Councilmembers propose ordinance review for large utilities in industrial zones; agencies urge narrower language and outreach

Councilmembers Odette Ramos and Germaine Jones told the Land Use and Transportation Committee they would introduce an amendment to Council Bill 2500006 to make the placement of large utility facilities in I‑1 and I‑2 industrial districts subject to City Council review by ordinance rather than only a conditional use process.

"What this basically does is currently in industrial I1s and I2s the placement of large utilities … would be a conditional use by board. What we're proposing to do just in I‑1s and I‑2s, to make that conditional by ordinance," said Councilwoman Odette Ramos, describing the amendment as a transparency measure intended to give communities a fuller public process than a zoning hearing alone.

Why sponsors proposed it

Ramos and Jones said the amendment is intended to create a more transparent hearing process for residents when "large" facilities—examples given by sponsors included substations and other external electric facilities—are proposed on industrial land that is adjacent to neighborhoods. "This just allows the community to have a say in what's going on in that neighborhood," Councilman Germaine Jones said.

Agency responses and drafting concerns

Planning staff and the mayor’s office urged narrower drafting and more outreach before the committee adopts the change. Eric Tissot of the Planning Commission pulled the bill’s definition of "utilities" and read it into the record: utilities, as drafted in the code language under discussion, "includes natural gas lines, power lines, alternative energy systems, steam lines, telephone lines, cable television lines, fiber optic lines, and other communication lines" and reaches above‑ground transmission equipment as well.

Tyler Schnell of the Mayor’s Office of Government Relations said he was not ready to accept the amendment as friendly in that hearing: "I just wanna be transparent about that… I think that there is some outreach that we need to have to our partners, and that we would wanna do to make sure that we are not unnecessarily impacting any projects or anything like that." Schnell urged a meeting with sponsors and staff to refine the amendment.

Specific questions raised in committee

- Scope: Council members asked whether the amendment would capture data centers or solar farms. Councilwoman Ramos and Planning Director Ben Gathorn responded that "a data center is considered a utility" under the code language discussed, and that solar and alternative energy uses are defined elsewhere in the code and may be captured depending on definitions and drafting.

- Substations and pending permits: Sponsors and planning staff acknowledged the amendment would not be retroactive to projects that already had permits; new projects still in earlier stages would be affected.

Outcome and next steps

The committee did not adopt the amendment at the hearing. Chair Ryan Dorsey asked sponsors and planning staff to work with the mayor’s office and produce a refined written amendment for the next session; the committee held the bill for one week and scheduled a combined hearing and voting session for March 27 at 10 a.m.

Ending

Sponsors said they were open to narrowing the scope to target overhead transmission equipment if that better addresses community concerns; planning staff and the mayor’s office asked for written language and outreach prior to the committee’s vote.