Land Use and Sustainability Committee 6/3/2026

Good morning, everyone.

June 3rd, 2026 Land Use Sustainability Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 934 AM.

I'm Eddie Lynn, 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.

Here.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Chair Lynn.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

We'll now open the hybrid public comment period Public comments should relate to items on the agenda or items within the purview of the committee Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for today?

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

So each speaker will have one minute.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

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 with their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not and 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.

Emily Johnson.

Hi there, thank you very much.

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

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

Not only would these projects take up space in the city of Seattle that then could not be used for housing, and for light industrial and other uses.

But more importantly, over time, they would impose other costs on nearby housing or businesses in terms of lots of sound effects and also heat island effects.

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

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

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

We know there's a very good chance that there will be at least a deflation and maybe an outright crash in the AI and data center business coming up soon, probably following the IPOs that are coming up.

And so, yeah, we need to be really concerned about what we're stuck with here in Seattle.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Rebecca Young followed by Laura Byrd, Liesl Wingard, Patrick Schulster, and Audrey Gosselin.

Good morning and thank you.

My name is Rebecca Young.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to understand that full amount on water needs and prioritize our communities, treaty with the tribes and our ecosystems.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Laura Bird.

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Liesl Wingard.

Hi, my name is Liesl Weigand.

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

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

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

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

This culture is omnipresent across tech.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Hi, my name is Patrick Schlesser.

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

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

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

Microsoft is spending $190 billion.

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

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

That desperation gives our city leverage.

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

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

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

You've also got to have worker-led safety committees that report to the city so that any AI developed in your facility is becoming a risk to the city.

The city can prepare and intervene if necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, council members.

My name is Audrey Wango-Slan.

I'm an electrical engineer specializing in power and renewable energy, and I live in District 2. As an expert in the field of energy and sustainability, I'm here to urge you to approve the moratorium on data centers.

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

They want to bypass legislation and regulation.

They do not want to do things democratically.

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

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

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

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

Is that accurate?

Anyway, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sarah.

Hi, Chair Lynn.

I'm Sarah Lapis with Tree Action Seattle, and I am here in adamant opposition to CB121215.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bill exacerbates that inequity and we oppose it.

Thank you.

Next up we have Paul and then followed by Ben and Jody Annoying, right?

So this is the sound of a diety center.

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

This is audible up to two miles away.

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

And that's not the worst, actually, because after that you have an infrasound that goes way farther, including in the city, up to five miles away.

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

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

Add to that the heat, plus 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit with an AI data center, in average, goes up to 60 degrees Fahrenheit of heat increase as far as six miles away.

So say no.

They just try to outpace the law.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ben.

Good morning.

My name is Ben Jones.

I'm the Digital and Communications Director for 350 Seattle, testifying in support of the data center moratorium.

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

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

the site permits allocate a quarter million square feet to data storage, which, talking with friends who are electricians, calculates to be a minimum of 25 gigawatts, which would be over the amended in Amendment 3 of additional 20 MVA.

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

But on the other hand, yesterday Skagit County also approved a data center medatorium.

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

Thank you.

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

Steve Rubsalos before Steve Zemke.

So, Jody?

Did you say Jody?

I did.

Okay, so my name's Jody Lineman and I'm a former school teacher.

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

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

Her friends are in the same situation.

The environment is just as bad, these data centers.

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

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

They were putting regulations.

They're going slowly.

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

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

My grandmother died 15 years ago.

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

We are forgetting that miracle.

Please vote for a moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

We need a better Seattle.

We need a Seattle that really cares about that middle 80% plus, you know?

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

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

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

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

Design Review has been destroyed.

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

And some people are not happy about that.

Why do you think Donald Trump rises?

Because people are not happy.

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

People are not happy.

Thank you.

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

Hello, my name is Elena Bryan.

I was born and raised in Seattle.

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

I think that Seattle is a leader in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide and worldwide on climate issues, and we need to be aggressive in implementing policies that support the ethical development of tech, so I really urge you to support the moratorium on data centers.

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

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ilan Robinson.

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

My classmates and I have had a very, very difficult time finding work, largely due to AI and a lot of the instability in the tech industry, and I am additionally deeply concerned about the ability of this strong industry in Seattle to be able to dictate decisions about how our land is used.

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

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

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

Thank you.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest, which I chair.

Speaking in House Bill 121215, you have a broken process here in passing legislation.

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

The devil's in the details.

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

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

Is it just my computer?

I cannot find links to this bill.

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

I find 27 today.

I find 28 appeals, not 27. And when I average them out, I come with 110 days of delay, not 151. I think the delay of a process so that people have to defend your legislation is not an excuse to void appeals.

Thank you for your time.

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

Good morning, members of City Hall, council members.

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

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

Here are straight facts you might like to hear.

I moved here in 2021. Electricity prices have gone up 38.1 percentage points since then, citing the CleanCon MIT data set.

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

Do not worsen the affordability crisis.

Moratorium now.

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

Data centers start around 10 acres.

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

That's 1,000 to 3,000 future Seattleites that you will vote to unhouse with every data center proposal approved today.

Moratorium now.

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

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

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

Moratorium now, thank you and solidarity.

Thank you.

Next comment is about the quasi judicial.

Oh, okay, so we hold that until, are we going to have a separate?

It's probably more appropriate that it doesn't occur.

Oh, that we don't.

Yeah, but we can hear.

Just hold on one second.

to speak to the quasi-digital matter.

I think it'd be better not to have the comment just because it should be part of the record.

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

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

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

So, Clerk, do you have anything further?

Next up we have Michelle Hausmann.

Hello, thank you for taking my comment today.

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

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

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

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

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

My local park would host a yearly Easter egg hunt.

As a teen, I hung out at the community center, I played tennis, I swam, I took dance classes, and I watched the old guys play cards.

In fact, I met my husband at the park.

These kinds of places matter today and tomorrow.

Why am I telling you this?

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is our last in-person speaker.

We will now move on to our remote speakers.

First up, we have Sandy Scheller.

Hi, thank you so much.

I'm commenting on CB 12-1215.

Please do not remove citizen environmental review.

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

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

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

In Tacoma, the State Department of Ecology is monitoring the smelter plume, which spread arsenic over a thousand square miles.

In Everett, they're monitoring PCBs, which contaminate almost 3,000 square feet of Powder Mill Creek.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alice Lockhart.

Good morning, committee members.

This is Alice Lockhart calling in from two blocks from Aurora, from the soap soda zone, which has been a little noisy lately.

I want to say I would vastly prefer to live here to living within any number of blocks of a data center, particularly one of the ones that are built in warehouses.

Moreover, so I want to commend you all on this moratorium.

I'm pretty sure you're going to pass it and kudos to the chair of this committee for moving quickly on this extremely important issue.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Next up we have June Blue Spruce.

Hello.

The City of Seattle is enacting huge changes that will affect every person and every aspect of the environment in our city.

In 2023, the Council passed a tree ordinance that removed protections for trees on lots under development.

This measure allows 85 to 100 percent lot coverage in low-rise and higher zones, leaving no room for large mature trees.

The new comp plan vastly expands these zones across the city.

The EIS for the plan was based on half as many additional dwellings as were eventually included.

There is no question that these changes will have adverse effects on the health and lives of people, salmon, orcas, and other creatures.

The science is clear.

The Council should focus on measuring, reckoning with, and acting to mitigate these adverse effects.

Instead, CB121215 would take away the ability for citizens to file appeals to the hearing examiner while bills that affect the environment are being considered.

This is a bad idea.

Oppose CB121215.

You need information.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lucy Johnson.

Hi, my name is Lucy and I'm testifying in favor of the moratorium on data centers.

I'm a recent biology graduate and I'm concerned about the impact of data centers on our human and wildlife communities.

I'm concerned about the documented cases of data centers polluting water and creating noise heard two miles away.

As a young person and a recent graduate who was raised in the beautiful Seattle area, I urge you to prioritize our health by passing this moratorium on data centers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Julia Shetler.

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

This bill affects all type 5 projects including data centers and this silencing nears what's happening with the Stratos data center in Utah.

This bill would remove a critical layer of environmental review.

There are already merited concerns that the comp plan phase 1 EIS was incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Next up we have Phil Lewis.

Good morning council members.

My name is Phil Lewis and I serve as the government relations chair for the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

I want to thank Councilmembers Lin and Hollingsworth for bringing forward Council Bill 121214. I'm here today on behalf of the Seattle Human Rights Commission to urge you to support the data center moratorium.

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

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

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

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

A moratorium is not anti-technology.

It is pro-accountability.

And Seattle has the opportunity to ask critical questions for the well-being of all Seattleites.

And I urge you to support this moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Jennifer, please press star six.

Okay, we will move on to our next speaker, and that is Renaissance 350. Renaissance, I can see you're unmuted, but we cannot hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Lovely.

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

Thank you for taking on this issue with such integrity and expedience to our community.

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

350 Seattle, among others, submitted robust feedback to your office at the end of last week, but I would like to devote my time with you this morning to Attachment A Work Plan for Data Center Moratorium Section 3 about the Community Benefits Agreement.

We are highly concerned about the voluntary element.

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

As an example of this, Elon Musk constructed an ex-AI facility in Memphis, Tennessee, making a commitment to also construct water recycling facilities so they were not merely pumping water through it, a massive drain to their potable water.

This is yet to happen.

But if language like changing voluntary to mandatory and should to shall will not get this passed,

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alyssa Sutton.

Hi, my name is Liz.

I work as an accountant from my apartment in Capitol Hill, represented by Councilmember Hollingsworth.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Brian Ding.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Brian Dang.

I am a displaced tech worker and a lifelong artist.

I'll keep my comments short.

I am urging the city council to support the moratorium on data center construction in Seattle, and I'll end my comment there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lauren Redfield.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

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

I support the data center moratorium.

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

First, the definitions use megawatts instead of megavolt embers and be based on facility-scale net weather service is interruptible.

Megawatts reflect real electricity demand, and facility-scale drives grid, land use, and environmental impacts.

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

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

Community input should be built into the process.

Finally, CBA should not replace regulation or weaken protections.

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

The burden should be on the developer project further see equitable development goals and projects that do not further those goals should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Patrick Corwin.

Hi, thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak.

I'm Pat Corwin from District 1 and I support the moratorium.

It's great to see a number of the points in the attached worksheet and that figuring out definitions is part of it.

But I wanted to really call out how different these new AI data centers are than the ones that we've had.

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

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

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

But unlike a semi-truck versus a car, an AI computer is like roughly the same size as a regular computer.

So in the same footprint, it's a massive load and we want to make these data centers enormous.

So please support the moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Cedar.

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

Data centers or mass surveillance centers are always also known as have an extreme effect on the cost of local residents causing their electrical bills to go way up.

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

We have about six weeks left of food because farmers cannot afford to go as they normally could and the fact that these data centers would be more of a grain on the water and the one that's being proposed for instance in Utah would have the daily environmental impact of 23 atom bombs and yeah it would destroy many of our keystone species that we depend on for survival as a species ourselves.

So that is why I am in support.

Thank you.

Next up we have David Haynes.

Today as a reminder that the small-time landlords on the City Council had already self-dealt with conflicts of interest and sabotage the comprehensive plan is getting away with it.

And they're going to try and expedite it with taking away the separate review on the interpretation of what constitutes 21st century first world quality housing.

And yet the people who are weaponizing the character of their dilapidated inflated house and the environment are bleeding their heart as a sugar-coated way of acknowledging that they themselves are greedy.

and trying to backstab using certain council members who put restrictions on the comprehensive plan that should be taken out, an insurance that we have low quality quadplex misinterpretations that cheat people out of quality living and make people live on the side of the toxic sooted road in the main intersections, like 15th and Market, one of the worst places to live.

Certain people think that's suitable for somebody else to live in, because it's another form of redlining.

And it's unacceptable.

Thank you, David.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger.

Dave Gloger, please press star six.

Hello, this is Dave Gloger.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Dave Gloger and I live in District 5. And I'm asking you to oppose Council Bill 121215. This is an anti-democratic legislation.

Council Chair or Committee Chair, Lynn, says that we need to do this to reduce costs and make things move faster.

Well, that's what happens in democracies.

We have to take times to do things.

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

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

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

So should we get rid of public hearings along with environmental reviews?

I strongly urge you to oppose this anti-democratic measure 121215. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Alberto Alvarez.

Thank you.

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

The high increase to our utility bills would be permanent.

They won't provide enough long-term jobs to offset what our communities will pay for decades to come, not to mention the severe negative impact to the health of our environment.

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

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

No data centers, not now, not ever.

Thank you and have a good day.

Next up, we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Okay, can you hear me this time?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So I filed the ORCA appeal that this 121215 appeal prohibition is in response to.

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

Now that the ORCA appeal has won in the Court of Appeals, it's great to read the decision-based in science facts and reason instead of right-wing special interests.

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

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

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

The state animal is an endangered orca that people pay millions annually to look at in Puget Sound.

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

Please also end private meetings with developers.

This is still happening every month at SDCI.

Please walk the equity talk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our speakers.

Thank you, clerk.

Earlier, just regarding item number three, I'm just gonna read something for the record now, just in case any member of the public does wanna rebut.

So consistent with the quasi-digital rules of appearance and fairness doctrine, I wanna place on the record an ex-party communication that I received on May 4th, 2026 via email.

The email is from Jared Peckauer, the project architect for 5201 Rainier Avenue South in support of the application by Eagle Rock Ventures and 5201 Rainier LLC to extend the contract rezone originally approved by ordinance 125632. A printed copy is available today for viewing and will be placed into the procedural record.

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

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

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

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

Just want to disclose it for the record.

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

Hey, thank you so much for all the passionate public comments.

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

We will now move on to our, let's see, our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one?

Agenda item one, council bill 121214, in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, introducing a new definition for data centers adopting moratorium on the filing, acceptance, processing, or approval of applications for the establishment or expansion of or change of use to data centers submitting section 2384A008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, approving a work plan, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date, all by three-fourths vote of the city council for briefing discussion, possible vote.

Thank you.

Our presenters are joining us at the table.

When you're ready, could you please go ahead and introduce yourselves?

H.B. Harper, Council Central Staff.

Good morning.

Eric McConaughey on the Council Central Staff.

It's on?

Great.

Sunari Marshall.

I'm an Executive Operations Manager in the Mayor's Office.

Good morning, Christine Bunch, Office of Sustainability and Environment, Climate and Energy Strategic Advisor.

Good morning, Andy Strong, Seattle City Light.

Thank you so much.

We have, let's see.

Do we have a presentation for today?

There's no presentation.

No presentation, okay.

So just any questions or comments from committee members?

We will have two amendments that I'll be proposing in a moment, but just before we get kicked off on amendments, any questions or comments?

Okay, well then let's get started.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121-214.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 121-214.

Are any comments before we move to the two amendments?

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

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

Council offices were also provided emailed copies of the amendments.

However, the email came after the amendment deadline.

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

Okay, hearing no objection, the rule is suspended.

We'll proceed with the amendments.

I move to amend Council Bill 121-214 as presented in the circulated amendment number one.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill.

Are there any comments?

Before we, yeah, before we move on to any comments, I'd like to have a little presentation from Council Central Staff on amendment one.

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

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

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

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

So I'm happy to answer questions if that doesn't make sense, but that's the substance of Amendment 1. Thank you.

Councilmember Rink.

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

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

I can give a try.

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

So I will say how I've been thinking about it and working with folks in City Light to try to describe this.

Megavolt appears as a good unit to describe equipment.

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

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

Do you mind, Andy?

It's okay.

Yeah.

Megavolt amperes or MVA typically takes into account power factors that adjust the unit from a megawatt measurement to an MVA measurement.

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

Great, thank you for clarifying that.

I know in a lot of the discussions and just briefing discussions that we've had on this topic, I mean, it's been a bit of a learning curve as we've come to understand the role of data centers that exist within our city, the proliferation of them that's happening around the country now.

and exactly how they are utilized within our city.

So my final question is more to the sponsor of the amendment, because as I understand it, your office has been doing some engagement on this topic, so wondering if you can just speak to again why this is coming before us today and kind of the software.

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

Yeah, so thank you, Council Member Brink.

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

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

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

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

Again, this is only the whole Moratorium is a temporary issue.

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

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

Thank you for that explanation, Chair.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Any other questions or comments?

And just to your question or comment on megawatts versus MVA, I just want to clarify a little bit or I think because this is a land use moratorium, we're really trying to come up with a definition that works for us in terms of our permitting process.

And so I was wondering if you could speak a little bit, you talked about MVA in terms of it's easier for us to understand that from an equipment perspective.

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

Is that correct?

Could you sort of speak to that?

From a utility perspective, we can work with either term, but an NVA is a more realistic look at what physical load might be.

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

If you look at our system overall, we may say at any one particular time, we have an X number of megawatt hours being used to serve the city of Seattle, but NVA for a typical customer is a preferred term.

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you so much and just one final question.

My understanding is once for these large load customers, there are certain thresholds where they need special equipment and it often comes in certain kind of MVA thresholds.

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

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

We're proposing that any new large load greater than 10 MVA define that level of service and That type of a load with how our system is currently set up would require direct transmission service.

And at that transmission level, the customer would need to provide some type of substation and switchgear systems that would be able to do the conversion and serve the load that's being requested.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

There's no further comments or questions.

I move to amend Council Bill 121-214.

Let's see.

I think we already moved in seconded.

So will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Chair Rink?

Yes.

Chair Lin?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment one is adopted.

And so, I'd now like to move to amend Council Bill 121214 as presented in the circulated Amendment 2. Second.

Second.

Thank you.

As moved and seconded to amend the bill, could we please have a brief presentation on Amendment 2?

Happy to do that.

So the Office of Sustainability and Environment is added into the work plan via Amendment 2. It's first added in the top section of the work plan where sort of the general departments that we anticipate being in the lead on this work are listed, and then specifically in Section 3 of the work plan related to developing a community benefit framework, OSE is placed sort of in the lead on that work in that section of the work plan according to this amendment.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, thank you, Chair Lynn.

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

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

We heard a lot today about ratepayer protections, particularly with resources related to energy, electricity, capacity of electricity as well, and water resources, those tend to be coming up to the top.

But some other considerations would be around the impacts of heat as a lot of these data centers need to be cooled.

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

And as you know, we have heat islands within the city of Seattle many of which are within overburdened communities and so we feel that the heat island or the heat that these data centers put out can exacerbate the heat island impacts and create additional needs for cooling residential spaces and other adjacent buildings so that sort of as like a circular issue that we want to ensure that we tackle.

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

So data centers are constantly updating their servers.

We have strong state laws with the Department of Ecology that, you know, we have e-waste laws and e-waste processes.

It could pose an additional issue in terms of how large amounts of e-waste are handled through the city and through existing decommissioning companies that help pull some of these components apart to secure lead and mercury and other toxins.

So that is of importance.

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

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

but Section 3 really is giving us the ability to have the conversations with community members, tribes, impacted tech companies, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, King County.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rank.

Thank you, Chair Lynn.

I want to start off by just stating my strong support for this amendment and appreciation to you for bringing this before us and explicitly stating Office of Sustainability and Environment's role in this work.

I have heard Council President Hollingsworth speak to this very clearly as well as some of our public commenters today, just the matter of environmental justice as it relates to data centers.

and the fact that we're seeing across the country that data centers coming online are disproportionately harming the climate environment around communities of color.

And we've seen really incredible leadership also coming from the tribes in terms of regulating and managing data centers.

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

I know we've seen OSCE do interdepartmental work together really well.

and would also just note for the record, as I understand it, OSC is currently collecting information as it relates to the Climate Action Plan right now.

So I'm stating that publicly while we have so many folks in the room right now who are really interested to care about our climate.

That is open right now for public comment.

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

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

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Thanks for mentioning the Climate Action Plan.

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

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

that would be in our Climate Action Plan.

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

There is a survey that is available.

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

Fabulous.

Thank you.

I know we've posted it to our socials, and we'll continue to boost it until it closes, and so thank you for that, and thank you again, Chair, for bringing this amendment before us.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

Any other questions or comments?

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

To your point, Councilmember Rank, I think one of the reasons we were excited to ask OSE to help lead us in this work is because of the connection to our climate action plan.

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

and so you know understanding that close connection also just understanding that this is a regional statewide issue and you all have experience with that work because of your leading on things like climate action and so you know really and thank you again to all the public commenters.

This is really gonna be a regional statewide multi-state issue probably that we need to figure out and so look forward to leveraging your experience and expertise there along with our utility partners who are also very used to working with many of our other at utilities across the region.

So, and to just some of the public comments around the work plan, it is still certainly a work in progress and despite sort of the work plan that we have on paper, we can do a robust engagement with the community on that and certainly intend to do so.

So I wanna say thank you to the comments that we got and proposed amendments for the work plan.

And even though we did not include all of them, we certainly, those are things that we hope to consider as part of the work plan.

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

Vice Chair Strauss.

I'm sorry, we did not hear that.

Let's see.

I'll say it again.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 2?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Chair Lynn?

Yes.

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

Okay.

The motion carries.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

Any final comments before we vote on Council Bill 1214?

Okay, thank you.

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

Vice Chair Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Lynn.

Yes.

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

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

Thank you colleagues.

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

Okay.

We will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two.

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 121215, in order to land use decisions, amending sections 2376, 050, 2376, 062, and 2505680 of the Salem Municipal Code, to clarify processes for the city, for the council land use decisions, for briefing discussion.

Thank you.

Will our presenter please introduce himself?

Lishwitz and Council Central Staff.

Thank you, and I believe we do have a presentation this morning.

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

I think that will help us guide this discussion.

Please proceed when you're ready.

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

If you go to the agenda, there is a link here, right next to the number two, where it says Council Bill 121215. That will bring you to the text of the legislation.

Thank you.

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

All right, let's try it again.

There we are.

So here on page four, where it lists Council Bill 121215, there is a link right here next to the number two that brings you to the text of the legislation.

Okay, thank you so much.

And then, My presentation is here, I think.

And colleagues, as we proceed with this discussion, feel free to chime in with questions or comments as we go along.

I wanna have a more free-flowing discussion here.

Apologies.

Here we go.

OK.

Great.

Thank you so much.

So Council Bill 1215 intends to remove impediments to the Council considering land use legislation in a timely manner.

It does that by removing the ability for SEPA appeals prior to council consideration of legislation and removes the requirement that directors' reports be prepared for council-generated land use legislation.

As background, the State Environmental Policy Act requires review of environmental impacts of some governmental actions.

Many governmental actions, as we discussed last time I was here, like adoption of the city budget, are categorically exempt and not considered under environmental review.

But most land use legislation the Council considers is subject to environmental review.

There's a threshold determination that occurs early in the environmental review process.

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

Otherwise, a determination of non-significance is published.

The State Environmental Policy Act allows appeal of final environmental documents.

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

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

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

Currently, Seattle does allow administrative appeals for most SEPA actions or for publications of determinations of non-significance and publications of final environmental impact statements.

Council Bill 121215, which is in front of you now, would remove that SEPA administrative appeal for adoption or amendment of development regulations and the comprehensive plan.

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

So what that would look like, for projects, well, currently, projects that undergo, that are determined by the lead agency, whoever's proposing legislation, be unlikely to have significant adverse environmental impacts go through this process.

The lead agency publishes a determination of non-significance basically stating their analysis of why they've determined that there's not likely to be significant adverse impacts.

There's a public comment period where members of the public provide comments.

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

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

Any member of the public may file an appeal.

I'll leave it there.

Once any appeals have been resolved, legislation comes to the council.

The council review of land use legislation includes public hearings and opportunities for members of the public to comment to the council about any concerns they continue to have regarding the environmental review.

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

Council Bill 121215 would make one change to this process, which is to remove the opportunity for administrative appeals.

So members of the public would still have that opportunity for public comment to the lead agency, they would still have the opportunity to comment to the council about any concerns they have with the environmental review, and where the state allows, they would have the opportunity to appeal the determination.

EIS is a similar process, more opportunities for comment.

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

And so there's multiple periods for public comment, including during the initial scoping of what the environmental review will cover.

After a draft EIS is published is the main opportunity for comment.

on any concerns about the environmental review that's been done.

Each of those comments are responded to by the people preparing the EIS, and then There's another comment period after publication of the EIS opportunity to appeal currently to the Hearing Examiner Council Review, where there's further opportunity to comment both at public hearings and during council comment periods, and then where state law allows opportunity to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board or the courts.

Basically, same change for EISs.

Under Council Bill 121215, the administrative appeal would be removed, but the other opportunities for comment and appeal where they exist would remain.

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

There's 28 appeals listed here.

These are the appeals from the last 10 years to the hearing examiner and the outcomes of those appeals.

Most appeals are dismissed or withdrawn or the lead agency's decision environmental review has been upheld.

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

Those cases also by far take the most time.

I looked at the three central Puget Sound counties and the seven largest cities in the state outside of Seattle to see what their processes were.

Four do include SEPA appeals, and Seattle would be listed there as well currently, and five do not.

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

Under the code, the CL Department of Construction and Inspections is generally required to prepare a director's report for most land use legislation.

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

We were surprised last year with a result from the Growth Management and Hearings Board, which determined that council-generated land use legislation also is required to have a director's report from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

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

Director's supports are a voluntary aspect of our code.

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

Council Bill 121215 would make director's reports for council-generated legislation voluntary, but still identify that council members may request a report from the department, and they would continue to be required for any executive-generated legislation.

Any questions?

Thank you, that was a lot.

Colleagues, Councilmember Foster.

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

I wanted to just, oh, I'm seeing the slides change on my screen.

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

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Before last year, we weren't receiving directorate supports on council-generated legislation.

Right.

Thank you.

And then there's nothing prohibiting a council member from requesting that director's report.

It's just clarifying that it's optional and available upon request.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then the only other question that I had, if you can go back to the slide that had the cities on it, I think it was maybe your slide nine.

There we go.

And so do we, and I apologize for not asking you this question in advance, but do we know for the cities that are without the administrative SEPA repeals, do we know if that's a recent change or if that's just been their historic practice?

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

That's okay.

And I didn't give you a heads up.

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments?

Council Member Rink.

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

I appreciate time and committee for us to really unpack all of this and I think the element here related to directors reports is one that is just another element of this bill in consideration.

and I'm wondering, so just hearing this point about how the decision from last year has kind of influenced our practices with director's reports, is it my, am I correct in an understanding that under current code, could council be prevented from proceeding on council-generated land use bill by the mayor's office if they refuse to send a director's report given this change or this decision?

Okay.

Yes.

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

Understood, okay.

Thank you.

That was a clarifying point I wanted to make sure I had a better understanding of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a few sort of questions and comments.

So SEPA, just want to double check.

We still are required to do SEPA for council legislation, council land use legislation.

This does not prevent conducting SEPA review.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

And SEPA, could you talk a little bit about, what is the purpose of SEPA?

Does it dictate that we take certain actions?

Is SEPA the primary way that we address, that we have requirements around environmental impacts?

So the purpose of SEPA is twofold.

It identifies potential impacts of actions the city is considering.

and provides that information to decision makers so they can make an informed decision.

And it also identifies ways to mitigate those impacts, and the city can rely on the environmental review as sort of providing a menu of mitigation measures when significant adverse impacts are likely.

So it's primarily an information tool.

It doesn't sort of require us to do any sort of specific mitigation necessarily.

Correct.

and where do we require environmental sort of mitigation in our codes?

Could you just go in general, you know, we'd heard about stormwater concerns, other sort of impacts around trees.

Could you just speak in general where those requirements live?

In general, we have most of the requirements are in either Title 22 or Title 25 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Title 25 includes our environmental regulations, including regulations about protection of trees, development in environmentally critical areas.

and historic preservation protections.

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

Energy impacts would be mitigated through there.

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

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

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

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

So just So I just want to talk about sort of the process.

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

Things like that are anticipated to have a significant environmental impact would go through this EIS process.

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

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

For an EIS, they are required to respond to each and every comment.

Okay, thank you.

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

Yeah, there's generally a threshold decision In front of the hearing examiner, often they are dismissed because the appellant does not have sort of likelihood of harm from the action.

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you, colleagues.

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

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

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

It is not my intent with this bill to do anything that would affect our robust environmental protections.

And I would love to work with any member of the public who is interested in doing better in terms of our city planning, in terms of our growth and protecting the environment and protecting endangered species to work together.

We're trying to figure out how best to do that.

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

For me, just the reason One of the reasons I am proposing this bill is I unfortunately think it's a little bit misleading.

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

I don't think that they result in better environmental protections for our city.

but they do result in significant delays.

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

I find it odd that a single person can delay the elected representatives for a city of 800,000 from taking action for six months or longer.

These are hard decisions for us.

There are not easy answers for any of these legislative actions.

There are pros and cons to these approaches.

And that is why we have electeds.

That is why we have a democracy.

And we've had, just to speak through our comprehensive plan process, I think that process started in 2022. We are now in 2026. I think we're probably gonna be 2027, 2028 before we get through that process.

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

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

So these are hard and we always need to do better in terms of our process.

And I deeply believe in the importance of engaging with the public.

That's a commitment that I'm gonna continue to make to the public.

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

So just wanted a little bit of commentary for my colleagues.

Councilmember Foster, did you have a comment?

I'm just going to be very brief, Chair, and say thank you.

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

I know we talked about it.

a little bit at committee two weeks ago.

And I especially appreciated what you shared in committee a few weeks ago, highlighting the number of actions that are not eligible for hearing examiner review.

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

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

All of that has an impact on our climate and an impact on our environment.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

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

I mean, as we think about our environment, I'm deeply concerned that we are barreling forward towards a climate crisis.

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

But those requirements don't apply to most of the existing development that was you know at least developments that were built before these requirements were put in place and so in many ways you know status quo for me is not acceptable that that would just result in us barreling forward again towards climate crisis.

And we need to move forward thoughtfully, but also we do need to move forward.

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

And so I look forward to continuing to engage with the public on how to make that a reality.

But I don't think status quo is gonna get us there.

And I don't think just locking in our existing sort of damage from our built environment is gonna get us there either.

So thank you.

Okay, gonna get off the soapbox.

Moving on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item three?

Agenda items three and four.

Clerk file 314549, application of Eagle Rock Ventures in 5201 Rainier LLC for an extension on the contract rezone of the property at 5201 Rainier Avenue South.

Original contract rezone application approved through clerk file 314311, in ordinance 125632, project number 3018378-LU, type four, In Council Bill 121220, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, improving the extension of the contract rezone approved by Ordinance 125632, and accepting an amended property use and development agreement for property related 5201, Wiener Avenue South application by Evil Rock Ventures in 5201, Wiener LLC, clerk file 314549, SDCI project 3018378-LU, for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you so much.

And just hold on one second to our presenter.

I would like, so this is a contract rezone.

It's a unique type of quasi judicial action.

And I would just like to clarify that we are allowed to hear comments in open session, including by the proponent.

So I would like to allow the proponent to come up and speak if you would like, or anybody else in the public who wants to speak to this item on the agenda.

Thank you.

Council members, I'm Scott Shapiro.

Can you hear me?

I'm Scott Shapiro.

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

This is a shovel-ready, 111-unit workforce housing project that has all types of units, including three-bedroom units.

And we will participate also in the MFTE program, making 20% of the units even more affordable.

Our ask today is for a MUP extension of four years.

The MUP extension in the draft ordinance has two years.

The code allows the council to grant a four-year extension, You have the discretion to grant that extension, and we ask you to do that for four years.

Why four years?

Unfortunately, currently, the project is not financeable today.

So we can't construct the project.

We cannot sell the project.

Again, the financing is challenging for a variety of reasons in the economy today.

Some of those reasons you know, MHA fees, which were actually added during our permitting process originally, wasn't anticipated when we started the entitlement process.

Skyrocketing construction costs, plateaued rents, high operating costs, and then high interest rates.

Again, this is a two-year extension on the table.

We are requesting four years to give us time.

We understand that the council is considering reduction or temporary reduction MHA fees.

That will be helpful for our project and for other projects in the city to be able to create housing.

Unfortunately, that alone is not enough to make it work today, but it would be a positive step for our project and other projects.

The issue is, again, construction costs, rents, and interest rates.

And these three items are beyond the Council's control, and so we anticipate that more time will be needed than the next two years.

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

So again, a four-year extension will make it more likely we can bring these 111 units to fruition.

That also means we don't need to repeat this process two years from now using SDI staff time, central staff time, and the council's time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

OK.

Will our presenter please introduce yourself?

Cato Freben, council central staff.

Thank you.

I know we had a briefing before.

I'm not sure if you have any sort of overview for us or otherwise we can just move straight to questions.

Sure.

Mr. Shapiro provided some overview.

Maybe I'll just provide a little bit more of the permitting and legislative history here and then talk about two action items that are in front of the committee today.

One is action on the clerk's file and the other is on a council bill.

and I'll briefly describe what the council bill does.

It's pretty straightforward, but stepping back here to some of the permitting and legislative history in 2018, the council passed an ordinance 125632 which rezoned a site in Columbia City from neighborhood commercial two to neighborhood commercial three and also applied the mandatory housing affordability program to that site.

and accepted a property use and development agreement.

So with every contract rezone, there is an associated PUTA property use and development agreement, and that is the contract in contract rezone.

The application was for development that would include 104 apartment units, three live work units, and some commercial space.

And the applicant has since, Mr. Shapiro has since applied for a building permit application, which is still active, and that application is ready for issuance.

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

This quasi-judicial action, it's sort of a contradictory zone light, quasi-judicial action light.

It's a minor amendment to APUTA that allows the council to hear comments from not just parties of record, but members of the public.

As part of the process, the council also solicits a recommendation from SDCI and that recommendation is attached to the agenda as well as public comment that SDCI received in considering the extension request.

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

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

So there's a recommendation from SDCI.

That recommendation is actually silent on the length of the contract rezone extension.

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

So a couple of decisions.

One would be on whether or not to grant the rezone extension, and that would be an action on the clerk's file.

And the other, assuming that the decision is to grant the rezone extension, that's effectuated through the council bill, 121220, that would extend the term of the contract rezone by two years, and also accept a modified property use and development agreement that just reflects that extension.

So that is it, unless you have questions for me.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Let's see.

Chair.

Yes, Council Member Foster.

Thank you so much chair and as always thank you for the presentation and the work central staff.

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

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

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

No, nothing to preclude you from doing that.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, I'll have some comments a little bit later, but first we'd like to vote on the clerk file, clerk file 314549 and then vote on the council bill, council bill 121220. I move that the committee recommends granting the extension and council file 314549. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend granting CF 314549. Are there any final comments?

I'll just provide a quick final comment.

Thank you for bringing this forward for the work on this.

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

There are many barriers and I just want to recognize that including current interest rates, the tariffs and all the uncertainty in our economy.

And so, I think in my opinion, I understand the request for a four-year extension.

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

I do see it that part of our job is to make it easier for developers to build housing.

and there's many different things to do that.

And so hopefully we can continue to work on that over these next two years to allow this to move forward.

And as Council Member Foster mentioned, we do have the opportunity if necessary and if it's desired to do so to have an additional extension.

Okay, with that, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to grant the clerk file?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Litton.

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor.

Okay.

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

I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 121220. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of council bill 121220. Are there any final comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that council bill pass the bill.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Lynn.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

Okay, hearing no further business come before the committee, we are adjourned.

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

Thank you all.