Land Use and Sustainability Committee Meeting — July 15, 2026

Okay, good morning everyone.

Okay, good morning everyone. July 15, 2026 Land Use and Sustainability Committee will

come to order. It's 9.35 a.m. I'm Eddie Lenn, Chair of the Land Use and Sustainability

Committee. Will the Committee Clerk please call the roll? Chair Strouds? Here.

Council Member Foster? Here.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Council Member Rink? Present. Chair Lin. Here. Chair, there are four members present.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted. Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming to this Wednesday morning meeting to discuss land use and always thank you to our city clerks, 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're 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 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 will 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 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 Gloger.

Good morning, Council and members of the audience that are here 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 EISs, it's data centers, too. So pay attention, people. That's right, CBL 12-1215 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 2027, may make some elected members much more receptive to data center development. And the current moratorium is only a year long. 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 council members to oppose council bill 12 1215 and support and a substitute bill and councilmember Lynn you proposed to be an environmentalist so therefore wouldn't you want to care about an ES being appropriate that's what this is all about you didn't like

the appeal that caused the delay which was caused by the city's attorneys that to light 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 unadvised bill and do a substitute bill. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Steve Rubstello, 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 MHA fees.

We will not, well, I guess we are for more housing, but it's only on the terms that 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 city. And they're obscene profits, you know. I've heard an ad recently for qualified...

You can get over 9%, and they have never, never lost money.

It's probably not FDIC protected. Thank you, Steve.

Next up, we have Carter Nelson, followed by Alicia Rees and Logan Schmidt.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee. Carter Nelson, representing CREDA Washington State, formerly NAOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. We appreciate your leadership on Council Bill 12-1215 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 firsthand 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 region have long exempted legislative SEPA decisions from administrative appeal. This isn't a 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 Sandy Shetler, Orla Kincannon, Jackie Borges, and Jennifer Godfrey.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee. Logan Schmidt with MBACs and a D5 resident. I'm here in support of Council Bill 12-12-15, and I urge you to vote yesterday. Seattle is in the midst of a real housing shortage, and we can see that 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 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 UGA, 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 Shetler, followed by Orla Kincannon, 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 12-12-15. 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. The 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 12-1215 to streamline housing and honor community input. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Orla Kincannon, and thank you for this opportunity this morning. I'm asking to vote no on CB121215.

This bill would block citizens' 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's 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 Borges, followed by Jennifer Godfrey, Steve Zemke.

Good morning, counsel. 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 five to ten 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 EIS.

The city's EIS concluded that there's no significant impacts. The каз каз каз каз каз каз каз

! ! ! ! ! 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 1,300 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. 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 July 1st, and still 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, 10 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 these lists, the preferred alternative focused most housing on the waterfronts 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. Next up here is Steve Zempke, followed by Laurent Berman and Nathaniel Howard.

Good morning. My name is Steve Zempke. I'm speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest. Please expedite enough reform rather than eliminate the current hearing examiner process regarding comprehensive plans. EISs are only required to occur every 10 years with the comprehensive plan, 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. I've talked to lawyers that 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 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 deChinatown-International Districte 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 tolerated dissent. You listen to the public, but there's not really a dialogue that's going on. There should be allowed, the public should be allowed to ask you questions and require answers, have a dialogue. You need to reform the process. Also, I would suggest public disclosure, that 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 Laurent Berman followed by Nathaniel Howard.

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. 12-12-15 isn't about an individual item on the agenda. It's about rights as 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 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, Council members. Nate Howard, District 3, 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 SEPA

appeal filed in February 2025 to address shortcomings in the comp plan's own environmental impact statement. That EIS 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, it shouldn't be a year and a half.

If there's anything holding up the comp plan, it 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.

That's our last in-person commenter. We will now move on to our remote commenters

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. Neoregonomic deregulation can't fix it. An 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. Recent delays related to the hearing examiner appeal of the CompTIA and EIS 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 10 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 Council Member 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 it's 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 McAleer.

Colleen, please press star six.

Good morning, City Council. Colleen McAleer here for Lawhurst Community Council, representing about 2,500 citizens. And we have followed the comp plan, and we've followed this legislation. And we urge you to vote no on Council Bill 12-1215. It removes any citizen's 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 processes 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's the gold standard, and we're proud of it for appeals of those processes that were omitted or 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, primarily due to private residential developments. Tree permits are readily issued 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 creating heat islands from the review of piecemeal developments. But this legislation, as it is already, would prevent a citizen and wanting more housings and a healthy place to live at the same time. So we ask City Council to stand for a fair and environmentally appropriate safeguard of the CEPA appeal process. And please reject CB 12-1215 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.

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 4.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... The same fiscal note says the benefit of this bill is staff not, and I quote, spending time defending ! ! My community remembers what government bills when no one can make it defend its decisions. It designed Interstate 90 is an open trench to 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 EIS is not just trees.

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 deChinatown-International Districte 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're 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. Okay. 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 regard Council Bill 12-12-15. I'm sure everyone in Council has said something about improving the Seattle process and cutting delays while campaigning. Well, this is the opportunity to do so. Council Member Lin's proposal is a sensible reform that will speed much-needed policy changes and important projects while maintaining citizens voice and their opportunity to appeal. Work on the comp plan has 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 forest bulldoze. 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 the sustainable path forward and vote yes on Councilmember Lane's bill. Thank you for our service for City. Thanks. Thank you.

Next up, we have Kimberly Larson.

Hi there. I hope you all can hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. Hi. My name is Kimberly Larson. I am a longtime resident of the Central District of Seattle. And I am here today. I really want to thank you all. You actually 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. And coming to you today, actually imagine me with 6,500 folks standing with me. If they could all be here in the room. I have a petition of that many people, 6,500 folks, so thousands, who are asking for an end of the fighter jet show with CFARE. 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, yes, sponsors an event that is not inclusive and is actually 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 jet 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 in present but a lot of residents leave the city because they don't like it. There are 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. Here regarding Council Bill 12-1215, last month, Court of Appeals ruled the hearing examiner committed a legal error on a SEPA appeal that was legitimately filed according to the

city's own established process. Instead of responding with remand a month and a half ago, councils 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 environmental 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? them. Within the application is an incomplete CEPA 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 add a dad or 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 demonstrate little or no regard to the health of Puget Sound. Growth is outpacing the capacity of our sewer system, resulting in multiple recurring sewage overflows into our waterways. I ask 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 Haynes.

Good morning.

Thank you. My name is Taylor Haynes. 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 without undercutting environmental review. For households waiting for affordable homes, each month of delay counts. The administrative appeal process does not contribute to better outcomes 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 a 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 labage

breck please press star six there you go good morning am i on yes

Thank you. Greetings, Chair Lin and members. I'm Dr. Breck LeBegg with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Airshow 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 airshows 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-18s at 110 decibels 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. PFARE provides no ear protection, so WPSR gives out hundreds of free earplugs each of the past two years. Jet fuel exhaust harms lungs, hearts, 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 the graph in purple.

Blue angels fly right over them every year, causing more direct harm to people who are 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 you. Next up, we have Richard Ellison.

Hello. My name is Richard Ellison. I'm a resident of District 4. I oppose CB 121215 banning public appeals and secret decisions. 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 to spike in housing costs and little affordable housing was built across the city to replace low-income housing. Mayor Ed Murray's grand bargain continues to give away to build expensive housing and a dribble of affordable housing. Now, CB121215 wants to end environmental appeals as a supposed 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 the climate change is a hoax. The Trump administration is tearing up the ECA and national monuments. What if the public was not allowed to appeal these Trump-administrated decisions? Is 2026 the year the Seattle City Council banned people of appeals in the Emerald City?

This blatant act is the 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 CB121215. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have David Haynes.

Hi. Thank you, David Haynes. You know, it sounds like CEPA 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. We 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 SEPA to prevail because it helps them backstab the working class to use 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 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 council's landlords.

The landlords on the city council are still backstabbing the next 20 years. You need to get rid of the restrictions and the comprehensive plan. You need to get rid of the restrictions and the comprehensive plan that kept it minimalized and lower level. !

! Stop allowing people to weaponize whether it's the CEPA, or the parking mandate, or the character of a rundown, antiquated, dilapidated 20th century home, or the weaponized excuse for stopping people building. We have two additional in-person speakers, beginning with Kathy Kapaliner, followed by Audrey Jones. Weiner followed by Audrey Jones.

Thank you.

Please expedite and reform rather than eliminate the current hearing examiner appeals process regarding comprehensive plan EISs. 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 12-1215 as it is written and fix it, reform it rather than dump it, because 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. And, I mean, you can't, like, build a freeway and then say, oh, you can only argue about it after the fact.

And even if the argument succeeds, then you have to demolish this freeway. And 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 extractively 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 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.

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

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 slash 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 remote 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.

The speaker's will call will be called in the order of registration and person speakers will be called first followed by remote speakers public hearing registration will remain open and until the conclusion of the public hearing simple the column rules applied to this public hearing ten-second chime will be your notice that is time to comment speaker's mics will be muted at the end of their allotted time the 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 Glover.

My apologies. We'll begin with Juliana Bernardo followed by Jeff Sloan, Caroline Russell and Steve Rubstello.

Good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Juliana Bernardo. I'm a resident of District 3 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 expose our neighbors to heat islands and an increased air, water, noise and light pollution, causing significant risk 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 promised commitment to environmental justice.

I urge you to include full public disclosure in the work plan that includes discussion of 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 Sloan, followed by Carolyn Russell, Steve Rubstalla.

I'm so sorry.

Yep, sorry. Followed by Carolyn Russell, Steve Rubstalla, and Dave Glover.

Hi, I'm Jeff Sloan, 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 their 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 system's 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 make economic sense,

starting with decarbonizing the city's largest natural gas account, the Seattle Center Steam Plant, where we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on heat?

fossil fuels. So if plan A is to abandon the steam pipes, upgrade campus electrical, and figure out air-to-air heat pump solutions uniquely per building as occurred at Climate Pledge Arena, consider plan B where the campus buildings remain intact.

Thank you. Yeah, you can leave them in the box. Thank you so much.

Next up, we have Caroline Russell followed by Steve Rubstall, Dave Glover, Lauren Redfield, and Agatha Nolan.

Hi, Council. My name is Caroline Russell. I am a District 3 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 City Lights 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, meaning we will see higher 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 stated 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 here is Steve Rubstallum.

We need a 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, government used to encourage and demand that utilities bought the electricity if 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.

Thank you, Steve.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger, followed by Lauren Redfield and Agatha Nolan.

Good morning again, Council. I want to say I support the data center matorium. 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 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 is all that housing of all types? 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 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.

Leningening L Lauren Redfield, District 6, one of the lead organizers of the Washington AI 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 as it's just passed in New York. As you develop the work plan, 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 due to

the Duwamore 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 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 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 I guess my question is, how many data centers do we need and if we need them? And to what extent do we need AI at all? So before approving 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 deChinatown-International Districting 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 societies, but as individuals. Thank you.

Next up, we have Agatha Nolan.

Good morning. Agatha Nolan, District 3 resident.

And 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 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 and 20% is discharged into municipal wastewater facilities, which are having trouble handling the higher volume of wastewater being produced. Again, please enact a complete plan 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, as written, appears to be missing any intent to prevent new data center buildout from threatening Seattle's climate goals. What the heck? 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 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, ARGs 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 121215. As currently written, citizens should be able to challenge incomplete and inaccurate data centers, SIPA or similarly for other highly impactful large industry type projects.

And the bill should be rejected or at least narrowed to only cover SIPA for affordable and social housing, which we do need to hurry up and build as much of as we can for both climate and human reasons.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rebecca Young.

Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Good morning and thank you. My name is Rebecca Young. I'm a resident in District 3, 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 Rowan Hinkle Johnson.

Hi there. Can you – hi, this is Rowan Hickle-Johnson speaking.

I would like to add my public comment and similarly to what previous commentaries have said, I would like to encourage the council to consider in future the impacts of the or rather the potential for using this increased demand as an opportunity to finance renewable energy build-out and increase risk 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 rates, 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 loads should not be landing on the shoulders of the regular rate pairs, 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-Gosselin.

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-Guesna. I'm an electrical engineer specializing in power and renewable energy. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of 350 Seattle, and I live in District 2. 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 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 Dang.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee. My name is Brian Dang. 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, SEL and SDU serve, will not pay increased utility costs because of data centers.

That's great. However, 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. If 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 in 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 in business will the clerk please read agenda to item two.

Agenda item two, transitional encampment expansion, ordinance one, two, seven, four, three, six, public hearing for public hearing.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on ordinance one, two, seven, four, three, six, regarding the transitional encampment expansion. Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

One.

Okay, the speaker will be provided to two minutes. Steve, all right.

Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. Clerk, I'll hand this over to you to present the instructions. Hold on. There's an assumption here. ! You've heard the instructions before, but let's do it again just to be official. Clerk, can you please? ! The instructions 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 the 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. 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.

Chair, that was our last speaker.

Okay. That was our only registered speaker to speak at this public hearing. The public hearing on Ordinance 127-436 is now closed. We will now move on to our third item of business. Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 3.

Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 121215. in ordinance relating to land use decisions amending sections 2376.050, 2376.062, and

2505.680, the Seattle Municipal Code, to clarify processes for Council land use decisions. For briefing discussion, impossible vote.

Thank you. Our representative of central staff has joined us. Can you please introduce yourself for the record?

Okay. Council central staff.

Thank you, Lish. 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 my amendment? Yes, please go ahead. Okay, awesome. Thank you, Chair. I move to amend Council Bill 121215 as presented on Amendment 1.

Second. Second.

Okay. It is moved and seconded to amend the bill.

Council, central staff, you are recognized to provide an overview of the amendment. All right. Just a second. Let me.

Amendment 1 is related to comment periods for environmental documents. So, as you all know and have heard for multiple meetings, Council Bill 121215 removes an opportunity for appeals to the CL 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 termination 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're recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Chair Lin.

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 I also want to thank central staff as well. So this says three things, as Lish 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 7 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 30 days after a determination of 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 no city, like that are not within city government to understand some time 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 this as well. So thank you. Thank you, Council President Hollingsworth.

Colleagues, any questions or comments about Amendment 1?

Vice Chair Strauss. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, will the clerk please call? Chair.

Oh, sorry. That's okay. I was sliding my hand in there on Zoom. Thank you so much, Jeff. 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 Accept 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 there's no appeal to the hearing examiner, council wouldn't be able to act on the underlying legislation for 30 days. 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, will there may be some a few times when this could add a few days of delay, but yeah.

Got it. 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. Council Member Rink. 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 EIS is, again, they're 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. it 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 analyses that should be done. So I think this is 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 Rank. Any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1?

Mayor Strauss. Mayor Strauss. Councilmember Foster.

Yes. Council President Hollingsworth. Yes. Council Member Rink. Yes. Chair Lin. Yes. Chair,

there are five votes in favor and zero opposed. Okay. 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 Lish or otherwise.

Lish, oh, yep.

It's me with the slow Zoom hands. I'm sorry, Chair. I'm not trying to set you up there. Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, Lish. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question. 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 National Environmental Policy Act, not the State Environmental Policy Act. And second, it's a project action, so a specific thing being built, rather than a non-project action legislation the Council is considering. Project actions will still have the opportunity for SEPA 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 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 Council Member Rink 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 built 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 it 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. MS.

I think that's an incredibly important distinction to make, so thank you for clarifying that. No other questions, Chair. MR.

Thank you, Council Member Foster. That was my question as well. Just wanted to clarify that appeals under the National Environmental Policy Act, those still exist. Projects are still required to go. 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. And thank you, Council Member Foster, on the distinction between project level and non-project level.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Chair. 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.

I think 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. I appreciate that.

Thank you so much Vice Chair Shoss. Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you Chair and I was actually gonna 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 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 The The The The The The

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. 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. 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. I know we have heard a lot of public comment today and at the last three meetings, and so I am excited 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 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 devastating heat waves across the globe. And as I think about what is causing the climate change and what we can do here, our top greenhouse gas emission in the city is transportation sector. You know, cars and trucks are one of those top emitters. And what we can do in the city is build world-class transit, you know, light rail, make it easy to have a robust bus system, and other measures to get people out of vehicles. We know that anyone who converts from driving to taking transit reduces their greenhouse gas emissions substantially. And not only is that better for the environment globally, but it's also better for our environment here to reduce those air 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 I look forward to proposals to de-paving many parts of our city. We have 1.6 million

parking spaces in the city and that is way more than we need for our population size. So I think

there are things that we can work on together with our development community and 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's 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

despite our population increasing by 30 percent in the region.

And there's, you know, a number of different reasons, but part of those reasons is because

we've even 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. or 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 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 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 communities 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 seminar.

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 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 appeals. Okay, I will, in my comments there, if there's no other further comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass a bill, uh, Council Bill 121215 as amended.

Vice Chair Strauss. Abstain. Council Member Foster. Yes. Council President Hollingsworth. Abstain. Council Member Rink. Yes. Chair Lin. Yes. Chair, there are three votes in favor, zero opposed, and two abstentions.

Okay, the motion carries. The committee recommendation that Council Bill pass a bill as amended will be sent to the July 21st, 2026 City Council meeting. 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 to 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.