Citizen Portal

Votes at a glance: Planning Commission actions, June 10, 2026

City of Washington Planning Commission · June 10, 2026

Summary

The commission approved minutes, an 81,000-square-foot concept plan for an industrial expansion at 1851 Technology Drive, and voted to set a public hearing on a proposed temporary moratorium for data centers; key tallies and next steps are listed.

At its June 10 meeting the City of Washington Planning Commission recorded three formal actions: approval of the May 13 meeting minutes by voice vote; approval of the concept plan for case EZ‑3‑26 (81,000‑square‑foot addition at 1851 Technology Drive) by roll-call (5 yes, 0 no, 3 absent); and a roll‑call vote to set a public hearing on a proposed temporary moratorium on data‑center development (4 yes, 0 no, 3 absent).

Summary of recorded outcomes: • Approval of May 13, 2026 minutes — mover: Commissioner John Pierce; second: Commissioner Tom; outcome: approved (voice vote). • EZ‑3‑26 concept plan (1851 Technology Drive) — mover: Commissioner John Pierce; second: Commissioner Tom Ash; outcome: approved (yes: Mark Arnold; Tom Ash; David Dahl; John Pierce; Joe Stratton; absent: Nick Bunte; David Craig; Jim Stoner). • Motion to set public hearing on temporary moratorium for data centers — outcome: approved (yes: Mark Arnold; Tom Ash; David Dahl; John Pierce; absent: Dave Munting; David Gray; Jeff Stoner).

Next steps: For EZ‑3‑26, planning staff will coordinate required final technical documents and permits with the applicant. For the moratorium, staff will finalize notice language, publish the hearing notice to meet the ten‑day deadline and manage the hearing procedures.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source