did such a wonderful job in the International District, you and your predecessors.

Let's take a look at doing things for the people who live here right now and not for people they want to come.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lisa, followed by David, Alex, Susan, and Ashley.

Hi, my name is Lisa Olmsted-Thompson.

I am a resident of District 1, and I am here with For Seattle today.

I'm here to ask that you approve the Housing Opportunities Package.

As you may have noticed, I am a parent of young kids, Exhibit A's running around out there.

and as we've been building our community, more and more of the people that we're meeting are talking about leaving Seattle because they're finding it harder and harder to find places for them to live.

Their options are either long commutes, which means less time at home, less time in their community, or feeling insecure about their housing.

This package will offer more housing options so that people can stay and invest in Seattle and make it their home.

This will also support critical workers like teachers and caretakers and nurses, people that we need for a thriving city.

The policy work is done.

Let's get this done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Dave Gloger followed by Alex, Susan and Ashley.

Good morning again, Council.

We keep hearing that we have to upzone so we can have affordable housing.

But we're not seeing the results of this.

We're seeing market rate housing.

We're seeing townhouses go up all over the city that cost over a million dollars.

But there seems to be this belief if we keep upzoning, things will get affordable.

Well, that's not what happened in Vancouver.

Vancouver upzoned all over the place, and now they're the third most expensive country in the world.

So they banned international investors in Vancouver, and now they're coming to Seattle, and they're not building affordable housing.

You have to put something in the legislation that actually mandates affordable housing, but I haven't seen that.

And if you look at all the permits that have been issued since phase one of the comp plan was approved, they're all for townhouses that are well over a million dollars.

So do something.

Yes, we need more housing.

but the legislation doesn't do that.

And also, I looked at apartments.com the other day and there's 13,000 apartments for rent in Seattle.

So what is this big rush to upzone for more apartment buildings?

Why don't we pause a little bit and understand the effect of what we're actually doing?

And furthermore, Council Bill 121196 raises concerns regarding the implementation of upzoning through the Land Use Committee.

It is widely recognized that such changes be incorporated into the comprehensive plan.

This suggests the city may be attempting to circumvent the established process.

Again, it bears resemblance to the federal government.

Community meetings in the impacted area should be held, not committee meetings with limited notice.

It is imperative to halt this legislation and allow the comprehensive plan committee to fulfill its responsibilities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think it's me, Alex Loftin.

Okay, great.

Hi, counsel, Alex Loftin, District 3 resident.

Thanks for having me again today.

Today I'm here to support HOP, Housing Opportunities Amendments.

And I think mainly I want to take my time just to thank you guys for your engagement on this particular issue.

It's been new for me to get involved in City civic, political life.

And this has been an incredible moment and experience.

And I can speak for a number of people that are here today who had never stepped foot in City Hall before, especially in front of a microphone, just to to engage in something as boring-sounding as housing opportunity zoning amendments.

But I think a lot of us just see this as just one small step in the number of things we need to do to have as much housing as possible in this city.

I'm a very proud Seattleite, Seattle area resident for most of my life.

and I'm as annoying about Seattle as New Yorkers are about New York.

I think we're the best place in the world.

And the city has changed a ton.

Sometimes not in the exact way we want it, but in a lot of ways it really has.

I rode the light rail across the lake the other day and I could not believe that I could take the light rail out to my parents' house.

I never could imagine that as a kid.

So we're headed in the right direction in many ways, but I think on housing in particular, we're seeing a cliff.

It's making me really concerned.

I want to see people who have built this city be able to stay here.

People who want to be here be able to be here as long as they want.

I think Hop is just a small example of what we can be doing.

And hopefully, next year, we can work on something similar with you all to kind of find pockets of pieces that we can move forward that are measurable and get to real results in a short period of time, while other important work is going on in the comprehensive plan, et cetera.

So thank you all very much for your service.

And I'll see you back here soon.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Susan followed by Ashley.

Hello again, try this again.

Regarding Council Bill 121196, this jumps ahead of the mayor's own comprehensive plan process, upzoning seven areas of the city now with no community input, no racial equity analysis, no tree canopy protections, and no concrete affordability or anti-displacement requirements.

It harms anyone in the city who's furthest from opportunity and whose ability to stay in their neighborhood depends on a city government that prioritizes people over profit margins.

These communities deserve a genuine engagement process with direct and documented outreach.

Before any component moves to a full council vote, require a racial equity toolkit analysis and a senior and fixed income impact assessment for each affected neighborhood.

The cities on summary and fiscal note acknowledges that no racial equity analysis was conducted.

Pardon me, that alone should stop this bill.

Housing stocks well above last year.

I'm seeing more and more for lease signs going up all over the city with heavy move-in incentives for potential renters, which strongly implies considerate degree of lagging demand.

Affordable housing's not as simple as supply-side economics.

It has a lot more to do with the growing wealth gap.

Please consider mechanisms that better address the true underlying issue of the economic disparities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Ashley.

Next up, we have Jennifer.

Hello again.

So you may have gotten no SEPA comments, possibly because very few seem to know about the CB 121196 public engagement SEPA window.

I do spend a lot of time protecting the ecosystem, and I can't always keep up on all of these bills.

I know you are all extremely busy as well.

I do believe this bill needs an effective engagement process with documented outreach before any vote is taken, especially while some are moving to eliminate environmental review and appeals.

I cannot wait for a Seattle that walks the equity talk with equal representation of those who protect the environment that sustains us, also anti-displacement advocates like Central District people like Ruby and Lois, as well as those who profit the most, like developers who have been getting private monthly meetings with SDCI for years.

Please require a racial equity toolkit analysis and a senior and fixed income impact assessment for each affected neighborhood before any component moves to a full council vote.

The city's own summary and fiscal note admits no racial equity analysis was conducted.

Thank you for your work.

Sure, that's our last in-person commenter.

We will now move on to our remote commenters, starting with...

June Blue Spruce.

Hello.

I'm Jim Glusperus from District 2. I'm speaking in opposition to Council Bill 121-196.

The City of Seattle and the Council repeatedly use the language of economic, racial, and environmental justice to justify land use decisions.

But your actions do not match your rhetoric.

We know that supply-side economics does not work.

Pouring more resources into an inequitable system makes inequity worse, not better.

The people who already benefit will benefit more.

People who are already left out will be left out more.

Pouring resources into an inequitable system faster simply increases inequity faster.

I want the Council to conduct a rigorous analysis of the impacts of the up zones you have already approved on the racial balance of neighborhoods, on housing costs, and on the impact on the environment.

Look at the building permits that SBCI is approving.

base your actions on that rather than on the agenda of the master builders that's conveyed through secret meetings.

PB 121-196 jumps ahead of the comp plan process to give zoning variances now without an analysis of how these much taller buildings will affect displacement, property taxes, livability, and the environment for people who already live in these neighborhoods.

Do not advance CB121196 after a single public hearing.

This bill requires a genuine engagement process with direct and documented outreach before any vote is taken.

Sever the Madison Miller component immediately and do not advance it until a community-led process centered on Black residents, seniors, and fixed income households determines a path forward.

Require a racial equity toolkit analysis and a senior and fixed income impact assessment for each affected neighborhood as other people have advocated before any component moves to a full council vote.

The city's own summary and fiscal note acknowledges that this has not been done and that- Thank you.

Next we will have Bonnie Williams.

Bonnie, please press star six.

Bonnie, please press star six.

Okay, next we will have Scott Glazebrook.

Scott, please press star six.

Next is Scott Clark.

Scott Clark, please press star six.

I can see you're unmuted.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

Good morning.

My name is Scott Clark.

I'm a licensed architect in Seattle and a founding partner at Clark Barnes.

We wholeheartedly support the Housing Opportunities Bill 12-1196 and encourage the council to adopt it as written.

Thank you very much.

Bye-bye.

Thank you.

Next up we have David Haynes.

Today as a reminder that the landlord sabotaged the comprehensive plan and what you're voting on today was created by Bruce Harrell, the most racist, untrustworthy mayor, other than Ed Murray and Ginny Durkin.

I bring this up because it looks like you all are literally taking industrial commercial zoned areas and acting like you're doing future generations a favor by sticking them in the commercial industrial zones and just changing the zone and acting like it's all good.

But yet, you don't allow them to go higher to get a better view.

You're putting them at, what, 10 feet higher?

six or seven stories so that you're still surrounded by other commercial buildings that you're supposed to get a job working at as if that's the walkable neighborhood you all are interpreting.

We need walkable neighborhoods where you're actually like the side streets are like literally like tore up where you have like green redevelopments.

So you can walk a block without actually walking on the side of the road.

But the thing that's weird about it is and telltale about how landlords on the city council are self-dealing with conflicts of interest that have backstabbed the working class and the renters.

Stoneway is really close to the Seattle Public Utilities Transfer Station, which is like a dump.

And you all are putting them right next to that.

It's like, oh, we're doing you all a favor.

We're gonna, like, improve your livabilities because we're gonna put you in the industrial zone.

But we're gonna change the zone to residential.

but we don't want you to live in our neighborhoods.

We don't want you to build back better in our neighborhoods because we're remortgaged and we're stressed out.

And since people in Seattle who sell out other people and backstab the working class think it's suitable for people to live in the industrial zone, the commercial zone, hanging over the highway right next to the transit-oriented toxic zones, you all are hypocrites.

You all need to get rid of the comprehensive plans restrictions,

Thank you.

Bonnie Williams, we're gonna come back to you.

Bonnie, please press star six.

Hi, sorry for the problem.

Good morning.

I'm Bonnie Williams.

I'm a D4 resident.

I am against CB121215 housing opportunities legislation.

It's another layer of rezoning.

I'm not following, I cannot follow the process when the comp plan select committee has started map reviews in October 2024. The public is looking to see re-zones introduced throughout through that committee and have much greater public input.

The process has been called out today in the testimony and I believe that the council should push this off to phase three because the mayor has introduced new up zones there.

It makes more sense to put it off so the public can review this legislation in Fremont, Downtown, U District, Madison, Miller, Belltown, Rainier Beach, and more.

Some of the towers are double the original heights.

I'm against exempting MHA.

I'm against adding neighborhood residential zones and low-rise zones to this legislation.

I think people, if they knew that those things were in there, they would have something to say about it.

Transparency is extremely important in this process.

If we go too fast, we make mistakes.

If you do robust community engagement, you don't have to worry as much about appeals and problems later.

Again, I say the process has to be transparent.

So again, push this off to phase three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Richard Ellison.

Richard, please press star six.

Hello, thank you.

My name is Richard Ellison and I'm a retired biologist.

I have written environmental impact statements.

I have taught at the community colleges in the Seattle area.

CB 121215 provides no public notice.

It gives in exemptions on environmental threshold determinations and NEIS with comprehensive plans, amendments.

This, by not allowing the community to review and file appeals on environmental decisions that are citywide leaves us not only powerless, but it misses many opportunities for the community to offer mitigations to how to improve what is going on here.

This is like the Trump administration and how they operate.

Well, we're just going to do what we want.

We don't have to care.

We'll just change the laws and do what we want to do.

This is like in China where they don't have to have environmental reviews if they don't want to.

They just go ahead and build.

The comprehensive plan used to be calling for that one in four core values was environmental stewardship.

And so what you're saying is, well, environmental stewardship really isn't that important anymore.

Unfortunately, I am in strong favor of public housing and more housing.

But the city council loosened up the zoning, gave it away a long time ago down in South Lake Union as a giveaway, trying to stimulate development in the city.

And subsequently we lost all the lower income areas for housing and it was all built up.

Now the remaining places that exist are very costly.

I agree.

Build taller, build around existing vegetation.

Give us open space for people.

But what you're doing here is creating the Wild West without any controls and saying, well, we're allowed to do what we want.

We're the city council.

We'll just get rid of environmental review.

Thank you very much.

And I feel like this is a disservice to the community.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes speakers for the public hearing.

Okay, thank you all.

As that was our last registered speaker present to speak at the public hearing, the public hearing on Council Bill 121-196 is now closed.

Thank you to our presenter, to our central staff for joining us.

Could you please introduce yourself for the record?

There we go, Lischwitz and Council Central Staff.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we've previously had briefings on this.

Any questions or comments on the housing opportunities legislation?

I need to raise my hand.

Go ahead, you go.

I have to sign on to Zoom.

Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Rink, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Just comments for today.

I want to start by saying that this housing opportunities legislation is both needed and very exciting.

This bill will help us bring online a number of projects, including some affordable housing projects, while also supporting sustainable building practices like mass timber and passive house construction.

and that being said, I have hit a couple of points of frustration when I attempted to bring forward and develop some amendments for this bill, amendments that I believe live up to the spirit of this legislation and some overarching goals that I think we can all agree upon.

Now, I was hoping to bring forward two amendments for today, the first of which would expand the definition of affordable housing to align with state law, but also to incorporate our city definition to incorporate social housing and additional types of affordable housing.

and the Second Amendment would have expanded incentives for green building projects.

Unfortunately, neither of my amendments will be voted on today due to constraints for our city faces under the State Environmental Policy Act, also known as SEPA, which we've discussed robustly today.

So I find it a little ironic and a bit frustrating that our state's landmark environmental law is what's holding us back from expanding on building incentives for more affordable and more environmentally friendly types of housing.

That all being said, I am still very excited to be supporting this legislation today and be a sponsor on this legislation.

Thank you, Chair Lynn, for bringing this forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

Any other questions?

Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry.

Let me get situated.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you for bringing this forward.

I had a briefing about it.

I know it's been in committee and fully support it.

One of the questions that, and I don't know if, Lish, you can answer this, and I think I had asked the department, my only frustration with this is just the outreach.

I think we can all agree that the outreach needs to be better.

And sometimes it's just the education piece.

And so for me, I know that people have brought up about the zoning around Madison Miller.

So that's the YMCA, Meredith Matthews, YMCA.

It is the parcels.

It's along the 23rd corridor.

It's Ebenezer.

AME Church and the three parcels there, their parking lot, and they have other pieces.

And so I'm not gonna slow down the legislation, colleagues.

I'm abstaining today.

Do plan on voting and supporting this, but I do wanna check with the pastor at that church and some folks at the YMCA to make sure their understanding of this.

I know that when I talked to OPCD, they had said that people had requested this legislation to come forward with the different zoning.

However, it has come to my knowledge that some of those people were not aware, and so I just want to do my due diligence and double-check.

I was taking what the department had told me to be their assessment of outreach I have a different definition and so a lot of that outreach is also a little bit of education with folks so they can understand like what's going on making it palatable for people I understand we talk about SEPA and there was you know there was no comments I don't know anyone who sometimes understands what SEPA is their outreach is usually to me sending an email or text message or for sending information out.

So just for the record, I will be abstaining, colleagues, until I just get confirmation, fully support this, but I just wanna make sure that people understand, I'm not gonna slow this down, I just wanna make sure people understand that are within that area about some of the changes that are coming to the neighborhood.

So I really appreciate your patience on this, colleagues, thank you.

Thank you, Council President Hollingsworth.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments?

Okay, well, thank you so much.

I appreciate Council Central staff, appreciate my colleagues, and Council President Hollingsworth, appreciate your...

Oh, Council Member, Vice Chair Strauss, please.

Hey, sorry, Chair Lin for the late hand there, just stating I'm going to reserve my comments for full counsel.

I've been tracking this for a number of years.

It's disappointing to hear that some folks did not have the appropriate outreach.

I'll be voting yes today, but I'll be reserving my comments for full counsel.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Strauss.

Again, thank you, colleagues.

And I do think we can always do better in terms of engagement and outreach.

And it's always a balance because at the same time, we also have to move forward.

At some point, we do have to make decisions on critical issues for our city, despite the fact that we may, even though we know that There are many people that want to have more engagement.

With that, I would like to move, without objection, would like to move to suspend the rules so that we can take a vote on this matter today.

Second.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so having seconded and not seeing any objection, I move that the committee recommend passage of 121196. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 121196. Are there any final comments?

Sounds like there might be some comments at the full Council.

Will the Clerk please call the roll and recommendation that Council pass the bill?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Lin.

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor, zero opposed and one abstention.

The motion carries a committee recommendation that council bill pass the bill will be sent to the June 2nd, 2026 city council meeting.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two.

Agenda item two, council bill 121214. An 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 2384A-008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, approving a work plan, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date, all by a three-fourths vote of City Council for briefing and discussion.

And thank you.

Representative from Central Staff has joined us.

Can you please introduce yourself for the record?

Yeah, hello, I'm Eric McConaughey on the Council Central Staff.

Okay, we had a general discussion about data centers previously.

We now have the proposed moratorium.

Obviously heard a lot of public comment.

It's been in the news quite a bit.

This is for briefing and discussion.

It will come back.

to our next committee meeting as well.

So no vote on this today, but do any committee members have any questions?

And let's see.

Okay, hold on one second.

Council Member Foster.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the conversation, being able to move forward legislation regarding data centers.

I wonder if you can speak to just current consideration around ensuring that we have this appropriately scoped and sized.

We heard a lot today around making sure that we have coverage for large data centers.

So if you can speak to that, I think that would be very helpful.

I'll do my best in the absence of H.P.

Harper, who's on point.

We sort of switch off in tandem on this topic this afternoon.

I'll be speaking to the data center resolution that Council Member Juarez is the sponsor of.

That being said, my understanding is that there is some ongoing consideration of the scoping of the size of the data centers, and we can bring some more information to you, Council Member, about that very soon.

to inform the decision on this.

So hopefully that's helpful and just acknowledging that terms like megavolt, amperes and things are not in the typical parlance and what we're gonna try to do for you as your central staff is to make it so that a lay person has a fighting chance to understand the terminology.

So we're gonna do our best.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

And I know when HB was here on our previous conversation, one of the things she talked about was just how challenging it is given there's sort of a lack of clear definitions on some of the terms that we're using.

So I look forward to that engagement and happy to take that conversation offline.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the folks who turned out today to provide comments on this topic.

I definitely hear and share your concerns.

I'm wondering if we can just dive in, and can you explain how we landed on this definition of data center before us?

Again, I'll do my best considering that I was sort of peripheral to the conversation.

And I also will refer to Council Member Lynn, please step in because of my role of sort of helping out and filling in for HB.

There are a wide range of data centers, both in Seattle and across the country.

We've read about them in the news at multiple scales, different scales of government, you know, state and county and other places have found ways to to sort of measure and scale these.

My understanding is that the size of the data center as scoped in the bill before you is to capture data centers that would sort of cross kind of a significance threshold.

You know, my words, not a legal term.

So that...

it would be meaningful to have a year to study the impacts of data centers within that time and yet not sort of capture data centers or similar things of a smaller size that don't rise to that occasion.

Hopefully I'm sort of accurately representing that, but I'm happy to be a little bit wrong and hear a better answer from Council Member Lin.

So, yeah.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Yeah, we worked with central staff, we worked with different stakeholders and, you know, this has been an issue around the country and we've had, especially with the mega data centers, with the increased interest around the language models, around artificial intelligence.

And we have had data centers and we have data centers in Seattle today, smaller data centers, co-located oftentimes accessory uses.

What we have not seen to date is these, you know, what are typically described as mega data centers, these standalone facilities that are really in demand because of the new technology around these language models and AI.

And so we largely adopted what was originally a 20 megawatt definition that was proposed this past legislative session at the state level.

It is being proposed around the country.

And part of the idea was to have a standard definition so that we could work across jurisdictions with our other cities with the state because it's gonna be difficult if we all have different definitions of what a data center or rather a mega data center might be.

There are technical issues here in terms of megawatts or megavolts and how those translate to each other.

Based on sort of our research, we ended up landing with the megavolt MVA definition.

But that doesn't mean it's the permanent definition.

We needed to come up with something quickly for the moratorium.

But I do anticipate that we'll have different definitions for the permanent legislation that will distinguish between these mega data centers and other sort of smaller ones, which, you know, for example, the city has its own technological needs.

Our 911 center has technological needs.

And, you know, we need to allow for those types of co-located essential services types of technology and data centers, while also putting reasonable, at least in my opinion, reasonable regulations around these much larger mega data centers.

So that's how we came up with that definition so far.

Certainly happy to get input from colleagues, from stakeholders and others, but that's the history of that definition.

Thank you for that, Sherilyn.

That's really helpful to understand, and I know this is now our second discussion in committee on this topic, and I imagine a number of the questions I raised during our first committee meeting we still don't have answers to, and I accept that in this moment because we're moving quickly, and so I really want to commend you for taking this approach of first introducing a moratorium that will allow us to take a pause and to have the time to understand how to legislate and regulate around data centers.

So I wanna commend you, Council Member Arras, as well as Council President Hollingsworth for your work on this whole effort.

And so eager to learn more as we continue this endeavor and thank you again for your work on this.

Yeah, thank you so much, Councilman Rankin.

And similar to yesterday's discussion around interim legislation, assuming this does pass, it'll be interim legislation, we'll need to develop a work plan, and we'll be able to hone in on all those fine details.

Let's see.

Any other?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your leadership on this, and I know that the resolution will be heard in the Parks and City Light Committee today with Council Member Juarez.

Excuse me. and so very grateful for that, and I know it's been kind of a concert of things, how stuff is moving, and I know that there have been some people that have reached out, and I also know there's some things that we're still working out with the moratorium, and as you mentioned, if it passes, this is for a year to do a reset and understand.

I think I share your same values in just talking to you, not trying to put you on blast, that we're not trying to hinder growth in our city, but understanding that we need to do some more assessment and some more work with some of the data centers.

And all data centers are not the same.

A lot are different.

And I was just curious, Eric, with your best knowledge, for the public, could you go into a little bit of detail potentially of some difference of data centers?

Is that possible?

I will go until...

I'll walk up right to the edge and that step beyond where I get out of my expertise.

Kind of like how we currently have data centers, like what is currently in Seattle, what are they keeping up in their wonderful clouds?

Sure, sure.

So for example, the city of Seattle, like any large organization nowadays, uses data centers, right?

So we work on the cloud.

So that term, small d, small c data center, is the thing that we're...

they have servers, all the equipment that keep those things running, the connections in and out, the power, the personnel that do that, and they're used for lots of different things.

As already has been mentioned, in the news and in the developments around the country, there are these sort of mega data centers that are really connected to AI technologies, all sorts of things.

And at the same time, day in, day out, there are data centers that serve maybe sort of kind of more prosaic, kind of ordinary, what we consider to be ordinary kinds of things now, running the internet and things like that.

They range in size, they can be connected, they could be on a floor in a building downtown, they could be on a large sort of floor plate in a warehouse looking building in eastern Washington.

you know, they range quite a bit.

It's sort of like if someone says, I just met my neighbor and they've got a dog, we're all gonna have an idea in our head of what that dog is and we could be really wrong.

They're really different sizes, right?

And they have different sort of needs.

So hopefully you'll bear with me coming with a metaphor on the fly.

Data Center just by saying so doesn't tell us really what it is and I think that comes back around to what you and your colleagues are sort of coping with and asking us to help define in terms of for the moratorium, what do we mean by Data Center so that that's a functional sort of rule to use during the moratorium and then going forward as customer Lynn just articulated, what would the permit regulations stipulate, define so that the city has a working rule to know how to deal with them?

but hopefully I answered your question was able to underscore that yeah the data centers are active in use here in Seattle it's a business that operates in Seattle it's a service that the city of Seattle also uses and not revealing these secrets there and that is not I don't think that really is a question or problem that council's articulating per se.

It's about scale and it's about protecting resources and jobs and things like that, right?

So hopefully that gets at what you're looking for.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

And if I may, Chair, one more.

And this is why I love the resolution and I love the thought process behind the moratorium, because working in concert together, it also has us requesting to the departments to understand the environmental impacts.

Is there a public benefit from this?

Can they afford, can, you know, what type of, Can it be some heating and cooling that goes on?

Is there some infrastructure investments that can be made and updated with some of the data centers investing back into community?

Like there's a lot of things that we need to explore holistically.

And so that's why I really appreciate the intentionality behind the moratorium that you're presenting, Councilmember Lin, and then also the resolution that Councilmember Warris will be bringing to the committee later on today.

So this is like, It's not a knee-jerk reaction.

It's all in concert with each other.

And I just really appreciate that.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you, Eric.

Thank you, Chair, as well.

Thank you, Council President.

And thank you for your partnership along the way with this.

If there's no further questions or comments, we are getting pretty late here in the morning, so we can come back to this at our next committee meeting.

Okay, seeing no further questions or comments, I'd like to move on to our third item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item three?

Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 121215, an ordinance relating to council land use decisions amending sections 2376050, 2376062, and 2505680 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify processes for council land use decisions for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Thank you, Lish, for joining us.

Can you please introduce yourself for the record?

Thank you Lish and thank you colleagues and to the member of the public who commented today on this issue.

This is just an initial briefing as mentioned earlier.

We will be holding a public hearing on this proposal.

This is just to get those initial thoughts and questions out so that we can have a robust community dialogue.

on that.

And unfortunately, I know that there was a question whether we have a presentation.

We do not have a presentation today, but we certainly have a very qualified central staff here to answer any questions or to just talk us through the proposal.

So with that, I'll let you proceed.

Yeah, so Council Bill 1215 amends the Land Use Code and the City's State Environmental Policy Act, or SEPA, regulations to remove two impediments to Council's consideration of land use changes.

First, it brings Seattle in line with other large jurisdictions in Washington State by removing appeals of SEPA determinations to the Seattle Hearing Examiner.

It would apply to development regulations and comprehensive plan amendments, and development regulations Under state law, I mean the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including zoning ordinances, critical area ordinances, and shoreline master programs.

This section of the bill still maintains opportunities for members of the public to comment on SEPA determinations.

Often departments issuing a determination of non-significance or a final environmental impact statement will pull back their decisions based on comments that they receive during that early comment period.

That comment period still will remain.

Members of the public will be able to voice any concerns with environmental review to the City Council.

And removing the hearing examiner's appeal process does not remove any other SEPA appeal processes.

So appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board or to the courts still remain to the extent permitted under state law.

In addition, if council can always ask for additional information if they hear concerns or complaints about environmental review that they deem are appropriate.

The second act of the bill is to remove a requirement that there be a director's report for type 5 land use action sponsored by the council.

It does provide an opportunity for council members to request a report if one isn't provided.

and it brings us back in line with council's practice prior to an adverse ruling by the Growth Management Hearings Board last year.

Just as a reminder, Type 5 land use decisions are decisions that are legislative actions by the City Council, like the two other bills you're seeing today, area-wide rezones, zoning text amendments, and a few other legislative actions that the Council takes.

Neither of these sections of the bill will touch a quasi-judicial actions, which still go through the CL hearing examiner, and the hearing examiner holds a public hearing on quasi-judicial actions, and that process will still continue.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions?

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

A few questions for today as we're just starting to unpack this topic.

Lish, can you explain broadly what SEPA-related rules are required by the state and what rules the city has voluntarily expanded?

There's a lot there.

I'll just focus on the subject of this bill, which is that the state provides for the city to use a hearing examiner to consider appeals of SEPA determination, final SEPA determination.

So the final determination that there are no ever significant impacts of a decision or the publication of a final environmental impact statement.

but it does not require the city to have those appeals and many of the largest jurisdictions around us do not have hearing examiner appeals.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I understand that element.

I'm trying to have a more holistic view of other elements related to SIPA where there's a state requirement and if there's anything in addition to, maybe even if it's outside perhaps the exact matter before us, just anything additional that the city voluntarily chooses to expand on.

Yeah, so it's definitely an area where the state legislature has been moving quickly to amend state regulations, and we haven't quite kept up with it, so there are, and I don't have any examples right off the top of my head, but there are many types of city decisions that previously were under state law required to undergo CEPA review, but the state has since exempted them from a CEPA review.

However, our city laws still require CEPA review, and so in the city of Seattle, even though there is a state exemption, we still need to review projects until we update those regulations.

Interesting, okay.

Thank you for that.

Can you also elaborate on what points in which repeal or legal action can be brought for these types of land use decisions?

You might have covered that, but if you can just lay that out again, that would be helpful.

Yeah, so in terms of the, we are relying on the state definition of development regulation, and also it would apply to a comprehensive plan and amendments to the comprehensive plan.

So development regulations, are controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city.

The ones the council sees are rezones, zoning text amendments, designations of major institutions and major institution master plans.

I think I said area-wide rezones.

public facilities that receive an exemption from development standards that are otherwise permitted.

Those are the types of things that would be affected by these regulations.

I know we had a little bit of discussion about this in Council briefing.

I believe Council Member Roy has brought up some questions about, you know, delays that can come up and what makes a-what can add time.

How much of a delay are we currently facing on average, or have those delays increased in recent years with more appeals going to the hearing examiner?

Yeah, so I looked back at the last 10 years of appeals to the hearing examiner, There are about 25 appeals, many of them multiple appellants, so there were, I think, 64 appellants in total for those 25 appeals.

The most frequent decision from the hearing examiner on those appeals is to dismiss them.

and that takes between a month and three to four months to sort of consider that just outright dismissal, that there isn't a legitimate appeal.

There are a number where the determination is affirmed, so the hearing examiner goes through a hearing process and determines that, yes, the decision was made correctly.

On average, that takes 285 days, so I think that's like seven, eight months.

There have only been two where the City Department's decision was actually remanded or reversed.

One related to accessory dwelling units where the hearing examiner determined that determination of non-significance was not appropriate and that an EIS should be drafted.

That took six months to get to that decision.

and the other related to impact fees, where that was the City Council sponsored legislation that took, I think, 15 months to get to a decision that reversed the original environmental determination.

Some of the biggest projects.

The MHA legislation, ultimately most of the environmental review was affirmed by the hearing examiner.

That took over a year, that hearing process.

And there was a transportation impact fee process that took about a year.

Yeah.

Thank you for walking us through as we consider this.

We'd love to just see more of that information too just around timelines associated with appeals.

And my final question for today, Chair, if I may, just to reiterate this point again, how many other, in which jurisdictions would, I should rephrase my question, with this proposed change, this would bring us into alignment or on par with which jurisdictions?

Again, bringing us into alignment where we're not going beyond what state law is required.

Off the top of my head, King County, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Council Member Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair, for bringing this forward.

I'm excited to have this discussion.

And I wanted to ask you, Lish, if you can speak, excuse me, a little bit more to the types of land use actions that we're thinking about, because there's a specific focus here on council generated and type five.

And so can you just speak to that so that we're sort of clear on the scope?

Yeah, so that is in particular for the director's reports and the requirement for director's report.

The three type five legislative decisions the council must frequently seized are land use code text amendments, area-wide amendments to the official land use map, so amendments to not just one piece of property, which is a Type 4 decision, but amendments to a broader area.

And waivers are modifications of development standards for city facilities.

Realistically, generally, the council itself will be proposing land use code text amendments.

I haven't seen many or any re-zones or modifications to city facilities proposed by the council rather than the executive.

Other types of type five decisions are corrections of errors on the zoning map, concept approvals for location or expansion of city facilities, major institution designations, where the council says, yes, this hospital or university or college is a major institution.

Adoption of planned action ordinances, which are sort of campus development, so multi-phase development.

does not include quasi-judicial decisions, so no contract re-zones, no adoptions of major institution master plans, or public facilities needing council approval that are not city-owned.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate the clarification.

I wanted to make sure that we had that into the record.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Vice-Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward to committee today.

I guess I was expecting a presentation or a bill draft, and I really do appreciate Lish's memo here.

Having a presentation, walking through the different aspects of this helps me in my outreach to residents and to stakeholders.

So I do just want to check in on process here.

Is today's meeting considered one of the two meetings before taking a vote?

Are we going to have a couple more meetings before we receive the written bill?

How are we moving forward on this?

The next step was to have a public hearing on July 1st.

Was there Hold on, I'm gonna defer to my esteemed colleague, Thaddeus, could you?

We're looking forward to taking this up again on the 3rd and 17th, and then a public hearing on the 1st.

June 3rd, June 17th.

Okay, June 3rd, June 17th, and then a public hearing on July 1st are the next steps.

Okay, great.

And something that I've shared in the past and might be, I guess we need to go a little bit faster now because we've started developing the concept for tribal notification in the same way that SEPA provides federally recognized tribes notification of work to be done in the soil, which has been their home since time of memorial.

That's a problem that we've needed to fix for quite some time.

And if we are going to be changing our SEPA review here at the city, I think we need to do the same, both at the same time.

I understand that my concept might be a little bit farther behind yours, but it sounds like we need to get that started now because it is important for me that we provide that tribal notification to supplement or stand in the place of where SEPA has provided that notification in the past.

But thank you for bringing forward the summary and fiscal note today, and I look forward to receiving the bill and the PowerPoint.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Vice Chair Strauss.

And you may recall we worked on tribal notification as part of the SEPA threshold exemption bill.

And I see Central Staff Lisch raised a finger.

So tribal notification is required to happen before the SEPA determination is published.

This does not affect that.

I do want to note that the legislation has been introduced and is linked to the agenda.

Thank you, but absolutely hear you on a presentation and we'll work on that for the next committee meeting.

And just to clarify and to kind of repeat, this does not change the outreach requirements or any other procedural requirements for SEPA.

This only would affect the hearing examiner appeal of type five decisions, is that correct?

the hearing examiner appeal of decisions related to development regulations and the comforts of plan.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Strauss, did you have any, looks like, okay.

I had a few questions or comments and thank you for the briefing today and thank you for the future work on this.

Just to kind of provide a big picture so that we understand sort of what the proposal is and the role of SEPA Just want to clarify that this would not change any of our substantive sort of environmental regulations in terms of our building code requirements, our stormwater code requirements.

This does not actually change any of those requirements.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And it doesn't require the requirement to analyze the environmental impacts of the city's actions.

So we still have to do the analysis and to your earlier point, people still have a right to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board or to Superior Court.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And oftentimes people exercise that right after the hearing examiner appeal.

Would that be correct?

Correct.

And just so that we understand sort of how this applies to council legislation, I just wanna step back a little bit and talk about are there other types of council legislation that require this level of environmental review and then a process to allow a hearing examiner appeal?

And I'm just gonna ask you a few sort of different types of legislation that we might consider as council members and see if there's a difference.

So, for example, our city's annual budget process, is there an environmental review process or do we give people a right to appeal that to the hearing examiner before we ever consider the city's budget?

No.

and would you agree that it's important for council to have robust engagement and information as we do our city budget?

Correct, yes.

And So we don't offer that for the city's budget.

What about if we were gonna change laws around public safety like our city's soap and soda laws?

Do we have to do environmental review for that or do we give people a hearing examiner appeal before we pass legislation like that?

No.

How about when we buy or sell city property?

No.

What about when we change our utility rates?

No.

Thank you, and if we did give those appeal rights and there were months-long delays, would that impact the city's ability to proceed with things like our city budget?

Yes.

Thank you.

One other question, in terms of who can bring an appeal, can you just speak to the standing requirements of who is allowed to bring a SEPA appeal?

So anyone can file an appeal.

You do need to show some sort of connection to the action and possibility of harm from the action in order for the appeal to proceed, but many appeals are filed that are dismissed a couple months after

So anybody could file an appeal, anybody around the world could file an appeal, and a single person could file that appeal, is that correct?

Correct.

A single entity, do you have to be a person or could you be some sort of unnamed group to file an appeal?

Any person or organization can file an appeal.

can file an appeal.

And even if you don't have standing, that has to be kind of disproven or proven.

And so it could still result in a month or two delay just to kind of have that dismissed just by somebody filing that appeal.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

The hearing examiner does take any appeal seriously and reviews to make sure that they have standing.

Okay.

So just want to, again, sort of clarify for the record, a single person can delay legislative action for the entire city for a month or two just by following this appeal.

Anybody around the world could do that.

Thank you.

And I also just want to clarify, if somebody was concerned about our city's comprehensive plan, perhaps they were concerned about something happening in their neighborhood, could they sort of appeal only their sort of concern about their neighborhood, or would they appeal the entire comprehensive plan, if it was a comprehensive plan, an environmental review of that?

You appeal the entire package.

So just to kind of give it an analogy, if you were upset about the city's, like we pass our city's multi-billion dollar budget, if you were upset about sort of one $5,000 line item in that budget, you know, you would have to appeal sort of the entire budget, not just that one line item.

So in terms of our comprehensive plan, you might be concerned about one thing, you can't just sort of appeal that one thing, you have to appeal the whole thing.

and that would result in potentially months-long or longer delay of the entire thing.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have for today.

Colleagues, obviously this is something that we will continue to engage with the public on.

I know there's lots of strong feelings and strong opinions.

This is important work for us and I appreciate your willingness to engage with us.

Thank you to Lish for joining us.

And any other further questions or comments before we end the meeting?

Okay, with that, we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

It is 1143 AM.

Is there any further business to come before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, June 3rd at 930 AM.

Thank you.