Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Candace Avalos
Good afternoon.
I am going to call the meeting of the Housing and Permitting Committee to order, order on Tuesday, September Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Novick.
Green.
Mitch Green
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Present.
Claire, please read the statement of conduct.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the Housing and Permitting Committee.
To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at portland.gov /council/agenda/housing-and-permitting-committee or by calling 311.
Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting.
In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard.
If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the chair states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The chair preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, Or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you, Claire.
We have 3 items on our agenda today.
We will first have time for public comment on housing and permitting issues.
Then I will give a brief update on community engagement for the Unified Housing Strategy, and we will discuss a resolution on nondisclosure agreements related to data centers that is being brought forward by Councilor Koyama Lane and Vice Chair Green.
With that, Wendy, please read the first item.
Unidentified speaker
Item number 1, Housing and Permitting Community Feedback, item number 2026-296.
Candace Avalos
All right, so we will hear from community members on their concerns, ideas, or feedback.
And just also a reminder to folks that this, uh, time is open for any kind of commentary you want to make.
Doesn't have to be anything that is on the agenda.
So please do continue to sign up and share your experiences and your thoughts with us.
Uh, Wendy, go ahead and please call up our testifiers.
Unidentified speaker
Yes, Amber Cook is joining us online.
Candace Avalos
Welcome, Amber.
Go ahead.
Amber Cook
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, greetings to the committee members.
My name is Amber Cook.
This does relate to both the proposed ban on the NDAs for data center negotiations and the unified housing strategy.
This is just a short bit from an article by Rob Davis, ProPublica, that was put on OregonLive August 21st.
Some Oregon spending on low-income housing has exploded in the past 5 years.
The state has given developers an unprecedented $1.4 billion, and the cost of developing each apartment is nearly doubled.
That's like $540,000 each.
Dozens of projects are lined up for an additional $850 million in future state funding.
And then just aside, and the city has $35 million coming up for, you know, the same kind of dispersal.
Thank you.
But one thing has remained constant in Oregon.
The public isn't allowed to see the details of how these dollars are being spent.
So, in, in, for those who don't know, in like 1997, state legislatures passed a law that prevents our government from disclosing the financial details of subsidized housing projects, thwarting researchers, advocates, and journalists trying to examine their cost and understand why things aren't improving and Oregon's homeless population continues to grow.
Transacting public money behind closed doors allows for abuse and misuse that we can clearly see has gone too far and must be curbed by public pressure and elected official action.
We saw a few meetings ago where the Portland Housing Bureau did a slide presentation on kind of the public's reaction to, you know, taxes and spending, where it said, you know, basically the public is generally okay with the taxation.
For housing, but not when it isn't getting results, and it isn't.
Anyone living in low-income housing can tell you that conditions across the board have deteriorated sharply since the housing crisis started 14 years ago.
Although landlord developers like to blame COVID, the degradation of housing started a few years before that, as their private— as their higher profit extraction demands made their property management companies have to stop necessary and normal business expenses.
To To save money to generate those higher profits, which sadly works because no one will hold them accountable to landlord-tenant laws and city codes.
While no one is, of course, an exaggeration, it's not based on years of lived experience trying to get anyone to hold slumlords here accountable for violations and ongoing negligence.
So please, before you open up the public coffers and start pouring millions more into these for-profit developers' pockets, you'll want to understand— you'll want to demand financial transparency.
Insist on the bailouts producing lower, more wage-affordable rents rather than just giving them the money with no expectation of what comes out of it.
And then, of course, hear from a wide range of renters.
Um, it's not proven useful to just listen to the lobbying narratives of property owners who are costing us millions and not producing sufficient affordable and safe housing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you, Amber, for your testimony.
Do we have others on the list today?
Keelan McClymont
That concludes public input.
Candace Avalos
All right, thank you.
Um, let's go ahead and call item 2.
Unidentified speaker
Item 2, document number 2026-297, Unified Housing Strategy Engagement Update.
Candace Avalos
All right, colleagues, so this is just a little, uh, verbal update for you on what's been going on with the UHS, or Unified Housing Strategy, um, where we are with the engagement.
And so as a reminder, council adopted the Unified Housing Strategy resolution last year with the goal of bringing the city's housing work into one coordinated strategy with clearer priorities, measurable outcomes, and stronger alignment across bureaus and with our community partners.
So over the last several months, I've been working closely with the Housing Bureau and the CEDSA, the Community and Economic Development Service Area bureaus, and their staff to help plan and lead the engagement process that is going to inform that strategy.
So what we have done so far has largely taken the form of World Cafe-style stakeholder discussions with subject matter experts from across Portland's housing ecosystem.
This includes the stakeholder list that we shared with committee a couple months ago, and committee members had the opportunity to review and provide some feedback and identify additional people and organizations who should be invited to those conversations.
The goal of these sessions has been to bring together people with deep experience experience in different parts of the housing system and give them space to work through the actual policy and implementation questions in small group discussions.
So on August 10th, we held our first session focused on housing preservation.
So that is on how we sustain the housing we already have, protect affordability, and prevent the loss of existing units.
On August 11th, we held a second session focused on housing production, including how Portland can support the development of more housing across different types and income levels.
Our 3rd session took place yesterday on August 31st, and we focused on funding, specifically how we build a more sustainable and durable funding strategy for Portland's housing goals.
In all of the sessions, participants were reviewing city actions, existing city actions, discussing which strategies should be prioritized, identified implementation barriers, and talked about where the city can lead versus where success will require shared ownership with other partners.
I have really appreciated the depth of those conversations and the willingness of participants to move beyond just identifying challenges, but actually starting to grapple with the trade-offs and priorities and what implementation actually requires.
We have been very diligent in these meetings to say that we want people to come to the table to be part of those solutions and be those partners that we need, that the city needs in order to move these goals forward.
And I'm very grateful that folks have leaned into that.
We have— we decided we needed a little bit more engagement on production and preservation.
So we have planned 2 additional opportunities in September.
Currently, those are scheduled for September 22nd for production and September 25th for preservation, and they will be virtual to maximize participation.
We also have an event or another forum on September 8th, and that one is focused on Goal 3 of the strategy, which is largely around social housing and innovation.
So now what we're going to do is work to schedule engagement in each council district open to all members of the public.
So the district-based conversations are going to look different from the subject matter expert sessions.
These are intended to be broader community conversations that are accessible to all community members, not just people who work professionally in housing.
And that is an important part of the process because lived experience, as we know, and neighborhood experience need to sit alongside technical expertise as we are deciding what strategy we should prioritize.
So we will take everything that we've consolidated through the help of our partners and stakeholders, package that in a way that the public can digest and get their feedback again on where we need to be putting our prioritization, which is a big part of this goal because we have lots of objectives and goals and ideas, but we have to prioritize them with our limited resources.
And decide again how we are— what's the goal we're working towards and the strategy to get there.
PHB has also created a public-facing website where the public can learn more about the Unified Housing Strategy and these upcoming engagement dates.
So that website is portland.gov/phb/unified-housing-strategy.
So in closing, ultimately the goal is not simply to produce another long list of housing policies, It is to develop a strategy that helps us make choices.
So what are we prioritizing?
What are we measuring?
Where should the city lead?
Where do we need partners?
And how are we organizing our resources around the outcomes that we're trying to achieve?
So there's a lot of work ahead, but I'm very encouraged by the engagement so far.
We have had very fruitful conversations, and again, grateful to staff and our partners and everyone who has contributed their time and expertise.
I'm going to continue to keep the committee updated as we move through this next phase of engagement and begin translating that feedback into the draft unified housing strategy.
As you know, it is my intent to bring something back to this committee and then to council about, uh, us making a decision on what is our unified housing strategy vision.
So that is the update.
Uh, I will pause and open it up for any questions or reflections on what I've shared.
And, um, also will say one thing that I have been talking with the city attorneys as it relates to, you know, we've been dealing with all these quorum-related things due to the new public meeting laws.
And so essentially they are saying that, like, there's all these restrictions on who can come to these sessions.
Complicated.
But let's keep talking about that.
I would love for councilors to be involved.
I think if we can try to do it in where people can come to sessions and it not be a quorum thing, that would be ideal.
But just know that it is my intent for those conversations to continue.
Lynn Handlin
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
To be open for councilors and also for councilors to, you know, invite their district community members to participate in that discussion.
So with that, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
And I think you started to get at my question right there.
I was hoping to get a little bit more information about those district-level conversations and who would be planning those, what they would look like.
Is that something that you will request that each district plan and the councilors from that district will organize them, or something that you are planning on organizing across the city?
City?
Candace Avalos
What, what is this?
Yeah, so it's technically the Housing Bureau is organizing it.
So like, I am a partner to the Housing Bureau, but they are organizing the, the events.
Obviously would look to guidance of the councilors in each district, of course, and plan to, uh, reach out.
And again, just trying to navigate the complicated laws, uh, meetings laws that the lawyers have cautioned me about, because in an ideal world, I would have wanted all the councilors and all the districts to just kind of participate, but Yes, Housing Bureau is the main, you know, person helping to organize this, obviously with my help.
They've put together the format, pretty straightforward, but we definitely welcome thoughts and we will be sharing that.
And that's also what the website is for, is so that as we're developing the vision for that, that can be easily accessible, not just to councilors but to the public.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think it would be really helpful to make sure that councilors have an opportunity to be there, to make sure that the bureau is reaching out directly to the 3 councilors in each district.
Both to ensure that the dates work and to check in about the format.
Because I know with, for example, our budget conversations, different districts decided to go about those in different ways, and it would be helpful to bring in the expertise of the 3 people who live in the district to help think about where those should be, when those should be, how they would work best for the communities that we represent.
Candace Avalos
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Councilor Green.
Thank you.
And thanks for the update.
And, you know, offering my support for the District 4 scheduling.
I think one of the nice things about the committee being just one person from every district, each— there's a member of the committee that can kind of bottom line the interaction with the Portland Housing Bureau.
You mentioned lived experience a lot there, and I just tuned into that.
My district is more than half renters.
And so 53% are renters.
And so we're going to be very interested in making sure that the Portland Housing Bureau thinks about not scheduling these during a period of time where people are at work, scheduling them in a part of the city that tenants actually can attend to.
And so, and of course, the other councilors will be welcome to shape that as well.
But I really appreciate that.
I think that's a really important piece of the council-led engagement part.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
So just offering my partnership in that.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you.
Absolutely.
And, um, I think, you know, again, trickily navigating some of the restrictions that I have been told are barriers.
So, um, trying to figure out what's the best way to make sure that people can be as involved and we're following those tricky laws.
Um, but yes, uh, right now the goal is for those to be scheduled Um, probably in early October is the goal.
Like, the timeline has kept shifting, but we're looking at trying to get through all of those in October.
So just a general time frame, but more info will be coming.
Any other questions or thoughts?
Okay, great.
With that, let's go ahead and move to item 3.
If you could please call that, Wendy.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Yes, item 3, document number 2026. urge the city administrator to refrain from signing data center nondisclosure agreements, notify City Council of inquiries for data center deals, and engage in transparent public processes related to data centers.
Candace Avalos
Thank you, Wendy.
So Councilor Koyama Lane and Vice Chair Green have brought to us a resolution in response to emerging concerns surrounding data center facilities, and so I will hand it off to the sponsors for opening remarks.
And then I— we have staff from the Bureau of Planning Sustainability, followed by an invited panel, and then we'll open it up to public testimony and committee discussion.
So with that, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you so much, Chair Avalos, for this time on the agenda to consider this resolution that I'm co-sponsoring with Councilor Green.
We know that data centers are a big topic right now, and for good reason.
I'm thankful that we have the space to talk about how this affects us here in Portland.
That's maybe one of the first questions.
Can this affect us in Portland?
And I'll answer that really shortly.
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
I'm going to pass around this map that's also listed as an exhibit.
This map in the online also shows that there are at least 10 sites that can accommodate a hyperscale data center in our city limits.
So if you're trying to look at the map, find the black and yellow outlines around sites.
They're in places like Hayden Island near OHSU, South Waterfront, and on both sides of the Willamette River.
And while I could go on and on about how data centers consume air, water, and land that our future generations will depend on long after a company's contract ends, as well as associated environmental health impacts.
This resolution is ultimately about good governance and protecting our process and democracy.
We need to be pushing for strong protections, and I think all of the advocates out there pushing hard for things like bans and moratoriums.
I can assure you I hear you.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I support doing what makes sense and what it takes at the state level, local level, to go as far as we can to protect ourselves and communities and our planets.
Chair, I also have an amendment that you can let me know when I should introduce that.
So I hope that—.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane.
Unidentified speaker
I hope that we can pass this swiftly.
This is— I want this to be seen as a first step.
It tells our City leadership, the executive side, not to sign secret nondisclosure agreements with data center companies.
This resolution is about transparency.
Secrecy erodes trust within our city government.
We especially don't want that with an industry that touches our drinking water, electricity, and air quality.
So normalizing transparency in our decisions is really important.
And we still are a new-ish council.
I don't feel like we're new-new, but we're still new-ish, and we are setting precedents.
And so sound, transparent processes now are really important for preventing harm in the future.
So this, I see this as a high-integrity first step that pairs well with a next important step of a moratorium or ban on hyperscale data centers.
We are monitoring what is happening with the different moratoria efforts in Hillsboro and Salem, have had a lot of conversations with our land use attorney, Attorney King, and she's been great and has— I've learned a lot already.
Thank you for your support.
And based on conversations, you know, we— it's important to know which efforts are expected to face appealable land use decisions that may or may not be held up in court.
And you've also probably— folks have seen that Governor Kotek is leading state processes and encouraging local action.
We also need to follow what's happening at the state level to To figure out what our next steps— what makes sense for our next steps.
So, but for this today, it literally costs the city nothing to commit to being transparent.
I hope that my colleagues will vote to support this resolution.
Also open to co-sponsors if anyone is helping to leading this.
And the amendment that is listed, Koyama Lane Green 1, just to share a little bit about it, it adds a be it further resolved, that clause that states City Council intends to pursue moratorium or zoning restrictions on all hyperscale data centers at the earliest time and to consider additional approaches for large load data centers.
There's, you know, different information on vocabulary and definitions.
Also, we're seeing Washington County and Clackamas County have some movement in this area.
So this might be something that, as the City of Portland, we reach out to our colleagues in Multnomah County to see what is a good way forward and how we might want to work on that together.
I just want to make sure to really thank BPS, PP&D, DC Oliveira, and Christina Gann for working with our team.
You're doing a lot of work in this area and appreciate your research looking at code trends, laying the groundwork for responsible policy and practice in this area.
And Claire Adamsick, you're amazing.
Thank you for your research and coordination over the last couple months on this topic.
And Alan, Aubrey, and Sabatino on my team.
Sabatino is our amazing Summer Works Program intern.
We loved him.
We love him so much.
He's back at college now, but he spent a lot of time on this policy.
Sorry, I know it was a lot.
I could have maybe said some of that later, but now I will hand things over to my co-sponsor, Vice Chair Green, if you want to make any additional comments.
Thank you so much, Councilor Koyama Lane, and thank you for leading on this.
This was a thing that I, would sometimes lie awake at night thinking about, you know, looking at other jurisdictions, looking at what's happening in Hillsboro, and frankly all around the state, and wondering how do we take proactive action on this.
And when I found out that you were working on this, I was excited to have the opportunity to join you and support this.
I think it is a good first step.
I think that, you know, in this new form of government, when we have A city administrator and a sort of council's a legislative body and a quasi-judicial body and an oversight body, using resolutions to sort of express council's will on how we expect the city administrator to move is a great first step.
And I think there are many cases where budget notes and other resolutions are honored in that way.
And just had an interaction with the city administrator today talking about one of my budget notes.
So I think that this is a great way to interact as a good faith partnership with the city administration.
And, you know, the way that you've constructed it with the early assistance piece, we'll find out if that doesn't happen because we do get the public notice on early assistance.
And so if we find that there's— that this is inadequate down the road, then maybe we move to codification of something like this.
But I really appreciate you taking this nimble approach because it doesn't cost a lot and it sends a clear signal to to our community that, that the public opinion matters.
You know, it's not about necessarily whether I want data centers or not in my neighborhood.
It's about whether we want the public to know that we understand that this is an urgent moment and we want them to have as much information as possible so we can engage in this, in the land use process.
So I thank you for bringing this forward, and I'm glad you drafted the amendment because I was also like, should we say something about moratoriums?
So Uh, support that as well.
So I don't think I've got much more to add than that.
I want to say thanks to the staff who've helped, uh, prepare this and the city attorneys who've advised on this.
And, uh, and Claire, of course, you're a rock star.
Um, all right, that's it for me, Chair.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
And so you have previewed the amendment, so we'll— we can move and second it later if that's fine.
Um, and then is this Sandra?
Sandra Wood
Yes, I am.
Candace Avalos
Wonderful.
So Sandra, you are up.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, thank you very much for having me, councilors, for inviting me.
Sandra Wood
And I have to echo how wonderful Claire is because, um, we only sing her praises in our office.
Um, good afternoon, my name is Sandra Wood.
I'm with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
I use she/her pronouns, and we're of course in the Community and Economic Development Service area.
I'm a principal planner, so I'll be principally speaking to you today about the land use implications of data centers, how they're classified in the zoning code, and where they're currently allowed.
The city's building official is also here, Natalie Didion.
She works for Portland Permitting and Development.
So if you have any questions about permitting and how data centers As was mentioned, the rapid growth of large-scale data centers has generated nationwide concerns regarding the impacts on infrastructure, environment, nearby communities, and local economies.
In Oregon, the Governor at COTEC has convened the Data Center Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for a regulatory framework.
By the end of September, they should be looking at their preliminary findings, and they have a listening session scheduled on September 23rd-ish, I wanna say.
And then we have a public comment session scheduled on October 4th.
For a regulatory framework at the state level.
So what are data centers?
They're characterized as physical centralized facilities storing network servers, data storage drives, computing equipment, and the supporting equipment, including power storage generators and cooling systems.
They're composed of server racks.
These racks are typically just over 6 feet tall, about 19 inches wide and 40 inches deep.
Wow.
Or so.
A full rack can weigh about 200— 2,000 pounds.
The racks need to have space between them to keep the servers cool and for workers to access them for maintenance.
The data center debates, as has been mentioned, are dominated by concerns over the hyperscale data centers that are shown on the right of this slide.
They serve millions of users and are often used to train AI.
Some literature calls these cloud data centers because they're owned by cloud service providers like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft.
Others refer to them as AI data centers because they can be devoted to AI-related systems.
In contrast, there are 2 other scales of data centers that are more common and already operate in most cities, including in Portland.
Colocation of data centers serve multiple organizations and are small or mid-scale.
The enterprise data centers on the left of the screen serve a single organization and can fit into a closet.
Portland zoning code regulates land uses using broad use categories.
This slide lists the commercial and industrial use categories.
Data centers are not an explicit use category currently.
However, they match the characteristics of one of the office subcategories.
Data centers are classified as industrial office.
They're characterized by activities that focus on technology, and they're associated with the production of digital goods.
Data centers provide products to other businesses and do not have customers or clients visiting the site.
In addition, the inclusion of data processing and hosting services in the examples of industrial office provides a strong basis for categorizing data centers as industrial office.
So what does that mean about where they can locate?
Office uses are largely prohibited in residential zones, so we didn't even show it on this slide.
Offices, including industrial offices, are allowed in the commercial mixed-use zones shown on the left.
Employment zones in the middle also allow office uses.
And industrial zones offer— allow 4 office uses per site, but a maximum of 3,000 square feet.
More or larger require a conditional use.
So they're largely limited in the industrial zones citywide.
This map shows where data centers are allowed in Portland.
As I described, they're allowed in mostly commercial and employment centers like Central City, Gateway, and Lents.
And along the corridors of Sandy, Martin Luther King Jr., 122nd Avenue.
Zooming into the Central City, like the rest of the city, offices in the Central City are allowed in the commercial and employment and institutional zones.
Those are the red, orange, and pink zones on this map.
There are 2 extra allowances that are interesting in the Central City that pertain to industrial office uses.
Specifically, first, the industrial zones inside the Central Eastside Subdistrict allow industrial offices, whereas all offices are limited outside the subdistrict or in the rest of the city.
In this area, industrial offices, and therefore data centers, are allowed up to 3 times the size of the lot.
Second, whereas residential zones normally prohibit office uses, in the Central Residential Zone, and that's the white area between 405 and the park blocks.
And I think it's Market and Taylor on this map.
A limited amount of office uses is allowed.
So switching gears here a little bit, I just summarized what the zoning code currently says.
Data centers aren't the first large footprint land use.
To spark widespread concern.
Big box retailers and e-commerce warehouses generated similar conversations in the past.
But data centers— but whether data centers are serving artificial intelligence or serving businesses and residents, they are increasingly necessary pieces of modern infrastructure.
With that in mind, there are many policy considerations that need further explanation— exploration to support a full conversation.
One consideration is the available land.
Smaller data centers find space in vacant and underutilized office and retail buildings today, and we expect that to continue.
Hyperscale data center sites must be large enough, have robust infrastructure connectivity to the power grid and fiber networks.
The available land, real estate market, and small lot sizes of Portland is not very conducive to hyperscale data centers with few large lots in the areas of the city where industrial use— office use is permitted.
Another consideration is economic development.
While most debates are focused on AI companies using data centers, the truth is that we all use them.
Online retailers need to run their websites and coordinate logistics.
Remote workers rely on data centers to store files and provide cloud-based services.
Fast and reliable data services are often used As a criteria by companies looking for space to lease.
In cities such as Portland, repurposing vacant downtown offices into marketable properties could drive economic recovery.
Proponents note that data centers generate substantial economic activity during construction and provide a not insignificant number of new permanent jobs.
Job density and transit service is another consideration.
Portland's land use and transportation goals aim for job densities and use that support active streets and generate transit users in the city's centers and corridors.
Data centers have a much lower job density than many office users.
Therefore, a proliferation of data centers in the central city and in the city's transit-served centers and corridors could be counter to our long-term land use and transportation goals.
A 4th concern, concern or consideration is the large part of the policy debate related to data centers Um, around energy use and who pays the higher cost of energy.
Locations that have access to cheap renewable energy are desirable for data center development, and including our utility partners in the policy conversation would be essential.
In 2025, Portland signed up to the Global Urban Centers Pact, which includes a principle of cost security and shared prosperity.
When the Oregon legislature passed the Power Act in 2025, it followed through on this principle and establish a new electricity rate class for data centers that ensures they pay, they pay their fair share for electricity and related infrastructure and not pass the cost on to residents.
Oregon is the only state so far to enact this tool.
And of course, any policy debate about data centers would not be complete with the consideration of water.
And although many might think that the concern isn't as big in Portland as it is in Eastern Oregon, it still should be part of the conversation.
To summarize, there are 3 scales of data centers.
They're currently allowed as industrial office uses in Portland and are largely limited to the commercial mixed-use and employment zones, with the exception of the Central City, which also allows them in industrial zones.
Finally, a policy conversation would need to be informed by exploring multiple considerations such as land use, economic development, Jobs, transit, energy, climate, and water.
Thank you to Councilor Koyama Lane and Councilor Green for inviting us to speak today.
Natalie and I are available for questions after the public testimony.
Candace Avalos
Thank you very much.
And then I understand we have some invited speakers.
Yes, so let's go ahead and bring on that panel.
Thank you, Sandra.
I have on my notes a TBD of all the people.
So who are the people?
Emily—.
Unidentified speaker
We have Emily Waldron from the Oregon Data Center Defiance Group, and then Ali Finn, Director of Community Partnerships at AI Now Institute.
Great.
Candace Avalos
Is Ali virtual?
Okay, great.
Do you have a particular order you want them to speak in, or okay, go ahead.
Emily Waldron
Okay, perfect.
This is a little fancier than my usual North Plains City Council meetings.
My name is Emily Waldron, and I am here on behalf of Oregon Data Center Defiance.
We are a newer coalition of individuals and organizations throughout the state of Oregon.
We have members from here in Portland all the way down to Southern Oregon in Talent, just north of Ashland, as far east As Central Oregon with Redmond, Boardman, La Pine, and as far west as the Oregon coast.
So our membership encompasses a lot of space, and we are a coalition that gathered together in order to pass statewide regulations as well as support local initiatives and make it easier for people to enact grassroots movements in their own counties and cities.
So I'm going down my list of what I was asked to talk about.
So an overview to begin on the data center trends in Oregon.
They keep popping up everywhere.
I feel like it's daisies in my backyard.
So first of all, there's the water concerns, how much water they're using, but also what's being emitted afterwards in pollution.
I know there's been discussion about using closed-loop data center systems without the discussion that closed-loop is more likely to include more PFAS and higher concentrations of nitrates in the water that they do release.
As well as the fact that closed-loop systems require more energy and output more heat.
A closed-loop microchip requires 2.5 times the energy as a non-closed-loop chip.
So there's still a lot of water usage.
It's just moving into a different spot in the pipeline to where energy is being produced.
Another concern with data centers is the heat output.
Recent studies show that they increase the heat by anywhere from 9 to 16 degrees at a single data center.
Wow.
And I'm sure— I live just outside of Hillsboro where we have Huffman, which is covered in data centers.
It's a lot higher because they all start feeding off of each other and growing with that.
For power, these things are using a lot of power.
We don't have the numbers for 2026 yet, but in 2025, EcoTrust Northwest reported that data centers used 23% of the energy generated for the entire state.
And I am sure with more data centers, Including the hyper or the closed-loop system chips, I wouldn't be surprised if they start moving closer to 50% of all of the water that we're using in the state of Oregon.
They're using land.
And I know in Portland people say you don't have a lot of space for a hyperscale, but I know organizers who are in Kansas City that are fighting a hyperscale data center in the middle of downtown because they're just building it vertically.
So this building that they're fighting is proposed to be 20 stories tall for a single hyperscale data center.
That's nothing but a big box going upwards.
These data centers emit sound, both audible and also infrasonic sound.
And there's research going all the way back to the '70s showing the physical harms on a body when it comes to infrasonic sound.
It increases your likelihood of a heart attack.
It increases issues with depression and anxiety and mental health.
There's a lot of different things.
Um, so it's— Oregon has all of these going on, and we're also adding so many.
So right now there's over 9,000 acres of land across the entire state that is slated for data center development, whereas— and this is from a Business Oregon report that they gave to the Data Center Advisory Committee— our data centers are averaging 6 people permanently working per data center in the entire state.
So they're using all of our power, they're using up all of our clean water because it has to be very clean for them.
They're using up all of our land and all of our space for 6 jobs per building, which doesn't really have the impact economically that people would be hoping for.
And this is from an industry report on data centers.
By 2030, over 70% of these buildings are going to be for AI.
So any of the things that people are talking about of like, oh, you're on Facebook, you're using a data center, those aren't the data centers we're talking about.
And those don't even make up a quarter of the data centers that we're talking about.
Thank you.
Most of these centers are for AI training, whether it's for generative AI like Claude.
They're seeing in other states AI usage for things like nuclear weapons development or military surveillance, flock cameras.
All of these are requiring this AI computing.
And so as that grows, these data centers are a part of, like, I wanna say the military-industrial complex almost against our own citizens in the United States.
So there's— in light of all these things going on, there are a variety of different moratorium proposals across the state.
Right now we have what's called a moratorium on our urban enterprise zones.
So these are zones in urban areas.
It pretty much only applies to Hillsboro that says that they don't qualify for a tax break inside that zone.
But the way the governor and her advisors wrote that bill, It does not include any of the rural enterprise zones.
It does not include the SIP tax breaks, which are the strategic investment ones that cities can individually give.
It doesn't include any other sort of break.
And what's concerning is that there's evidence that because schools can opt out of fees, data centers are beginning to be a part of funding different people to run for school boards.
So that way the school board chooses to opt out of fees saying they're just going to get it from tax but then that creates a further tax burden on the state's available money for education.
So with all of that, in Hillsboro, they are the only place that has successfully and currently passed a moratorium.
It can last for 120 days.
That's a state regulation that for city— cities and counties, they only can do 120 days.
In Woodburn, in Clackamas County, Washington County, and there's one other town I'm forgetting.
They've discussed— Salem.
They've discussed doing a moratorium, but nothing's actually been voted on or put into place.
And then I will say my own little town in North Plains has discussed doing a flat-out data center ban.
Unidentified speaker
So we're working that through the planning committee to just completely prevent data centers from entering there at all.
And then with ORDCD and our work with different legislators, different organizations throughout the state, We are pushing for a statewide moratorium.
So our goal is to have a statewide construction moratorium for the next 3 years, as well as implementing different regulations and areas for citizen involvement.
So regulations on the different types of pollution with noise, heat, water, air, wind— or not wind, uh, light— all— there's so many different types of pollution that comes off of them.
We want to regulate all of that.
We want to change it so they're not eligible for these tax breaks.
And just set up a better system for all Oregonians if they're going to be here.
And I can just say, like, with my own perspective on data centers and impacts, living in a— outside a small town in rural Washington County, even in Little North Plains, it's amazing how many secret things occur in order to set up development for data centers.
And things that I can only get through public records requests, and I still am waiting on some public records requests from back in April.
Because people don't want to share it.
It's so hard for the public to find out who is entering a data center contract because they do all these shell companies and fronts for whoever actually is going in.
It's so hard to find out how much energy or water is being used because even if you pull up the city reports, they do things like this, this half of the street gets it from the city, this half gets it from the county, so we don't count what the county's giving out for water.
And it's really hard to get accurate information.
And I— what all you all can do about NDAs to prevent that, I think, is going to be really helpful.
Um, at this moment in our country, I think there's a lot of erosion in faith of our democratic establishments, and getting rid of NDAs is part of healing that and a part of showing that we do care about our citizen involvement and we want to be transparent to serve our communities.
Uh, and I think anything you can do to consider a moratorium, uh, to put protections in place would be good because I know, you know, right now you have them zoned as office buildings.
A data center is 24/7.
It doesn't end at 5 o'clock like an office building does.
It's all day, every single day.
So even if the noise isn't that loud, it's all day, every single day that you have a constant sound.
Even if the light isn't that bad, the lights never turn off outside the building because it's all day, every day.
And that's something that's very unique to these, that they just keep going and going and going.
Emily Waldron
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Until, I don't know, they're decommissioned.
And then when they're decommissioned, you have a whole pile of waste that you have to figure out what to do with.
If they're closed loop, they're using refrigerants and chemicals.
What are you going to do with all of those?
Um, I know there's already a lot of people acting on the oil tanks in North Portland.
And so what would you do with all of the e-waste?
What would you do with all of the leftover remnants from this?
Um, it's just, there's a lot.
And something that I keep seeing, and I laugh at, with the Data Center Advisory Committee that the governor assembled, is in all of their meetings they keep saying, oh, this is a thing over here, but we don't have time to learn about that.
We only have so much time.
We don't have time to learn more about the water.
We don't have time to learn more about the energy.
We don't have time to learn more about all of this stuff.
And I keep just thinking, isn't this why we want a moratorium?
Emily Waldron
Mm-hmm.
So you can pause instead of adding more and take the time to figure out what's going on and what you want.
And then you can begin again with the controls in place that you desire.
So thank you for your time.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Allie, take it away.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much to the committee for the opportunity to testify.
For context, I'm the Director of Community Partnerships at the AI Now Institute.
Which is an independent organization producing policy research on artificial intelligence, including data center infrastructure.
We focus on policy strategies to shape AI in the public interest and redirect the AI industry away from its current path, unbridled commercial surveillance, concentration of power in a few dominant tech companies, and deployment of AI on the public instead of with and by us.
My role includes advising local, state, and federal officials across the country on the reality of the AI industry I'm going to testify today about 3 points.
The first is the role of big tech in driving data center expansion and who this serves.
The second are the immense impacts of the hyperscale data center buildout.
And third, the urgent need to protect Portland from corporate secrecy and nondisclosure agreements as one critical step towards broader safeguards.
Portland residents deserve a future that centers their interests and their well-being, and we need to make sure that we're doing our part to rather ensure that.
Thank you.
Than corporate speculation that introduces unacceptable risk into our economy, drains local budgets, and threatens our water, air, energy grid, public budgets, and local democracy.
So on big tech's role in driving this buildout, the explosive growth that we're seeing across the country is directly linked to the ambitions and business model of big tech and the broader ecosystem of AI and tech companies.
These companies are driving demand for computation across the supply chain.
They are pushing AI technologies across all aspects of society.
This role of big tech is circular.
It dominates ownership of data center infrastructure in the US and globally finances much of the buildout through quite shaky practices, and then manufactures an AI boom that seemingly requires skyrocketing data center capacity.
These companies are rapidly building out this capacity to fuel their AI investments.
With immense consequences for both neighboring communities and, as I said, the stability of our economy as a whole.
Just for a sense of scale, in the first 9 months of 2025, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google spent an estimated $360 billion on capital expenditures.
That's primarily building data centers in the U.S.
This eye-watering investment is based on projected future demand rather than demonstrated need and evidence of the benefits.
And this, they're facing ratcheted up pressure to show a return on investment for their shareholders and investors, incentivizing these AI firms to adopt increasingly toxic business models.
Big tech, along with other data center developers, cloak much of their development in secrecy.
This impedes local democratic processes and public awareness of data center projects, development, and extractive land, water, and energy implications.
And these tactics of obfuscation show up in many ways, but most apparently in the development of backdoor deals facilitated not only through NDAs, but also project code names, selective community engagement, and use of shell companies.
I'm going to speak a little bit to the impacts, and there's, you know, hours to say here, but I'll focus on a few things.
We have more than a decade of evidence of existing data center development that shows the supposed gains from data centers' trickle-down approach.
Fail to materialize, but communities are left paying a steep price.
This falls on our democratic processes first.
Big tech firms, data center developers, the data center lobby engage tactics that steamroll our local democratic processes, including taking advantage of outdated regulatory and zoning policies like data centers fitting into office code zoning and violating environmental laws.
Private equity firms are increasingly moving into public utilities through acquisitions and partnerships that enable them to exploit our public utility and grid system, putting all rate classes on the hook in order to access cheaper electricity for their data centers.
And corporate lobbying, which operates, as we know, largely without spending limits and campaign contributions from super PACs, further exacerbate this dynamic as tech companies are pouring millions into shaping our elections and the outcome of legislation, including on data centers.
To their benefit.
The energy and grid stability impacts are also immense.
By 2030, data centers are expected to use 12% of the country's electricity consumption, triple what it is currently.
Even in low estimates, this exceeds the amount of electricity needed to power 26 million households.
And this energy grab is already destabilizing our grid with NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, itself citing data center growth as one of the greatest reliability challenges for U.S. power grids at this moment.
What that does is that increases the risk of power outages and brings higher risks of energy shortfalls to virtually the whole country.
Near misses of blackouts are already increasingly common.
And to me, I think about what this means in reality is people's insulin going bad in the fridge when there's a power outage, no AC for elders, no electricity for disabled communities.
Data center expansion is also returning communities to reliance on fossil fuels and reversing our limited climate progress.
And I'll save details on that.
But these carbon emissions, you know, don't only threaten our planet's future, they also have immediate health consequences for communities, with air pollution leading to rising cancer and asthma rates.
By 2030, air pollution from data centers alone can cause nationally an additional 60,000 premature deaths.
Thank you.
600,000 asthma cases annually.
And that is not something that we should accept.
As the wealthiest corporations in the world demand exponentially more power, they are not paying the costs.
It's everyday people regularly subsidizing these companies.
Across the country, energy bills have gone up for regular ratepayers.
That's not just individual households, but also small businesses directly attributable to the expansion of this data center infrastructure.
And despite voluntary commitments and promises to pay their fair share, the industry has fought against obligations to ensure its costs aren't passed along to ratepayers in places like Georgia and Ohio.
Just lastly here, data centers are also using up precious water resources.
The previous speaker spoke about this, right?
What I want to emphasize here is industry claims around efficiencies, closed-loop systems, water positivity.
Even if they are genuine, they are currently not deployed at a scale that would make a difference in these impacts.
So to conclude, I just want to talk for a moment about corporate secrecy and the importance of ending NDAs.
Strong oversight and transparency mechanisms ensure that data centers cannot hide critical information from communities or local governments.
At the local level, this includes banning the use of nondisclosure agreements, and we have examples of this.
In one strong case, Big Rapids, Michigan approved a policy prohibiting employees and elected officials from signing NDAs around issues pertaining to the public interest or taxpayer funding.
So broader than data centers alone.
We're also seeing communities institute sunshine periods that require public release of documents related to data center development or broader economic development and requiring community hearings as a central part of data center approval processes.
There are other transparency mechanisms available as well, including using permitting and approval processes to mandate transparency requirements both pre- and post-approval, rejecting data center development or expansion proposals that do not adhere to these transparency measures, and establishing robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure that data centers abide by the requirements contingent on approval, which can include the right to revoke permits.
And I want to end by saying that transparency, while critical, is the floor and not the ceiling.
Communities desperately need comprehensive protections, the ability to decide for themselves if, when, and how data center development happens, and an economic development agenda that prioritizes everyday people's needs rather than the interests of these corporations.
Thank you, Deputy City Attorney Nancy Thorington.
Candace Avalos
Thank you both for your testimony.
Um, and with that, we can move into public testimony.
Unidentified speaker
Yes, sound good?
Sounds great.
Candace Avalos
All right, and then I think we will do public testimony, and then we'll take a quick break, and then we'll come back and do committee discussion.
So with that, let's go ahead, Wendy, and call up our first group.
Unidentified speaker
So we have 13 people signed up.
I'll call you up in groups so starting off with Alice Christine Walker, Zach White, Deneen Crowe, Nick Caleb.
And Zach is joining us online.
Please, uh, when you start your testimony, just go ahead and state your name for the record.
You'll hear the timer chime twice.
The first time will indicate you have 30 seconds.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
All right, whoever would like to kick us off.
Alice Christine Walker
I'll go.
Good, good morning, councilors.
My name is Alice Christine Walker, and I'm here on behalf of East Columbia Neighborhood Association.
East Columbia strongly supports this resolution to eliminate developer NDAs, mandate early notifications, and restore transparency to land use decisions.
Our neighborhood is in the direct crosshairs of heavy industrial expansion along the Columbia River corridor.
Right now, high-impact developments are utilizing non-disclosure agreements and early assistance reviews to lock in projects behind closed doors.
When municipal NDAs shield early project planning from the public, communities are shut off before we even know what is coming.
Combined with administrative by-right reviews under Title 33, this leaves impacted neighbors with zero notice zero public hearings and no venue to address the cumulative impacts like 24/7 noise pollution, diesel emissions, and the strain on our utility grid and our roads.
I will say industry does abut residential in Portland, and we are that lived experience, and we deal with 24/7 trucking sounds, and it is unlivable.
We appreciate that this resolution recognizes how frontline neighborhoods like East Columbia disproportionately shoulder industrial burdens.
Non-disclosure agreements have no place in municipal land use.
We thank the councilors Koyama Lane, Green, for sponsoring this critical resolution, and we urge the full council to support it.
Please ensure strict enforcement comes across for all city bureaus.
East Columbia and all Portland deserves open processes, not backroom development that shuts out the very communities that live with these consequences.
Deneen Crowe
Good afternoon, Chair Avalos, Vice Chair Green, and members of the committee.
My name is Deneen Crowe, and I'm the campaign director with 350 PDX, and I live in District 2.
On behalf of our thousands of supporters across the Portland region, I urge you to pass this resolution out of committee and support this when it comes to full council vote.
Refraining from nondisclosure agreements, requiring prompt council notification for data center inquiries, and committing the city to transparency around public processes is simply common sense governance.
The rapid, unvetted buildout of hyperscale data centers is becoming one of the single largest threats to Oregon's future.
Data centers operate 24/7 at immense scale.
Meeting this massive load threatens to derail our clean energy mandates by providing an excuse for new polluting gas infrastructure.
And every gigawatt of this energy diverted to these greedy, power-hungry facilities is energy taken away from electrifying our homes, our workplaces, and our transit.
Grid expansions and substation upgrades carry massive price tags that are frequently passed along to everyday ratepayers.
With Oregonians already facing skyrocketing utility bills, working-class ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize billion-dollar tech corporations.
These hyperscale facilities can also consume millions of gallons of water per day for this evaporative cooling.
As we continue living in the largest wildfire season in Oregon's recorded history, allocating any drop of municipal water to cool computer servers, especially without public review or oversight, is absolutely delusional.
Right now, our organization is one of many fighting for this 3-year moratorium of any new data centers in the state.
This is the direction we must be headed in.
Forcing any conversations about possible data centers to be out in the open and transparent to the public is secret deals inhibit democracy.
When tech giants are negotiating behind closed doors and force public officials to sign nondisclosure agreements, the public— we're left carrying the burden of this increased energy and water costs from these facilities and we're kept behind closed doors.
We can't plan a transition, a just transition from the fossil fuel industry to clean energy in the dark.
Thank you.
Please vote yes on this resolution.
Thank you.
Nick Caleb
Good afternoon, councilors.
Uh, my name is Nick Caleb.
I'm the climate energy attorney at Breach Collective, a local nonprofit.
I'm registered a lobbyist with the city.
Uh, we support the underlying resolution and the amendment that's been offered for it.
Um, honestly, there's not a lot in addition to what I could say that already been said.
Excellent testimony that covers a lot of issues.
I just think from my specific area of expertise.
I'll comment briefly on the climate impacts, um, and from a utility perspective, the bill impacts.
Um, I think there's a misconception or a hopeful conception that's been going around that the POWER Act is going to solve a lot of the ratepayer issues related to data centers.
I don't think that's true.
It will reduce the burden on residential ratepayers as a class, but it doesn't fully send those to the data centers.
It doesn't put them— so there's still a portion of that that's subsidized by residential ratepayers, which is highly inequitable given that we get very little out of this.
And our rates have gone up over 50% in the last 5 years, so we're already rate burdened.
And, you know, I don't think this is necessarily the job of City Council, but I want my, you know, check for the last 5 years of data centers that I've subsidized out of my pocket.
Thank you.
Paying my energy bills, right?
Like, they don't go down just because we've kind of kept it here.
So there's— we're already inheriting inequities that have been built into this development that we need to remedy.
People are really burdened.
And from a climate perspective, there's another mythology that we can just kind of hitch our renewable energy strategy to data centers and they'll kind of like build the infrastructure we need and all the rest.
This is delusional, as Deneen was saying.
Yeah.
First of all, they eat up all the renewable energy that we already have on the grid.
It goes to serving these data centers.
Anything new goes to serving these data centers.
So we never actually get off of fossil fuels.
We're just adding more energy and more renewables in the same amount of fossil fuels.
And across the country, gas infrastructure is actually being built to directly service these new data centers, like massive— second largest gas facility in the country is being built in southern Ohio to serve a hyperscale data center.
And our gas industry here is salivating to change the laws to be able to supply the gas-powered electricity to power data centers moving forward.
And so this is a gold rush type moment that we're seeing.
Everybody who wants to make a buck is diving in and trying to claw as much as they possibly can until this bubble bursts.
And our job as Portlanders is to do what we've done in the past, which is to hold the line, to resist the seduction, the siren call of money here.
And, and can you hear me?
Candace Avalos
Yes.
Zach White
Thank you, councilors.
My name is Zach White.
I was born in District 1.
I just moved to District 3.
I'm a field organizer with Next Step Action Fund, a political home to build upon the collective power and leadership of diverse young people.
Here's a headline from Willamette Week.
In June, data center backlash decided an Oregon Senate race in the Silicon Forest.
This spring, I got to canvass voters in Hillsboro for that race and can confirm.
Um, here's OPB in January.
As Google's water demands grow, the Dalles aims to put more— pull more from Mount Hood Forest.
Last week's Economist YouGov poll reported that 61% of respondents said they'd oppose data center construction.
Republican respondents were more divided, but still 47%, a clear plurality, were opposed to data centers in their communities, out of step with President Trump.
The specter of AI takeover, data centers, and driverless cars often reminds me of the dystopian Terminator films.
But I also think of a scene in one of The Matrix movies when humans wake up from a computer simulation and realize that they've been living in a simulation.
Growing up here in these sacred forests, I thank God that they are still vast beyond my comprehension.
Maybe it's hyperbolic to evoke Neo and machine Earth, but living here has also taught me how fast our forests can burn.
Portlanders voted for the charter reform because they wanted transparency in government.
I think that's a good thing.
As citizens watching the Moda Center negotiations, the mere mention of city officials signing nondisclosure agreements eroded public trust.
When backroom deals become part of policymaking, the will of the people becomes an afterthought.
I'm reminded of a 1912 quote from a former U.S. president: Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
Thank you.
To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of today.
Passing this resolution feels like a step in that direction.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Thank you all.
Our next round.
Unidentified speaker
Call the next group.
Benjamin Gilbert, Leslie Cocken, Go ahead.
Ben Gilbert
My name is Ben Gilbert, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the history of the United States, with over 3,700 members in the Portland metro area.
DSA and our members are really worried about data center development in Portland and across the state.
We have heard concerning rumors of data centers being built within the city of Portland.
We need accountability from this administration on this issue.
There has been a pattern of backroom deals under code names, and Portlanders deserve transparency, not NDAs.
We have seen cities like Hillsboro and Salem move towards moratoriums on data centers.
Thank you.
And we should be moving in the same direction.
However, we have seen in Hillsboro efforts to ram through permits for data centers to the dismay of the public before moratoriums can take effect.
We're grateful for this excellent legislation as a first step towards that— to that end.
To make sure we aren't let down, I want to commend Councilor Koyama Lane and Councilor Green for bringing this legislation forward, and to the members of the Housing and Permitting Committee who will support it.
We are eager to provide support towards a data center moratorium in the city of Portland and across the state.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Leslie is joining us online.
Leslie, go ahead and unmute.
Okay, can you hear me okay?
Candace Avalos
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, yeah, I'm Leslie Kochen.
I'm with Extinction Rebellion PDX as well as the Oregon Data Center Defiance Coalition.
And first, I do want to thank Councilor Koyama Lane and Green for bringing this forward, as well as your staff for working on this.
Massive data center build-out by big tech and its investors has sparked resistance in communities most impacted and beyond.
The resistance is to the damage to the local environment and public health, the added emissions fueling the climate crisis, increased utility costs, and whether unlimited AI development is necessary or desired.
Non-disclosure agreements stymie this resistance by hiding the initial stages of deal-making between government entities and real estate developers, investors, and tech companies.
In case after case, local residents learn about data center proposals only after months or years of secret negotiations, and sometimes even after initial development has occurred.
Big tech knows that information is power, and they do everything possible to stop the flow of information.
This blocks residents from meaningful participation in decisions that will have enormous impacts on their communities.
For these reasons, I support the City of Portland's proposal to prevent the use of nondisclosure.
Agreements for data centers.
I would also encourage the city to consider whether there may be other large-scale development projects in Portland that use NDAs to prevent transparency.
In addition, I recommend that rather than urge the city administrator and any city leadership to refrain from signing NDAs, the word urge be replaced with prohibit.
And city leadership be defined to include elected officials, city staff, etc.
Lastly, I suggest adding the requirement that public notice occur when city officials receive any data center proposals or applications, or consider actions for expansion, zoning, or tax abatements related to current data center— centers operating within the City of Portland.
I also support the recommendation made by AI Now in its toolkit under specify minimum transparency requirements as part of the application process.
I've listed these in my written testimony, but I'll note that they include the name of all companies involved in data center— in a data center project, including developers, shell companies, data center operators and financiers.
Our communities have the right to know who will really benefit from these data center developments.
And I also urge the city to move towards a ban on hyperscale data centers.
Thank you.
Sarah, go ahead.
Amber Cook
Sure.
Sarah Taylor
Hi, my name is Sarah Taylor and I live in District 4, and I have been in my life a midwife and an educator.
And I'm here to advocate for mothers and children and families.
I wanna start by saying I absolutely support this resolution and I oppose all non-disclosure agreements.
I don't believe that you— I believe they are in violation of state land use laws.
Number one, state land use law says you have to have community involvement.
So first of all, an NDA would right off the bat violate that.
Thank you.
As well, it is impossible to honor tribal treaties and have NDAs.
Aside from that, I would like to tell you about my last week.
I helped the people in Lloyd Center move out.
I will try not to cry right now.
I am exhausted.
I watched yesterday 8 people, the same number that a data center, I guess, employs, who had worked at Lloyd Center for 30 years be laid off.
Nobody shook their hand.
Nobody thanked them for their years of picking up our popcorn.
So Jan Zuckerman and I, we had a little ceremony for them in our empty gallery.
I have watched people with 30 years at that place, 70 years old, pushing their things out alone.
And so we stayed and we helped them.
I believe that had that project required transparency, that this would never have happened.
So I believe that we hurt our families.
And I want to ask you one thing.
You are closing 10 to 20 schools in this city.
They're meeting tonight.
Your first priority has to be asking, why would a city that is losing 10 to 20 schools not making that your top priority?
Your relationship with corporations is destroying this city, and the way you do that is no nondisclosure agreements with anybody who is going to take taxpayer dollars.
So if they want all this stuff, TIFs and RIFs and all that stuff, right away they say it right up front to the public.
And there are models throughout this country that do that.
So thank you.
And, and I'm just gonna tell you, I am heartbroken about what I saw at Lloyd Center.
And this morning, I drove here on Highway 30 and watched little kids at the bus stop standing next to fuel tanks.
Should not be happening.
Thank you very much.
Unidentified speaker
Lynn, go ahead and unmute and begin your testimony.
Lynn Handlin
Thanks.
Um, my name is Lynn Handlin, and first I want to say thank you to Councilor Koyama Lane and Councilor Green Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane, for bringing this resolution.
I fully support this resolution.
I would like there to be a few adjustments.
Leslie pointed out one, and those are language things.
Rather than urge leaders to refrain from NDAs, how about require?
And in the third part, it says City of Portland officials are encouraged to engage in transparent public processes for all decisions relating to data centers, etc.
It should be required.
And honestly, shouldn't, shouldn't this just be true throughout all city government activity, that, that it be— that there be transparent public processes?
Um, I, I— yeah, this— it's, it's a little bit shocking that that's not just already a thing.
Um, I would also like to add or have your next step be a moratorium on all new data centers long enough to get some kind of guardrails in place.
I do appreciate that this not only establishes a ban on NDAs regarding data centers, and it also requires city administrators to notify council when they receive requests for early assistance.
Um, It's really too bad that this was not in place for previous activity with fossil fuel and other fuel companies.
We would be a much safer city if that had been the case.
So I'm super glad you're doing this now for data centers.
I would like to expand it for all activity.
We don't need more data centers.
You've heard enough excellent testimony.
And I'm also with Extinction Rebellion PDX and the Data Center Defiance Alliance.
Speaking for myself today, we don't need more data centers.
We have enough and then some to do all the things we need and want, and we have a lot more to do the things we don't need and really don't want.
This NDA resolution is about good government.
It introduces transparency in, in this one area, which is really excellent.
And that transparency has been sorely lacking, especially with prior city councils and especially with other aspects of city government, the administrators and bureau directors, and even at times, unfortunately, the city attorneys, a lack of transparency that, you know, borders on really, really wrong.
So thank you very much for bringing this resolution.
Please pass it and make it stronger.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Sam is joining us online.
Go ahead and unmute, Sam.
Sam Schillinger
Hi, my name is Sam Schillinger, and I am a District 3 resident and the campaign director for Pro Animal Oregon.
And I want to thank Councilor Koyama Lane and Councilor Green for sponsoring this resolution.
As a resident who cares deeply about animal welfare and environmental stewardship, I strongly urge you to support this resolution.
Data centers require immense land, power, and water resources.
It drives up fossil fuel reliance, drains natural watersheds, and generates continuous industrial noise and heat that disrupt local habitats, migratory birds, and native wildlife.
When these massive developments are negotiated behind closed doors through non-disclosure agreements, The public loses any chance to evaluate their ecological impact or protect sensitive ecosystems.
Ending these secret deals and committing to complete transparency is critical to ensuring our city's growth doesn't come at the tragic expense of the animals and environments that depend on us to protect them.
Please support this resolution.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
I'll call our next group up.
Nathan.
Katrina, Tammy, and Jordan.
Feel free to get started and state your name.
Nathan Ong Norris
Good afternoon, councilors.
My name is Nathan Ong Norris.
I am a candidate for Multnomah County Commissioner for District 2.
I've made the statement elsewhere.
I'm going to read it now for the record.
I support restrictions and a moratorium on data center development.
Oregon is going to be on the forefront of the data center discussion for the foreseeable future.
Currently, there are at least 4 data centers operating in Multnomah County and additional sites being considered for development.
Now is the time to develop regulations and standards to protect Oregonians' land, air, and water, to ensure the integrity of our energy grid, and to keep costs down for utility ratepayers.
councilmember as Oregonians, we have to be focused on the long-term health of our state and the people who live here.
If data centers are going to be a part of that, we have to make sure they're contributing positively and paying their fair share in taxes.
Thank you.
Finally, I want to add that this kind of common-sense governance is the antidote to the corporate greed-driven capitalist dystopia we're living through.
It is obvious to me and to my comrades and allies that a transparent thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, members of council.
A transparent process with accountability to the people is the most basic requirement we have of our government.
Thank you to Councilors Koyama Lane and Green for bringing it forward.
See you out there.
Tammy Carpenter
Hi, councilors.
My name is Tammy Carpenter, for the record, and I sit on the Beaverton School Board.
I am speaking on my own behalf today.
I am also the Democratic nominee for House District 27, which has a small sliver in District 4.
Um, and I want to express deep appreciation for all of the experts that have been working so hard on this— Oregon Data Center Defiance, um, other climate orgs, uh, unions that are very interested in ensuring that we are getting, um, good return on investments, uh, in the form of good jobs.
And, um, And the, the voice, uh, that is also important is the, the Portland chapter of DSA has been really important in helping us understand, um, the problem and how we move forward.
And I want to speak, um, from my experience as a school board member.
We have very similar, maybe the same, um, rules around public meetings.
Um, and I say that, uh, because we are able to meet in executive session or very limited number of items, you know, labor negotiations, land purchases.
And to hear about NDAs that are outside of those rules, that are outside of public meeting rules in general, gives me— I'm just very curious about how you think about that happening as an elected official responsible for governance and to have NDAs happening Um, that aren't subject to the, the public meeting rules.
Um, I would strongly encourage you to continue to build, um, public trust in your work that you have been doing all along over these many months.
Um, and one of those ways is to ensure that the public— the work of the public is done in the public.
So really appreciate you guys tackling this.
senator—.
Uh, Councilor Koyama Lane and Councilor Green, really appreciate your leadership on this.
Unidentified speaker
Katrina's joined us online.
Katrina, go ahead and unmute and begin your testimony.
Katrina
Hello, um, my name is Katrina.
I've lived in St. Johns for 5 years.
I'm a lifelong resident of Portland, a restaurant owner, and a new mom to a wonderful 4-month-old daughter.
I wanted to share my opinion on data centers transparency legislation today.
Thank you for bringing this piece of legislation, Councilors Koyama Lane and Green, and thank you to the other testimonials in favor of this resolution.
I agree that emphatically, yes, of course there should be transparency in data center decisions.
What I really want to point out is the absurdity of this discussion in the first place.
Why are clandestine backdoor deals and the existence of NDAs even on the table at all?
How is this even happening?
We are really discussing whether city leadership needs to answer to the public.
I mean, where do they even get off considering NDAs in the first place?
It's extremely hard as a regular person to keep track of how this even happens.
Anybody who does engage in secret deals and NDAs with taxpayer money around data centers or anything else should lose their job entirely.
Second.
The data centers don't contribute to the betterment of society.
They don't make our children safer.
They don't make anybody's life more affordable, and they blatantly destroy the environment and use up clean drinking water for what?
So a few creepy nerdy losers can make more money?
So people can voluntarily rot their brains and destroy their own creativity with AI?
So private companies can use the data and AI to build more and more advanced weapons to use on innocent people around the world?
Nay!
So we can stare— so we can store data for private companies' surveillance cameras I mean, what are we doing?
Why are we even talking about this?
It's beyond insane.
We could and should be so far ahead as a city than doing any business with the soulless perpetrators of these data centers.
For example, using green energy for all public transit, investing in wind and solar statewide.
The science already exists, and we could set such a positive example for the rest of the country.
We could and should be focused on returning land to— returning land to its rightful stewards, native tribes who know how to take care of the land and treat it with respect.
Thank you.
We all breathe air and drink the water, no matter how rich and how much data you have stored.
The owners of these AI data centers should be laughed out of society for even proposing that we use any land for their hideous data centers, which only serve their own greedy and antisocial purposes.
So they just get to invent a product and then also decide that that product needs a huge percentage of all existing energy and water, and we're just going to give it to them?
These are sociopaths who see no value in any kind of life whatsoever.
And only care about their own bank accounts at the expense of everything else.
The climate crisis is already here.
Skip past this part.
We need to be amping up every single effort to protect the beautiful earth, people, plants, and animals and ecosystems who live on it.
I never even heard of data centers until like 6 months ago, and they're everywhere now against everybody's wishes.
I've lived for 32 years without needing data centers and AI.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Why are we acting like they're a normal and inevitable part of life?
They're not.
We do not need them.
Uh, okay, thank you.
Jordan Lewis
Jordan Lewis.
That concludes testimony.
Candace Avalos
All right, thank you folks.
So we're going to go ahead and take a quick 10-minute break, and then we'll come back and have committee discussion.
Please be here at 3:35.
Got it.
It's 11 minutes.
All right, I will go ahead and bring us welcome back into our meeting at 3:38 PM.
So thank you to all of our testifiers.
Uh, we're going to move into committee discussion, and I want to kick it off with a quick procedural, um, ask.
So because of, you know, city quorum laws, etc., um, I have to end this meeting formally, uh, ask to become a co-sponsor.
I'm definitely supportive of the resolution, but have to do it publicly in the meeting.
So I am formally requesting to be added as a co-sponsor of this resolution.
Katrina
Woohoo!
Lynn Handlin
Yeah.
Candace Avalos
I don't know, is it— do I just— I think the city attorney just said as long as you get a thumbs up.
Thumbs up?
Thumbs up?
Okay, great.
Officially on the resolution.
Thank you.
Um, so yeah, let's go ahead and hop into committee discussion.
I know I have a couple of questions too, but let's kick it off with Councilor Koyama Lane.
Let's also, um, formally move the amendment.
Katrina
Great.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you, Chair.
So we are advancing this resolution now because addressing, you know, stopping NDAs is an important first step, and it is really important that we are continuing to look at additional approaches to address negative consequences of data centers.
And we need to keep looking into those.
We need to look into restrictions on hyperscale data centers, better understand how large load centers impact our community.
That can be through a moratorium, but as we also have heard, that's a very long process that local jurisdictions can only do for 120 days.
And so, um, another option is also looking into a ban.
Um, this is an amendment that would be in the resolution to just add the be it further resolved that as a council, we intend to keep looking into this.
We intend to keep pursuing what our different options are.
There will need to be some more discussions.
I have already texted, um, some colleagues at Multnomah County to see where they are at because it is, um, we're seeing Washington County, Clackamas County, um, leading on some of this.
And so with that, I would like to formally move Koyama Lane Green 1.
Second.
Candace Avalos
All right, so we will enter discussion on the amendment.
Is there—.
I see hands in the queue.
Is it for the amendment?
Ben Gilbert
Councilor Green?
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Mitch Green
Go ahead.
Thank you for bringing the amendment and drafting this.
I support this.
I think it was important to be responsive to community concerns and sort of wondering why we're not just bringing forward a fully baked moratorium and understanding that there is a careful balance You have to navigate this very carefully with land use law, and so we want to make sure we do it right.
So, and putting this in here, um, fits in the spirit of the resolution, which signals council's intent on how we want to move forward on this.
And so, um, I think it's a good and welcome addition and an improvement to the underlying.
So I support it for that reason.
Katrina
Great.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Koyama Lane?
Oh no, you're not in the queue anymore.
Okay, uh, any further discussion then?
If not, we'll move forward with a vote.
So, um, hold on, let me get my notes up.
Lost my notes.
Uh, yeah, I guess we just— it was moved and seconded by Councilor Koyama Lane, uh, seconded by Councilor Green.
So we will go ahead and call the roll.
Unidentified speaker
Roll call on the motion to amend the resolution as shown in Koyama Lane-Green 1.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Sarah Taylor
Novick?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Katrina
Green?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Nancy Thorington
Pirtle-Guiney?
Candace Avalos
Pirtle-Guiney's not, not here right now.
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
Uh, Avalos?
Tammy Carpenter
Aye.
Deneen Crowe
Uh, with 3 ayes, the motion to amend the resolution as shown in Koyama-Green Koyama Lane Green 1 has been approved.
Candace Avalos
Great, thank you.
So we'll move back into the now amended resolution discussion.
Um, I don't see any hands.
Let me get— oh, Councilor Green, go ahead, and then I'll ask some questions.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, thank you.
Um, I wanted to address, uh, one thing that kind of came up as a theme in the testimony, which was the, the question of, well, why, why is the language and there's a specific reason for that.
And so I wanted to kind of share that with the public.
And, you know, Councilor Koyama Lane, you can correct me if I steer off track here in terms of the intent here.
But per the charter, the charter reserves the rights for the mayor and assigns the duties to the mayor to execute contracts.
Mitch Green
And so—.
Unidentified speaker
I think that's correct.
Council cannot direct the mayor or the city administrator on how to exercise that charter authority.
We can signal, we can say we want you to do this thing.
You know, we can demand of the mayor, we can urge of the mayor, and that's what we can do by resolution.
Elsewhere in other resolutions, if we're trying to compel a report or information from the city administrator, we can use the language require.
But that's the limit of power by a resolution by council.
Now, if we wanted to change the law, we do that by ordinance.
And it might be the case down the road that we want to contemplate a codification on limits to the mayor's scope in executing contracts, which is actually not well defined in the charter by my read.
It just says as long as it's consistent with the budget.
Well, I don't know what that means, right?
That could be widely interpreted.
And so So this is a resolution that is narrowly focused on a specific land use idea, which is about making sure that in the context of data centers, we're signaling council's intent that we expect and we hope, we urge the city administrator and the mayor to not be signing these things, because that's also what we're hearing in our communities.
Like when, when the reporting broke last year on NDAs being used as part of the Moda Center deal, I got a lot of emails from my constituents about like how outrageous that was and then question of like how deep does that go.
And so taking a proactive stance here to say we don't want that happening in the context of of any data center deals going on here, I think is a really reasonable way to start this.
And it might be the case that we have to down the road follow this up with some codification language by ordinance that cleans that up more broadly because I actually.
I don't think that we should have NDAs of any kind in the City of Portland among government officials, elected or otherwise.
But we can't compel that by resolution.
But what we can do right here is provide council's intent here.
I also want to say there was some testimony about the interaction between these hyperscale data centers and its effect on our grid.
And our electric utility system writ large.
And I, you know, it's— there's a deep— there's an interconnectedness.
There were some themes raised around affordability and rate, you know, rate pressure more broadly, but also a less discussed part is about, and it's a little more technical, but it's about the reliability of the grid, right?
So if your local utility— well, your local utility is required to engage in a long-term planning process.
Mitch Green
Right.
Unidentified speaker
Where they evaluate the suitability of their system in meeting its load obligation in a range of scenarios.
So it's a probabilistic statistical approach to that.
And Portland General Electric has some modeling in their long-term plan that they file with the Oregon Public Utility Commission and that they're required to file with NERC that shows increasing probability of brownouts and lack of system reliability.
And while in the context of that, you know, certain actions related to distribution lines, they'll say, well, I can't tell you who— what load is driving that because that's protected by contract.
If you just go look at the annual report on the first page for the last 3, 4 years, it said our growth is driven by data centers, particularly in Washington County.
And so the public is connecting those dots.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
And so it's really important that, um, that we as a body, we as a city, say we're going to do the right thing and decline to sign NDAs because what we don't want there to be any shadow of a doubt that the city is participating in actions that then result in, um, impacts on our communities through, you know, whether it be Forest Park or our our rate pressure that we, that we had some kind of control over or some hand in.
All right, so it's public trust is paramount here.
So I wanted to lift that piece up and just say I think this is the start.
I think we need to go bigger and contemplate prohibitions on NDAs more broadly.
Thanks.
Candace Avalos
Thank you, Councilor.
I have a couple of just staff questions.
I know we have some staff in the room.
To help answer.
Um, if you could come on up.
Great, thank you.
So, uh, I guess I just wanted to know if you could walk us through what happens today if a company approaches the city about a large data center.
At what point would council ordinarily become aware of that project?
Tell me about what we're trying to solve for and help us understand the current you want me to take a stab at this?
Katrina
Sure.
Natalie Didion
So Natalie Didion representing Portland Permitting and Development.
So if we're asking about the large-scale projects, any of those of any type, not just a data center, we have our process management team where the larger-scale projects go through and get extra assistance for the permitting.
So they may set up an early assistance meeting, they may set up a life safety preliminary meeting, um, and then they have someone kind of tracking the project throughout.
And so any large mega—.
Candace Avalos
Whatever you were calling them now—.
Natalie Didion
Data, uh, center would be going through those, um, channels right now.
And, and to answer your question, correct me if I'm wrong, Natalie, but there is no direct communication with City Council about what permits are coming into the system.
As you might imagine, there is, you know, thousands of permits coming in for electrical, trade, mechanical permits.
They are all online, so through Portland Maps one can also view them by their neighborhood associations.
I know many neighborhood associations look at them that way to see what permits have come in.
You can subscribe to PP&Ds subscription services, um, to find out.
I subscribe and I every day I get an email from like, here are, um, 4 or 5 new, um, early assistance that have come in and say what neighborhood association, what the proposal is, and then you can click through.
Um, but there isn't a report that is coming to City Council for what permits come in.
Is that accurate?
Unidentified speaker
Yes, thank you.
Lynn Handlin
Yes.
Candace Avalos
Great.
And, um, could you talk to us about the 20 megawatts As the threshold, what, what, um, would that capture the type and scale facilities we're most concerned about without pulling ordinary commercial data operations into this process?
Just want to understand what the threshold, where that came from.
Natalie Didion
Yeah, I am not an expert on that, um, and maybe, um, Councilor Koyama Lane can speak to that.
We have been talking about, um, we are in our discussion yesterday, we're talking about watts versus amps versus from a land use perspective, we would want to know what 20 megawatts would translate to for like what size of a building are we talking about, because that's what of course we would be permitting.
And what size of a building would fit on what size of a lot so we can get a handle on where these land uses could be.
So there's kind of some translation, some metrics that we need to wrap our heads around that I haven't quite done myself.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, I, I have the same question.
Natalie Didion
The 20 megawatts, I am not familiar with that as a particular threshold for the scale.
Candace Avalos
So, okay, thank you.
Yeah, um, great.
Well, I think those are all my questions for you all.
I appreciate, um, obviously just the efforts here for this resolution.
We have clearly heard a need from community for more transportation options.
Thank you.
Transparency.
And importantly, you know, what we're seeing today is just ensuring good governance in how we're approaching this, especially as this continues to be an emerging problem and we want to protect Portlanders ahead of time.
So again, grateful to my colleagues for this.
I think that our— there are obviously some larger policy questions that are emerging from this, and I believe this is an important first step, um, to talk about, um, what that looks like in broader land use, um, situations.
But this one is very particular and necessary to be called out, um, and so I'm glad that we're, um, being intentional about data centers in this resolution.
So those are my questions for now.
Thank you.
Uh, let's see, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Chair, and apologies, I had to step out for a quick other meeting, and I will I will hopefully not repeat questions that have been asked.
If I do, please just tell me and I will move on.
It sounds, Chair, like you were asking about what a 20-megawatt facility meant as we think about the scale we heard before about enterprise size, colocation size, and hyperscale size.
Is that correct?
Okay.
And it— we don't know which of those that falls into?
Natalie Didion
We haven't done the crosswalk and we aren't experts on that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, councilors who brought this forward, is 20 megawatt hyperscale or does that get us into some of those smaller-sized data centers that many companies probably have onsite?
Unidentified speaker
So 20 megawatt threshold is used to determine large load customers, but not necessarily hyperscale.
And I can share a little bit that there was a Thousand Friends of Oregon report that Claire shared with us, and we've been working with and learning from AI Now Institute, the national research advocacy organization.
And when we started our background research process, we asked which types of facilities should we look at, focus on, and they suggested looking at energy consumption.
And the 20-megawatt threshold was suggested for large load customers.
And that also aligns with HB 3546's definition, large energy use facility, means a facility that uses or is able to use 20 megawatts or more and is primarily engaged in providing a service described under Code 518-210, so on.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, so this gets us out, at least out of that enterprise level, you have something on site, into probably the larger colocation facilities and the hyperscale facilities.
Is that how I should be understanding what we're talking about here?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Absolutely, yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
And on the NDA language, we've heard in a variety of other spaces recently that there are times where NDAs may be necessary to be able to get details about a business's operation.
What you're focused on here though, it looks like, are NDAs about what So am I correct to understand that this doesn't touch on those NDAs where we say, hey, in order to better understand a business's operation model so that they can share details they wouldn't share publicly, we need to sign an NDA?
This only focuses on those NDAs where we're saying, hey, a company doesn't want the public to know about their business model.
That's correct.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, this resolution is specifically about NDAs tied to public decisions.
So siting, permitting, utility rates, fees, any use of shared resources or public engagement.
And so it's not about like internal business model engineering.
It's more about decisions that are about shared infrastructure, public resources.
So if you're talking about a new hotel, Great.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you for clarifying that.
I think that's an important piece to have out there.
Thank you for asking.
And I think those were my 2 questions.
I do want to take an opportunity just while I'm here to say that I believe the amendment passed while I was out.
Okay, so with the addition of that amendment, just out of an abundance of caution, I want to declare a potential conflict of interest.
My wife works for Microsoft Corporation.
Part of their business includes the development of data centers.
And without the amendment, I didn't think there was any conflict.
But the fact that we're saying we are looking at pursuing a moratorium on data centers, I just want to be overly cautious and make sure I don't— that I don't risk not declaring something where there could be a potential conflict of interest.
So I'd like to put that on the record.
Second.
Um, you know, as I look at the language we have before us and the impact of data centers on communities, um, it— we're looking in the spaces where we saw that these could be located in our community at some large commercial areas with a lot of job potential, yes, but also some industrial areas in that Central Industrial East Side where these types of uses could be located.
And as a city that is completely surrounded by other cities, we don't have the luxury of using our land base, especially our job-creating land base, particularly those industrial areas, for uses that don't create and so I think that the conversations we have in Portland have to take that into account.
When we talk about data centers, when we talk about these uses, we have to be thinking about what the trade-off costs are and what else we need that land for in order to have enough high-wage jobs in our community that folks who live here can get a decent living.
Councilmember Herbold.
So I think this is an important conversation for us to be having.
I think it is an important conversation for us to be having in a transparent manner, and I appreciate folks bringing this forward and allowing us to delve into this.
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Vice Chair Green.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, thank you.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was engaging in some questions that I have a technical and nerdy interest in and also some expertise, and so I wanted to I would just like note that in just a utility regulatory rate-making, it's pretty common to have like large load tariffs that have thresholds.
And so I think across the United States, those thresholds generally begin around 20 megawatts with some exceptions for lower if it's a specific type of use and can range up to about 150 megawatts.
Just really depends upon the grid and what their Overall, um, rate-making problem is to be solved.
And so, um, 20 is a natural cut point because that's the point at which you're like, okay, this is a sustained— this is basically a neighborhood-scale thing.
Just, just to give you a sense of scale, um, the Moda Center is about a 10-megawatt load, right?
So it's like— and I, I got thinking around that because, because the community benefits agreement is part of the You know, contemplated turn sheet, right?
Like electrification and all that.
So that's a lot of power, and it's sustained, um, like basically 24/7 power.
So it's not just data centers, it's utilities contemplating these large point loads.
And so this would place it in the category of like a major industrial operation.
So to your point, um, it's very much not about, um, even like one floor in an office building of having some server farms.
Like, that wouldn't even get there.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
I do think— so downtown's in my district, and while you're right, like, we can't afford to use our space like horizontally this way for data centers, I'm also a little concerned about us pursuing a development strategy that tries to use our downtown towers for that, because that doesn't get people downtown walking and engaging in commerce and engaging in this kind of broader waterfront, you know, what's the future of downtown type So I don't know that that's going to happen in downtown, but I'm kind of wanting to cover that too.
So I'm glad that you raised it.
Candace Avalos
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Chair.
And Councilor, you went there, so I'll ask another question.
And I don't know if you— I don't know if you know the answer to this, but we do have We do have some server farms downtown.
I don't know if they're data centers or not, or if they're doing other processing, but we do have some buildings downtown that are either solely or predominantly devoted to data processing and storage right now.
In terms of size of what a 20-megawatt— is that what this said?
Yes.
Looks like in terms of the space that that takes up, which I assume will change over years as processing gets more efficient.
But let's operate in the right now.
What does that mean in terms of a single city block tower located downtown?
Unidentified speaker
I don't know the precise answer for you.
That's something I'd need to kind of research a little bit.
But we did hear some testimony from one of the panelists that was arguing that right now in Kansas City, Missouri, they're contemplating basically a tower downtown.
And so I think the idea is to make efficient use of the land, because land's expensive, maybe less so in Portland right now than it used to be, downtown at least.
You got to go kind of like pretty high up on this.
Mitch Green
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
And once you get into the The point of hyperscale, uh, your cost efficiencies would— you'd need to, you know, because all that cooling infrastructure needs to be spread out a lot around a lot of compute power.
And so I would imagine a full-blown tower, not just like a few floors of a downtown, uh, commercial property.
But I, but I don't know off the top of my head.
Mitch Green
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
But 20 megawatts is, is a very large amount of load.
Unidentified speaker
Like, that's, that's like an Intel processing set.
It's like one part of an Intel so it would have to be a big tower, I would imagine.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Great.
I may try to find this out before this comes to council, just because I do think it's important to help folks understand what scale we are talking about.
I know we have folks in the community who oppose all data centers.
I know we have folks in the community who have more nuanced views about data centers, and to be able to all right, folks, we have—.
Candace Avalos
Oh, Councilor Koyama Lane, go ahead.
Unidentified speaker
I wanted to say that I appreciate this conversation and the many different questions and things that have been brought up, and also just appreciate and want to give a nod to the statewide organizing that's happening, to the folks that also came I know I got an email in my inbox just last night that a week, week from today, next Tuesday, there will be folks doing a rally and lobby day at the state capitol building about a 3-year moratorium.
So this— there is energy around that, and folks want to know more about that.
I got that email from 350 PDX, and our own governor has said, quote, local governments are doing the right thing in calling for a pause until we can get this right.
Thank you.
So I appreciate community pushing for just that and encouraging a pause and to make sure we're really thinking this through.
And I want to be clear that this resolution is really setting an expectation, a policy expectation that we can have on record.
So city leadership and the public are very clear about what council's expectations and intent is.
And I just really think that public commitments are important.
They create accountability.
People can point back to them, and they also signal what kind of a city we are.
And my hope is that Portland is a city that really values transparency and being open with the community.
So thank you for considering a yes vote.
I hope you all will support.
Candace Avalos
All right.
So we don't have any other folks in the queue.
Therefore, I would like to entertain a motion to move resolution as amended, document number 2026-299, to the full council with a recommendation it be adopted.
Someone has to move it and second.
Mitch Green
So moved.
Candace Avalos
Moved by Councilor Green.
Do I have a second?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
Candace Avalos
Seconded by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
All right, with that, uh, please call the roll.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Uh, motion to refer the resolution as amended, document number 2026-299, to the City Council with the recommendation it be adopted is approved with 4 aye and 1 absent.
Candace Avalos
Great, thank you, Wendy.
Uh, thank you, committee.
We are about to wrap up but wanted to do a quick I just wanted to circle back on what we were discussing around UHS earlier.
So just wanted to— I messaged with some folks at Housing Bureau per the conversation we had on planning.
I was informed that, uh, PHB did reach out to all the council offices but did not hear back.
And so she's going to reach out again.
And if, um, especially the committee member council offices, if you can respond, uh, she's got specific questions for, you know, the planning.
But just know that you will get another ping, um, so that we can get that moving.
Uh, otherwise, we've got our next meeting on the 15th, and, uh, stay tuned for updates on that meeting's agenda.
And I will adjourn today's meeting of Housing and Permitting at 4:05 PM.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.