[MUSIC]
-- OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
JULY 15th, 2026. LAND USE AND
SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER. IT'S 9:35 A.M..
I'M EDDIE LIN, CHAIR OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. WILL
THE COMMITTEE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.?
-- MR. STRAUSS HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER
-- HERE.
-- COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HOLLINGSWORTH. COUNCILMEMBER.
RINCK. 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 FOR COMING TO THIS
WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETING TO
DISCUSS LAND USE AND ALWAYS
THANK YOU TO OUR CITY CLERK'S
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF. MAYOR'S
OFFICE, OPCD AND SDCI FOR
HELPING US PREPARE FOR THIS
MEETING. SO JUST TO GIVE
EVERYBODY A SENSE OF THIS
MORNING'S AGENDA, WE WILL START
WITH PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SEPA,
WHICH IS PART OF THE AGENDA OR
OTHER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW
OF THE COMMITTEE. WE ARE ALSO
GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
RELATING TO OUR DATA CENTER
MORATORIUM AND THE TRANSITIONAL
ENCAMPMENT EXPANSION PUBLIC
HEARING. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON
THOSE, PLEASE WAIT, HOLD THOSE
FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN
SPEAK TO ALL THREE IF YOU LIKE.
BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF
SPEAK TO EACH DURING THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. SO WE'LL
START OFF WITH A HYBRID PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD. AND THEN AGAIN
LATER WE'LL DO THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON THE DATA CENTERS AND
THE TRANSITIONAL ENCAMPMENT
CLERK. HOW MANY SPEAKERS ARE
SIGNED UP TODAY?
-- WE HAVE 12 IN-PERSON SPEAKERS
AND ROUGHLY 12 REMOTE SPEAKERS
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
-- OKAY. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE
FEWER THAN 30, WE'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES PER SPEAKER EACH. 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 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
WILL 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 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 WILL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON
THE LIST. THAT IS DAVE
GALLAGHER.
-- GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL AND
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE
HERE TODAY THAT ARE CARING ABOUT
THE DATA CENTER MORATORIUM I
STRONGLY OPPOSE COUNCIL BILL 12,
1215 THAT TAKES AWAY A
CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. AND THIS
INCLUDES DATA CENTERS. IT'S NOT
JUST THE ISS, IT'S DATA CENTERS
TOO. SO PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE.
THAT'S RIGHT. CB 121215 WILL
AFFECT A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO
CHALLENGE A FLAWED APPLICATION
FOR A DATA CENTER, A CITIZEN
DISCOVERS AN INCORRECT
ELECTRICITY AND WATER USAGE
ESTIMATES FOR A PROPOSED DATA
CENTER. THEY CAN'T APPEAL.
SORRY, IT'S DONE. UNLESS YOU
HAVE LOTS OF MONEY AND YOU WANT
TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY FOR A LEGAL
LEGAL APPEAL AND GO THROUGH THE
COURT SYSTEM. THE CURRENT
COUNCIL WILL ASSURE YOU THAT
SUCH AN EVENT IS UNLIKELY, BUT
AN ELECTION FOR SEVERAL COUNCIL
SEATS, SEVEN COUNCIL SEATS IN
2720 27th MAY MAKE SOME ELECTED
MEMBERS MUCH MORE RECEPTIVE TO
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT, AND THE
CURRENT MORATORIUM IS ONLY A
YEAR LONG, LARGE, LARGE
CORPORATIONS LIKE THESE HAVE
WITH DATA CENTERS CAN INFLUENCE
POLITICAL DECISIONS. IF YOU ARE
HERE TO SUPPORT THE DATA CENTER
MORATORIUM, I URGE YOU TO ASK
YOUR COUNCILMEMBERS TO OPPOSE
COUNCIL BILL 12, 12, 15 AND
SUPPORT A SUBSTITUTE BILL AND
COUNCILMEMBER LYNN, YOU PROPOSED
TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST, SO
THEREFORE, WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO
CARE ABOUT AN ISBN APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE APPEAL THAT
CAUSED THE DELAY, WHICH WAS
CAUSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEYS
THAT DELAYED THINGS TIME AND
TIME AGAIN. SO AGAIN, I OPPOSE
12, 12, 15 AND ASK FOR A
SUBSTITUTE BILL. AND IN CLOSING,
I WANT TO SAY THAT AS A US
CITIZEN, I WOULD RATHER BE OUT
PROTESTING ICE, BUT I HAVE TO BE
HERE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EFFORTS OF OUR
CITY COUNCIL WITH LEGISLATION
LIKE 12, 12, 15, NO VOTE ON
THIS. AND UNADVISED BILL AND DO
A SUBSTITUTE BILL. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE STEVE
FOLLOWED BY CARTER NELSON,
ALICIA RUIZ, LOGAN SCHMIDT AND
SANDY SHETLER.
-- WELL, I STAND BEFORE THE HIGH
PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES OF THE
DEVELOPERS AND THEIR GOAL IS
OBSCENE PROFIT. I HEAR A GREAT
DEAL ABOUT PEOPLE CONCERNED
ABOUT HOUSING, BUT YET WE WILL
NOT RAISE MH AYE FEES. WE WILL
NOT. WELL, I GUESS WE WILL. WE
ARE FOR MORE HOUSING, BUT IT'S
ONLY ON THE TERMS OF THE
DEVELOPERS SET. AND THAT IS THE
PROBLEM IN SEATTLE RIGHT NOW. WE
DO HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING. WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND I DON'T SEE HOW
GIVING DEVELOPERS MORE MONEY IS
GOING TO HELP THAT BECAUSE WHEN
YOU LOWER THE COST OF HOUSING IN
THE REGULAR MARKET FOR HOUSING,
WHAT YOU DO IS YOU INCREASE
PROFIT AND YOU FURTHER SAY THAT
BUILDINGS CAN BE DUMPED INTO A
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD MUST ADJUST. THOSE
PUNY CITIZENS WHO WANT CHANGES
TO BUILDINGS ARE ANNOYANCES.
THEY WANT THE BUILDING TO
SOMEHOW BELONG TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND FIT IN
REASONABLY, MAYBE NOT PERFECTLY,
BUT WHY SHOULD THEY EVEN HAVE A
WORD TO SAY ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE
THEY JUST DON'T SPEND THE MONEY
THAT DEVELOPERS DO. AS FOR SEPA,
LET'S TAKE A LOOK. THIS IS
ANOTHER STEP ALONG WITH DESIGN
REVIEW OF KEEPING THOSE PUNY
CITIZENS OUT OF THE PROCESS,
BECAUSE CITIZENS JUST DON'T KNOW
WHAT'S RIGHT. DEVELOPERS DO.
ALL HAIL YOUR GODS. THE
DEVELOPERS OF THE THE CITY AND
THEIR OBSCENE PROFITS. YOU KNOW,
I HEARD AN AD RECENTLY FOR
QUALIFIED. YOU CAN GET OVER 9%
AND THEY HAVE NEVER, NEVER LOST
MONEY. IT'S PROBABLY NOT AT THE.
I SEE PROTECTED.
-- THANK YOU STEVE.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE CARTER
NELSON, FOLLOWED BY ALICIA AND
LOGAN SCHMIDT
-- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR LYNN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, CARTER
NELSON, REPRESENTING WASHINGTON
STATE, FORMERLY NAIOP. THE
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION. WE
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
COUNCIL BILL 121215 AND YOUR
CONTINUED EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE
PREDICTABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF
SEATTLE'S LAND USE PROCESSES.
THIS PROPOSAL REFLECTS AN
APPROACH ALREADY USED THROUGHOUT
THE REGION. KING COUNTY,
BELLEVUE, TACOMA AND EVERETT
ALREADY EXEMPT LEGISLATIVE SEPA
DECISIONS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL, AND THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD BRING SEATTLE INTO
ALIGNMENT WITH THOSE PRACTICES.
THE BILL ALSO ADDRESSES A
PROCEDURAL STEP THAT CAN CREATE
UNNECESSARY DELAYS AND
UNCERTAINTY IN THE ADOPTION OF
LAND USE REGULATIONS. OUR
MEMBERS SEE FIRST HAND HOW
PROLONGED AND DUPLICATIVE REVIEW
PROCESSES INCREASE COSTS, DELAY
IMPLEMENTATION AND MAKE IT MUCH
MORE DIFFICULT TO DELIVER MUCH
NEEDED HOUSING AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. WE ALSO
APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION THAT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND
PLANNING FOR GROWTH ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE GOALS.
SEATTLE CAN MAINTAIN STRONG
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS WHILE
ALSO CREATING A MORE EFFICIENT
PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING
POLICIES THAT SUPPORT HOUSING,
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. PLEASE
VOTE YES.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE ALICIA RUIZ,
FOLLOWED BY LOGAN SCHMIDT.
-- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR LIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALICIA RUIZ HERE
REPRESENTING HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, SEATTLE KING AND
KITTITAS COUNTIES. AND WE ARE
PLEASED TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU
TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
COUNCIL BILL 121215. SEATTLE IS
CURRENTLY UNDER PRESSURE TO MEET
STATE MANDATED DEADLINES FOR
UPDATING ITS LAND USE CODE, ONE
SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF DELAY HAS
BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE SEPA APPEALS
OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, A STEP
THAT STATE LAW DOES NOT ACTUALLY
REQUIRE. CRITICALLY, THIS BILL
DOES NOT WEAKEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS IN ANY WAY FULL
PROTECTIONS REMAIN IN PLACE, AND
WHAT IT REMOVES IS A REPETITIVE
PROCEDURAL LAYER THAT SERVES NO
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE FUNCTION.
IN DOING SO, SEATTLE WILL JOIN
KING COUNTY, BELLEVUE, TACOMA
AND OTHERS IN THE REGION. THESE
CITIES IN OUR IN OUR REGION HAVE
LONG EXEMPTED LEGISLATIVE SEPA
DECISIONS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL. THIS ISN'T A WEAKENED
WEAKENING OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS. IT'S COMMON SENSE.
PROCEDURAL ALIGNMENT THAT ALLOWS
THE CITY TO MEET ITS LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT UNNECESSARY
OBSTRUCTION FOR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY, DELAYS IN LAND USE
PROCESSES HAVE REAL HUMAN
CONSEQUENCES. EVERY MONTH LOST
TO PROCEDURAL BACKLOG IS ANOTHER
MONTH. A FAMILY WAITS FOR A
STABLE PLACE TO CALL HOME.
COUNCIL BILL 121215 HELPS CLEAR
THE PATH FOR MORE HOUSING AND
MORE HOMEOWNERSHIP TO BECOME A
REALITY FOR SO MANY SOONER. THAT
IS WHY WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT
THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE LOGAN
SCHMIDT, FOLLOWED BY CINDY
SHETLER. ORLA CONCANNON, JACKIE
BORGES AND JENNIFER GODFREY
-- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR LIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LOGAN
SCHMIDT WITH MAX AND A RESIDENT.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL
BILL 12, 1215 AND I URGE YOU TO
VOTE YES TODAY. SEATTLE IS IN
THE MIDST OF A REAL HOUSING
SHORTAGE, AND WE CAN SEE THAT AS
AS PERMIT APPLICATIONS CONTINUE
TO DROP TO ALL TIME LOWS AND
HOME PRICES CONTINUE TO RISE, IT
IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE BUILD MORE
HOUSING OF ALL TYPES, ALL SIZES,
AND ALL AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO
MOVE US OUT OF THIS MOMENT.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPEALS OF
SEPA DOCUMENTS FOR LEGISLATIVE
ACTIONS HAVE ADDED MONTHS, IF
NOT LONGER, TO SEATTLE'S
REGULATORY TIMELINES WITHOUT
GAIN, AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO
SO. AND I WANT TO REITERATE IT
BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE STATED
ENOUGH. THIS IS A PROCEDURAL
REFORM AND NOT A ROLLBACK OF
PUBLIC PROCESS OR ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS. DENYING AND DELAYING
HOUSING HERE WILL ONLY PUSH
DEVELOPMENT FURTHER OUT OF THE
CITY AND TO THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE YUGA, WHERE WE ARE AT
GREATER RISK OF CANOPY LOSS.
THAT SPRAWL WILL ALSO INCREASE
RELIANCE ON CARS, FURTHER
EXACERBATING CARBON EMISSIONS.
VOTING YES TODAY WILL ENSURE
THAT WE CAN BUILD MORE, BUILD
FASTER AND WITHOUT DELAY. THANK
YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE SANDY
FOLLOWED BY ORLA CONCANNON,
JACKIE BORGES AND JENNIFER
GODFREY
-- HI. GOOD MORNING. YEAH, I'M
SANDY SHETLER WITH TREE ACTION
SEATTLE HAVING A FIGHT WITH MY
MICROPHONE HERE. YEAH. SO THIS
I'M SPEAKING ON CB 121215. THIS
BILL IS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO
REFORM SEATTLE'S PROCESS SO
THAT WE CAN STREAMLINE HOUSING.
BUT SILENCING THE PUBLIC'S ONLY
ACCESSIBLE MECHANISM IS NOT THE
RIGHT PATH. THIS REQUIRES A
SERIOUS LOOK AT A SUBSTITUTE
BILL TO REFORM THE HEARING
EXAMINER PROCESS AND BRING IT
INTO LINE WITH CITIES LIKE
SPOKANE AND OLYMPIA, WHO RETAIN
THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, BUT WITH
MUCH SHORTER TIMELINES. ALSO,
THE HOUSING DELAYED HOUSING
DENIED ARGUMENT FALLS COMPLETELY
APART. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMP
PLAN TIMELINE. CITY IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHY WE ARE TWO
YEARS OUT. THE MAYOR HELD ON TO
THE PLAN FOR MONTHS. THEN, WHEN
IT WAS APPEALED, THE CITY FILED
MOTIONS TO DELAY AT EVERY
OPPORTUNITY. AND EVEN NOW THE
CITY IS DELAYING BECAUSE OF
RECESS, BUDGET, WINTER VACATION
AND OTHER THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE
MORE IMPORTANT. THE ONLY URGENCY
I SEE HERE IS AN URGENCY TO
SILENCE VOICES. PLEASE WRITE A
SUBSTITUTE BILL FOR CB 121215 TO
STREAMLINE HOUSING AND HONOR
COMMUNITY INPUT. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ORLA
CONCANNON AND THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY. THIS MORNING I'M
ASKING TO VOTE NO ON CB 121215.
THIS APPEAL WOULD BLOCK
CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO ME. THE BILL
WOULD BLOCK CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO
APPEAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS,
INCLUDING DATA CENTERS. AND AS
ON A RELEVANT NOTE, THE DELAYS
ON THE ORCA APPEAL HAVE BEEN
ENTIRELY DUE TO THE CITY, NOT
THE APPELLANT WHO IS STILL
WAITING ON THE CITY TO PICK A
DATE. MUZZLING THE VOICES OF THE
CITIZENS WHO ELECTED YOU TO
SERVE US IS A DEVASTATING
MEASURE. WHILE THE CURRENT
COUNCIL MAY BE REASONABLE AND
OPEN TO CONVERSATION, YOU CAN'T
SPEAK FOR FUTURE COUNCILS AND
FUTURE ADMINISTRATIONS. I'M
REQUESTING A SUBSTITUTE BILL TO
STREAMLINE HOUSING REFORM. THE
HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS AND
RESPECT THE PUBLIC'S VOICE.
THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE JACKIE
BURGESS, FOLLOWED BY JENNIFER
GODFREY, STEVE ZEMKE. AND
-- GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. I URGE
YOU TO VOTE NO TO ELIMINATING
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO APPEAL AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
APPEALS ARE NOT JUST ABOUT
TODAY'S LEGISLATION. IMAGINE
IT'S TEN TO 5 TO 10 YEARS DOWN
THE ROAD, AND YOUR CAREER
JOURNEYS HAVE TAKEN YOU TO NEW
PLACES. THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO
ALLOW DATA CENTERS ALL
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE. IT'S THE
CITY'S EYES. THE CITY'S EYES
CONCLUDED THAT THERE'S NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS BECAUSE IT
CONTAINED SERIOUS ERRORS, AND
YOU'VE ELIMINATED APPEALS.
RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS. AND
EVEN YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE
A MEANINGFUL WAY TO CORRECT THE
RECORD BEFORE THAT LEGISLATION
BECOMES LAW. AND THAT'S WHY THE
SAFEGUARD EXISTS. BUT WE DON'T
HAVE TO IMAGINE PROBLEMS WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE
CURRENT EIS IS OVER 1300 PAGES,
INTRODUCES A NEW PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL EIS AND
STUDIES APPROXIMATELY 120,000
HOUSING UNITS, WHILE THE
LEGISLATION ENABLES ROUGHLY
330,000, THAT'S NEARLY THREE
TIMES AS MUCH GROWTH AS WHAT WE
STUDIED. IF THE ANALYSIS
DOESN'T MATCH WHAT'S BEING
ADOPTED, THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE
ABLE TO CHALLENGE IT. SO WHETHER
FUTURE USE IS PROPOSED, WHETHER
IT'S HOUSING, DATA CENTERS OR
ANOTHER MAJOR LAND USE, SEATTLE
RESIDENTS SHOULD RETAIN THE
ABILITY TO APPEAL AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IF IT CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT
ERRORS. THANK YOU AND HAPPY.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CLIMATE WEEK.
-- THANK YOU.
-- SO THANK YOU. AND WHAT SHE
SAID.
-- [LAUGHTER]
-- SO I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK FOR A
MINUTE AT THE DATA ON THE
DELAYS. LIKE MANY HAVE ALREADY
SAID, MANY OF THESE DELAYS CAME
FROM THE CITY. NOTHING ABOUT THE
ORCA APPEAL PUSHES THIS INTO
2027. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
BEFORE TODAY. THE CITY RAN LATE
WITH THE COMP PLAN FILED TO
DELAY TWICE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AND NOW IS DOING
NOTHING WHEN WE COULD HAVE
SCHEDULED OUR HEARING REMAND AS
EARLY AS JUNE 4th, THERE WAS A
DEADLINE AT THE COURT OF
APPEALS. JUNE, JULY 1st, AND
STILL NO, THE CITY JUST DIDN'T
RESPOND AT ALL. THERE'S NOTHING
STOPPING THEM FROM SCHEDULING
THAT RIGHT NOW. SO THE CITY IS
CHOOSING TO DELAY UNTIL 2027,
MAYBE PARTLY DUE TO COUNCIL
RECESS, BUDGET, WINTER VACATION.
WHY ISN'T THE CITY SCHEDULING
IT? THE CITY RAN LATE ON THE
COMP PLAN. THE EIS, TEN MONTHS
OF MEETINGS. I ASKED TO CORRECT
MAJOR FLAWS LIKE ALL
CONTAMINANTS BEING IMMEDIATELY
DILUTED TO HARMLESS LEVELS WITH
NO RESOLUTION. AND IN FACT, IT
GOT WORSE IN THE FINAL EIS. SO
WHY WOULDN'T THE COUNCIL WANT
THE BEST INFORMATION IN FRONT OF
THEM REGARDING CLEAN WATER? SO
PLEASE CONSIDER A SUBSTITUTE
BILL TO REFORM AND NOT ELIMINATE
INDUSTRY STANDARD IN WESTERN
WASHINGTON IS HEARING EXAMINERS
CAN RESOLVE IN WAY LESS TIME
THAN WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS AT
THE SEATTLE HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE AND MANY STATUTES SAY
THAT THESE HEARINGS SHOULD BE
RESOLVED MORE QUICKLY. SO
ELIMINATING PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL
OVERSIGHT IS OUT OF PLACE IN A
SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVE CITY. IF
PUBLIC COMMENT DOES NOTHING TO
FIX FLAWS IN SEATTLE'S LARGEST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
THAT IS A CHOICE TO DAMAGE THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND A COUPLE
SECONDS, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE
INACCURATE ENDANGERED SPECIES
LISTS. THE THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE FOCUSED MOST HOUSING
ON THE WATERFRONT AND CAPACITY
CONSTRAINED AREAS, WHICH CLAIMED
IT WOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE
STORMWATER CODE. BUT THEN THE
STORMWATER CODE TOOK AWAY THE
PROTECTIONS FOR CAPACITY
CONSTRAINED AREAS. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- STEVE. STEVE. FOLLOWED BY
LAURENT BURMAN AND NATHANIEL
HOWARD.
-- GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
STEVE ZEMKE. I'M SPEAKING FOR
TRE PACK AND FRIENDS OF
SEATTLE'S SEATTLE'S URBAN
FOREST. PLEASE EXPEDITE AND
REFORM RATHER THAN ELIMINATE THE
CURRENT HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS
REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
EYES ARE ONLY REQUIRED OCCUR
EVERY TEN YEARS WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL, AS
WELL AS ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
AMENDMENTS AND LAND USE TO
REDUCE AND ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY
AND LENGTHY DELAYS. MOVE THESE
APPEALS TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE
TO RESOLVE BEFORE OTHER HEARING
EXAMINER PROCESSES. IF THIS IS
THE EMERGENCY YOU SAY IT IS TO
GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WELL,
LET'S GET IT. CHANGE THE
PROCESS. REQUIRE THAT ALL
APPEALS WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PLAN AMENDMENTS. LAND USE
AFFECTING HOUSING BE RESOLVED
WITHIN A SET TIME PERIOD. THIS.
I'VE TALKED TO LAWYERS. THIS
SAYS THIS IS A POSSIBILITY
HAPPENS IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
LOOK AT A 60 TO 90 DAY
RESOLUTION. RETAIN THE CURRENT
REQUIREMENT THAT ALL COUNCIL
ORIGINATED BILLS HAVE A
DIRECTOR'S REPORT, NOT JUST A
MAYOR'S REPORT. WHY IS IT THE
MAYOR HAS TO DO IT? YOU DON'T
HAVE TO. I THINK YOU SHOULD.
THESE THESE REPORTS BENEFIT THE
CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA
ALL BENEFIT FROM DIRECTOR'S
REPORTS. IT ALSO ENSURES THAT
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH PROPOSED LEGISLATION
HAVE REVIEWED IT AND HAVE INPUT.
IT'S A SOURCE OF IMPORTANT
PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT HELPS
THE PUBLIC DECIDE WHAT'S GOING
ON. AS I SEE HOW THE CITY
COUNCIL WORKS OVER DECADES,
LITERALLY, THAT I'VE BEEN IN
THE CITY, I BELIEVE IT HAS A
PROCESS OF TOLERATING DISSENT.
YOU LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT
THERE'S NOT REALLY A DIALOG
THAT'S GOING ON. THERE SHOULD
BE ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO BE
ALLOWED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS AND
REQUIRE ANSWERS, HAVE A DIALOG
YOU NEED TO REFORM THE PROCESS.
ALSO, I WOULD SUGGEST PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE. YOU SHOULD DISCLOSE
WHO HAS TALKED TO YOU REGARDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE BILLS
AS YOU PRESENT THEM TO THE
COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE LAWRENCE
BERMAN, FOLLOWED BY NATHANIEL
HOWARD.
-- BERMAN. I LIVE HERE ON QUEEN
ANNE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST 12,
12, 15. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD A
NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THE DEBATE AROUND HOUSING OR THE
ORCA APPEAL. 121215 ISN'T ABOUT
AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM ON THE
AGENDA. IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS ACCOUNTABILITY. AS OUR
COUNCIL AND WHAT PROCESSES AS A
DEMOCRACY, WE PUT IN PLACE TO
PROTECT THE CITY, THE
ENVIRONMENT, THE PLACE WE LIVE.
AND SO THE SHAM ARGUMENT AROUND
SPEED AND COST MADE BY
DEVELOPERS SUPPORTED BY THIS
BILL ARE JUST EGREGIOUS. THE
BELIEF THAT THERE'S THE ABILITY
TO APPEAL AN ERRONEOUS SET OF
INFORMATION SO THAT THE COUNCIL
CAN MAKE BETTER, MORE INFORMED,
MORE TRANSPARENT DECISIONS,
SUGGESTING THAT THAT IS WHAT IS
PREVENTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE IS RIDICULOUS
AND PATENTLY FALSE. THERE'S
PLENTY OF DATA TO SUPPORT THE
ABILITY TO MOVE QUICKLY IF THE
CITY SO CHOOSES, WHICH. THUS
FAR, WE'VE SEEN VERY LITTLE
EVIDENCE. SO I THINK THAT TRYING
TO MAKE THE CASE THAT IN ORDER
TO BUILD IN THIS CITY, WE NEED
TO HAVE ZERO OVERSIGHT OVER
BUSINESS INTERESTS AND THAT THE
COUNCIL SHOULDN'T BE ACCOUNTABLE
OR THE CITY'S OFFICE SHOULDN'T
BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DATA THEY
PRESENT, WHICH IS REALLY ALL
WE'RE ALLOWED TO APPEAL AS
CITIZENS IS TO SAY THE DATA IS
ERRONEOUS. YOU'RE MAKING YOU'RE
MAKING DECISIONS ON FALSE
INFORMATION, AND THAT A 60 TO 90
DAY PROCESS TO DO THAT IS
UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME FEELS
RIDICULOUS. SO I WOULD STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE YOU TO RETHINK THIS
POSITION. I THINK IT MAKES YOU
ALL LOOK LESS ACCOUNTABLE, LESS
TRANSPARENT, AND REALLY MAKES US
QUESTION THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS
COUNCIL IN SERVICE OF CITIZENS
OF THIS CITY.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE NATHANIEL
HOWARD MORNING.
-- COUNCILMEMBERS. NATE HOWARD,
DISTRICT THREE, CAPITOL HILL
SPEAKING ON 12, 12, 15, I
BELIEVE 12, 12, 15 WOULD REMOVE
ACCOUNTABILITY ON COMP PLAN
DECISIONS WHEN ISSUES ARISE. IT
SEEMS LIKELY THAT THIS PROPOSAL
CAME IN RESPONSE TO THE ORCA
APPEAL, WHICH WAS A CPA APPEAL
FILED IN FEBRUARY OF 2025 TO
ADDRESS SHORTCOMINGS IN THE COMP
PLANS OWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION
DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR
THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
RELATED CANOPY LOSS ON
STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ITS
DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON SALMON AND
ORCA POPULATIONS. THE CITY TRIED
TO DISMISS THE CASE BUT WAS
OVERRULED BY THE APPEALS BOARD,
AND THIS WAS NEARLY A YEAR AND A
HALF AGO. WHAT, THEN, IS THE
RATIONALE FOR THE CITY'S
DELAYING OF THE HEARING,
SOMETHING THAT COULD TAKE AS
LITTLE AS TWO WEEKS OR OFTEN
POTENTIALLY TWO MONTHS? STILL
SHOULDN'T BE A YEAR AND A HALF.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING HOLDING UP.
THE COMP PLAN SEEMS TO BE THE
CITY'S DUAL FAILURES TO BOTH
CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE EIS TO BEGIN
WITH, AND AFTERWARDS TO RESPECT
THE RULE OF LAW. AFTER THIS WAS
POINTED OUT THAT THE EIS WAS
INADEQUATE. I HOPE THE CITY IS
IN A GREAT PLACE IN 20 YEARS. I
HOPE THAT WE'VE GROWN IN
POPULATION AND STATURE AND THAT
CITIZENS HAVE BETTER ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TO TRANSIT,
RECREATION AND GREEN SPACE.
REGARDLESS, I WOULD LIKE THE
ABILITY AS A CITIZEN TO RAISE MY
VOICE. IF IN 20 YEARS, THE NEXT
COMP PLAN FALLS SHORT OF THESE
GOALS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE
COUNCIL TO REFORM THE PROCESS
RATHER THAN ELIMINATING IT
ENTIRELY THIS FIGHT IS NOT
BETWEEN HOUSING AND ORCAS, TREES
OR SALMON. THIS IS A FIGHT
BETWEEN THOUGHTFUL POLICY AND
RECKLESS POLICY. PLEASE VOTE NO
ON 12, 12, 15. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- WITH OUR LAST IN-PERSON
COMMENTER, WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO
OUR REMOTE COMMENTERS, STARTING
WITH ALICE LOCK. SORRY, STARTING
WITH JUNE BLUE SPRUCE.
-- HELLO. I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT
A SUBSTITUTE BILL FOR CB 121215
THAT REFORMS THE APPEAL PROCESS.
INSTEAD OF DUMPING IT. THE
CURRENT BILL IS BASED ON
EVIDENCE FREE ASSUMPTIONS THAT
IF THE CITY TAKES AWAY CITIZENS
ABILITY TO TELL INCONVENIENT
TRUTHS ABOUT A FLAWED EIS
IGNORES ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DISPLACEMENT HARMS AND RELIES ON
AN UNFETTERED MARKET.
AFFORDABLE, HEALTHY HOUSING WILL
MAGICALLY RESULT. HOUSING, LIKE
HEALTH CARE, IS A SOCIAL GOOD.
IT BAFFLES ME THAT THOSE OF YOU
WHO IDENTIFY AS PROGRESSIVE AND
ADVOCATE FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL
WOULD PIVOT TO MARKET DRIVEN
SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS WHEN IT
COMES TO HOUSING, OUR HOUSING
CRISIS HAS ITS ROOTS IN
REAGANOMICS NEO REAGANOMICS,
DEREGULATION CAN'T FIX IT. AND
EIS IS NOT JUST TREES, IT IS
DISPLACEMENT, HOUSING, HEALTH
AND HEAT STRIP THE APPEAL IN THE
NAME OF TALLER, DENSER, FASTER
AND THE RESULTING HARM BELONGS
TO YOU. RESULTS. RECENT DELAYS
RELATED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
APPEAL OF THE COMP PLAN HAVE
BEEN CAUSED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE
COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE, NOT BY THE
APPELLANT. SHE TRIED TALKING TO
THE COUNCIL FOR TEN MONTHS
BEFORE SHE APPEALED. THE COUNCIL
DID NOT ADDRESS HER VALID
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS COMPLETELY
INADEQUATE EIS. IT DOES NOT
ACCOUNT FOR THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT OF THE LOSS OF MATURE
TREES OR OF DISPLACEMENT, AND
ONLY APPLIES TO HALF AS MANY
HOUSING UNITS AS WERE EVENTUALLY
INCLUDED IN THE COMP PLAN. IT'S
IRONIC THAT COUNCILMEMBER LIN
AND OTHERS KEEP USING THE SLOGAN
HOUSING DELAYED IS HOUSING
DENIED. CATCHY BUT MISUSED.
IT'S DERIVED FROM JUSTICE.
DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. THAT
IS A LEGAL MAXIM, MEANING THAT
IF LEGAL REDRESS OR EQUITABLE
RELIEF TO AN INJURED PARTY IS
AVAILABLE BUT IS NOT OFFERED IN
A TIMELY WAY, IT IS THE SAME AS
HAVING NO REMEDY AT ALL. THAT'S
WHERE OUR COMMUNITIES WILL BE IF
THIS BILL PASSES, VOTE NO.
PROPOSE A SUBSTITUTE. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU, JUNE.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE COLLEEN
MCCLURE.
COLIN, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
-- GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL.
COLIN MCALEER HERE FOR
LAURELHURST COMMUNITY COUNCIL,
REPRESENTING ABOUT 2500
CITIZENS. AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED
THE COMP PLAN AND WE'VE
FOLLOWED THIS LEGISLATION. AND
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON
COUNCIL BILL 121215. IT REMOVES
ANY CITIZENS ABILITY TO REVIEW
THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDER
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT AND THE RELATED EIS, AND
FILE AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER IF THE PROCESS WERE
INCORRECT OR INADEQUATE. WE ALL
KNOW CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE ALONG
THE PROCESSES AND OMISSIONS CAN
HAPPEN. THE STATE LEGISLATURE
HAS LONG ESTABLISHED THESE
REVIEW PROCESSES, AND ALL AROUND
THE STATE. SEATTLE IS THE GOLD
STANDARD AND WE'RE PROUD OF IT.
FOR APPEALS OF THOSE PROCESSES
THAT WERE OMITTED OR VETTED,
INCORRECTLY VETTED, FOR EXAMPLE,
SEATTLE'S SHRINKING TREE CANOPY
IS LISTED AS A TOP PRIORITY FOR
THE COMP PLAN, BUT STUDIES ARE
ALREADY REVEALING THAT THE TREE
CANOPY IS DECREASING AND
PRIMARILY DUE TO PRIVATE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THREE
PERMITS ARE READILY ISSUED, BUT
UNDER THE NAME OF WE'RE UNDER A
HOUSING CRISIS, BUT NO ONE CAN
APPEAL THE IMPACTS. SEATTLE'S
LAND USE POLICIES ARE ALREADY
INADVERTENTLY HEATING, CREATING
HEAT ISLANDS. FROM THE REVIEW OF
A REVIEW OF PIECEMEAL
DEVELOPMENTS THAT. THIS
LEGISLATION, AS IT IS ALREADY,
WOULD PREVENT A CITIZEN FROM
WANTING MORE HOUSING TO IN A
HEALTHY PLACE TO LIVE. AT THE
SAME TIME. SO WE ASKED CITY
COUNCIL TO STAND FOR A FAIR AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY APPROPRIATE
SAFEGUARDS AT THE APPEAL
PROCESS. AND PLEASE REJECT. CB
121215 AND SUBSTITUTE A GOOD,
SOLID, STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR
THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR BOTH
THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS. WE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO
THIS LEGISLATION. IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF
SEATTLE. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE LOIS MARTIN.
-- AND JUST FOR THE RECORD,
LOOKS LIKE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HOLLINGSWORTH HAS JOINED AS
WELL.
-- GOOD MORNING.
-- ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LOIS
MARTIN. GOOD MORNING. CENTRAL
DISTRICT RESIDENT WHERE MY
FAMILY'S ROOTS RUN THREE AND
FOUR GENERATIONS DEEP. YOUR OWN
FISCAL NOTE, SECTION FOUR POINT
D ASKS. PLEASE ATTACH ANY RACIAL
EQUITY TOOLKITS OR OTHER RACIAL
EQUITY ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP
OR ASSESS THIS LEGISLATION. THE
ANSWER IN WRITING NONE. THE
ENTIRE EQUITY ANALYSIS IS ONE
SENTENCE THAT BEGINS. IT HAS
BEEN ALLEGED AN ALLEGATION IS
NOT AN ANALYSIS. THE SAME FISCAL
NOTE SAYS THE BENEFIT OF THIS
BILL IS STAFF NOT, AND I QUOTE,
SPENDING TIME DEFENDING THEIR
DECISIONS. MY COMMUNITY
REMEMBERS WHAT GOVERNMENT BILLS
WHEN NO ONE CAN MAKE IT, DEFEND
ITS DECISIONS. A DESIGN
INTERSTATE 90 AS AN OPEN TRENCH
THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BLACK
RESIDENTS MADE THE GOVERNMENT
LOOK BEFORE IT BUILT. SAM SMITH
PARK IS NOT A MEMORIAL TO GOOD
INTENTIONS. IT IS A MONUMENT TO
ENFORCEABLE ENVIRONMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN BLACK
HANDS AND EYES IS NOT JUST
TREES. IT IS WHERE DISPLACEMENT,
HOUSING, HEALTH AND HEAT ARE
STUDIED. BEFORE YOU BUILD.
REVIEW WITHOUT APPEAL IS JUST A
SUGGESTION. AND WHEN YOU RAISE
THE PRICE OF BEING HEARD, YOU
DECIDE WHO GETS HEARD. TODAY YOU
HEARD SUPPORT FROM TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS AND LOBBYISTS WHOSE
MEMBERS BUILD FOR A LIVING. THAT
IS THEIR RIGHT. BUT IT IS NOT
COMMUNITY VOICE. THE BUILDERS
BENEFIT FROM SPEED. WHETHER THE
REVIEW IS RIGHT OR WRONG, THE
PEOPLE WHO BEAR THE COST WHEN
IT'S WRONG ARE NOT PAID TO BE
IN THIS ROOM. THIS IS
WELL-INTENDED LEGISLATION, BUT
ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE BROAD AND
NEGATIVE. AND AFTER TODAY, THEY
ARE NO LONGER UNINTENDED BECAUSE
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THE RIGHT
PATH IS THE SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT
REFORMS THIS PROCESS INSTEAD OF
REMOVING IT AT A MINIMUM,
COMPLETE THE RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT BEFORE THIS BILL LEAVES
THIS COMMITTEE, VOTE NO ON THE
BILL AS WRITTEN. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU, LOIS.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE PATRICK
TAYLOR.
PATRICK, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
-- OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
YES. HI, MY NAME IS PATRICK
TAYLOR. I LIVE IN BEACON HILL.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT
SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF, MY
COMMENTS REGARDING COUNCIL BILL
121215. I'M SURE EVERYONE IN
COUNCIL SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT
IMPROVING THE SEATTLE PROCESS
AND CUTTING DELAYS WHILE GAMING.
WELL, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DO SO. COUNCILMEMBER LYNN'S
PROPOSAL IS A SENSIBLE REFORM
THAT WILL SPEED MUCH NEEDED
POLICY CHANGES AND IMPORTANT
PROJECTS, WHILE MAINTAINING
CITIZENS VOICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL WORK ON
THE COMP PLAN THAT'S BEEN GOING
ON FOR FOUR PLUS YEARS AND HAS
INCLUDED NUMEROUS OPEN HOUSES,
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS, COUNCIL
HEARINGS AS WELL AS SEVERAL
ELECTIONS. THE CITIZENS OF
SEATTLE HAVE HAD ABUNDANT
OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPRESS THEIR
FEELINGS LOUD AND CLEAR. YET A
SMALL GROUP OF AFFLUENT PEOPLE
WITH FREE TIME AND MONEY HAS
BEEN ABLE TO SUBVERT THE
PROCESS, DELAYING THE COMP PLAN
AND NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
EVEN LONGER. THIS IS NOT WHAT
DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS
NOT WHAT SMART ENVIRONMENTALISM
LOOKS LIKE EITHER. URBAN INFILL
HOUSING IS THE MOST SUSTAINABLE
FORM OF GROWTH AND LEADS TO
FEWER MILES DRIVEN AND FEWER
FARMS AND FORESTS BULLDOZED. AND
IF THIS IS STILL IN DOUBT,
PLEASE SEE HOW THESE APPEALS
HAVE BEEN USED TO DELAY THE
MISSING LINK FOR DECADES. THIS
IS A MAJOR BIKE PROJECT THROUGH
AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT WILL
LEAD TO GREATER SAFETY AND LOWER
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, BUT
YET HAS BEEN DELAYED BY APPEALS.
PLEASE CHOOSE SENSIBLE REFORM,
DEMOCRACY AND A SUSTAINABLE PATH
FORWARD AND VOTE YES ON
COUNCILMEMBER LAYNE'S BILL,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO
OUR CITY. THANKS.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE KIMBERLY
LARSEN
-- I HOPE YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME
OKAY.
-- YES.
-- OKAY, GREAT. HI, MY NAME IS
KIMBERLY LARSEN. I AM A LONGTIME
RESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF SEATTLE, AND I AM HERE TODAY.
I REALLY WANTED TO THANK YOU
ALL. YOU OBVIOUSLY ALL ALSO
REPRESENT A LOT OF THAT AREA OF
THE CITY. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU
SIT ON THIS LAND USE COMMITTEE
FOR THAT PURPOSE. I'M COMING TO
YOU TODAY. ACTUALLY, IMAGINE ME
WITH 6500 FOLKS STANDING WITH
ME. IF THEY COULD ALL BE HERE IN
THE ROOM. I HAVE A PETITION OF
THAT MANY PEOPLE, 6500 FOLKS WHO
ARE SO THOUSANDS WHO ARE ASKING
FOR AN END OF THE FIGHTER JET
SHOW WITH CESAR. AND WE COME TO
YOU BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR
THE CITY TO NOT LET OUR LAND BE
USED TO ENCOURAGE WAR, TO
ENCOURAGE HEALTH IMPACTS, LIKE
WITH HEARING LOSS, TO FRIGHTEN
IMMIGRANTS, TO FRIGHTEN
VETERANS, TO FRIGHTEN ANIMALS,
AND TO CUT AGAINST WHAT THE CITY
CALLS FOR. WITH BEING A
SANCTUARY CITY, FOR BEING A
SISTER CITY, FOR BEING A
WELCOMING CITY FOR ONE THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO WELCOME ALL YET
SPONSORS AND EVENTS THAT IS NOT
INCLUSIVE, ESPECIALLY QUITE
FRIGHTENING FOR A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE. THOUSANDS SO WE'RE
COMING TO YOU BECAUSE WE'RE
WONDERING WHO HAS POWER TO SAY
NO. WE HAVE GONE TO THE SPECIAL
EVENTS COMMITTEE WITH THE CITY
AND ASKED THEM TO REJECT THE
PERMIT WITH SEAFAIR FOR THE
FIGHTER JETS SHOW AT GENESEE
PARK. WE'VE GONE TO PARKS AND
REC AND TESTIFIED, AS WELL AS
PRESENTED A THOROUGH
PRESENTATION ON ALL THE IMPACTS
AND HAVE ASKED THEM TO REJECT
THE PERMIT. AND WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE AIR SHOW WILL MOVE
FORWARD THIS YEAR. WE PROBABLY
CAN'T STOP IT THIS YEAR,
THOUGH. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE
PROTESTING IF THEY CAN BE
PRESENT, BUT A LOT OF RESIDENTS
LEAVE THE CITY BECAUSE THEY
DON'T LIKE IT. THEY'RE A
SILENT SET OF FOLKS WHO PROTEST,
AND WE'RE ASKING YOU TO MAKE
THIS THE LAST YEAR AND WORK WITH
SEAFAIR TO MOVE TO A SUSTAINABLE
SEAFAIR FOR ALL THAT WE CAN
TRANSFORM BACK.
-- THANK YOU, KIMBERLY. AND IF
YOU HAVE MORE COMMENTS, FEEL
FREE TO EMAIL THEM TO US. THANK
YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE SUSAN FEDOR
-- GOOD MORNING. REGARDING
COUNCIL BILL 121215. LAST MONTH,
COURT OF APPEALS RULED THE
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTED A
LEGAL ERROR ON A TEP APPEAL THAT
WAS LEGITIMATELY FILED ACCORDING
TO THE CITY'S OWN ESTABLISHED
PROCESS. INSTEAD OF RESPONDING
WITH A REMAND A MONTH AND A HALF
AGO, COUNCIL INTRODUCED THIS
BILL CITING DELAYS AS THE
PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION. BUT
THROUGHOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS,
DELAYS HAVE LARGELY BEEN ON THE
SIDE OF THE CITY, AS WELL AS THE
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ON APPEAL TO
BEGIN WITH, MOST HEARING
EXAMINERS CAN RESOLVE APPEALS IN
60 TO 90 DAYS, SO WHY NOT REFORM
THE HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS
INSTEAD OF SIMPLY ELIMINATING
THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF APPEAL? IF
THE BILL PASSES AS WRITTEN, HOW
WILL THIS AFFECT THE POTENTIAL
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS
REGARDING THE MASSIVE DATA
CENTER AT 301 VIRGINIA THAT WAS
FILED BY DIGITAL REALITY RIGHT
BEFORE THE MORATORIUM? WITHIN
THE APPLICATION IS AN INCOMPLETE
FIFA CHECKLIST. NO ELECTRICAL
REVIEWS, VAGUE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, AND A WAIVED DESIGN
REVIEW. IT'S A FAMILIAR PATTERN
WHERE WEALTHY INTERESTS ARE
CONCERNED. I'D ALSO LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THERE'S BEEN NO DELAY
IN DEMOLITIONS OF AFFORDABLE
SINGLE STORY RENTAL HOMES IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, THEY'VE
ACCELERATED IN THE PAST FEW
MONTHS, DISPLACING FOUR
DIFFERENT FAMILIES. THOSE
DEMOLISHED HOMES BUILT OF OLD
GROWTH TIMBER HAVE ENDURED A
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES, AND
THEY'RE BEING REPLACED BY
LUXURY 32 FOOT HOMES THAT ARE
NOT AFFORDABLE ON SITES BEING
SCRAPED OF TREES AND VEGETATION,
IMPACTING LIVABILITY FOR
EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY. A
TRULY SUSTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE
APPROACH WOULD BE TO KEEP THE
AFFORDABLE HOME AND ADDED TO A
COTTAGE TO THE LOT. FAMILIES
KEEP THEIR HOME AND THEY GAIN A
NEW NEIGHBOR. ALSO NOTABLE THAT
DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN QUICK TO
CAPITALIZE ON THE VIEW, BUT
DEMONSTRATED LITTLE OR NO REGARD
TO THE HEALTH OF PUGET SOUND
GROWTH, OUTPACING THE CAPACITY
OF OUR SEWER SYSTEM, RESULTING
IN MULTIPLE RECURRING SEWAGE
OVERFLOWS INTO OUR WATERWAYS. I
ASKED COUNCIL TO MAINTAIN THIS
CRITICAL LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY
BY THE CITY AND REQUEST A
SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT REFORMS THE
PROCESS AND ADDRESSES THE REAL
ISSUE WHILE MAINTAINING CITIZEN
RIGHTS. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE TAYLOR
HAINES.
-- GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS TAYLOR HAINES. I'M A
LAND USE ATTORNEY AT HILLIS,
CLARK, MARTIN AND PETERSON AND A
SEATTLE RESIDENT. I'M HERE TODAY
SUPPORTING COUNCIL BILL 12, 12,
15. SEATTLE FACES A SERIOUS
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE.
THIS BILL IS A PROCEDURAL
CORRECTION THAT ALLOWS THE CITY
TO ADVANCE HOUSING POLICY ON A
FASTER TIMELINE. ON
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
HOUSEHOLDS WAITING FOR
AFFORDABLE HOMES EACH MONTH OF
DELAY COUNTS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL PROCESS DOES NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO BETTER OUTCOMES OR
STRONG OR STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS, AND SHOULD NOT
STAND IN THE WAY OF BUILDING
HOMES, REMOVING ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS LEAVES THE REVIEW AND
PUBLIC PROCESSES INTACT. THE
ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IS THE
STEP THAT CAN DELAY HOUSING
POLICY ANYWHERE FROM FIVE MONTHS
TO A YEAR. KING COUNTY,
BELLEVUE, TACOMA, EVERETT AND
VANCOUVER HAVE ALL STREAMLINED
THIS PROCESS BY EXEMPTING
LEGISLATIVE SEPA DECISIONS FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND
SEATTLE SHOULD DO THE SAME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE BRECK LEPAGE
BRECK, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
THERE YOU GO
-- GOOD MORNING. AM I ON.
-- YES.
-- THANK YOU. GREETINGS, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M DR. BRECK WITH
WASHINGTON PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE AIR SHOW
CLIMATE ACTION COALITION ASKING
YOU TO VOTE TO DENY A PERMIT FOR
THE BLUE ANGELS TO USE GENESEE
PARK TO PERFORM OVER THE LAKE AT
SEAFAIR. AS I TELL PARKS AND
RECS, EACH OF THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS POLLUTING AIR SHOWS DEFY
SUSTAINABILITY AND WISE LAND
USE. I'M A RETIRED AIR FORCE
FLIGHT SURGEON, ALTHOUGH SOME
CALL FIGHTER JET NOISE THE SOUND
OF FREEDOM, THEIR ROAR HARMS
HEARING AUTISTIC KIDS, REFUGEES
AND THOSE WITH PTSD ARE
TERRIFIED BY THE SOUND OF DEATH
FROM ABOVE. SUPER HORNETS ARE
ESPECIALLY LOUD. I MEASURE THE
F-18'S AT 110DB IN GENESEE
PARK. OSHA REQUIRES EARPLUGS AND
EARMUFFS FOR WORK SITES AT THAT
LEVEL, ALTHOUGH PARK RULES
REGULATE THE LEVEL OF PA SOUND
SYSTEMS, BLUE ANGELS DEFY HEALTH
NOISE LIMITS EVERY YEAR, SEAFAIR
PROVIDES NO AIR PROTECTION, SO
WP ESSER GIVES OUT HUNDREDS OF
FREE EARPLUGS EACH OF THE PAST
TWO YEARS, AND JET FUEL EXHAUST
HARMS LUNGS, HEART, AND EVEN
BRAINS. THE BLUE ANGELS BURN
70,000 GALLONS OF FUEL PER
WEEKEND TO MAKE A LOT OF NOISE,
AND PM 2.5 PARTICLES, THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IDENTIFIED
SOUTH SEATTLE AS A WASHINGTON
HEALTH DISPARITIES COMMUNITY,
HIGHLY IMPACTED BY AIR
POLLUTION. IT'S ON GRAPH IN
PURPLE BLUE ANGELS FLY RIGHT
OVER THEM EVERY YEAR, CAUSING
MORE DIRECT HARM TO PEOPLE
REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROTECT. BUT
WE DON'T. WE REGULATE OTHER
HEALTH HARMS IN PUBLIC AREAS
SUCH AS SMOKING, DRINKING AND
DRUG USE. WHY NOT JET SMOKE? WE
ASK YOU TO ALL OF THE LAW AND
THE SCIENCE TO PLEASE VOTE TO
ASK THE FULL COUNCIL TO DENY A
PERMIT TO THE BLUE ANGELS.
THANK.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE RICHARD
ELLISON.
-- HELLO, MY NAME IS RICHARD
ELLISON. I'M A RESIDENT OF
DISTRICT FOUR. I OPPOSE CB
121215 BANNING PUBLIC APPEALS
AND SEPARATE THE LOSS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SEATTLE IS
ROOTED IN THE 1990s DECISIONS BY
THE CITY COUNCIL TRYING TO BREAK
THE STAGNANT SEATTLE ECONOMY BY
ALLOWING DEVELOPERS LIKE PAUL
ALLEN TO TEAR DOWN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN SEATTLE. THE TECH
BOOM CAME A SPIKE IN HOUSING
COSTS AND LITTLE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WAS BUILT ACROSS THE
CITY. REPLACE LOW INCOME
HOUSING. MAYOR ED MURRAY'S GRAND
BARGAIN CONTINUED THE GIVEAWAY
TO BUILD EXPENSIVE HOUSING AND A
DRIBBLE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOW, CB 121215 WANTS TO END
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS AS A
SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING CRISIS.
THIS CRISIS IS IN PART, YOUR
MAKING. IT MAY BE A MILD SUMMER
DAY IN SEATTLE, BUT IT'S AN
EXTENDED HEAT EMERGENCY WITH
TEMPERATURES OVER 100 DEGREES
EVERY DAY THIS WEEK IN MUCH OF
THE MIDWEST, USA AND IN MANY
PARTS OF EUROPE, THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE US
BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A
HOAX. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
IS TEARING UP THE EC AYE IN
NATIONAL MONUMENTS. WHAT IF THE
PUBLIC WAS NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAL
THESE TRUMP ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS? HIS 2026. THE YEAR
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL BANNED
STEEPER APPEALS IN THE EMERALD
CITY. THIS BLATANT ACT AS A.
FLAVORS OF THE POLITICS OF THE
CURRENT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION,
WHICH IS GUTTING ALL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS. SHOULD
SEATTLE MIMIC THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND GUT THE
CITIZENS ABILITY TO APPEAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS? NO VOTE
NO ON CB 121215. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVID HAINES.
-- HI. THANK YOU, DAVID HAINES.
YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE SEPA
HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED. AND THE
PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE THEIR
HOME THAT ARE STILL TRYING TO
CHEAT OTHER PEOPLE OUT OF THE
NEXT 20 YEARS WHO ALWAYS ENJOY
MESSING WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND
BLAMING THE DEVELOPERS, STILL
WANT TO WEAPONIZE SEPA. YOU ALL
SHOULD JUST GET RID OF IT.
THERE'S STILL AN AVENUE TO
FIGHT IF THERE'S A WRONG
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT
SEPA HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED FOR TOO
LONG. I KNOW THAT CERTAIN
LANDLORDS ON THE COUNCIL WANT
SEPARATE TO PREVAIL, BECAUSE IT
HELPS THEM BACKSTAB THE WORKING
CLASS. WHO NEEDS A BETTER CHOICE
IN HOME THAT WE'RE STILL BEING
DENIED? AND QUITE FRANKLY, YOU
STILL HAVE TO GET RID OF THE
RESTRICTIONS THAT THE LANDLORDS
PUT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO TRULY HAVE A GREAT AMERICAN
HOUSING BUILD OUT. THAT'S 21st
CENTURY, THAT'S FIRST WORLD
QUALITY. ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT, LET'S FOCUS ON THE
HEAT ISLANDS OF THE THE SIDE
STREETS THAT NEED TO BE SHUT
DOWN FOR GOOD AND TORN UP AND
REDEVELOPED WITH LIKE A
SUSTAINABLE GREENERY WHERE YOU
HAVE A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT'S NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE
ROAD, BUT THAT'S TRULY
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. BUT
THE SEPA HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED FOR
TOO LONG. TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO
DON'T WANT OTHER PEOPLE
BUILDING SOMETHING BETTER IN
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD KEEP
WEAPONIZING SEPA. IT'S
REVOLTING. SO PLEASE CONSIDER
AND BEWARE THE CITY COUNCILS,
LANDLORDS, THE LANDLORDS ON THE
CITY COUNCIL ARE STILL
BACKSTABBING THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
YOU NEED TO GET RID OF THE
RESTRICTIONS IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT KEPT IT
MINIMALIZED AND LOWER LEVEL.
LET'S STOP ALLOWING PEOPLE TO
WEAPONIZE. WHETHER IT'S THE
SEPA OR THE PARKING MANDATE OR
THE CHARACTER OF A RUNDOWN,
ANTIQUATED, DILAPIDATED 20th
CENTURY HOME, OR THE WHAT'S THE
OTHER WEAPONIZED LIKE EXCUSE FOR
STOPPING PEOPLE BUILDING?
-- WE'VE TWO ADDITIONAL
IN-PERSON SPEAKERS, BEGINNING
WITH CATHY KIPLINGER, FOLLOWED
BY AUDREY JONES.
-- THANK YOU. PLEASE EXPEDITE
AND REFORM RATHER THAN ELIMINATE
THE CURRENT HEARING EXAMINER
APPEALS PROCESS REGARDING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EIS, PLEASE
MOVE APPEALS TO THE FRONT OF THE
LINE. REQUIRE ALL APPEALS WITH
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, PLAN
AMENDMENTS AND LAND USE
AFFECTING HOUSING. BE RESOLVED
WITHIN A SET TIME PERIOD. PLEASE
RETAIN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT
THAT ALL COUNCIL ORIGINATED
BILLS HAVE A DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AND NOT JUST THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
BILLS YEAH, PLEASE. REJECT CB
121215 AS IT IS WRITTEN AND FIX
IT. REFORM IT RATHER THAN DUMP
IT BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IT MAY BE
IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE MORE WORK
UP FRONT, BUT GETTING THINGS
RIGHT THE FIRST TIME IS
ULTIMATELY BETTER IN THE LONG
RUN. IN THE SHORT RUN, I MEAN,
YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T LIKE BUILD
A FREEWAY AND THEN SAY, OH, YOU
CAN ONLY, YOU CAN ONLY ARGUE
ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT. THEN
EVEN IF THE ARGUMENT IS
SUCCEEDS, THEN YOU HAVE TO
DEMOLISH THIS FREEWAY. AND IF,
IF YOU'VE DEMOLISHED A MINI
FOREST, THAT MINI FOREST IS
GONE. AND AGAIN, LIKE OTHER
PEOPLE HAVE SAID, TEMPERATURES
ARE ONLY GETTING HIGHER AND
HIGHER. AND TOWNS ARE GETTING
MORE AND MORE FLOODED. SO YEAH,
IN MY OPINION, JUST PLEASE,
ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO GET
PEOPLE HOUSED AND KEEP THE TREES
IS WHAT I SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE AUDREY JONES.
-- HI. I WASN'T PLANNING ON
SPEAKING, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS
WORTH REITERATING AN ADDITIONAL
TIME BECAUSE IT ONLY CAME UP
ONCE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS THAT
IT FEELS LIKE REMOVING THE
ABILITY TO APPEAL INCORRECT
ENVIRONMENTAL. STUDIES AND
REVIEWS IS ALSO. IN ADDITION TO
BEING AN OBVIOUSLY ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE, A HUGE RACIAL EQUITY
ISSUE. BECAUSE WHEN WE THINK
ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO BEAR THE
DOWNSTREAM CONSEQUENCES IN WHICH
NEIGHBORHOODS AND SPACES ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPERS AND
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO
CLIMATE CHANGE, DOING THINGS
THAT WE KNOW CONTRIBUTE POORLY
TO NEGATIVES, POORLY TO
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND TO OUR
ECONOMIES. WHERE ARE THOSE
SPACES GOING TO GO, AND WHO ARE
THOSE PEOPLE GOING TO BE? IT'S
NOT GOING TO BE THE RICHEST
AMONG US, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO
BE THE WHITEST AMONG US. AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PEOPLE
THAT CAN AFFORD TO ENGAGE WITH
THE PROCESS THROUGHOUT. IT'S
GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT ARE
SEEING THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN
THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND ARE ABLE
TO MOBILIZE IN THEIR ADDITIONAL
TIME, IN THEIR AFTER HOURS TIME.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT,
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN STILL
EXPEDITE THE PROCEDURAL PROCESS
WHILE MAINTAINING A SPACE FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL AND
PROTECT THEIR HOMES AND THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEIR HEALTH.
SO YEAH, THAT'S ALL.
-- THANK YOU.
-- THAT IS OUR LAST SPEAKER FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT
-- OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. AS THERE
ARE NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS WILL
NOW PROCEED TO OUR ITEMS OF
BUSINESS LET'S SEE. SO WE'LL
NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF
BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
READ AGENDA ITEM ONE.
-- AGENDA ITEM ONE DATA CENTER
MORATORIUM ORDINANCE 127447.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC
HEARING
-- OKAY, SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO
OUR PUBLIC HEARING. OUR FIRST
PUBLIC HEARING AS PRESIDING
OFFICER. I'M NOW OPENING THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE
127447 REGARDING THE DATA CENTER
MORATORIUM. CLERK, HOW MANY
SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP FOR THIS
PUBLIC HEARING?
-- WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS AND
SEVEN IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
-- OKAY. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE
PROVIDED TWO MINUTES. CLERK I
WILL NOW HAND THIS OVER TO YOU
TO PRESENT THE INSTRUCTIONS
-- SPEAKERS WILL CALL WILL BE
CALLED IN THE ORDER OF
REGISTRATION IN PERSON. SPEAKERS
WILL BE CALLED FIRST, FOLLOWED
BY REMOTE SPEAKERS. THE PUBLIC
HEARING REGISTRATION WILL REMAIN
OPEN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING. THE SAME PUBLIC
COMMENT RULES APPLY TO THIS
PUBLIC HEARING. A TEN SECOND
TIME WILL BE YOUR NOTICE THAT IT
IS TIME TO WRAP UP COMMENTS.
SPEAKERS MICS WILL BE MUTED AT
THE END OF THEIR ALLOTTED TIME.
PUBLIC COMMENT RELATING TO
ORDINANCE 127447. THE DATA
CENTER MORATORIUM IS ONLY BEING
ACCEPTED AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO BEGIN
THEIR COMMENTS BY STATING THEIR
NAME. WE WILL BEGIN WITH DAVE
GALLAGHER. MY APOLOGIES. WE'LL
BEGIN WITH GIULIANA BERNARDO,
FOLLOWED BY JEFF SLOAN, CAROLINE
RUSSELL AND STEVE.
-- GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS GIULIANA BERNARDO.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT
THREE AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVOCATE. I AM
INTERESTED IN HYPER LOCAL
INSTANCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RACISM HERE IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH. WE ACTUALLY KNOW
EACH OTHER FROM MY WORK AT
CHERRY STREET FARM, WHERE I
DEVELOP YOUTH CURRICULUM AROUND
THE INTERSECTION OF
GENTRIFICATION AND FOOD JUSTICE
IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT. I'M
HERE TODAY BECAUSE I AM
CONCERNED THAT THE WORK PLAN FOR
SDCI LACKS NEW INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS DURING
PERMITTING. NEW DATA CENTERS
BUILT IN SOUTH SEATTLE AND
TUKWILA WILL. WILL EXPOSE OUR
NEIGHBORS TO HEAT ISLANDS AND AN
INCREASED AIR, WATER, NOISE AND
LIGHT POLLUTION, CAUSING
SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO THEIR
HEALTH. THESE ARE PREDOMINANTLY
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND WITHOUT
REQUIRING THE ADEQUATE
TRANSPARENCY OF POTENTIAL HARM
DURING ALL STAGES OF THE
PERMITTING PROCESS, THIS COUNCIL
DISEMPOWERS OUR NEIGHBORS FROM
MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR
EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND
HEALTH HAZARDS. THIS IS IN
DIRECT CONFLICT WITH YOUR
PROMISE. COMMITMENT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. I URGE
YOU TO INCLUDE FULL PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE IN THE WORK PLAN THAT
INCLUDES DISCUSSION, EXPECTED
IMPACTS ON A NEIGHBORHOOD BY
NEIGHBORHOOD BASIS, AND
MECHANISMS FOR DENYING PERMITS
BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE JEFF SLOANE,
FOLLOWED BY CAROLYN RUSSELL.
STEVE, I'M SO SORRY. YEP.
SORRY. FOLLOWED BY CAROLYN
RUSSELL, STEVE RUSSELL AND DAVE
GLOVER.
-- HI, I'M JEFF SLOANE,
RETIRED. MOST OF US WOULD LIKE
TO SEE LARGE NATURAL GAS USERS
STOP CONTRIBUTING TO ATMOSPHERIC
CHANGE. IF THESE NEW PROPOSED
SEATTLE DATA CENTERS COULD HELP
REDUCE NATURAL GAS USE
AFFORDABLY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
NOW WE HAVE A YEAR LONG DATA
CENTER MORATORIUM TO CONSIDER
ALL IDEAS. AS YOU KNOW, DATA
CENTERS ARE EXTREMELY RELIABLE
ELECTRIC HEATERS THAT DON'T CARE
PRECISELY WHERE THEY'RE PLACED,
AS LONG AS THE UTILITIES AND
COSTS WORK OUT. DISTRICT HEATING
SYSTEMS CAN DELIVER HEAT
AFFORDABLY, BUT PLANNING AND
BUILDING THE UNDERGROUND PIPING
IS EXPENSIVE, SO WHERE IS THERE
UNDERGROUND PIPING ALREADY
INSTALLED AND WORKING NOW? AND
COULD THOSE EXISTING PIPING
SYSTEMS BE ECONOMICALLY SWITCHED
AWAY FROM THEIR NATURAL GAS USE?
LOOK, WE LURE CARGO SHIPS TO OUR
MARINE PORTS, AND WE LURE
AIRLINES TO OUR AIRPORTS AS
PUBLICLY FINANCED, PROFITABLE
VENTURES. RIGHT EVEN THOUGH
AIRPLANES AND BOATS HAVE EVOLVED
SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE YEARS,
THE PORT OF SEATTLE KEEPS UP
WITH CHANGES WHY NOT JUST
OUTRIGHT LURE AN APPROPRIATELY
SIZED DATA CENTER NEAR EACH
LARGE STEAM HEATING SYSTEMS
BOILER ROOM TO ACCOMPLISH OUR
CLIMATE GOALS? VERY QUICKLY?
WHAT IF THAT WAS GOOD FOR
BUSINESSES AND SAVED THE CITY
MONEY AND TIME, AND AVOIDED GAS
AND WATER USE AND EMISSIONS?
SEATTLE COULD CALL THESE SITES
HEAT, PORTS AND AUCTION FOR A
TENANT FROM A LIST OF
PRE-APPROVED DATA CENTER
BUSINESSES. DOESN'T
STRATEGICALLY LOCATING THE DATA
CENTERS MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE,
STARTING WITH DECARBONIZING THE
CITY'S LARGEST NATURAL GAS
ACCOUNT, THE SEATTLE CENTER
STEAM PLANT, WHERE WE SPENT
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
PER YEAR ON HEAT, FOSSIL FUELS.
SO PLAN A IS TO ABANDON THE
STEAM PIPES, UPGRADE CAMPUS
ELECTRICAL, AND FIGURE OUT AIR
TO AIR HEAT PUMP SOLUTIONS
UNIQUELY PER BUILDING, AS HAS
OCCURRED AT CLIMATE PLEDGE
ARENA. CONSIDER PLAN B, WHERE
THE CAMPUS BUILDINGS REMAIN
INTACT. MAINTAIN YOUR
UNDERGROUND PIPING NETWORK ALL
YOUR ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AS
IS AND JUST CHANGE THE STEAM
SOURCE DETAILS.
-- THANK YOU. YEAH, YOU CAN
LEAVE THEM IN THE BOX. THANK YOU
SO MUCH.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE CAROLINE
RUSSELL, FOLLOWED BY STEVE,
DAVE, LAUREN REDFIELD AND AGATHA
NOLAN.
-- HI, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS
CAROLINE RUSSELL. I AM A
DISTRICT THREE RESIDENT AND
CLIMATE JUSTICE ACTIVIST. I'M
HERE TODAY BECAUSE I'M DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE GLOBAL
EXPANSION OF DATA CENTERS AND
THE IMPACT OF AI ON OUR
COMMUNITIES AND ON OUR PLANET.
DEFENDERS OF DATA CENTERS WILL
TELL YOU THAT THEY CAN RELY ON
SOME RENEWABLE POWER, BUT THE
CURRENT WORK PLAN FOR THIS
LEGISLATION DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM
TO USE ANY NEW RENEWABLES. IF
DATA CENTERS USE SEATTLE
SEATTLEITES GREEN HYDRO, THERE
WILL BE LESS FOR THE REST OF US
AND LESS FOR US TO SELL ON POWER
MARKETS TO OUR NEIGHBORS. THIS
INEVITABLY WILL RESULT IN THE
USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, THE HIGH
ENERGY COSTS IN THE REGION, AND
WILL ALSO SEE WORSENING
POLLUTION IN OUR CITY AND IN
WASHINGTON STATE IN GENERAL,
PUSHING US FURTHER AND FURTHER
FROM REACHING OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
AT MINIMUM, WE MUST REQUIRE THE
DATA CENTERS PAY FOR NEW
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ALL
ASSOCIATED GRID COSTS, AND DO
NOT USE OUR GREEN HYDRO. BUT
ULTIMATELY, I FEEL THE ONLY WAY
WE CAN PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES
AND MEET OUR STATE'S CLIMATE
GOALS IS TO BAN DATA CENTERS
ENTIRELY. THE CITY OF SEATTLE IS
A HISTORIC LEADER IN PASSING
BOLD, PROGRESSIVE POLICY. WE
WERE A LEADER IN PASSING THIS
DATA CENTER MORATORIUM AND MANY
OTHER PUGET SOUND COMMUNITIES
HAVE FOLLOWED OUR LEAD. I AM
ASKING YOU TO FOLLOW TACOMA'S
LEAD AND BAN DATA CENTERS
ENTIRELY.
-- THANK.
-- YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE STEVE.
-- YEAH, WE NEED IT BETTER.
SEATTLE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE
COULD DO IS ADJUST OUR RATES FOR
ELECTRICITY, WHICH WE KNOW EACH
MARGINAL UNIT COSTS MORE. AND IF
WE HAD A SYSTEM WHERE YOU PAID
HUGELY FOR IMMENSE USE OF
ELECTRICITY, INSTEAD OF GIVING
DISCOUNTS FOR IMMENSE USE OF
ELECTRICITY, WE MIGHT SOLVE A
LOT OF THE PROBLEMS OF DATA
CENTERS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.
YOU KNOW, IF YOUR COST OF WATER
IS HIGH, YOU MAY WANT TO SEE
WAYS TO RECYCLE IT. IF YOU HAVE
HIGH COSTS FOR MASSIVE USE OF
ELECTRICITY, IN THIS CASE, NOT
TOO MANY JOBS AFTER COMPLETION,
YOU MIGHT SEE PEOPLE ACTUALLY
PRODUCING ELECTRICITY. WITH ALL
THAT HEAT AT ONE TIME. I THINK
IN RESPECT TO THE SOLAR WE USED
TO, GOVERNMENT USED TO ENCOURAGE
AND DEMAND THAT UTILITIES BOUGHT
THE ELECTRICITY OF SOME PEOPLE
HAD A WAY OF PRODUCING IT. WELL,
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE
LOOKING THAT WAY. WE AGAIN, ARE
USING THE GOOD REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLES OF DEREGULATION.
DON'T WORRY, THE MARKETPLACE
WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. WELL,
IT'S NOT JUST LIKE IN HOUSING.
THE MARKETPLACE IS TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF EVERY SUBSIDY,
EVERY DOLLAR IT CAN MAKE. SO
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO MAKE
IT SO WHEN PEOPLE ARE MAKING
MONEY, THEY'RE DOING GOOD
THINGS. IF YOU SIMPLY MAKE A WAY
FOR THEM TO MAKE MONEY AND DO
BAD THINGS, YEAH, THEY'LL DO IT.
NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THEY'RE
BAD PEOPLE, BECAUSE AS MANY
REPUBLICANS SAY, THE LOYALTY OF
THE CORPORATION IS TO MAKE AS
MUCH MONEY AS IT CAN FOR THE
STOCKHOLDERS. AND DOES IT REALLY
MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST
OF US? NOT A BIT. SO LET'S PUT
GOOD THINGS IN THEIR CORPORATE
ETHOS OF MAKING MONEY, AND WE'LL
HAVE THAT PROMISE.
-- THANK YOU. STEVE.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVE
GALLAGHER, FOLLOWED BY LAUREN
REDFIELD AND AGATHA NOLAN.
-- GOOD MORNING AGAIN, COUNCIL.
I WANT TO SAY I SUPPORT THE DATA
CENTER MORATORIUM. I THINK IT'S
ABSURD THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT
THIS AND AFFECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.
BUT 12, 12, 15 OPENS THE DOOR TO
THIS HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
YOU CAN SAY IT WON'T HAPPEN
NOW, BUT SOMETIMES SOMEBODY WITH
BIG POCKETS WILL COME THROUGH
AND SUBMIT A PLAN THAT IS VERY
UNSUSTAINABLE TO OUR CITY. AND
THERE'S NO ROUTE FOR THE CITY
CITIZENS TO APPEAL THAT. SO I
ASK YOU, IN THE NAME OF THE DATA
CENTER MORATORIUM, TO HAVE A
SUBSTITUTE BILL FOR 12, 12, 15,
AND WE HEAR COMMENTS LIKE FROM
THE DEVELOPERS, OH, WE NEED
HOUSING OF ALL TYPES. WELL,
WHERE IS THAT? WHERE'S ALL THAT
HOUSING OF ALL TYPES? IF IT'S
IF WE NEED NEW HOUSING, WHY ARE
THERE 13,000 AVAILABLE APARTMENT
BUILDINGS IN THIS CITY? WHERE'S
THE BIG NEED FOR THAT? THAT'S
WHY PERMITTING IS DOWN. IT'S NOT
BECAUSE IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE FOR
THE DEVELOPER. IT'S BECAUSE
THERE'S NOT A NEED FOR IT RIGHT
NOW. AND THE DEVELOPERS BUILT
ALL THESE TOWNHOUSES THAT
AREN'T AFFORDABLE FOR THE
AVERAGE CITIZEN. THEY'RE
AVAILABLE. THEY'RE AFFORDABLE
FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK AT TECH
PLACES. AND THERE'S LAYOFFS
THERE. SO I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT
THE DATA CENTER MORATORIUM AND
HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BILL FOR 12,
12, 15. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
LAUREN REDFIELD, DISTRICT SIX,
ONE OF THE LEAD ORGANIZERS
-- TO THE WASHINGTON EYE
RESISTANCE. I'M PLEASED THAT
SEATTLE'S LEADERSHIP HAS
INSPIRED SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
BURIEN, TACOMA, SPOKANE AND
FEDERAL WAY TO PURSUE SIMILAR
DATA CENTER MORATORIUMS.
MEANWHILE, COMMUNITIES IN
WENATCHEE, WALLA WALLA AND
TRI-CITIES HAVE LAUNCHED THEIR
OWN MORATORIUM CAMPAIGNS. THIS
DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS IS A
STATEWIDE ISSUE AND REQUIRES A
STATEWIDE MORATORIUM THAT WAS
JUST PASSED IN NEW YORK. AS YOU
DEVELOP THE WORKPLAN, PLEASE
CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.
NEW DATA CENTERS IN OUR AREA
WOULD LIKELY BE CONCENTRATED IN
SOUTH SEATTLE OR PUSHED TO
TUKWILA. ADDING TO THE
CUMULATIVE POLLUTION BURDENS
ALREADY FACED BY THE COMMUNITIES
THAT DUWAMISH SUPERFUND SITES.
THE WORK PLAN SHOULD ALSO
COORDINATE LARGE LOAD GROWTH
WITH LONG TERM CUMULATIVE CLEAN
ENERGY PLANNING, AND CONSIDER
PROTECTIONS AGAINST STRANDED
ASSETS. OF THIS LARGELY
SPECULATIVE INDUSTRY. EVEN IF WE
COULD OBTAIN THE CLEAN ENERGY
NEEDED FOR DATA CENTERS OR
CREATE INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS AS A
PREVIOUS PREVIOUS SPEAKER
ALLUDED TO, WE NEED TO CONSIDER
WATER. WASHINGTON IS IN ITS
FOURTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR OF
DROUGHT, AND AT A CLIMATE WEEK
EVENT LAST NIGHT, I LEARNED THAT
TEMPERATURE IS LEADING IS A
LEADING POLLUTANT IN OUR
WATERWAYS, THREATENING SALMON.
LARGE DATA CENTERS WILL WORSEN
THESE WATER IMPACTS AND FURTHER
ENDANGER OUR KEYSTONE SPECIES.
WHILE WE'RE ALREADY STRUGGLING
TO PRESERVE OUR ECOSYSTEMS AMID
THE CLIMATE CRISIS. SO MY I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT HOW
MANY DATA CENTERS DO WE NEED?
AND IF WE NEED THEM AND DO WE,
TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE NEED AI AT
ALL? SO BEFORE PROVING
ADDITIONAL DATA CENTER
DEVELOPMENT, I ENCOURAGE THE
COUNCIL TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
ON SEATTLE'S USE OF AI. I KNOW
THAT'S NOT THIS COMMITTEE, BUT
I WOULD RECOMMEND IT ALTOGETHER.
OR A CITIZENS ASSEMBLY, SIMILAR
TO WHAT SNOHOMISH COUNTY HELD.
THEY JUST RELEASED THEIR REPORT
ON FINDINGS LAST WEEK AROUND
WHAT THEIR COMMUNITIES ACTUALLY
WANT WITH AI. RESIDENTS DESERVE
A VOICE IN DECIDING WHAT AI
INFRASTRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY
NEEDED AND BASED ON COMMUNITY
CONVERSATIONS, HOW MUCH DATA
CENTER CAPACITY SHOULD BE BUILT
OUT. OUR LIMITED ENERGY, WATER
AND LAND SHOULD BE ALLOCATED
BASED ON PUBLIC PRIORITIES, NOT
SPECULATIVE DEMAND DRIVEN BY
SOCIETY AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS.
THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE AGATHA NOLAN
-- GOOD MORNING. AGATHA NOLAN,
DISTRICT THREE RESIDENT AND
PROUD. PROUD TO LIVE IN SEATTLE.
AS THE WORLD JUST SAW THROUGH
THE FIFA TOURNAMENT. WE LIVE IN
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL CITY IN THE
COUNTRY. AND WITH THAT
PRIVILEGE, I BELIEVE, COMES
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THAT
NATURAL BEAUTY. SO I AM ASKING
FOR COMPLETE BAN ON DATA CENTERS
FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF OUR SISTER
CITY OF TACOMA. BECAUSE OUR
LAND, WATER AND ENERGY RESOURCES
ARE FINITE AND THEY SHOULD BE
ALLOCATED BASED ON OUR PUBLIC
PRIORITIES. BUT AT THE VERY
LEAST, PLEASE ADJUST THE WORK
PLAN TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE, TO
PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE REQUIRED
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER PLAN
DATA CENTER WATER USE IS A
CLOSELY GUARDED SECRET. AS WE'VE
SEEN IN COLORADO, TEXAS AND
ARIZONA, OTHER STATES WHERE
THEY'VE ALREADY PRESSED FORWARD
ONLY FRESH DRINKING WATER HAS
BEEN USED DUE TO CONCERNS OF
CORROSION AND BACTERIAL GROWTH.
ADDITIONALLY, THE WATER CANNOT
BE RECYCLED. 80% OF THE
WASTEWATER EVAPORATES IN 20% IS
DISCHARGED INTO MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES, WHICH ARE
HAVING TROUBLE HANDLING THE
HIGHER VOLUME OF WASTEWATER
BEING PRODUCED. AGAIN, PLEASE
ENACT A COMPLETE BAN ON NEW DATA
CENTERS IN SEATTLE. OTHERWISE,
UPDATE THE DATA CENTER
MORATORIUM WORK PLAN TO INCLUDE
A FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF
PLANNED WATER USE AND WASTEWATER
PROJECTIONS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
-- THANK YOU.
-- TO LAST IN-PERSON COMMENTER.
WE'LL NOW BEGIN WITH OUR REMOTE
COMMENTERS, STARTING WITH ALICE
LOCKHART.
-- GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. I'M
ALICE LOCKHART HERE FOR 350
SEATTLE. AND THE WORK PLAN IS
WRITTEN. APPEARS TO BE MISSING
ANY INTENT TO PREVENT NEW DATA
CENTER BUILD OUT FROM
THREATENING SEATTLE'S CLIMATE
GOALS. WHAT THE HECK? IT IS
MISSING ANY REQUIREMENT THAT
DEPARTMENTS BUILD PLANS TO
ENSURE THAT DATA CENTERS PAY FOR
NEW RENEWABLE POWER. AND IF DATA
CENTERS USE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT,
GREEN LIGHT HYDRO, THERE CAN'T
HELP BUT BE LESS FOR THE REST OF
US. AS WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER
OTHER MARKETS, THEN THERE'S
LESS FOR US TO SELL ON POWER
MARKETS TO OUR NEIGHBORS, WHICH
WILL INEVITABLY RESULT IN THE
USE OF FOSSIL FUEL, RESULTING IN
HIGHER ENERGY COSTS IN THE
REGION, EVEN IF NOT SEATTLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, MEANWHILE, OF
COURSE, OURS WILL GO UP DUE TO
DATA CENTERS IN QUINCY AND
CLIMATE POLLUTION THAT PUSHES
SEATTLE AND WASHINGTON EVER
FURTHER FROM REACHING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. DATA CENTERS MUST
PAY FOR NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ALL ASSOCIATED GRID COSTS. WE
SHOULD REQUIRE DATA CENTERS TO
PAY FOR NEW RENEWABLE POWER AND
ASSOCIATED GRID IMPROVEMENTS, OR
WE SHOULD BAN THEM, WHICH I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE READY TO DO.
WE ALSO STRONGLY OPPOSE COUNCIL
BILL ONE, 21215 AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN. CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE
TO CHALLENGE INCOMPLETE AND
INACCURATE DATA CENTERS OR
SIMILARLY FOR OTHER HIGHLY
IMPACTFUL LARGE INDUSTRY TYPE
PROJECTS. AND THE BILL SHOULD BE
REJECTED OR AT LEAST NARROWED TO
ONLY COVERS FOR AFFORDABLE AND
SOCIAL HOUSING. WHICH WE DO NEED
TO HURRY UP AND BUILD AS MUCH AS
WE CAN FOR BOTH CLIMATE AND
HUMAN REASONS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP WE HAVE REBECCA YOUNG
-- HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
-- YES.
-- WONDERFUL. GOOD MORNING AND
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS REBECCA
YOUNG. I'M A RESIDENT IN
DISTRICT THREE, AND I'M HERE
WITH COMMENTS ON THE MORATORIUM
WORK PLAN. FIRST, I DON'T SEE
ANYTHING IN THE WORK PLAN THAT
SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR
EVALUATING THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF
DATA CENTERS. WE NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THE FULL CARBON
EMISSIONS IMPACT OF THESE LARGE
DATA CENTERS, AND WHETHER NEW
DATA CENTERS WILL NEGATIVELY
IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MEET OUR
CLIMATE GOALS AND FULLY
TRANSITION OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS.
ANY DATA CENTER POLICIES
DEVELOPED SHOULD INCLUDE
REQUIREMENTS THAT NEW DATA
CENTERS PAY FOR NEW CLEAN
ENERGY. INSTEAD OF COMPETING
WITH SEATTLE RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES FOR EXISTING CLEAN
ENERGY RESOURCES. SECOND, I ALSO
DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE WORK
PLAN MANDATING ONGOING
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC. I
APPRECIATE THE REQUIREMENT TO
ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS IN DEVELOPING THE
COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT
FRAMEWORK, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE
A CLEAR PLAN FOR TRANSPARENCY
AND ONGOING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
AND PARTICIPATION IN THIS
PROCESS. AND FINALLY, I URGE THE
COUNCIL TO REJECT BIG TECH'S
NARRATIVE THAT THEIR AI VISION
IS INEVITABLE AND THEIR AI DATA
CENTER GROWTH IS UNSTOPPABLE.
DURING THIS WORK PLAN PROCESS,
WE SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE
POSSIBILITY THAT LARGE DATA
CENTERS SIMPLY AREN'T ALIGNED
WITH OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND
DON'T HAVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS
THAT OUTWEIGH THEIR ENORMOUS
RESOURCE USE IN TERMS OF
ELECTRICITY, WATER, AND LAND, AS
WELL AS THEIR POTENTIAL PUBLIC
HEALTH HARMS. IF THAT'S THE
CASE, COUNCIL SHOULD BE OPEN TO
THE RESULT OF THIS PROCESS BEING
A TOTAL BAN ON AI DATA CENTERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
-- THANK YOU.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE ROHAN
HINKLE. JOHNSON.
-- HI THERE. CAN YOU HI. THIS IS
ROHAN JOHNSON SPEAKING. I AM I
WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY PUBLIC
COMMENT AND SIMILARLY TO WHAT
PREVIOUS COMMENTERS HAVE SAID, I
WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IN FUTURE
THE IMPACTS OF, OR RATHER THE
POTENTIAL FOR USING THIS
INCREASED DEMAND AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FINANCE RENEWABLE
ENERGY BUILDOUT AND INCREASE
GRID STABILITY. SO I WOULD LIKE
TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF
REQUIREMENTS ON THE BUILD OUT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILD OUT OF
DATA CENTERS TO BE ABLE TO USE
THEIR INCREASED LOAD WITH HIGHER
RATE. POTENTIALLY IMPOSING
HIGHER RATE FORMS UPON THEM IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO FINANCE THE
BUILD OUT OF STORAGE AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE USE OF THE HIGHER LOAD
SHOULD NOT BE LANDING ON THE
SHOULDERS OF THE RATEPAYERS, BUT
RATHER BE USED TO FINANCE AN
INCREASED BUILD OUT OF GRID
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WE
DESPERATELY NEED IN ORDER TO
ENSURE GRID STABILITY IN THE
FUTURE. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE AUDREY WANG,
JOCELYN.
-- HELLO, COUNCIL. IT'S GREAT
TO BE BACK WITH YOU ALL TODAY TO
WORK ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR
OUR CITY. MY NAME IS AUDREY
WONG. I'M AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
SPECIALIZING IN POWER AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY. A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 350
SEATTLE AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT
TWO. I HAVE TWO POINTS TO MAKE
TODAY. FIRST IS THAT AS AN
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, I AM
CONCERNED THAT THE WORK PLAN IS
MISSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA
CENTERS TO PAY FOR RENEWABLE
RENEWABLE POWER, AS WELL AS
OTHER ELECTRIFICATION EQUIPMENT.
THIS WILL FORCE THE CITY TO RELY
MORE ON FOSSIL FUELS AND PREVENT
US FROM EVER REACHING OUR
CLIMATE GOALS. SECOND IS THAT AS
A SEATTLE RESIDENT, I'M
CONCERNED THAT THE SDCI WORK
PLAN IS MISSING DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PERMITTING
PROCESS FOR DATA CENTERS. WE
MUST KNOW THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
ON AIR NOISE AND WATER
POLLUTION, AS WELL AS WATER
USAGE, BEFORE PERMITS ARE
GRANTED. WE HAVE THIS MORATORIUM
NOT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE
ROAD AND LET DATA CENTERS ROLL
OVER US. IN 2027, BUT TO GIVE US
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT REAL,
MEANINGFUL PROTECTIONS IN PLACE
FOR OUR CITY THAT WILL BENEFIT
EVERYONE. AND SINCE I'VE GOT A
LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, I ACTUALLY
WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUPPORT. THE
OTHER COMMENTERS EARLIER TODAY
WHO WERE ASKING FOR PERMITS TO
BE DENIED FOR THE BLUE ANGELS.
AS I SAID, I LIVE IN COLUMBIA
CITY, AND EVERY YEAR I AM
TERRIFIED THAT IF SOMETHING GOES
WRONG, THE BLUE ANGELS WILL FALL
ON OUR HOUSES. KILLING MYSELF OR
MY NEIGHBORS, WHICH DID HAPPEN
THIS PAST MAY AT AN IDAHO AIR
SHOW. THERE WAS A FIGHTER JET
THAT FELL OUT OF THE SKY. AND
SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CLIMATE, EVERY YEAR, THE SKY IS
BROWN FOR TWO WEEKS STRAIGHT
FROM ALL THE EMISSIONS. SO
PLEASE STOP THIS DANGEROUS AND
UNNECESSARY SHOW OF MILITARY
FORCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR TIME.
-- THANK YOU.
-- LAST UP, WE HAVE BRIAN DING.
-- GOOD MORNING, CHAIR LIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS BRIAN DENG. I'M A
DISPLACED TECH WORKER, A
LIFELONG ARTIST AND A CUSTOMER
OF SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. I'VE BEEN
GOING TO THESE COMMITTEE AND
COUNCIL MEETINGS TO URGE SEATTLE
TO BAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
HYPERSCALE AI DATA CENTERS.
TODAY, I'M COMMENTING ON THE
WORK BEING DONE ON THE DATA
CENTER MORATORIUM. THE WORK PLAN
FOR THE DATA CENTER MORATORIUM
STATES THAT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
AND SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MUST ENSURE THAT SEATTLE
RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND
OTHERS. SCL AND SPU SIRVE WILL
NOT PAY INCREASED UTILITY COSTS
BECAUSE OF DATA CENTERS. THAT'S
GREAT. HOW EVER. NOWHERE IN THE
WORK PLAN DOES IT STATE WHO WILL
PAY. I WAS TOLD IN THESE
CHAMBERS THAT IT WOULD BE DATA
CENTERS. WHO WOULD PAY FOR THEIR
OWN POWER, BUT THAT DETAIL IS
LEFT OUT. IT NEEDS TO BE ON
PAPER EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. AND
IT MUST BE SPELLED OUT THAT DATA
CENTERS MUST BE POWERED BY NEW
RENEWABLE ENERGY, NOT OUR GREEN
HYDRO DATA CENTERS POWER
THEMSELVES WITH MORE FOSSIL
FUELS. WE WOULD BE MOVING
FURTHER AWAY FROM OUR CLIMATE
GOALS. MISTAKES LIKE THESE ARE
WHAT THE WORK ON THE MORATORIUM
WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE WOULD BE
OPENING UP LOOPHOLES ALONG THE
WAY THAT DATA CENTERS WILL
EXPLOIT. SO I'LL KEEP IT
SIMPLE. FOLLOW THE CITY OF
TACOMA'S LEAD AND MOVE TOWARDS
A BAN ON HYPERSCALE AI DATA
CENTERS TO REDUCE HARM. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME
-- THANK YOU.
-- CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES OUR
SPEAKERS.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU EVERYONE.
THAT WAS OUR LAST REGISTERED
SPEAKER PRESENT TO SPEAK AT THIS
PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON ORDINANCE 127447 IS
NOW CLOSED. AND JUST FOR KIND OF
PUBLIC INFORMATION, LATER TODAY,
THERE WILL BE A PARKS AND CITY
LIGHT COMMITTEE AT THAT PARKS
AND CITY LIGHT COMMITTEE
MEETING. THERE WILL BE
DISCUSSION OF CITY LIGHTS NEW
CUSTOMER CLASS AND CONDITIONS
FOR DATA CENTERS FOR LARGE NEW
LARGE LOADS. SO IF ANYBODY WANTS
TO CHIME IN OR REGISTER TO SPEAK
LATER TODAY AT 2 P.M., THERE
WILL BE THAT TOPIC UP FOR
DISCUSSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT MORE
WORK TO DO ON DATA CENTERS. WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND
ITEM OF BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE READ AGENDA ITEM TWO.
-- AGENDA ITEM TWO TRANSITIONAL
ENCAMPMENT EXPANSION ORDINANCE
127436. PUBLIC HEARING FOR
PUBLIC HEARING.
-- AS PRESIDING OFFICER, I'M NOW
OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
ORDINANCE 127436 REGARDING THE
TRANSITIONAL ENCAMPMENT
EXPANSION. CLERK HOW MANY
SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP FOR THIS
PUBLIC HEARING?
-- ONE.
-- OKAY. SPEAKER WILL BE
PROVIDED TWO MINUTES. STEVE. ALL
RIGHT.
-- YOU DON'T EVEN NEED.
-- OH, SORRY.
-- [LAUGHTER]
-- I'LL HAND THIS OVER TO YOU
TO PRESENT THE INSTRUCTIONS.
HOLD. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
-- HERE.
-- YOU'VE HEARD THE INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE, BUT LET'S DO IT AGAIN.
JUST TO BE OFFICIAL. CLERK, CAN
YOU.
-- PLEASE, FOR THIS PUBLIC
HEARING ARE THE SAME AS THE LAST
PUBLIC HEARING?
-- OKAY. THANK YOU. CLERK.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
-- UNFORTUNATELY, I'LL PROBABLY
BE A LITTLE BRIEF BECAUSE MY
MAIN CONCERN IS THE SPEED WE'RE
GOING WITH EXPANSION BECAUSE WE
NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME DATA
AND SEE HOW SAFE IT IS FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE TINY HOUSE
COMMUNITIES AND AROUND, GIVEN
OUR LACK OF POLICE AND THEY'RE
NOT ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO SERVE
THE COMMUNITY IN A WAY WHERE
MOST PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY HAPPY.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HOLD
OFF ON EXPANSION UNTIL WE GET A
LITTLE DATA AND FIND OUT WHETHER
THIS IS GOING TO REALLY WORK OUT
WELL OR NOT.
-- THANK YOU STEVE. OKAY.
-- THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.
-- OKAY. THAT WAS OUR ONLY
REGISTERED SPEAKER TO PRESENT TO
SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING,
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE
ONE, TWO, SEVEN 436 IS NOW
CLOSED. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO
OUR THIRD ITEM OF BUSINESS. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE READ AGENDA
ITEM THREE.
-- ITEM THREE. COUNCIL ONE TWO,
ONE TWO, ONE FIVE. AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO LAND USE DECISIONS
AMENDING SECTIONS 23, 76, OH
FIVE, 02376, 062 AND 2505680 THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CLARIFY PROCESSES FOR SEATTLE
FOR COUNCIL LAND USE DECISIONS
FOR BRIEFING, DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
-- THANK YOU. OUR STAFF HAS
JOINED US. CAN YOU PLEASE
INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE
RECORD OKAY
-- COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
-- THANK YOU. LIZ. SO I MOVE
THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 121215.
IS THERE A SECOND?
-- SECOND.
-- IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THE
LEGISLATION. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO
THE AMENDMENT?
-- IS THIS WHERE I MOVE?
-- YES, PLEASE. OKAY. AWESOME.
-- THANK YOU CHAIR. I MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 121215 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT ONE.
-- SECOND, SECOND. OKAY. IT IS
MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND THE
BILL. COUNCIL. CENTRAL STAFF.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT. ALL
RIGHT.
-- JUST A SECOND. LET ME.
AMENDMENT ONE IS RELATED TO
COMMENT PERIODS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. SO AS
YOU ALL KNOW AND HAVE HEARD FOR
MULTIPLE MEETINGS COUNCIL BILL
ONE, 21215 REMOVES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR. FOR APPEALS TO
THE HEARING EXAMINER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THIS
AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL TIME AFTER THOSE
DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLISHED, AND SO
IT PROVIDES FOR A 30 DAY WAITING
PERIOD AFTER A DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE OR FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IS PUBLISHED BEFORE THE COUNCIL
COULD ACT ON LEGISLATION, THAT
TIME PERIOD PROBABLY RUNS
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PUBLIC
HEARING TIME PERIOD, SO IT
SHOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DELAY
COUNCIL ACTION ON LEGISLATION,
BUT IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS AND
CONCERNS TO THE COUNCIL ON ANY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT'S BEEN
PERFORMED
-- THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HOLLINGSWORTH YOU
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENT?
-- THANK YOU, CHAIR LYNN. AND I
FIRST WANT TO START BY THANKING
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CAME AND
PROVIDED PUBLIC COMMENT, AND
ALSO THE FOLKS ONLINE, AND THEN
REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE AS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHERE THIS WAS
DEVELOPED. AND ALSO WANT TO
THANK CENTRAL STAFF AS WELL. SO
THIS DOES THREE THINGS, AS LIZ
WAS SAYING, IT EXTENDS THE
COMMENT PERIOD OF THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FROM 30 TO 45 DAYS. THIS IS JUST
A NOTE THAT 45 DAYS IS THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. SO
WE JUST ADDED ANOTHER 15 DAYS.
SO 45 DAYS. IT EXTENDS THE
WAITING PERIOD BEFORE COUNCIL
CAN ACT ON THE LEGISLATION FROM
SEVEN SEVEN DAYS TO 30 DAYS
AFTER A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT OR FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT IS PUBLISHED.
IT ALSO EXTENDS THE WAITING
PERIOD BEFORE COUNCIL CAN ACT ON
LEGISLATION FROM 14 DAYS TO A
DETERMINATION ON OF
NON-SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANCE
IS PUBLISHED. AND SO THE GOAL
FOR THIS IS. I KNOW THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE
NOT LAND USE ATTORNEYS THAT ARE
NOT DEVELOPERS, AND THEY HAVE TO
GO THROUGH A THOUSAND PAGES OF
INFORMATION AND LEARN HOW TO
NAVIGATE GOVERNMENT IN A VERY
DIFFICULT WAY. OFTENTIMES, I
DON'T KNOW WHERE STUFF IS, AND
I WORK INSIDE GOVERNMENT, SO I
DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE OUTSIDE
CITY HALL OR ON CITY. NOT KNOW
CITY LIKE THAT ARE NOT WITHIN
CITY GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND
SOMETIME OF THE PROCESS. SO
EXTENDING THAT PIECE AS WELL,
COLLEAGUES, WHICH I THINK IS
IMPORTANT. AND THEN ALSO JUST
EXTENDING TIME FOR COUNCIL TO
MOVE ON CERTAIN THINGS, I THINK
IS IMPORTANT AS WELL. SO IT'S A
SIMPLE ADJUSTMENT, AND I'LL BE
SPEAKING MORE AFTER THIS ON THE
BASE BILL AFTER AFTER THIS AS
WELL. SO THANK YOU.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. HOLLINGSWORTH
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ABOUT AMENDMENT ONE?
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS. NO. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL
-- [LAUGHTER]
-- CHAIR?
-- [LAUGHTER]
-- OH, SORRY.
-- SORRY. I WAS SLIDING MY HAND
IN THERE ON ZOOM. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. I
JUST WANTED TO ASK A CLARIFYING
QUESTION. EXCUSE ME ON WHERE ARE
WE ON PAGE THREE, THE NEW TEXT
THERE. SO IT'S GOT THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT EXCEPT LANGUAGE.
SO CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO THIS
JUST A LITTLE BIT? THIS
PARTICULAR CHANGE AND ITS
IMPACT. AND I APPRECIATE THE
SUMMARY THAT YOU GAVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. I JUST THIS WAS THE
PART I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTOOD IN THE AMENDMENT.
-- YEAH. SO THE IDEA HERE OF
THIS LANGUAGE IS THAT IF IF
THERE'S NO APPEAL TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER, COUNCIL
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACT ON THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION FOR 30
DAYS THIS THIS EXEMPTION APPLIES
TO LAND USE LEGISLATION,
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS A 30 DAY
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PERIOD. SO
THOSE PERIODS PROBABLY RUN
CONCURRENTLY. OKAY.
-- THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I
THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU MENTIONED
EARLIER. BUT THE INTENT HERE IS
FOR THESE TO BE CONCURRENT
PERIODS. SO WE WOULD HAVE THE
PUBLIC NOTICE AND THEN WE WOULD
HAVE THIS AND THE CLOCK WOULD BE
RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. SO IT
IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO
THE EXISTING CLOCK, SO TO SPEAK.
IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
-- CORRECT. THERE ARE RARE
INSTANCES WHEN WE'VE SEEN A
DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE PUBLISHED CLOSE
TO THE SAME POINT IN TIME WHEN
WE'VE PUBLISHED THE
DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE. SO WE, YOU
KNOW, WE'LL THERE MAY BE SOME A
FEW TIMES WHEN THIS COULD ADD A
FEW DAYS OF DELAY. BUT YEAH.
-- BUT WITH COORDINATION BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENTS AND OUR OFFICES,
WE'D BE ABLE TO WE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO MANAGE FOR THAT. OKAY.
GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. CHAIR.
-- THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
-- THANK YOU, CHAIR LIN.
-- I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT
JUST TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR
THIS AMENDMENT AND THANK COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HOLLINGSWORTH FOR
BRINGING IT FORWARD. I THINK
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE
AND A REFORM TO THE UNDERLYING
BILL THAT I THINK MAKES A WORLD
OF SENSE, PARTICULARLY IS IS,
AGAIN, THERE ARE THOUSAND PAGE
DOCUMENTS. I MEAN, I RECALL
GOING TO MY FIRST COMP PLAN,
HEARING PUBLIC TOWN HALL BACK IN
2023, BEFORE I WAS EVEN A
CANDIDATE AND ENGAGING AT SOME
OF THE TABLES ON, YOU KNOW,
HERE'S WHAT AN EIS IS, AND
HERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOME
OF THE OPPORTUNITIES YOU CAN
WEIGH IN. AND IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THROUGHOUT
THAT FULL EIS SCOPING PROCESS,
OPCD RECEIVED MORE THAN A
THOUSAND COMMENTS ON WHAT SHOULD
BE STUDIED IN TERMS OF
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYZES THAT
SHOULD BE DONE. SO I THINK THIS
IS A A MEASURE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY WHERE FOLKS ARE
CLEARLY WEIGHING IN AND TO BE
ABLE TO EXPAND THE PERIOD FOR
PEOPLE TO WEIGH IN AND HAVE THAT
ENGAGEMENT WITH OPCD IS REALLY
VALUABLE. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU
AGAIN, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HOLLINGSWORTH, FOR BRINGING THIS
AMENDMENT FORWARD. AND I'LL BE
VOTING YES. THANK YOU
-- THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? OKAY WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT ONE?
-- CHAIR STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER
FOSTER.
-- YES.
-- COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
HOLLINGSWORTH. YES.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. YES. CHAIR
LIN. YES. CHAIR. THERE ARE FIVE
VOTES IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.
-- THE MOTION CARRIES. AMENDMENT
ONE IS ADOPTED. OKAY, LET'S
SEE. SO NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE
BASE BILL AS AMENDED.
COLLEAGUES, I HAVE JUST A COUPLE
QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS
BASED ON PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I
WANTED TO OPEN IT UP FOR YOU
ALL. FIRST, IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR LEASH
OR OTHERWISE. LEASH. OH YES.
-- COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER THE SLOW
ZOOM HANDS.
-- [LAUGHTER]
-- I'M SORRY CHAIR, I'M NOT
TRYING TO SET YOU UP THERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR, AND
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ASK
A CLARIFYING QUESTION. I WAS I
WAS ON ZOOM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
BUT I WAS LISTENING AND I KNOW I
HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME,
WHICH IS THE HISTORY OF I-90.
AND I JUST IT WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE EFFORTS
THAT WERE USED BY COMMUNITY
MEMBERS UNDER I-90 WERE NOT, IN
FACT, SEPA. THEY WERE NEPA, IS
THAT CORRECT? AND CAN YOU SPEAK
TO THAT, PLEASE?
-- THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE
TWO ASPECTS OF THAT PROJECT THAT
WOULD NOT BE IMPLICATED BY THIS
LEGISLATION. ONE IS THE REVIEW
WAS UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT, NOT THE CITY, NOT THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. AND
SECOND, IT'S A PROJECT ACTION.
SO SPECIFIC THING BEING BUILT
RATHER THAN A NON PROJECT ACTION
LEGISLATION. THE COUNCIL IS
CONSIDERING PROJECT ACTIONS WILL
STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
APPEALS UNDER THIS BILL. SO ON
BOTH COUNTS BECAUSE IT'S A
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND BECAUSE IT'S A PROJECT
ACTION, THIS BILL WOULD NOT HAVE
ANY IMPACT, WOULD NOT HAVE HAD
ANY IMPACT ON THAT. I-90 APPEAL.
-- THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT,
AND I THINK IT'S JUST A REALLY
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION FOR US TO
MAKE IN TERMS OF CLARIFYING WHAT
THE BILL COVERS AND DOESN'T
COVER, AND I APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR HER
COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES,
NAVIGATING THROUGH THE
COMPLEXITY OF LAND USE. AND SO I
JUST WANT TO ASK, AND I KNOW
MANY OF OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE
COMMENTING TODAY ARE INCREDIBLY
KNOWLEDGEABLE, BUT I ALSO WANT
TO ASK, JUST FOR ANYBODY WHO
MIGHT BE WATCHING, CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
PROJECT ACTION AND A NON PROJECT
ACTION?
-- YEAH, A PROJECT ACTION IS
SOMETHING THAT WILL BE BUILD
AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
IS DONE. SO YOU HEARD LOTS OF
COMMENTS ABOUT DATA CENTERS,
LEGISLATION THAT YOU JUST PASSED
ON DATA CENTER REGULATION IS NOT
AS WAS A NON PROJECT ACTION. IF
SOMEONE PROPOSES A LARGE DATA
CENTER IN SEATTLE THAT NEEDS TO
GO THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW,
THAT WOULD BE A PROJECT ACTION.
AND THAT PROPOSAL FOR THAT
SPECIFIC DATA CENTER WOULD STILL
HAVE AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
-- I THINK THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO MAKE.
SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. CHAIR.
-- THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
FOSTER. THAT WAS MY QUESTION AS
WELL. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
THAT APPEALS UNDER THE THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT, THOSE STILL EXIST. PROJECTS
ARE STILL REQUIRED TO GO UNDER
IF THERE'S FEDERAL FUNDING OR
OTHER SORT OF FEDERAL APPROVALS,
NEPA STILL APPLIES. AND THERE'S
STILL THOSE APPEAL RIGHTS.
THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT?
CORRECT. AND AND THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER ON ON THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROJECT
LEVEL AND NON PROJECT LEVEL.
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
-- THANK YOU, CHAIR, I JUST WANT
TO CONFIRM THIS IS THE THIRD
TIME WE'VE HAD THIS IN
COMMITTEE. IS THAT CORRECT?
-- I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
-- IT'S ACTUALLY.
-- THE FOURTH. THIS IS THE
FOURTH.
-- FAIR ENOUGH. FOURTH TIME.
TYPICALLY WE ONLY HAVE TWO
OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMITTEE. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU DOUBLING THE
AMOUNT OF TIME. AS YOU HEARD AT
THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, I
HAD SOME CONCERNS. THOSE
CONCERNS WERE RESOLVED. I DO
STILL HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS
LEFT HANGING OUT THERE, AND I
DON'T WANT TO SLOW DOWN THE
PROCESS. SO I'M GOING TO BE
ABSTAINING TODAY SO THAT I CAN
GET THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED
BETWEEN NOW AND FULL COUNCIL.
-- APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS. YEAH.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
HOLLINGSWORTH.
-- THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND I WAS
ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY THE SAME
THING. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE
BROUGHT UP SOME SOME QUESTIONS
TODAY AND I WANT TO GET THOSE
ADDRESSED. I'M NOT GOING TO
SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS. I WILL BE
ABSTAINING FROM THIS AND JUST
WANT TO CHECK WITH CENTRAL STAFF
ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. AND, AND
WITH SOME COMMUNITY MEMBER FOLKS
AS WELL. SO THANK YOU.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
BEFORE WE MOVE TO LET'S SEE.
YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? LET'S SEE.
COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER.
-- THANK YOU. A COMMENT THIS
TIME. SORRY, I LIKE I WAS LATE
AND THEN I STOLE YOUR QUESTION.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU CHAIR. I
JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I
WANT TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR
THIS BILL. AND THANK YOU, CHAIR,
FOR YOUR INCREDIBLY HARD WORK ON
THIS IN THESE LAST SEVERAL
MONTHS. YOU KNOW, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, CITIES ARE AN
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ELEMENT TO
HOW WE COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE,
GROWING IN A WAY THAT IS
RESPONSIBLE, GROWING IN A WAY
WHERE WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT
SO MUCH OF OUR POLLUTION COMES
FROM TRANSPORTATION RELATED
EMISSIONS, AND THAT WHEN WE HAVE
FOLKS WHO ARE PUSHED FURTHER OUT
OF THE CITY, OR IF WE FAIL TO DO
OUR JOB AND BUILD SUBSEQUENT OR
SUBSTANTIAL AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, THAT THOSE ACTIONS OR
NON-ACTIONS, DEPENDING ON HOW
THOSE ARE DEFINED, YOU KNOW,
ALSO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
SO TO ME, WHEN I THINK ABOUT
THIS LEGISLATION, I SEE THIS AS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE A
BALANCE. AND WE KNOW THAT, AS IT
WAS DESCRIBED TO US BY CENTRAL
STAFF TODAY, THAT THERE WILL
STILL BE THE ABILITY TO USE THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR CERTAIN
ACTIONS. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT
THE STATE POLICY IS STILL GOING
TO BE IN EFFECT. WE ALSO KNOW,
LOOKING TO NEIGHBORING CITIES,
THAT WE HAVE SEEN OTHER CITIES
WHO DO NOT HAVE THIS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BE
SUCCESSFUL IN MANAGING THEIR
TREE CANOPY AND OTHER THINGS
THAT WE CONTINUE TO ASPIRE TO
WORK ON HERE IN SEATTLE. SO I
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, CHAIR. IT'S I KNOW
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY AND AT THE LAST
THREE MEETINGS. AND SO I AM
EXCITED TO TO VOICE MY SUPPORT
FOR THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
FOSTER. ANY OTHER I'LL HAVE
SOME COMMENTS, BUT ANY OTHER
LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, VICE
CHAIR STRAUSS AND THE REASON WE
DID WANT TO HOLD A NUMBER OF
MEETINGS IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND OBVIOUSLY,
THERE'S A LOT OF PASSION ON
SORT OF BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE
THAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MEETINGS.
ONE THING THAT WE HAVE ALSO
HEARD IS A DEEP COMMITMENT TO
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. AND
I THINK WE'VE THERE'S THERE
ARE SOME SORT OF THOUGHTS ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, HOW WE GROW AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF HOW WE GROW AS A
CITY AND HOW THAT IMPACTS SOME
OF OUR SURROUNDING
JURISDICTIONS. YOU KNOW, WE'VE
HEARD A LOT OF FROM FOLKS ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING, THE
IMPORTANCE OF TREES, ADDRESSING
OUR STORMWATER IMPACTS. I'LL
JUST SORT OF NOTE KIND OF, FOR
THE RECORD, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT
THE NEED TO GROW OUR PARKING
SPACES OR THE NEED FOR MORE
RIGHTS OF WAY. AND I JUST I
MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE. I THINK
WE ARE ALL INCREDIBLY CONCERNED
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THE, THE
DEVASTATING HEAT WAVES ACROSS
THE GLOBE. AND AS I THINK ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS CAUSING THE
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT WE CAN
DO HERE, YOU KNOW, OUR TOP
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN THE
CITY IS TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.
YOU KNOW, IN CARS AND TRUCKS ARE
ONE OF THOSE TOP EMITTERS. AND
WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE CITY IS
BUILD WORLD CLASS TRANSIT, LIGHT
RAIL, MAKE IT EASY TO HAVE A
ROBUST BUS SYSTEM AND, AND OTHER
MEASURES TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF
VEHICLES. ANY OF YOU, YOU KNOW,
CAN CONVERTS FROM A DRIVING TO,
TO TAKING TRANSIT REDUCES THEIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SUBSTANTIALLY. AND, YOU KNOW,
NOT ONLY IS THAT BETTER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT GLOBALLY, BUT IT'S
ALSO BETTER FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
HERE TO REDUCE THOSE POLLUTION,
WHICH PARTICULARLY IMPACTS SOUTH
SEATTLE AND PLACES LIKE SOUTH
PARK. AND SO I JUST I MENTIONED
THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A
LOT MORE THAT WE CAN WORK ON
TOGETHER THAT THAT I LOOK
FORWARD TO PROPOSALS TO DE
PAVING MANY PARTS OF OUR CITY
THAT WE HAVE 1.6 MILLION PARKING
SPACES IN THE CITY, AND THAT IS
WAY MORE THAN THAN WE NEED FOR
OUR POPULATION SIZE. SO I THINK
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN
WORK ON TOGETHER WITH WITH OUR
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND OUR,
OUR TREE LOVING COMMUNITY AND
ANOTHER SORT OF THING THAT I
THINK ANOTHER SORT OF PIECE OF
GOOD NEWS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
MENTION IS THAT THERE WAS A
RECENT REPORT ABOUT LAKE
WASHINGTON AND THE WATER QUALITY
IN LAKE WASHINGTON, AND HOW IT
HAS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED OVER
THE LAST TWO DECADES, DESPITE
OUR POPULATION INCREASING BY 30%
IN THE REGION. AND THERE'S, YOU
KNOW, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
REASONS. BUT PART OF THOSE
REASONS IS BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED
STRICTER MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY REQUIREMENTS, THINGS
LIKE ADDRESSING STORMWATER
DRAINAGE, CONVERTING SEPTIC
SYSTEMS AND, YOU KNOW, SO GROWTH
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BAD FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT. IT ACTUALLY CAN BE
GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. IF WE
BUILD SUSTAINABLY. WE KNOW THAT
MANY OF OUR NEW MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY
MUCH MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE THAT I LIVE IN. IN TERMS
OF OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
IN TERMS OF REQUIRED ON SITE
STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS. I ALSO
JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO A LITTLE
BIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
PROJECT LEVEL REVIEWS AND NON
PROJECT LEVEL REVIEWS AND, YOU
KNOW, PROJECT LEVEL REVIEWS ARE
THINGS THAT ARE REVIEWED BY OPCD
AND SDCI ARE NOT OPCD, SDCI. AND
YOU KNOW THAT THOSE ARE NOT
PROJECT LEVEL REVIEWS TYPICALLY
ARE NOT THINGS THAT ARE COMING
TO COUNCIL, BUT NON PROJECT
ACTIONS ARE COMING TO COUNCIL.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS
OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
WE HAVE THE FACTS THAT WE NEED
TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
AND PART OF THE REASON I SUPPORT
THIS BILL IS I DON'T SEE IT AS
USEFUL OR ACCOUNTABLE TO SEND
FOLKS OFF TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER. THE HEARING EXAMINER
HAS NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT OUR. THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR
LEGISLATION. THE HEARING
EXAMINER HAS NO ABILITY TO
CHANGE OUR STORMWATER CODE TO
CHANGE OUR TREE CODE. AND AGAIN,
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US, AS YOUR
ELECTED LEADERS, TO MAKE SURE
THAT NOT ONLY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, BUT OTHER PROCESSES THAT
WE FOLLOW, THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
THAT WE DO WITH YOU IS ROBUST
AND THAT WE ARE HEARING FROM
YOU, AND THAT WE ARE
REPRESENTING, YOU KNOW, OUR
COMMUNITIES, YOUR VALUES, OUR
COMMUNITY'S VALUES, AND AGAIN,
AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
THE HEARING EXAMINER DOES NOT
IMPROVE THAT PROCESS. IT DOES
NOT IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO
ENGAGE WITH YOU OR THE BROADER
COMMUNITY. AND SO FOR THAT
REASON, I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO
BE A BETTER PROCESS FOR US AS
LEGISLATORS TO ENGAGE MORE
DIRECTLY ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, ABOUT
IMPACTS TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THIS WILL ALLOW US THAT
ADDITIONAL TIME. THANK YOU TO
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HOLLINGSWORTH
FOR YOUR AMENDMENT THAT THAT
SPEAKS TO THAT ISSUE. YOU KNOW,
WE SHOULD BE ENGAGING WITH YOU
ALL DIRECTLY INSTEAD OF
DELEGATING THAT RESPONSIBILITY
TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. THOSE
ARE MY COMMENTS FOR TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL HAVE FURTHER
DISCUSSION AND COMMENT IF THIS
MOVES OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY TO
FULL COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD BE
NEXT TUESDAY. SO AGAIN, THANK
YOU AGAIN, YOUR YOUR VOICES ARE
VALUED. I IN PARTICULAR, IN
TERMS OF IMPROVING THE HEARING
EXAMINER PROCESS. CLEARLY WE
WILL STILL HAVE LOTS OF HEARING
EXAMINER APPEALS, EVEN IF THIS
DOES PASS. AND SO I THINK
THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT IDEAS
ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE THE HEARING
EXAMINER PROCESS FOR PROJECT
LEVEL APPEAL APPEALS OKAY, I
WILL END MY COMMENTS THERE. IF
THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER
COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE
RECOMMENDATION TO PASS BILL
COUNCIL BILL 121215 AS AMENDED.
-- VICE CHAIR STRAUSS. ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER.
-- YES.
-- COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HOLLINGSWORTH. ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
-- YES.
-- CHAIR LIN.
-- YES.
-- CHAIR. THERE ARE THREE VOTES
IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND TWO
ABSTENTIONS.
-- OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES A
RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL BILL
PASS THE BILL, AS AMENDED, WILL
BE SENT TO THE JULY 21st, 2026
CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE HAVE
REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S
MEETING AGENDA. IS THERE ANY
FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE? BEFORE WE ADJOURN
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS COME
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE ARE
ADJOURNED. OUR NEXT SCHEDULED
MEETING. IT IS 11:14 A.M.. OUR
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS JULY
30th AT 2 P.M.. PLEASE NOTE THE
SELECT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COMMITTEE WILL LIKEWISE BE
MEETING ON JULY 30th, BEGINNING
AT 9:30 A.M.. WE ANTICIPATE THIS
TO BE THE LAST SELECT COMMITTEE
SELECT COMP PLAN MEETING OF THE
YEAR. THANK YOU ALL.