I'll have We'll get started here in just a few minutes. Uh reminder to my fellow commissioners, all your microphones are on. Uh please leave those on. If you turn it off, uh our AV staff has to try and figure it out and turn them all back
on again. We're good. All right, we'll go ahead and get started here. Welcome everybody to the zoning commission. Uh today is July 8th. Uh we are glad you all are here. I will officially call this meeting to order. Thank you for participating in your
local government. It's important. Um, just a reminder, uh, here at the zoning commission, uh, we are a recommending body, uh, if you have, uh, interest in these cases, and I know a lot of you are here for a couple in particular, uh, please make sure that your voice is
heard at city council as well, uh, when those cases come before them for that final decision. But thank you all for being here. Thank you, fellow commissioners. Glad you all are here. Uh, with that, Dave, welcome to the July 8th, 2026 zoning
commission public hearing. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortex.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and a
recording will be available on the city's website. Cases heard at this public hearing are to be heard at the August 11th city council meeting unless otherwise stated on the agenda. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting,
the commission requests that the following rules of procedure be respected. Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the
commission only. After staff presentation, the applicant and support will be given a maximum of total of five minutes to present their case. Opposition may then speak for a maximum
total of seven minutes. At the conclusion of opposition speakers, the applicant will be provided two minutes for rebuttal. Those that are not able to speak today are encouraged to submit comments or
sign up to speak at the city council meeting. Signups to comment or speak at city council begin the Friday before the scheduled hearing date. Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the
chairman's sole discretion and approval. All other meeting procedures will adhere to board adopted rules of procedure to the extent possible. Following the official close of each case hearing, the commission will remain in open session
to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items
to enable the commission to receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the development services department by calling 8173928028. Mr. Chair, the first order of business is roll call. The zoning commission
requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting. Please be advised that it takes it six members to approve a zoning case. The following members are present today. Chairperson Reigns, Commissioner Mayo, Commissioner Trillo,
Commissioner Welch, Commissioner McCoy, Commissioner Edmunds, Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Pierce, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Worman, and Commissioner Castro. Mr. Chair, we do have a quorum. The next
item on the agenda is the approval of the previous month's minutes. >> All right. At this time, we are open for a motion to approve our regular meeting minutes of >> Mr. Chairman. I make that motion. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by
Commissioner Worman. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns, >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo, >> I. >> Commissioner Trujillo, >> I. >> Commissioner Welch, >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy, >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds, >> I. Commissioner Robinson, >> Commissioner Pierce,
>> I. >> Commissioner Rogers, >> I. >> Commissioner Worman, >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro, >> I. >> With a vote of 11 to zero, the minutes are approved. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-070.
The address is 2115 Bell Avenue. The applicant is Carebridge Health Services LLC Yuzoshi and Eleanor Anukum. The request is from CF Community Facilities to PDE Plan development for
all uses in E neighborhood commercial excluding ambulance dispatch station, hospital, golf course, restaurant, and convenience store. Site plan included. >> Welcome back to the zoning commission. Good to see you all. >> See you, too.
So we did go back So we did go back and um fix the issue. Uh so yes we are we did change it to PD um E. So with with an updated site plan I
don't know do we so yes the proposed parking parking spots we are required 102 spots and we are providing 106 with um additional ADA parking Okay, this is
a quick summary of what our commitment would be. uh parking management, noise mitigation, um and pretty much creating a space that the the neighboring um the neighboring environment can
enjoy. Um this is what it currently looks like. This is the proposed new landscaping, updated parking, uh, new fence, and no additional windows or doors. It's
going to remain as is. This is and the parking. These are the calculations and we've spoken to the community the groups that we were designated to
and they are for the project. Sharon Warren from the far greater north side historical neighborhood association spoken to Councilman Flores. Um, and also there was um
there was a concern from the gentleman that owns the the the to the the square um the lot behind us and we had spoken to him with our new proposal and he's for it. Apparently he
sent a letter in. Um his name is Edward Kho. Uh we spoke to Lauren at Streams and Valleys. So, we've covered our bases this time. >> Appreciate that. >> Yes. >> Do you'all have anything else for us?
>> That's that's it. >> Okay. Uh we don't have anyone here to speak in opposition. Um but uh unfortunately, it looks like we are going to have to renotice this case. Um staff, do you want to give an explanation as to why? >> Sure. Um, there are three additional
waiverss that are needed on the site plan that you may have heard from your case manager about related to the parking in the front yard, the use of the supplemental setback, and the fence that is not that is not allowed to be in the front yard. Again, that's related to
the to the uh uh projected front yard. So, you have two options. you can um agree to to remedy those items while still, you know, now if you got rid of the parking, you wouldn't be allowed to go under the
required parking for the site. So So if you said yes, we can, you know, we can revise that. It does still need to meet all the requirements or you could ask for those waiverss to remain in place, but we would need to notice based on that
because the The revised application didn't note that those deficiencies were there, but they were shown on the site plan. >> Yes. >> Repeat what you said. Sorry. >> No, sure. Sure. There are three deficiencies to the development
standards that are included in the staff report that one is related to there is currently shown to be parking in the front yard because of the projected front yards from the residential that's to the east.
>> So when you saying front yard you mean on 22nd street. >> Right. Right. the kind of and it looks to be the ADA spaces, you know, largely that are diagonal there. So to have those there, you would either need to or I guess to have those there, you would
need a waiver or you would need a development standard rather. You would need to say we know what the city requires. We're asking for a special standard here. And so to but to do that, we would need to renotice
this case either. So, you've got two options. You can uh correct the deficiencies that were that our staff had communicated with you, or if you want to keep the site plan as is,
that would require adding to your to your request those specific standards that you're not meeting today. Let me uh let me see if I can help real quick. Uh, does anyone have any issues with the current site plan as it was
presented during our work session, commissioners? >> No. >> Okay. So, we don't have any issues with your current site plan. Um, so, uh, I think it would be prudent just to continue this for 30 days, let us do the proper noticing, come back, and then ask
for approval or denial because really all we can do today is either deny it or approve it as is, and then you'd have to change your site plan. So >> continue the case and then >> Okay. All right. Um with that said, so sorry about that. We get to see you
three times in a row now, three months in a row. Um we will go ahead and close the public hearing uh and open it up for any further discussion uh from y'all. Um if not, Commissioner Trillo, let you make that recommendation.
Yeah, I'm good with continuing and having it renoticed for them so they can go off the site plan that they've currently submitted. >> Okay. Do we have a second to continue? >> Okay. All right. Uh we have a motion by
Commissioner Trillo to continue this case to our August hearing and a second by Commissioner Welch. >> Do clarify that >> 26-070. Thank you for that. Got it.
>> Okay, we have a motion to continue. Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns, >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo, >> I. >> Commissioner Trillo, >> I. >> Commissioner Welch, >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy, >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds, >> hi. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> I. >> Commissioner Pierce, >> I.
>> Commissioner Rogers, >> I. >> Commissioner Worman, >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro, >> I. >> With a vote 110. Motion passes. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-071. The address is 1297 to309 odds Cantron Samson Road. The applicant
is MC and Janet Bristster Hopewell Development 2 LP Kimley Horn and Associates Inc. Brandon Middleton. The request is from F General Commercial and Kavy Industrial to I Light Industrial. >> Good afternoon commissioners. Brandon
Middleton with Kimley Horn. Um we originally submitted this zoning request for a straight zoning similar to adjacent zoning cases to our south. Um in further conversation with Councilman Flores um along with the neighborhood association to our north um that did
trigger the need from RN to revise our application to include a site plan uh requirement. Um, since when we met with the neighborhood association on June 3rd, uh, we we went out there and topoed the side, did a tree survey, did some flood plane modeling, and so we've had
to kind of make sure the site plan that we're submitting makes sense. Um, and so we have submitted a site plan. U, it was, I believe, late June. Uh, so we're asking for another 30-day continuance to give staff time to review that site plan, be considered in August.
>> Okay. So, you're asking for a 30-day continuance, >> sir. >> Okay. Uh, there is no one here to speak in opposition. So, at this time, we'll close the public hearing, leave it open for some discussion or a motion by Commissioner Trillo. Looks like you're good.
>> Okay. For ZZ-26-071, I move for continuence. >> Second. All right. We have a motion to continue uh to our August hearing. Um and by Commissioner Trillo and a second by Commissioner Edmonds.
Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trujillo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Welch. >> Hi. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Hi.
>> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Worman. >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro. >> I. >> Then vote of 11 to zero. Motion passes. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-060. The address is 6732 Blue Mountain Road.
The applicant is Blue Mountain Stone Partners, Take Five Properties, SPV LLC. Brandy Zachary with Arnold Consulting Engineering Services. The request is to add a conditional use permit in Eighborhood Commercial for an automotive
repair oil change facility site plan included. Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Thank you. Um my name is Brandy Zachary with Arnold Consulting Engineering. And so originally we had submitted a request
for a zone change. Um I think it was proposed to the F zoning to allow for the oil change facility. And after some discussion back and forth with the staff, it was noted that uh that would not be supported by the comprehensive
plan and and things of that nature. So we were recommended to instead of trying to go for a reszone, just request a conditional use within the current zoning that would allow for the take five oil change. We are technically listed as an auto repair, but we we
don't do any repair. Everything happens inside the building for the quick service oil changes. I don't really have anything else to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions. We did provide a site plan with the submitt as well. And to my knowledge, I think after we got
comments back and resubmitted that the site plan does meet all the requirements now, >> right? Yeah, we did just review your case uh earlier today. Um you also have an Andrew Barlay signed up to speak. >> Yes, he's with and he's here also if you have any questions.
>> Okay. For questions only. Okay. All right, very good. Um, commissioners, there's no one signed up to speak in opposition. Any questions for the applicant? >> Okay, thank you all very much. At this time, we'll close the public hearing. You're very welcome. Uh, and
Commissioner Trillo, this one is yours >> for ZZ-26-060. I move for approval. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Trillo and a second by Commissioner Rogers. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns.
>> I. Commissioner Mayo. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Triheill. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Welch. >> Hi, >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> I. >> Commissioner Pierce, >> I. >> Commissioner Rogers, >> I. >> Commissioner Warman, >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro,
>> I. >> The vote 110. Motion passes. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-064. The address is 1401 Alama Street. Applicant is Taco LLC, Ray Ojeski, Kelly Harton, Halman LLP, Zack Racusen, Rack
Equities. The request is from A5 One Family Residential. If you'll go back just a couple, Ray, sorry about that. >> Sorry about that. I jumped you, Dave. >> And F general commercial to PDI plan development for all uses in ilight
industrial excluding massage parlor and tattoo parlor site plan included. >> Thank you. >> Welcome, sir. All right. Hey, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Rayo O Jesy on behalf of the proposed developer. Uh today we're seeking a continuence to your September uh
commission meeting uh to meet with some residents of an unregistered neighborhood association that we didn't have contact information for, but did send in opposition correspondents yesterday. Uh we haven't had a chance. Obviously, we've reviewed the
correspondence, but haven't had a chance to meet yet. So, uh, we would like the opportunity to meet with them and talk about their concerns. For the record, we did, uh, reach out to Gary Hogan with Chapel Creek, uh, neighborhood, who many
of you know is a advocate for that area of Fort Worth, and he did disseminate a lot of information to his vast network of people about our case, but and again, we had no opposition until yesterday. So, uh, that a little bit surprising,
but nonetheless, we we need to deal with it. Um, Gary is here to speak, but before he does, I'd like to ask Brandon Middleton to just give you a little bit of information about the site planning that we did for this location. >> Thanks, Ray. >> Hello again. Um, so, a couple things I
wanted to point out on the site plan. Uh we were sensitive to the fact that traffic is an issue in this area and uh we certainly want to be uh part of the solution. Um as part of our project, uh we limited our access to West Point and
the um 820 frontage road and um did not seek or really have any access whatsoever to Alama or Amber Ridge Drive. Um, and then based on our site planning, um, we're wanting and planning to keep as many of the mature trees that
were noted in the staff report, um, in the key areas along the residential. Um, so that's what we're communicating here. Um, the additional 60-day continues will help us meet with, uh, the city and city staff to maybe find a more regional
solution. Um, I know there's other developments in the area that have paid money for improvements to West Point Boulevard that we would be happy to talk to the city about um being the catalyst to help improve West Point. So, that the additional 60 days would allow us to have uh further discussions with city
staff on what that would look like. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Hogan, would you like to speak? Hello. Good afternoon. Yes, my name is Gary Hogan and I'm president of the Chapel Creek Neighborhood Association,
which is on the west side of Chapel Creek Boulevard, but quite away from uh where this is uh located over there by Loop 820. But for many years now, I've been uh designated by district three and
district 7 council members to try to be an advocate for that whole community out there. So, uh when I first heard about this was because them talking to Macy Hill, my city council representative,
they pointed her point in my direction. So, I have been very proactive over the last month or so to uh put that information forward, everything that they gave me forward to the
community so that they would know what is being proposed for this piece of land. We've had other proposals for that piece of land. And at one time we had a proposal for an auto auction facility and that would have brought a whole lot
more type of heavy traffic than this type of storage warehouse type of facility. And uh so I've been talking to the community via the next door site almost uh twice a week given the information I
heard from them. I would feed back information to them about the concerns that I was hearing. And of course, the West Point was a concern because it's an uphill climb going toward A20 bridge
from that location. So I made suggestions that not only that they're going to be required for the new lane to widen that roadway from its original county line county type road to
something wider and that is part of the plan and I've also asked them for an access kind of cut off that they're going to try to com put into their plan too so that the through traffic would be able to get around anybody that might be
trying to enter from the west point. I had also transferred suggestions to them about adding an entrance on the loop 820 frontage road up there where normally there's a whole lot less traffic and
could accommodate some of the heavier traffic getting into their facility which they have done and I believe they've even modified that plan to move that a little bit different to appease tech start concerns but
My comment to y'all is that uh I'm going to be having a July 23rd community meeting, which I invite that whole community out there west of Loop A20 and north of I35. All that community
out there, I invite to all my meetings. So, I've invited them this week when I've heard just yesterday some of the negative comments that have been sent in that we do some more community outreach. So, I've invited them to speak at my
community meeting on July 23rd and try to get more word out to the people who these really are and what they plan to do out there and how they're going to try to operate in a way that'll be
not a negative to our community. So, I would ask for the continuence to to give us more opportunity to reach out to the community. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. again. I also have a uh Cinnamon Hall signed up to speak, but there's I don't know if you're speaking in favor, opposition. Can you identify
yourself? Are you speaking in favor or opposition? Opposition. Okay. You're okay. Okay. Um All right. In that case, uh I will close the public hearing and leave this up for discussion. Uh this case in my district,
obviously, I can't start a motion. Um but um seeing that the developer is willing to engage the community more and the community wants more engagement, I don't see any reason not to continue it. Uh but I'm open. I'll I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion on uh
ZC26-064. I'll make the motion to approve >> to approve >> or to to uh to decline >> approve a continuance >> of the continuence, excuse me. Continuence for 30 days.
>> 60-day continuance. I'm sorry. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion to continue this case for 60 days to our September hearing uh by Commissioner Mayo and a second by Commissioner Edmonds. Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns.
>> Hi. >> Commissioner Mayo, >> I. >> Commissioner Trillo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Welch. >> Nay. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi. Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Werman.
>> I. >> And Commissioner Castro. >> I. >> With a vote of 10 to one. Motion passes for a 60-day continuence. Next case, ZC-26-066. The address is 3550 Ulis South Main Street. Applicant is Dan
Clark Family Limited Partnership, Dan Clark, Inc. General Partners, Coleman Hands. The request is from a iot industrial and PD14 PD492 plan development specific use for petroleum supply distribution and truck
transport storage and staging area site plan approved to I light industrial. >> Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Thanks for having us. Um, so I'll give you guys a high level here, but essentially we really view this as kind
of a although it's technically a reszoning to light industrial, we think it's more of just a cleanup of the existing zoning. So for some reason, this property has three historical zoning cases on it. So there's a strip of agricultural, light industrial, and
PD492, which rides for trucking, and some petroleum uses. We're trying to clean that up and just have the whole site be light industrial um on a go forward basis. We've reached out to kind of all the neighborhood commissions and our council council
people and nobody's provided any opposition to date. And that's kind of the overview for now. So, I appreciate you guys taking the time. >> And you have someone else signed up to speak with Alex to speak. They're just here for questions. >> Here for any questions. Yeah. I'm John.
Okay, thank you very much. Uh, we have no one signed to signed up to speak in opposition. Commissioners, do you have questions? >> Okay, seeing none, thank you all for being here. Uh, we will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion or
a motion by Commissioner Edmonds. >> Seeing no discussion, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve CC26 0668. >> I'm 066. I'm sorry. I have plur vision this morning. >> Second.
>> All right. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Rebn and a second by Commissioner Rogers. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? >> Chairman Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trillo. >> I. >> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> I. Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi,
>> Commissioner Robinson. I, >> Commissioner Pierce. >> I, >> Commissioner Rogers. >> I, >> Commissioner Worman. >> I, >> Commissioner Castro. >> I, >> the vote 110. Motion passes. Next case, ZC-26-068. The address is 3136 and 32000 House
Anderson Road. The applicant is OJ Codings, Inc. J Arturo Andrade. The request is from a AG Agricultural to I Light Industrial. Is the applicant present? Welcome to the
zoning commission. >> Hello. Uh my name is J.R. Turo and I'm just here to ask for a 60-day continuance to um to make some revisions and to um check if there's any to explore other
options since it's getting denied. >> Okay. U can you talk about what other options you might be exploring? uh why actually hire an attorney because I did the application on my own and I think I didn't do all the steps that I needed to do to reach out to the commissioners and
to reach out to the neighborhood and that's the things that I plan on doing this time around. >> Would your request uh new request have anything to do with changing the actual zoning request? >> I think we're still going to go for
light industrial uh but we're going to try to do the the right steps this time. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Uh we might call you back up. Uh there's some opposition here to speak and we'll give you a chance to speak after them.
>> All right. Uh Mr. Pointer. >> Welcome sir. >> Good afternoon everyone. First I want to uh my name is Jeff Pinter. I'm the chair of the president uh Mos Valley Property Owners Association and I want to commend y'all for for thinking of Mos Valley as
a historical district because it is uh we've had the proper paperwork u presented. We've been awarded historical um u district so uh community and uh I want to thank Miss Peoples also. She's been behind us very much on this zoning
because it's kind of outrageous. Um you can see there the historical cemetery is there um just a couple of um maybe a block down and we've we've working with the with the um University of Texas and
the uh Fort Worth um um historical society. We have created a full plan for the development. We haven't brought it yet to uh up front yet, but light industrial there, it is just not going to work and we will never ever because
we're going to develop it. We're going to bring more homes in there. We have enough industrial Moji Valley from not being zoned just be a freef fall that's basically over with this association. And I do appreciate um y'all um you know taking the time to let me speak on it.
But you can see it's it's some industrial on the other side. But in this area here is very very uh um sentimental to all of us. The city of Arlington on below the cemetery, they're u we're preparing with them about some property they they acquired. They didn't
even know they had because the cemetery is starting to move. You got a lot of construction going on, you know, the apartments and different things like that. So the the the whole, you know, area there if it you come with like like right now even with um with the um
business that's there that's commercial, it's it's it need to be cleaned up for one. So we know if it's some light industrial come and then my my my um good um friend of mine owns the property right next door where they want to do the light industrial, they're going to
develop housing there. And then Miss Brown is on the other side, Marissa. So, um, her family is kind of doing on some some housing there. So, we're coming, but it just has been a a good while for for the next generation to come in and say we we cannot let them erase our
history in our community. Um, so and then then the association is is registered with the state, with the city, with the county. It's recognized. It's recognized historical community. So, there's no question about that. So, everyone that's in that in that area,
they have to come. they need to come and sit down with us because even with the housing next door just like the gentleman just left out. I could have opposed what they're doing because he said it's historical. It's a historical uh uh act. That's part of Moja Valley. But they're already there in in in that
area. It's okay where they were. I'll come back and and speak on that one. But anything else that goes on those valley, we just want to try to preserve our our story. We want to preserve it and and thanking University of Texas when y'all see what we have with the University of Texas and the and the um Fort Worth
Historic Society. You're going to love it because we're going to bring in more housing, bring more people. We got a new park coming in, new apartments coming in. We want them to enjoy it. That right there is going to take away from it. We just really don't want any more industrial or commercial around in that
historical community. That's pretty much all I got to say. >> Thank you very much. I've got one more speaker. Um, Russell Newton. Hello. I'm new to the uh community there. We just built a house recently, but I am opposed to the
resoning of that property, and uh we're already running into some issues there. We recently built a 3113 House Anderson, one of the first new homes constructed on the street in a decade or or multiple
decades possibly. Um un unfortunately uh after we built it quickly became apparent that the existing OJ Codings property is a primary source for ongoing disturbance on this block.
uh expanding the industrial zoning in this area would likely worsen the issues rather than improve them. Some of the reoccurring problems we have experienced is uh loud music into the evening late at night and multiple calls into law
enforcement regarding disturbances with little to no noticeable improvement. Uh campers being stored on the property may be used at times for temporary living or gathering spaces. Semi-truckss
parking across the roadway completely blocking traffic on the dead end. It's on a dead end street and the several occurrences the trucks have turned directly in front of us blocking the exit and then the truck driver leaves
the truck with nobody there to move it. So, you're stuck until somebody comes to move the truck. Employees leaving the address that they currently operate on will occasionally just do a nice long burnout, leaving black marks and smoke smoking up the
neighborhood. These actions demonstrate a lack of consideration for the residents who live on the street and who created an ongoing they have created an ongoing nuisance for the neighborhood. In addition,
the northern property included in the resoning request has occasionally hosted large gatherings and they can those events can go on into the morning hours. And I'm at the very far end of the street to the south, the furthest
property from the property in question. And I can hear it inside my house. And we've just built, we've got good insulation. It's still still loud. At present, the OJ Codings property is
the only property on our street that consistently operates in this manner. There are other commercial properties there that have never had any complaints about. And as was mentioned, we had no idea what's going on there. So, I mean, it would be nice if there
was a community gathering and we knew what was going on before that was presented. This is our home and neighborhood. While the property owner and business may view these parcels primarily as an opportunity for commercial expansion,
those of us who live here must deal with the long-term impacts every day. We respectfully ask that you deny the request for resoning at 3136 and 32000 House Anderson. >> Thank you very much, sir. Before you
before you step down, if I may, to my district, and either one of you can answer the question, but uh the the plea from the applicant is that he's not familiar with the process. He hasn't reached out. He hasn't had the input
that he would like to have. Um he thinks there is some possibility that he can convince the residents given the proper opportunity time to reconsider your opposition
and he's obviously not a zoning professional. Um not many people are and I'm wondering if um you'd be opposed to his request for continuance for 60 days. We both would.
>> Could you speak up to the microphone, please? >> We I'm pretty sure we both would. We're just going to stand on that. We just don't want it there. We don't want any more. We didn't want that commercial there. If I had have been up on it in 2008, we would have stopped that first commercial. Just don't want any more commercial. It's just too close to the
cemetery. And then you you got homes there. And we plan to doing some more development just for our living, you know, because that's that's we don't have very much left of Mojave Valley, you know. So, it's taking it's steady encroaching, but it's it's private down there. And he's right. The the noise
I've I've heard about the burnouts, the the the vehicles stacked up. You got storage there that we don't you see you it's it's um equipment there that's been sitting there for years, never moved. So, what are you really doing? So, as a
as a as a u the U association, we going to dig a little deeper into the use. What is that use really for on that commercial? Uh is it, you know, painting the equipment? Is it storing equipment? Is it storing cars? Is it for partial living? We got to dig deeper because we really want them to clean it up.
>> Thank you. >> Do you have any qu other questions for the opposition? >> Comments though for fellow commissioners. >> Okay. Uh thank you very much. At this time, we'll uh ask the applicant uh you have two minutes if you'd like to speak
to the if you'd like to rebut or you can hold your time either way. Okay. All right. Very good. At this time, we will close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion. Um so, Commissioner Welch, did you want to say something?
>> I just I feel that this case has some parallels to case 064 that we just offered them a um 60-day continuance. I don't think that the failure of an applicant to have the sophistication of representation to hold them back when otherwise equal opposition, if not more,
in case 064 exists. I am in favor of allowing him at least the opportunity to come back with the same continuence we offer the other case. >> I um if I may u given the historic u history of Moer Valley, I'm very
familiar with that area. and it is deemed a historical landmark area. Um, Roa Valley is a very it's the first place. It's it's the freedman's area where slaves were allowed to come into the city of Fort Worth and live and be
free. And I think with the historical value and it's right there by cemetery, I think there's no need to continue it. It is deemed a historical landmark and the neighborhood association president and residents don't want it. And I think with that place being in the city of
Fort Worth and the history of that area, we need to maintain the quality and the historic value there in district 5. >> So the way the way that I I see it and Beth, I if you would hold your applause and and everything like that, uh any
booing or applausing just isn't helpful for us. So we'd appreciate it. Um >> isn't this? So, uh, Beth, on on your comment, I uh I I definitely see some parallels. Um, the the place where I view this a little bit differently is the the cooperation of the neighborhood
and so it sounds like the neighborhood in that first case was willing to kind of go back and have a have that conversation while this one isn't. Um, and that one, you know, uh, from my point of view, you know, on that frontage road, um, a lot of times we
will put some industrial there. The issue is it's also right next to residential. So can kind of could go either way from a land use standpoint in my view. Um although it's not consistent with the comp plan. This one um land use is not compatible. Comp plan not
compatible. Neighborhood opposition. Um neighborhood not willing to speak to developer. So that that's where I see this a little bit differently. >> The second speaker um what I was going off of was that he did ask for a quote community gathering. And like I said, why wait 60 days? And I
think that's a disrespect to that area >> and also to the historical value that has brought to the city of Fort Worth. Again, that is the first place where slaves were allowed to live free in the city of Fort Worth. And if the residents were saying that they do not want light
industrial there and there's a cemetery there, I think that's disrespectful to the residents in the history of Moer Valley. Commissioner Edmonds, what what were you thinking? >> Well, I have a natural sympathy for people that aren't familiar with the process
and ask for a continuence, but in this particular case, the staff has made the strongest case for denial of all three incompatibilities. Uh, the applicant has said that he would is not willing to change his request for
light industrial zoning. Um, and I see that zoning as it being incompatible in that location. So, I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no further discussion. >> Okay, it's all yours, Commissioner. Thank you.
>> Uh, on case ZC26068, I make a motion to deny. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds to deny and a second by Commissioner Robinson. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns. Hi, >> Commissioner Mayo.
>> Hi, >> Commissioner Trillo. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Welch. >> Hi, >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> I >> Commissioner Pierce, >> I >> Commissioner Rogers, >> I. >> Commissioner Wman, >> I Commissioner Castro,
>> I with a vote of 11 to zero. Motion to deny passes. Next case, DC-26-069. The address is 3201 House Anderson Road. The applicant is OJ Codings, Inc. J
Arturo Andrade. The request is from A or AG Agricultural to A43 One Family Residential. Welcome back, sir. >> This one, if it's going to get approved,
I I don't have any comments. You're just looking to change this from a to A43 single family residence. >> Yes, I was thinking about building my house there in front property, but if the other ones get denied, I think I have to find another place to uh conduct my business.
>> Are you asking to withdraw this case? >> No, no, just keep it for pool. Okay. >> Because I don't not really sure what what steps I'm going to take after this. >> Okay. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Uh we do have one person signed up uh to speak. Uh
Jeff, Mr. Pointer again. >> Yes, M again. Uh thank you. Um we I'm I'm going to stick with the same thing. We're going I want we're going to I'm going to pose this um until um you know, you really sit down with the association
and the community like like just I didn't even know he was going to be here, but that's great. I would like to talk with the community more because when you you already have a business across the street that's they're complaining about. Okay, you move you move across the street to build a home. Does that really stop anything? First,
we need to settle, you know, what we got going on other side, getting that clean up here. I don't think right now we really want to change anything till we can really sit down with with him uh with the Mr. OJ and uh uh the community and decide because that's what we're doing now. We're coming together as a community on everything moving in Mojave
Valley. We have to come together and agree on it. And uh I think that's I think we'll leave it at that for now because we we have some other issues. Um um uh what you say um the surveys, you know, the is it actually that how many
addresses is is is actually there? You got you got um buildings already, how are they going to be tore down? How are they going to be tore down? You know, things like that. We really want to sit down with the all the business owners anytime they want to switch something uh in the community. So we're going to oppose that also. So, right now your
request is that we deny the case and leave it agriculture. >> Yes. Okay. >> We can sit down with with u um with the company and see exactly what they're trying to do. >> Okay. I don't understand that. Um that I think he didn't answer your question.
Your question was are you do you want us to deny it? The request is to continue it, right? >> No. No. He he wants to he wants it approved. You want to >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm >> I'll ask the applicant. Hold on. Let me
You I think we're Do you have any questions, Mr. >> Pointer? I'm just not quite understanding the discussion. If you could just tell me what the discussion is. >> The discussion is uh to either approve or deny this one. >> Uh it's not up for a continuence. >> Okay. So, excuse me before you sit down.
So, and your proposition is you want to deny it? >> Yes. >> May I ask why? I do want to deny it. >> Go ahead. >> Ask the why. >> You want to ask why? >> Because >> I I I was in Moer Valley just recently and you and I met uh I was up there for
a briefing at the at the uh golf club, right? >> Sure did. >> Yeah. Um it's both a residential use, right? >> Yeah. Where I guess he asked for residential Yes.
So, you're opposed to a residential use? >> I'm not exactly I say opposed, but if we don't because we have several other properties there where they've built four houses on one um in one area like that and we don't
know it. We have no idea what's going to go there at this time. So, I would say I want to deny it. he have to come back and once it's set down and if he want to go back and redo it and once the community wants we speak with the community it's a little different then but right now I just want to denied
until we further information >> well the reason I brought up continuence was denial if we denied the case then he would have to file a new case >> right >> it's not a continuence >> right you're asking for a denial and what you
sounds like you really want is you want a continuence because you want to have a chance to discuss what he plans to do with the property and how it will affect the rest of the community. Right. >> Mhm. >> Well, that's not a denial. That's a continuence. >> Well, he had to ask for the continuence. I'm going to say
>> we can we can we [laughter] motion to continue it. >> Okay. You you can motion it, but yes, we right now we just don't want >> We can Let me uh let me ask you a couple questions. So right now this this is an a property and it's what's before us today is to reszone this to single
family residential when we call A43. >> Um what future land use map shows is for all this to be residential. Um here it is. >> Uh and uh you also stated uh if I'm I don't want to put words in your mouth
that you want this to be a residential neighborhood. Yes. >> So this would start you down that path. Mhm. >> Um, so if we were to continue it or deny it, that could possibly harm [clears throat] what you're trying to do, which is turn this on to residential. We can always
change the type of residential later. >> Okay. >> Um, but right now, this this locks up some residential zoning that you're asking for. >> Okay. >> Um, so if we were to approve this, uh, that locks up this as residential for the time being. >> So I think approving it really gives you
what you're asking for. that that does help clarify some. So, let's I should just say let's continue until I speak with him on on on till the community speaks with him on exactly what he wants to do. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may. >> Do you do you have a question for this gentleman?
>> I do actually. >> Okay. >> So, just want to make sure that you're aware. So, this is a single family oneacre home site is what he's asking for. >> If he were to build or want to build more homes, he has to come back.
So >> in the meantime, because it's residential, which is your goal, I think if you're open to it, the best course of action is to proceed to council as a residential property. >> In the interim, you guys are still free to talk,
>> sort out what you need to. >> Um, but like I said, if he wants to make eight homes on there, he's got to come back and ask for a much smaller product to be done. And that's a different conversation for us to have. But today, the way this sits, it's a big acre and if he wants to put a house on
it, it matches the plan >> from top to bottom >> and kind of goes towards your end goal. >> Um, so if you're I mean I just want to make sure you understand that piece of it because we're not >> not intending to uh keep you guys from talking, but this does fit kind of the
goal down there with the other large lots that we still see, which is nice because it's one of the only places left that have large lots still. >> True. And because he's not asking to subdivide it, um I think the general sense appears that this is worth moving
forward um to continue with council. >> Understandable. Um still I would like to um >> Okay. If there if there are no more questions, we'll go ahead and move this along because we're we're running out on
running out of time here. just make sure he understands that >> that A43 is for building one house on one acre, >> which is one of the less intensive uses in residential, >> right, >> zoning.
So that's why I found it hard for you hard to understand why you were opposed to it. The reason why because I I just really want to sit down with him and see what he has before we just say, "Okay, he approved." Because we don't know the plan. So even if it is,
>> it could only be one one house. So if he does anything beyond that, then he's in violation. Okay? >> And once it's reszoned to what he's requesting, residential, then there's different code compliance requirements for that, too. So if he's got extra junk on the property,
>> you know, that's all >> no commercial, no no storing, no commercial, none of that. Any any of that >> one home one acre. >> Okay. >> Has to be a house on it. >> Okay. Thank you for um clarifying. >> Thank you very much. Does that clear up your opposition? >> Good.
>> And now at this time, I'm going to if you would like to speak again, you're welcome to or if you're good. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. At this time, we will close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion. Um I I have the same opinion that I was trying to give that example
there. I this follows everything that you know the opposition was trying to get. This follows what the city sees as the future of this area. It helps clean it up, helps preserve it. So I don't see any reason not to approve it. So personally >> we have we have him on record. >> Correct.
>> Pulling that back. So that's good. >> Commissioner, >> uh go ahead. It's all yours, sir. >> In the case of uh ZC26-069, I make a motion that we approve it. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion to approve
by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Mayo. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trillo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Hi.
>> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Warman. I >> and Commissioner Castro >> I >> the vote 110 motion passes next case ZC-26-073 the address is 2001 and 2005 Jensen Road the applicant is VG7 Holdings Limited
Nehemiah Development LLC and Steve Smith request from A10 one [clears throat] family residential to A5 one family residential >> welcome to the zoning commission my name is Steve Smith. I'm with Nehemiah Development. Um I'm here to
request continuence to the next month. We have met with the council woman on this. We have met with leadership from the central Metobrook neighborhood association and the Metobrook Alliance. Uh we've also talked to city staff. This is right up against the golf course. So
we some of the development issues will also deal with the golf course. Uh the neighborhood association asked us to continue this. We have a meeting scheduled next Wednesday. uh in the evening to to uh discuss our plans and talk about how this development uh what
we anticipate it will be and get input from the neighborhood. So that's we're requesting this be continue to the August zoning commission >> and happy to answer any questions. Any questions?
Okay. Uh thank you very much. Uh there is no opposition uh signed up to speak on this case. Uh so we will go ahead and close the public hearing uh and leave it open for discussion or a motion by Commissioner Castro.
>> Sure. Uh in on in KCC-26-073, we ask for a continuence for 30 days. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Castro to continue to our August meeting and a second by Commissioner Worman. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns.
>> I. Commissioner Mayo, >> I. >> Commissioner Trio, >> hi. >> Commissioner Welch, >> hi. >> Commissioner McCoy, >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds, >> I. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> I. >> Commissioner Pierce, >> I. >> Commissioner Rogers, >> I. >> Commissioner Warman, >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro, >> I.
>> With a vote 110. Motion passes. Next case, ZC-26-075. The address is 604 Luxton Street. The applicant is General Whitfield. The request is from A5HC1 family
residential with a historical and cultural overlay district to B two family residential with a historic and cultural overlay district. >> Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Yes, thank you. Basically, all I'm trying to do is put a duplex between
these two properties. One side of my property it's a forplex and the other side of the property is a 8 unit apartment complex and I'm just trying tolex in between it. That's all I'm trying. >> So you you own the Can you tell me again
which property you currently own? My property is 604 Luxton and there's a forplex on one side and an eight uh uh apartment 8 unit apartment complex on right on the other side of it. I'm right between both of those. >> Okay. You don't own either of those? You
don't own either of those? >> I don't own them. >> Yeah. Are they your properties? >> No. >> Okay. Just this one. >> Just the one in the middle. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Uh any questions, commissioners? Do you own any other properties? >> Do I own any
>> in that area right there? >> Again, >> do you own any of the other vacant lots that are nearby? >> No, I sold those. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. You're saying you want to put a duplex, >> correct? >> In the middle, >> right? >> Okay.
>> And I have my builder here if you have any questions. questions. I had no more comments. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you very much, sir. Uh and we have no one signed up to speak uh in opposition. Uh so this is all we've got. So we'll close the public hearing and leave it open for
some discussion. And Commissioner Pierce, uh you were you weren't at the work session, but but my only comments were this was initially a council reinitiated zoning. That's why these are all A5s now. Even those two properties on the map, the one to the north and the south, um those are, you know,
multifamilies. One's like a forplex, one's got like eight or nine residences. Um so it it looks like it fits. Um I'm not completely opposed if if you know the general consensus is it makes sense because land use compatibility, as staff notes, it is compatible. Um but it
doesn't follow the comp plan and it doesn't follow the spirit of the resoning in my opinion. And it seems like the neighborhood the whole point of you know doing that um reszoning all this was because they wanted to see this a traditional single family type neighborhood. So um while some already
exists we can't do anything about that. Those are legal non-conforming. Um to continue to add that seems to kind of go against what was the intent of the reasoning all this to begin with to A5. So, um,
>> that's that that was that was my two cents in the work session. >> In other words, Mr. Chairman, if I understand that the the more intense zoning both on both sides of it are non-conforming, >> correct? Yeah, they're legal non-conforming, so they're allowed to be
there. Um, but uh they're >> unless something happens. Correct. Unless they have to rebuild. >> Correct. Yeah. They are zoned A5, but they were already there first. So, they're they're legal non-conforming. Right. Um, >> so it just seems like if we added that now we're it starts to look like spot
zoning in my opinion. Um, and then it just I think in a way it it starts to encourage we're basically saying we're okay with more of this. And if that's if that's ultimately what you know you're in favor of you know there's an argument to be to be had for that for sure. But it just seems like the neighborhood got
together and got with their council person to reszone this to A5 because they wanted a single family neighborhood and now here we go add multif family back in seems to kind of go against that. So >> from the aerial it looks like these homes are new construction the single family ones. >> Yeah. The ones to the north on Tucker.
>> Yeah. >> And even one Yeah. Right up there kind of diagonally >> looks pretty new too. >> So >> So it looks like the neighborhood's trying. >> So um So, I would tend to want to take >> given the the current climate of of
needing some level of additional affordable housing and the fact that you're even permitted to use FHA mortgages to buy and build duplexes as long as you occupy one of the units and it being up against the most intense use at industrial space. It it seems like an
appropriate use because it's more likely that somebody would build a slightly more intense um family unit against a more intense industrial district as they would across the street where they have single family on all sides. >> Yeah, I mean I'm all for I'm definitely not arguing the land use. I agree with
you there. Um and all for more affordable housing. Everyone in this room knows we need more of that. Um and you know right up against some industrial as you correctly point out that's a good place. duplexes serve a lot of of those good uses, owner occupant. They can lease the other side
out. It's it's a great it's a win-win. I just my my my concern is is that the neighborhood seems like they they want this to continue to be a single family neighborhood. Well, I'm I'm very familiar with this area and um I'm not
sure when it was zoned A5, but due to the the population growth, I agree with my fellow commissioner here to my left is that we need housing and in this area is a lot of infill housing. Yes, you do have new houses, but then you have, you
know, single family developers that have infousing, excuse me, infill housing on this street and infill housing on the next street. So I in my opinion respectfully I feel that it does fit um the the applicants request if you're familiar with that area. It's not out of
place uh when you when you see it. Uh and again as I've said in the past with the population growth we have a major housing shortage. So I think it's a compliment that he is implementing and he's going to build a duplex and that would definitely help with the capacity
issue that we have in that area. But there's lots of infill housing in this area. >> And I' I'd lean more on your comments than than mine. You're more familiar with the area, right? >> And and perhaps it says something that there was no opposition to this case and that no one wrote in.
>> So, [snorts] >> I just wanted to share my my thoughts on it. But >> no, and the only downside I see, Commissioner, is um all in all of our districts, we've gone through resoning. I mean major reasonzoning in the past 1015 years and
just the only thing I see that's a downside to making a positive response is that it sets a precedent that uh we're willing to [clears throat] consider that that original that resoning that we went through the
council initiated resoning with cooperating with neighborhoods uh that now we're kind of turning back the clock a little bit on that because if e either one of these two buildings on both sides of it are burned beyond a certain level and have to be rebuilt,
they can't be rebuilt. Um except for single family >> under the current resoning. >> Can you staff can do you happen to have with you when these were reszoned when that happened? These all went back to A5.
>> I believe it was 2007. 2007, >> right? That's [laughter] 20 years ago. >> Yeah. The the area has changed. Yeah. And like I said, we have a major uh housing shortage all over the metroplex, which I don't know if you saw that Fort
Worth has uh risen in the ranks in terms of cities now. So, >> number 10. >> We're Yes, we're number 10 for number 13 since 2022. So, it's bigger than you, Austin. >> Right. Exactly. So, it's a major uh We need more housing. And like I said, that
area it is it's also is a historic area. Um, and there's so many infill housing that's there. Hopefully one day we will get housing development there and not as many infill housing. But, you know, I feel like it does fit the the proper land use. And then I'm proud and if
you're familiar with that area for so many years, we had developers that would not go into that area and would not develop anything at all. So that says something to our applicant here that's willing to put housing in that area and that that's been a problem uh in that
particular area. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Lot changes in 20 years. So good points. >> If you look at the photo, there are multiple lots available. >> Probably been available for a long time. No one's come forward to build on those.
>> Right. So, I I would support approval because this gentleman has come forward. It does help with the housing situation. I think it's a good fit. >> All right. You see what y'all did? You changed my mind. [laughter] >> All right. Thanks for having me look at
it a different way. Appreciate it. >> No problem. >> All right. Uh, any more discussion? Uh, or Commissioner Pierce, we'd be ready for a motion. >> Thank you, fellow commissioners. I appreciate all of your comments. in KZC26075. I move for approval.
>> Second. >> All right. We have a we have a motion uh to approve by Commissioner Pierce and a second by uh who is that? Commissioner Rogers. >> Yes. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trujillo.
>> I. >> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> I. >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Worman. >> Hi. and Commissioner Castro >> I. >> The vote of it 11 to zero. Motion
passes. Next case 26 D I'm sorry ZC-26-077. The address is 20008 Edmonia Court. The applicant's Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church Bruce Thatcher. The request is from CF CFSS
which is community facilities with a stop six overlay to B SS to family residential within the stop six overlay. >> Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity to come forward. this property that we own. We want to see about changing this zone to do a multi-generational family. There's a lot of new residents and developments that's
taking place in the stop six community and we are very excited about the work that's taking place in stop six. We have built other properties at the stop six community, but what we're looking at is building a multi-generational where a
traditional residential house in the front, [clears throat] maybe with a small house in the back that can be used for aging parent can be used for a child that's aging out and becoming independent and to have separate
quarters in the rear. That's the purpose of what we would like to do. Very good. Thank you very much, sir. Uh, any questions? There is no opposition for your case. Um, so we will go ahead and close the
public hearing and leave it open for some discussion. Um, or a motion by Commissioner Evans. >> Uh, seeing no discussion, um, and in view of the fact that, um, you take such great care to come here and be with us
today. Thank you. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZC26 077. Wish you the best of luck. >> Second. Thank you. >> All right. We have a motion uh by Commissioner Edmonds to approve and a second by Commissioner Mayo.
>> Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Trillo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Warman. >> Hi. and Commissioner Castro
>> I >> with a vote of 11 to zero. Motion passes. >> Sir, if you wouldn't mind staying up here, I'm going to make a change in our order. Let's just move case 26081 up. Um, same applicant. Go ahead and knock
both of these out. Next case is ZC-26-081. The address is 1 1910 and 1 912 Amanda Avenue. The applicants is Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, Bruce
Thatcher, and Jack Taylor. The request is from A5 stop six overlay to B2 family residential with a stop six overlay. same concept as well. You put the single
house in the front with a living quarters in the back and both of those lots, you know, side by side are joined there together on Amanda Avenue and also to bring some more uh affordable housing
in the community as well. >> Very good. Uh there is no one signed up to speak in opposition uh on this one as well. Um any questions? >> Well, there was no there was an opposition letter from the neighborhood. >> Correct. There's no one here signed up
to speak in opposition. >> Um if I may ask the applicant, why do you think the neighborhood is opposed to this? >> Why do I think it's opposed? >> I wasn't aware that the neighborhood is opposed. >> They wrote a letter in opposition, Regina Blair, I believe.
Well, that's probably yes, I I have communicated with Miss Blair by email, but Miss Blair in the email that we communicated, she made mention of a duplex and rental, and I think she was
well, I can't say what she was thinking, but I'm assuming she was thinking that it was traditional side byside duplex, and that's not what we're doing. As I stated to her, I have built over 12 houses there in the stock community in
the last year, last two years, as well as a family life educational center. And so for the 23 years I've served that community, I've worked to try to improve the stop six community. As a matter of fact, I was the genesis for bringing the
witsy, the workforce innovation training center in collaboration with the Fort Worth Housing and Etna and CVS that's there in stop six now. So what we're trying to do is to bring more affordable
housing in stop six. Same thing that we've done in over the last two or three years. >> Very good. Thank you very much, sir. At this time, we will clo close the public hearing and leave it open for discussion
or a motion by Commissioner Edmonds. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, the case is ZC26081. I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Worman. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Chairman
Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo, >> I. >> Commissioner Trujillo. >> I. Commissioner Welch. >> Hi, >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Wman. >> I, >> and Commissioner Castro,
>> I. >> With a vote of 11 to zero. Motion passes. Next case on the agenda is SP. >> Sorry, staff for messing y'all up. >> Is SP-26-00009. The address is 6251 Stevenson Oaks
Drive. The applicant is MRC Senior Living Fort Worth. Chuck Steel, JM Civil Engineering, Andre Sutiono. The request is to amend the site plan for PD 1174 plan development to revise the skilled
nursing facility building site plan included. Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Good afternoon. I'm Alan Brown. I'm the president of Methodist Retirement Communities and today we're simply asking you to amend a site plan that was approved in 2019 specifically related to
the nursing home portion of our campus. Originally, it was planned to be a phase 2 uh 34 bed traditional nursing home. Uh since COVID, the world has changed and what we do. Uh and we also have a better model of skilled nursing care. That's a
household model that's uh two households for 12 elders each, a total of 16,000 square feet. uh that uh it will be the the first uh in North Texas, the first in Fort Worth, will be a very great
asset to the community. Um and this did uh exceed the the 5% of the original site plan that uh could have been administratively approved. So, we're just asking your approval. It's it's making what we were going to do smaller, a residential style. It's it's totally
um uh fits the neighborhood. uh it lowers the density a little bit and it's a superior superior model for taking care of older adults and it completes our continuum of care. Um so that is what we're asking for you today and I'll
be happy to answer any questions. >> Very good. There is no one signed up to speak in opposition. Uh so commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? >> No. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you for being here. Um, we will close the public hearing and leave it open for some
discussion or a motion by Commissioner Robinson. >> No discussion. All right, we'll go ahead with the motion. >> I uh mo um want to uh make a motion to approve SP26009. >> Right. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Robinson and a second by Commissioner Rogers. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Chairman Reigns. I >> Commissioner Mayo. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Trujillo. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Welch. >> I, >> Commissioner McCoy. >> I, >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> I, >> Commissioner Pierce.
>> I, >> Commissioner Rogers. >> I, >> Commissioner Wman. >> I, >> and Commissioner Castro, >> I. >> The vote of 11 to zero. Motion passes. Next case, ZC-26-080. The address is 406 and 408 Diamond
Avenue. The applicant is Cooper Conger Group LLC, Townite, Marinell Pool. The request is from J DudD, Medium Industrial Downtown Urban Design District Overlay, Samuels Avenue, Rock Island Character Zone to R1 DUDD
0 Line Cluster Residential Downtown Urban Design District Overlay, Samuels Avenue, Rock Island Character Zone. Mr. Conger, welcome to zoning commission. >> Hi, commissioners. Uh, my name is Cooper Conger, 251 Sunset Lane, uh, Fort Worth,
Texas. Um, we are proposing to reszone this property at 406 and 408, um, Diamond Avenue, um, from medium industrial to R1 residential. Um, I'll just go back. Actually, I think I have it. Let's see here. Yes, there it is. So
I provided this aerial view in my presentation that shows this property is zoned uh for industrial currently. Um but the surrounding properties and surrounding community is purely single family residential as you see from this aerial view. Um and then this the future
land use for the properties surrounding it are also of a of a mixed use. Um, so it is my opinion that the correct use for these properties and what is going to have the least impact on the neighborhood and the the best impact on the neighborhood moving forward um is this is this residential use. Um these
are smaller lots as you can tell. They're pretty skinny um about 46 feet on one of them and 38t on the other. So they all they are smaller. Um, so we're proposing these twostory cute little houses here, um, with surface parking, um, that'll fit on these smaller,
narrower lots, um, but still uphold the, uh, single family nature of the, uh, community there. Um, with that being said, um, I think the staff did an awesome job on this project. I think they did a great staff report. Um, and I'm open to any questions y'all may have.
>> There's no one signed to speak in opposition, so any questions for the applicant? the large of the lots. >> Um they are about let's see um 76 foot deep and each of them are about 40 one's 40 foot wide, one's 45 foot wide. Um so
they're under 5,000 square feet which is why I went with that R1 zoning code, Commissioner Rogers. >> All right, very good. Thanks, sir. Appreciate you being here. Uh, at this time we will close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion or
a motion by Commissioner Rogers. >> CC26080. >> Second. >> We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Rogers and a second by Commissioner Worman. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? >> Commissioner Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trillo. >> Hi.
>> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. Commissioner Robinson >> I. >> Commissioner Pierce >> I. >> Commissioner Rogers >> I. >> Commissioner Warman >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro >> I. >> With a vote of 11 to zero. Motion passes. Next case
ZC-26-082. The address is 5851 North Freeway. Applicant is Brook Hollow 1170 LP Moji Hadad of Maline Capshaw. The request is from G I35 West District, Intensive
Commercial, I35 South Overlay District to I I35 West Light Industrial, still with the I35 South Overlay District. >> Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. My name is
Maline Capshaw. I am with UITO uh located at 108 Min Street in Fort Worth on suite 101. Um, and we're here today requesting a zoning change for the property located at 5851 North Freeway. Get to my presentation here. Um, so this
is some of the site context currently. Um, it is that G intensive commercial proposed zoning is light industrial with the proposed use being a class A warehouse uh, cluster of buildings. The intention is that we would meet all of the standards of I35 overlay district.
um with loading screen from I35 which is important with some of the community engagement that we did. Uh surrounding context is uh to the west we have the crossing at Fossil Creek neighborhood. Uh to the north there is uh extra space storage and then to the south we have
North Fort Worth Baptist Church. Um something else I want to note is just south of all of that is a very large um industrial use that is also Izzoning. This is a conceptual site plan that the proposed developers put together. Um, this is the three buildings. We're
looking at about 245,000 square feet. Um, I also have some examples of other development that the proposed developer has done kind of in the area. This is in North Lake as well as some proposed uh renderings that show the uh class A
storefront glazing, canopies, articulated facades. And then uh just kind of a brief overview of some of this uh engagement that we've done. So, we did reach out to the HOA, the Baptist Church, and also Council Member Flores. We received pretty positive feedback from everybody
um and told them that we would continue to keep them updated as we progress through this. So, with that, we are requesting um respectfully that this gets uh reszone to I um and I'm here to answer any questions.
>> Do you have someone else signed up to speak, Leslie Ford? Are they here just for questions or >> Yeah, I think if there's any questions or opposition. >> Okay, very good. Uh, commissioners, any questions for the applicant? >> The only big challenge with that area is going to be traffic and large trucks
because if they're coming from the north, they're have to ask exit western center go through that light just to get down the road to where they're located. There's no offramp. Area is already pretty congested as it is. So, >> do you have a plan for traffic? Um we
are pretty early in the process, but some of the engagement that we did to the [clears throat] neighborhood. Um they requested that we don't put any traffic onto Old Denton to the south. Um so what you can see in this proposed conceptual site plan is that we're trying to accommodate that. Um but I do think that our developers are open to
discussion if there is something else that we need to consider. >> Okay. So right now the only access is on the frontage road. >> That is correct. Trying to mitigate that because it was a concern of the neighborhood. Any other questions? Okay. All right. Thank
you for being here. Uh, at this time we will close the public hearing and leave it open open for some discussion um or a motion by Commissioner Trillo. How are you feeling about this one? The biggest concern is going to be the traffic that it adds to Western Center and you know
how do we ensure that they don't take Western Center those back roads to come around to get to it. That's a big concern because those streets aren't very big and you had semis to them looking at problems. >> Yeah, I was I was surprised that there wasn't opposition to this because
there's a huge neighborhood right behind it. Um but uh that would that would be my biggest concern having an industrial, you know, like we've had two other cases like that today, you know, right next to these homes. But uh because I I tend to
agree with the staff report, um generally speaking, but it's it's hard for me to be too aggressive about my opposition when there's no people that live there. warehouse is right there on the south of this site too, but they usually access from Blue Mound, I believe, is the next road off 820
itself, which is easier access. And >> if your biggest opposition your biggest opposition point is traffic, if that was commercial, um I think there would be more traffic, right? Am I thinking about this wrong? Well, when you look at the aerial view, it u it doesn't look like a
good fit because it's so close to residential and and the traffic is an issue and uh it's not compatible with any of our guidelines according to the staff. >> Yeah, from a land use standpoint and and
the the future land use map, yeah, it doesn't fit. That's why I say I'm surprised the neighborhood didn't come out in opposition, but >> could be a noticing issue. Well, I mean, I I know we notice uh you know, we do know we do that. >> Also, might have fallen exactly outside
the 300 feet. >> Oh, yeah, that's true. Yeah. >> So, it could have fallen. >> That's part of why everybody should sign up >> from the city of Fort Worth. >> Get your notices >> for your council district, not just near your house. >> Yeah, I think it's very landlocked. You
can use MarkV Parkway, but you're also at the bottleneck of 820 and 35 at that point. Um there is no easy way in or out. And the solution thus far, I think over the past six years or so, we've seen a couple more of the hotels pop up
and they're um they're taking up the parcels that are getting closer and closer to the church that's there. >> Yeah. >> Church doesn't seem to have been in opposition of those as of yet. >> Yeah. Um, and you know, I believe they showed a letter or they showed, you know, they were some correspondence with the church in their presentation,
>> but they're they're generally not aggressive in in any sort of kickback or push back in that area. Uh, it just, you know, without knowing the logistics of it and, you know, moving forward from here, there's traffic studies and other things that'll happen that are not, you know, part of our job, but, you know, we
kind of know what we see on a daily basis. Yeah, it it uh they my other another opinion is is just it's Jake, we've talked about this before or Commissioner Worman, sorry. >> You can call me J. [laughter] >> Well, yeah. You know, when we when we
lose commercial property, it's gone. >> And so, uh, you know, it rarely gets reszoned commercial. Um, so you know, being that this is surrounded by commercial, you know, to give that up to industrial, and I'm an industrial guy, so I'm definitely not anti-industrial.
Um, but, uh, it just seems like this this location isn't the right fit for something like this. I'm just surprised there was an opposition. >> Okay, I'm ready. >> Ready? >> Go ahead, sir. >> All right.
>> So, for ZZ26-082, I move for denial. Second. >> We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Trjillo and a second by Commissioner Worman. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? Chairman Reigns. >> I. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> I. >> Commissioner Trujillo. >> I.
>> Commissioner Welch. >> I. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> I. >> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> I. >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Werman. >> I. >> And Commissioner Castro. >> I. >> With a vote of 11 to zero, zoning commission recommends denial of the
case. Next case, >> ZC-26-087, an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the city of Fort Worth being ordinance number 21653 as amended, codified as appendix A of the Code of the City of
Fort Worth 2015 by amending chapter 4, District Regulations, article 8, section 4.803, 803 non-residential district use table to restrict data centers to only industrial districts and add cryptocurrency mining
under light industrial services amending chapter 5 supplemental use standards article one standards for selected uses to add section 5.160 titled cryptocurrency mining prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts
amending chapter 5 supplemental use standards article one standards for selected uses to add section 5.161 titled data centers to restrict data centers to only industrial districts and establish data center development
standards amending appendix A chapter 9 definitions section 9.101 define terms to add the definition of cryptocurrency mining and to amend the definition of data center.
Welcome to the zoning commission. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me back. Uh we just did this presentation to you in work session, but we are going to run through that presentation again for those in the audience. Um you also have the draft ordinance in your zoning
commission packet. So you can look at anything there and if you have questions at the end, I'm happy to answer that. So Jessica McGran, assistant city manager that works with the development services department. Um, you all are aware already, but I presented a much longer presentation about proposed data center
development regulations to the city council on June 2nd. What is before you today now is the zoning piece of those proposed amendments. So, for this presentation, it's an abbreviated version of what went to council. So, we're going to run through a little bit of the background and the overview on
data centers. Then, we're going to cover the current zoning regulations that apply to industrial developments, which include data centers. And then I will walk you through our proposed zoning amendment regulations as well. Um and then finally we will end on the schedule
that we reviewed earlier but we'll cover that again too. So what is a data center? I think everybody now is very wellversed in what is a data center. We've heard a lot of talk about them for for quite a while now especially here in Texas. Um there is a lot of interest in
new data center developments both nationally here in the state and of course here in Fort Worth. A data center is simply a physical facility that houses IT infrastructure including servers, storage devices, networking equipment to store, process, and manage
digital operations and data. As staff approached our presentation for the city council on our proposed amendments, we really came at this from two main goals, two points of of reference. Number one, how do we put forward regulations that protect the
health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of residents that are impacted by data center developments, especially those that are living right by them? And then also, how do we position Fort Worth to responsibly capture the economic benefits of the emerging data center
opportunities by requiring best-in-class data center development practices? Simply put, how do we adopt regulations that both allow for development, but ensure that it is the right development that is not harmful to our residents here in Fort Worth.
When we started looking at all of the regulations that would apply to data centers and what can we here in the city of Fort Worth do, it's really important that we first cover what is within our authority and what is not within our authority. So covering first what the
city of Fort Worth can regulate. That's everything on the right side of the screen. So obviously we're here at the zoning commission meeting. We are here to talk about the zoning and the development regulations. That is probably one of the um most visible things that a city has the authority to
regulate and that is the focus of course of this presentation here. So when we're talking about zoning and development standards, we're talking about the context of a development. Where is it located? um what are the setbacks or the distance requirements from other developments? What are the height
limitations? The um landscaping requirements, any buffers, any open space, all of those kinds of things. At the city, we also have the ability to adopt noise regulations. So, we have the ability to determine what is the maximum noise level that any development should
be allowed to have and then we have the ability to enforce that. We are not going to cover those proposed amendments here today before you because they're not part of the zoning um zoning ordinance. But if you want more information on that, we have a wealth of
information on our city website. I also had previously shared with you the link to our council presentation. I'm also available. So if you want to visit on anything related to the areas that are not within the zoning, I'm happy to chat with you after this meeting too. At the city, we also because we are the water
utility, we have the ability to regulate the water utility at the at the local level. So, we have the ability to set what are the standards, what are the um the a sorry, I just lost my train of thought. We have the ability to require a water
loading study that will tell us what the development needs and what it's going to be used for. And then we have the ability to set the appropriate rules in order to serve that development. We do that in cooperation with the Tarant Regional Water District who is our raw water supplier. TRWD also serves a much
larger region beyond Fort Worth. And so that's why the ability to set local water utility and water limits is so powerful here in Fort Worth. And then finally, we do have the authority to set a local economic development incentive policy. Our city council sets that and
reviews that policy every two years and adopts it new. Um, and with that we have the ability to decide what projects we even want to consider incentivizing. It doesn't mean we're going to, but it sets the parameters for what projects can even uh submit an application for
consideration. Now, the things that we do not have the authority to regulate are listed on the left hand side of this slide. Those are all regulations that are set by the state of Texas and delegated to other agencies for the regulatory um uh
program. So, starting off with energy, I put that first and foremost because we are hearing a lot of concerns from the public about the availability of energy and the stability of the grid. And while those are great concerns, they're very valid, we here at the local level in Fort Worth just do not have the ability
to regulate that. We have no say in it. And so, it's just one of those things that we need to note. um that really falls to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, and then of course locally to Encore or any other utility
that provides the um service for the statewide water planning that falls to the Texas Water Development Board. They serve as a planning agency for the entire state of Texas and they work with all of the local water utilities to determine what are the population
projections well into the future. what is the anticipated development? And then they evaluate and put together a statewide water plan that covers five years at a time that sets forth what are the potential projects that that region needs to undertake in order to ensure
that we as Texans have water today but also have water in the future. For air quality and other environmental concerns, the state agency is the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. They require air quality permits for certain types of development, cooling
towers, generators, um, electric generation entities, many, many others. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality sets all of the rules governing those types of programs. Here in the city of Fort Worth, we do have a local air quality program that we administer
in conjunction with TCEQ, but our role is very limited. So what we do is um if TCQ asks us to review development plans, we will review those plans, but it's not for every development and it's only when they ask and then we act as kind of that
first step. If there's an air quality complaint that comes in, we typically receive that complaint, we will conduct the initial investigation and then we refer our findings back up to TCQ. Because TCEQ and the state set all of those rules, we have no ability or
authority to set any regulations beyond what the state set. So, we're very limited there. And then finally, the state of Texas also has its own tax exemptions and incentive programs. Currently, the state has a sales tax exemption program for certain developments and certain data center
developments qualify. We've already heard that the state is very likely to look at their programs right now and they may repeal them or they may change them in the future. Um that sales tax exemption program though does not exempt local sales tax. So any qualified
development that is exempted under that state program is still paying their local sales tax to the city and the county. And then lastly, the Texas Economic Development Tourism Office, which is um under the governor's office. They also manage the entire state of Texas, any other economic development
type incentive programs for any and all potential businesses and developments, and they set the criteria for their programs. All of those things that are on the left side of the screen, again, you are not going to hear a presentation on. A because they're not part of the zoning, but B because we just do not have the
authority to set any regulations on them whatsoever. So now thinking about data centers again there's a huge interest right now. There's a lot of new data centers that are planned that are trying to get to market. Data centers are not new. Um they are evolving constantly and we've
seen that evolution over many years. We have four standalone data centers here in Fort Worth already. The first one and the oldest one was built in council district 5 south of DFW airport. and then the three others are located in
council district 10. The four standalone data center developments right now comprise a total of 10 buildings totaling just under 3 million square feet combined. Now the smallest standalone building is a two-story building and it's 209,000
square feet. Our largest development is 1.5 million square feet and that is a campus spread out over five buildings. If you took each individual building and averaged them all together, they're just under 300,000 square feet individually
or on average. Again, our oldest data center was built in 2000. And our newest build uh was completed, it was started, I'm sorry, in 2025 and it's about to wrap up construction now. And that is an expansion of an existing data center uh
that the first phase was built uh almost 20 years ago. We also have several data centers that I would call in progress and there are various stages of progress. So we have one data center that is currently under construction and that is in council district 7 uh on attractive land that is
zoned K heavy industrial received its zoning many years ago. That's why it may not sound familiar and why you didn't see anything on it recently. And then there's four others again that I have in this proposed column um because they all four have their zoning in place in order
to construct. All four had zoning done probably within the last two to three years. Some were more recent than others. And those are in council districts three, six, seven, and eight. On some of these, we have site plans already and we have anticipated construction dates. On others, they've
gotten zoning, but we haven't seen anything beyond their zoning case. And then it's also critical to note that we have two data centers that we are aware of that are currently contemplated in our ETJ or extr territorial jurisdiction. and you're familiar with the ETJ, but just in case anybody is
watching that's not, that is a buffer around our city limits of area that no other city can annex. So, it's it's reserved anticipated that at some point it comes into the city in the future. These two that are contemplated in the
ETJ are both in our water CCN or service area, which means we will be obligated to serve them when and if they are developed. So, as with any development, when we are thinking about our regulations and we're reviewing our regulations, both thinking
about what do we have in place today? Is it sufficient? Do we need amendments? It's important to think about both the opportunities and the impacts of development. And this is not tailored just to data centers. This is really all development. You evaluate zoning cases every month where you're hearing the
pros and cons of every development that is put before you. When we think about opportunities specific for data center developments, number one, they are a significant private investment and they really do bolster the commercial tax base, which is a long-term city goal to
increase our commercial tax base and reduce the burden of property taxes on our residential tax base. They increase revenues for all local taxing authorities. So, this is not just something that the city is thinking about. is also to the school districts to the county uh the hospital taxing
district Tarant County College etc. These developments put property value on the tax role for all local taxing jurisdictions. They're also a very long-term minimal impact user to city services. So, especially if we look at our four data
centers that have been here in the city again, some for 20 years or more, and we look at the anticipated ones, there's not a lot of traffic generation once they're online. Um, they do not typically have code enforcement issues. They're typically very well-maintained
sites. They do not have lots of calls for police or fire services and that kind of a thing. So, they're really not drawing a lot of resources once they are constructed. We looked at our complaint data for all of our four existing that we have here in Fort Worth. We looked at our complaint data over the last five
years to see, you know, what is the real impact? Are we getting a lot of complaints on these existing developments? And we found that we're not. So then we started looking at those existing developments to say, okay, going forward, how do we ensure that all future development is constructed to the same really great standard, that it's a
good neighbor? Um, it's worth noting two of these data centers are adjacent to residential. And so um so it's a good thing to see that we don't have a lot of complaints, but how do we ensure that any new developments also are going to be good neighbors um and not lead to
complaints. So when we're thinking about opportunities, there is an opportunity to have a development inside the city limits and there's an opportunity to adopt better regulations or more stringent regulations because we at the city do have the authority to have some
oversight into these developments. We talked about it in work session, but any development that is constructed in the unincorporated areas of the state of Texas. So, in other words, out in the county, the counties do not have zoning authority. They do not have the ability to set distance requirements or noise
limitations. Um, whereas we do. So, that's a huge benefit to having a development want to be inside the city of Fort Worth where we can then have oversight and apply some development rules. Outside of the city limits, development can still occur. Again, we know that counties don't have zoning
authority. When we think about to just a water standpoint and resources, any development that is constructed in Tent Regional Water District Service Area is going to be pulling from the same water resources that we are. And yet, we have no ability to set limits on the amount
of water that that development draws. So, again, there's some benefit for us to be able to have development here in the city where we can then apply our policies. But there are definitely real impacts. Again, these are just the ones that we're hearing the most on related to data centers, but really there's impacts
of all types of developments. Again, your cases that you've heard leading up to this, you've heard concerns from residents about the impact of certain types of development on their neighbors. Specific to data centers, what we are hearing by and large from concerned residents um is number one, resource
considerations. You know, we hear in Texas all the time about the availability or the potential shortage of water. there are other cities and counties and areas that are having real shortages of water right now and so that's a growing concern. Um we hear about data centers using these massive
amounts of water and there certainly are certain types of development that do. We are proposing again not here at the zoning regulations but we are proposing separately to adopt an updated water policy where we will limit the amount of water that a future development can use so we have the ability to do that. We're
hearing concerns over what um what water is discharged from a site, what goes into the wastewater treatment system, and ultimately that is discharged later on into our streams and and rivers. We hear a lot again about the availability and the of energy and the stability of
the grid. Again, things we can't regulate, but very real conversations that we're having with our partners that do have the ability to set those regulations. We're hearing a lot of concerns about what I would call neighborhood impacts. So that's noise limits, outdoor lighting, um just the
proximity to a residential area in general. And then lastly, we're hearing not as much here in Fort Worth, but just across the state, we are hearing concerns about the potential for overp proliferation. Again, there's a lot of interest right now around data center developments. Are we going to end up in
a place where we have too many of them constructed and then we have these buildings that aren't serving their purpose or are no longer needed? So after the June 2nd work session, by that evening, we had launched an online
survey on our data center FAQ website. To date, we've received almost 900 responses to that survey, and they're still coming in, which we really appreciate. We're going through all of those now. We are going to leave that online survey open until July 15th. So people have a little bit longer, about one more week left in order to submit
their comments and their feedback on these proposed regulations. And then we also held an open house last Tuesday for people to come and visit with all of our staff members across the various departments. We also had our partners from Tarant Regional Water District attend um and talked about their
planning area, their service area and their regulations. And then also the public utilities commission of Texas staff attended our open house and made themselves available which we were so appreciative for. Uh we had a great turnout at that event and so far we've received 110 written responses to our
survey that we were handing out to people there. We're having a few more from that event as well come in a little bit later, people that just wanted some more time to fill it out and give us their feedback. So really good response so far and we hope that people continue to weigh in. For the zoning specific
feedback, um we are seeing a lot of people that are in aligned with what we're putting forward. We are seeing some comments though where people feel like we're just not quite there enough. So setbacks is something that I mentioned to you in work session earlier. What we recommended at a staff level to start is 250 foot setback from
residential areas and and residential districts. I think that is one of those things that when we get done looking at all the feedback after the survey closes on July 15th, that very well may be one of those amendments that we propose to increase based on this feedback. Not as many people are telling us specifically
what they would like to see, just that they feel 250 isn't enough. And some are giving us some some concrete numbers that we're working with. So, we'll continue looking through all of that. We're seeing some feedback on the zoning classifications. Again, is it um we it's currently allowed and proposed to stay
allowed in all three industrial zoning districts, and we'll cover that in a minute. We're seeing comments come in on parking, which we did not initially recommend to reduce parking, but we're seeing a lot of people comment on that that because these are not high employers, they don't want to see just a ton of concrete paving all over to have
a bunch of empty parking spaces. So, that's another area that in your draft ordinance we've already addressed. Um, but that's one of those comments. And then again, that proximity to residential, the questions about how are we really going to enforce these measures. you know, zoning enforcement we have the
ability to do, but the enforcement process is regulated by state law. So, it's just that how are we really going to have the teeth to make sure that we can be effective and of course the size of the structures. All right. So, to jump into the zoning
regulations, what I'm going to do first, just like we did in work session right before this meeting, I'm going to first cover our current regulations that we have in place. So any data center development that is already existing or that's proposed right now. I'm going to cover what they follow and then I'm
going to jump over into our proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance that would apply to data centers. So for our current zoning regulations, um we have a very robust definition for data center developments. This is just a summarized version of that, but it's
again a building designed to house computers and support systems used mainly to provide data and transaction processing. Now, there are lots of different types of data centers. Um, and again, there's a there's an evolution constantly. As technology evolves, so do
the needs and the types of data centers that are constructed. They are allowed in all three of our industrial zoning districts. So I light industrial, J medium industrial, and K heavy industrial. On the right, this is just a list of other types of development that would be customary that
you would see in each of these three um classifications of industrial development. So data centers today do not we do not have in our zoning ordinance any data center specific design standards. So instead when a data center development
is coming online right now it just follows the base level industrial design standards for development and that's what is listed here. Um so the front setback would be 20 ft if the development fronts residential so across the street. There's a side and rear
setback of 50 feet if adjacent to single or two family residential or five feet on the side and 10 feet on the rear if adjacent to any other type of residential. So probably multif family. Think multif family. If a data center is developed near commercial or industrial
zoning or developments, there are no setbacks required. For a max height, the industrial regulations limit um I light industrial to three stories or 55 ft. For medium and heavy industrial, that max height limit is 12 stories or 120
ft. Landscaping and buffers are required on 4% of the net sight area or 30- foot depth along the roadways. We have urban forestry requirements that require a retained or planted canopy coverage of 20%. And then we already have outdoor
lighting regulations that limit the lighting to zero foot candles at the property line within 150 ft of a residential district. And I have that word underlined. And then we have max height of those lighting fixtures of 20 feet. Now, two things to note here. Zero
foot candles, if you're not familiar with that terminology, that means that at the property line, no light can leave the property line. It doesn't mean that you won't be able to see that a site is lit up, but it means that think about if you had a light at the property line, that light has to be facing inward. It
can't be facing outward. But if you're driving down the road, you will still be able to see that that site is lit up. And then again the under word the underlined word district. So right now this is how our zoning ordinance is written. But in the last leg legislative
session uh Senate Bill 840 was passed which allows for multifamily developments to be constructed in commercially zoned districts. So this is one of those gaps that we identified as we were reviewing our regulations to realize that under this current
standard, if a multif family development is constructed in that commercial district and a data center proposes to be adjacent to it, that lighting standard would not apply. So that's one of our proposed recommended amendments. So now thinking about what are our proposed zoning amendments. Number one,
we do recommend that we define cryptocurrency mining separately from a data center and that we write it into the zoning ordinance but but not listed as an allowable use anywhere as a primary use. The reason for that is
Bitcoin mining or cryptocurrency mining is typically a much more intensive water user and typically a lot louder uh noisier development. And so we just felt it was the most appropriate to prohibit that as a primary use. And then
secondly, for our zoning ordinance, we recommend adopting these data center specific development standards. So number one, the building setback of 250 ft from all residential uses and districts. Again, that covers SB840 potential developments.
We would propose to allow parking and driveways within that supplemental setback of that 250 ft. Now, I noted on this at work session, but I'll say it again here. Your draft ordinance reduces the parking standard for development for
data centers to one space per four employees. That is what we heard both from data center development uh developers and operators as well as some of the citizen groups that again realized they don't have a ton of employees. They don't want to see half
of a site page to have empty spaces. They'd rather see the green space instead. And then we also looked at other cities. Um, by the way, for a lot of these we looked at other city standards as well. Um, and then a lot of the citizen feedback for how we got to this list. So, I'll note that we are
proposing that we require standby generators to be at least 300 feet away from residential districts and uses and be fully screened with an acoustic barrier. uh rooftop cooling equipment would be required to be behind an acoustic barrier and that barrier to be
one and a half times the height of the cooling equipment. We would recommend extending our outdoor lighting regulations to include residential uses as well as districts. We recommend um adopting an enhanced landscape buffer yard of 50 feet and requiring a
screening fence along residential boundaries. And then finally requiring a continuous row of evergreen trees at the site perimeter where adjoining residential. And as we noted in the work session, we do have a tree ordinance that has a list of different tree
species. The reason we are recommending the evergreen instead of just following the tree species list that we have is because the evergreens don't lose their foliage in the winter. So it preserves that buffer, that screening, visual screening as well all year long.
So again, based on an early look at the feedback that we're still receiving right now, the building setback from residential districts and use very likely I anticipate increasing that. We're just still waiting to see kind of all the feedback where it lands to figure out what is that number that it
should be. One other consistent piece of feedback that we're getting that um we know early on is related to the outdoor lighting. right now. Um, we we have the zero foot candles at the property line, but one of the asks that we've consistently seen is to also require the
lighting to be that uh full cut off lighting, which means it has a cap on it and it aims the lighting downward instead of also up. So, for bird migration, dark sky, that kind of purpose, it's it covers that. This is an example just a conceptual
site plan for those that really like the visual look of how to understand what are these proposed regulations that we're putting forward in our zoning amendment. Uh this is something we had prepared at the open house that really people enjoyed seeing because they could they could see what do we actually mean when we're talking about this. So the
gray boxes in the center we can think of those as our proposed data center buildings. The green then narrow boxes to the left would be the standby generators that a site would probably have. Parking area to the south. You can see that slanted text. Hard to read on
this because it's so small on that larger screen, but that slanted text between the standby generators in the green box and the tree in the residential shows that minimum 300 foot distance from residential. To the right of the gray data center box is that proposed 250 foot minimum
setback from the residential. You can see the continuous row of evergreen trees. Again, our proposed regulations are requiring those evergreen trees where adjacent to residential, not where it's adjacent to commercial or industrial. Doesn't mean that a development may not want to do it all
over. They might. That is up to them. We still have again our base industrial landscape and buffer yard requirements. So just a sidebyside view if this is helpful. Side by side you can see on the left what are our current zoning
regulations again for base industrial zoning and then on the right the proposed zoning regulation amendments that we're putting forward for data centers. And finally to end my portion of the presentation what is the timeline? Where are we going after this? So um after
this we are going to do another presentation to the city council in their work session on August 4th. At that time we will give them the summary of all the feedback that we've received to date both from individual residents as well as citizen groups. We will um update the city council at that time on
any amendments that we are proposing from the time of our initial recommendation. So again, setback, outdoor lighting, the parking adjustment, anything else that may come as we uh really thoroughly review all the feedback that we're getting. And then on August 11th, council will have
four items to take action on. Number one are the zoning and development standards um that you are anticipated to take action on today. Number two will be the noise, sorry, noise ordinance amendments that we will also bring forward to them. And then the water and wastewater, we
are recommending an updated policy that will cover a number of things, but we are amending that updated policy to include the water and wastewater requirements that we talked about with council. And then finally, an amendment to our economic development policy also that we addressed with council at the
June um second work session. So this website that you see here at the bottom of this slide, this is our FAQ data center website. We encourage anybody and everybody to go check it out. We've got links to all the presentations, the video, the text, um everything that you might want to see on this is there. And
then also again that online feedback. So if anybody hasn't submitted the online feedback form yet, we are still welcoming those until July 15th. And then we'll wrap all that up and again prepare the update for council. Um in work session earlier, one of the questions that was asked that Chris
Austria, our city attorney, was able to answer was will the the cooling equipment or will the um we we were we are recommending the rooftop cooling equipment to be behind the acoustic barrier one and a half times the height. And one of the questions was well what
about cooling equipment that may be constructed at ground level. So in the draft ordinance that you have before you how it's phrased is rooftop is the one and a half times the height. anything at ground level, but it includes everything. So, it's any standby generators, cooling equipment, ancillary, electric equipment, anything
that is necessary to the development is required to be behind the screening, the acoustic screening. It's just not one and a half times the height. All right, with that, if you've got any questions, I'm happy to answer. >> Questions, commissioners?
>> Yes. Uh, as of we hadn't spoke in the work session, I'd like to give uh kudos to um the Fort Worth City Manager's Office for really stepping out and using your responsibility and authority to to
put together a program that's addressing something that is affecting many cities all over the United States. I think um your approach to looking at the noise and the zoning and the water
but without really you know keeping the parameters open for the industry to continuously evolve. Power technology is continuously evolving with battery backups and everything and water
recooling systems are being coming online. So we don't want to constrain that creativity, but we want to be able to engage and have some kind of oversight. And it sounds like this is an evolving program. >> Yes.
>> And you've taken a lot of of risk mitigation techniques and strategies. And I just want to say thanks. It's good. >> Thank you. Our staff has worked incredibly hard on this and and we've had staff from a number of departments really weigh in on this. This is not
just a a one one-stop shop. This has been across the board. lots and lots of hours of research and um trying to think through what are the best practices that we can put forward today. And then I'll just echo one thing because I I said it earlier but I I didn't work it in here. Um you know, we know that the state is
going to take this up in their next legislative session. Um and so what we are recommending today are rules that we feel are the best practice for fourth today. If the state legislature adopts changes more stringent or that otherwise
lead us to make amendments, then we will be back here and we'll make those amendments. We will always be in compliance with state law. Um but this is just while we wait for the state to take this up. We feel it's really important that we have some rules in place that any new development um has those good standards to go by. And then
one other thing I do want to make very clear, I think you're all aware of this, but I'll say it anyway because council asked the same question. these developments that are already in progress that we've seen site plans on um that have concept plans on file under
state law they do not have to comply with these proposed regulations they are vested but what I will say is we are having conversations with each and everyone as they are coming in as are giving us site plans and we are asking them to please follow these proposed
regulations that we feel are best standards and so far all have said yes so I feel like that's a good thing, but I do just want to make that very clear that, you know, again, under state law, they do have certain rights, but we are trying to work really hard to ensure that they are again leaders and that we
are all doing really good development. >> I've got a question. So, on uh in the new proposed language, are we still allowing data centers in IK? >> Correct. Our recommendation was to leave it as an allowable use in all three
industrial districts. Um most of the complaints that we're hearing about are like noise for example. Uh take setbacks aside, noise is probably the next largest concern that we hear along with water and energy. So water we're solving for noise
we are also solving for. We are recommending that we adopt noise limits that are based on noise studies following very similar to how we do our gas well drilling ordinance. And so that will give us the ability also, I think, to preempt a lot of these um certain types of developments that we're hearing
in other locations that really are extremely noisy or that are loud. [clears throat] When we have that noise limit, that is one tool in our toolbox to ensure what kinds of development we have here in Fort Worth. So I think that's a good step.
>> Right. Thank you. Any other questions or clarification before we hear from the opposition? Just quickly a couple things that we discussed in the workshop. Jessica, um, when we talk about noise in the city, we're normally talking
about music, but we're talking about a party or we're talking about the normal things. In this case, I think we need to be co cognizant of the fact that there is there are different types of noises.
So, if there's some way to address um a more I'll call it vibrant noise, maybe a low frequency noise in terms of its distance and effect. Uh if there's some way we could carve that out and
make note of it and figure out some kind of measurement for it, that would probably make some of the citizens more comfortable. And then finally, I think um we always have this in city
government. We always have this in rules and amendments. Um there's unintended consequences. I know we can't address the consequences. Maybe we could address the value of what an applicant is
willing to do to mitigate those consequences. For instance, um in terms of water use or some use a closed system. Closed system
um is not as big a drain on our water system as a evaporative system. Um things like that that maybe we could somehow in our ordinance
um make a difference about And f I guess one more point. There's four types of AI developments. Some we never have a problem with. I mean have one on a military complex. We don't have a problem with that. Um we
have one that's self-contained for a specific use in a specific business um to use in the terms of their business. We don't have a problem with that. They're they're not big users. Um so I'm just make sure they're one
sizefits-all. Maybe uh of these four standards of AI developments, we could spend more time concentrating on the big developments, the million square feet or half a million square
feet or a quarter million square feet um without um squashing the smaller developments that we really don't have a problem with. So just my suggestion. Thank you. >> No. Great. And I'll just comment a
couple things. So on the noise, um it's not before you today because it's not part of the zoning amendment, but that is something that we are still actively researching. Um our entire noise ordinance today is built on the decibb, the A, which is the normal frequency that we can hear. So we are still doing a lot of research. We've got some um
some meetings coming up with our staff where we can learn more about the the ceued and so trying to figure it out. Again, not part of the zoning ordinance, so not before you today, but know that we are still definitely working on um on the noise ordinance. >> Well, as Chris would say, um it's really
not on our rail. Our rail is is land use, but in terms of land use and zoning categories. uh they're basically structured in a way so that single family residential
doesn't have a lot of problems associated with it. Steel mill and K heavy has a lot of problems associated with it. So from our standpoint even though it's just a zoning matter the zoning matter has to
kind of correspond with where it fits into the community as a whole. And so you can't lose side of that. I don't believe >> agree. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I would make the uh comment if I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, Commissioner. >> No, go ahead. You went first.
>> The comment that I want to make is jumping off uh you mentioned a couple times that noise is not part of zoning yet. In the ordinance, it talks about acoustic screen twice. So that's kind of a cascading issue that would overlap
with code compliance. My understanding that code compliance is not carry instrumentation for measuring right >> sound. >> Right. No, you're exactly right. So code enforcement here is not the enforcement arm for our noise ordinance. It's typically actually the police department
who does it. Um that is one of the things that we're also looking at specific to data centers. Where do we put that? because it really isn't it doesn't fall to the point of a typical noise complaint. Um so we have um for example we have our gas well inspection team that currently handles all the
noise enforcement for gas wells. So we're tapping into them to understand how do they do their piece of it because we are closely mimicking the gas well noise ordinance. So um we're we're evaluating those different options for the enforcement piece for how to be really strong in that. And you're right.
So the again so for um for the zoning regulations because of the context of of wanting that barrier that screening that's also the acoustic we feel like it's appropriate to put it in there but setting the actual noise limit of the site falls under the noise ordinance which is not in the zoning ordinance in
our city code. >> What is considered an acoustic screen then? It's not defined. >> Um so there's different types. There's noise blankets, there's acoustic panels. Um there's lots of different means that you can construct it. So how we're
approaching the ordinance is to say okay here's the requirement has to be screened from public view and then acoustic. But really what happens is when a development is being proposed when they have their site design team designing it. They're doing the the developer the developer is having their
design team conduct a sound study and then based on our noise limits they then have to design their site including picking what type of acoustic barriers they use or other sound mitigation measures. They design their site in order to have that noise level below
what our city standard is going to be. And that's the plan that then they submit with their um along with their building permit. Am I correct that the current noise ordinance has two mechanisms for enforcement? One is a level and the
other one is just an annoying ongoing noise, not necessarily over a certain decel. Is that correct? >> Uh say the question again. I'm not sure my understanding. Our noise ordinance today is built on the frequency uh dba awaited sound.
>> Correct. I believe there's verbiage in there that says something about an ongoing noise that can be perceived as uh being an annoyance or a nuisance to cause >> health concerns. >> Yeah, you probably right. Um I let me go
back and look at it again. I have this section that I've been looking at and that's not sounding familiar to me, but that's not to say it's not in there. There's a lot in that noise ordinance and I'll look at it today. As it stands right now, um the industrial developments are exempt from the noise ordinance unless they have a special
call out. So by setting a new noise level, we will be applying it for data centers that come in. >> Right. >> Commissioner Pierce, did you have a comment as well? >> Oh, thank you. Um first of all, excellent presentation. It was extremely thorough and you did an excellent job.
So, thank you so much for that. Um really I just have a comment and I guess more or less a question too because I've always wondered this when you see all the uh public outcry about the data centers. Um is this does this have a lot
to do with us moving more into 5G uh I know back in 2000 and then all the microwave tire towers that we've seen. I don't think the city can control that. I don't know if the public was aware with us moving into 5G and you see the
microwave towers that are built everywhere that eventually we would have to have the data centers uh in order to support all of the internet connectivity um that's going on. So I' I've always wondered did that impact was that the
start of them having to increase data centers? >> Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think those are related. Um certainly the 5G was the new thing. I think really what's a lot of it is just again the more we move to technology and you have this AI that's now unlocked. AI again AI is not
even new. It's been around for a long time. It's just more and more applications more and more use of it. So if you think about um I mean just to give examples now um I don't know when the last time to be honest I ever drove to the airport to book my airline ticket
or even called American Airlines. It's all online >> right? their technology is also using AI. When you use Google Maps, I can't drive anywhere now without Google Maps, right? When I put in my directions, that's AI. Um, I think it's just in
everything. And uh, and just technology in general. Your banking is online. The grocery store, even if I think I'm not using it direct because I'm paying cash at the grocery store, the grocery store systems may or may not be using AI, I won't say that. that they are using data
centers. Every transaction that they do, inventory, shipping, uh, credit card processing for those that are using cards. I mean, we are just in a modern world where the more we use technology, the more there's a need for data centers. And so, I think that's part of
the evolution. I think the AI is definitely what I hear the most is triggering the boom. Um, I guess or the most interest. Again, we've had them here in Fort Worth for a long time, right? um and and the some of the existing ones are already doing AI. So again, even that is not new. I think
it's just um we're seeing a lot of applications for it. >> And my last question is if we don't um move forward or would technology be impacted by that? Will we digress backwards? In other
words, >> I personally don't think so. I I don't I mean, I'm just going to be real honest. My personal opinion is if we don't have our regulations here for >> Fort Worth, >> that's fine. They're going to be somewhere. I don't think it's a I don't think we in Fort Worth can make a
difference in stopping the technology. Am I answering your question kind of? >> Yes. >> The right. Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions, clarifications? >> All right. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you very much, Chair. I just one other question. I'm sorry.
>> No, you're fine. Um just a clarification uh you're proposing to prohibit uh cryptocurrency data mining something a blockchain >> um as a primary use. What does that mean?
>> So it means that um basically coming up as like a standalone center. So you couldn't come in if these amendments passed a developer would not be able to come in and say I want to build an entire building to do it. Now, um it would not prohibit if an entity wants to have a server in their existing location
to still run it. It's not prohibiting that, but it's saying you cannot have a standalone building um and and do nothing but the cryptocurrency mining because that's just it it just functions differently. >> Is there a percentage in determining if it's a primary?
>> Well, you know what? I'm going to look to Chris Austria in our zoning ordinance because I can't remember where that if if it is truly defined as a percentage or no. uh not to my knowledge in terms of primary and accessory. I think that you have to look at the whole aspect of the project itself to determine whether or not uh something is a primary
accessory use. >> So in theory that could be 50% 49%. >> That's right. >> Well, then how do you enforce this once it's in place too? You can open up a data center doing other things and then switch it up.
>> Yeah. So it it is still a zoning enforceable item. So it would be no different than saying somebody's going to construct a building today to house a restaurant and that restaurant goes out of business and then the next person buys the building and they put in uh
can't think of what's the use but that's not compatible. Uh they put in the mechanical >> right >> that is still an enforcable zoning violation. >> There is a process to it to get to it. And to clarify, uh, Commissioner, you had stated that they could build a data
center and you wouldn't know exactly if there was like crypto mining that occurred. The definition of data centers, if you review the ordinance itself, it specifically excludes crypto mining. So they would not, if they're building a data center, they would not be able to rent out space to do crypto mining because that's not you're
representing to the city that you're building a data center. So you cannot build a cryptocurrency or Bitcoin mining or any other similar type uses within a data center if that makes sense. >> Right. I'm just asking how do we ensure that it stays that way because you know
people aren't always honest. >> Is there some kind of checks once it's in place to ensure >> goes back to enforcement. >> Say that again Chris. Sorry I couldn't hear you. >> It goes back to enforcement in terms of whatever they submit to us. Again, it's it would be prohibited if they're
building a data center, data centers, the proposed uh definition is to exclude specifically crypto mining from data centers themselves. And so whenever they submit their plans, >> someone submits plans to build a data
center. Uh they get approval, build the data center, a neighbor finds out that oh this is all crypto mining going on here, reports that uh the city finds out, yep, it is crypto. We pull their co and they stop operating. Would that be how that went?
>> There would be enforcement whether or not that is a lawsuit itself, an injunction of some sort. >> Okay. >> All right. Very good. What is the distinction on primary then if crypto is not allowed? >> So the primary is like what is the actual purpose of that building or that
structure occupiable space? I mean it's it's whatever it's constructed for. So so better example let me say it this way. Um so let's say that the data center a developer comes in and they tell us okay we're going to build this building. This is what we want to do. It's a data center. Well accessory to
that is going to be their backup generators. So, they're not going to permit their backup generators as a separate use. That is an accessory to that data center. They have to have those backup generators in order to have their data center. Does that make a little bit more sense?
>> It's a necessary part of the >> misunderstanding uh from city attorney. >> Crypto is not allowed at all. >> But yet, it's distinct in the ordinance proposed ordinance that it's not allowed
as a primary. So, is that a conflict? >> I I think I get your question. So, um when we were first crafting these regulations and the staff and I were talking about this, um we agreed that it shouldn't be the primary use, but
hypothetically, Tarant County College, I mean, I I don't know that they have a data center, but I'm going to throw them out as an example. If they have a data center, but they're teaching a class and part of their class is cryptocurrency mining or how to do it, then can they have one server as that accessory? I mean, to me,
I think yes, because it's not the primary purpose. That's probably a terrible example, but that's what's coming to mind quickly. The the city of Fort Worth, we are not doing it anymore, but you might remember a couple years ago, the city of Fort Worth had a cryptocurrency mining operation. It was
one computer. So that was, you know, it was it was one example. We're not doing that. We don't have it anymore. But that's kind of where I guess from my frame of reference that I was going with it. >> Okay. So I'm back to my original question is cryptocurrency d uh crypto
mining. Is that allowed under these this proposed data center use >> as a primary use? No. Could it be an accessory to an operation? Then I think the answer is yes. But I'm really going to defer Wait, currently the way the proposed
ordinance reads, all it just says is cryptocurrency is not allowed. That's all it says. So, doesn't say anything with regards to a primary use or anything like that. So, unless something has changed, >> the way that the ordinance attached onto the staff report and what the public has access to, the cryptocurrency is just a
prohibited use. >> So, it sounds like I need to update my slide. >> There's some confusion there. Yeah, because the way that probably be tidied up >> if I could one moment. The text amendment reads cryptocurrency mining prohibiting use in all non-residential
districts. That correct? >> That's what my That's what my paper says. >> Yes, that is what the proposed ordinance states. Okay. Unless something is changed. >> So, crypto mining would not be allowed in the proposed amendment. >> I'm not sure where
>> I'm good with that >> the other stuff came from. probably because you know at the same time as we're building these slides we build our slides well in advance of crafting the the ordinance. So somewhere along the way clearly my slide added language that is not in the actual draft. What you have before you I'm comfortable with so
there we go. So my slide needs to have that as primary use removed. >> Yeah. We're we're going to go off what has been printed and it says cryptocurrency mining prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts. So it's prohibited. cryptocurrency mining
is prohibited according to this amendment. So, um that's what's in front of us. That's what we're going to go with. That's what we're going to vote to approve or deny. That will be part of it. Uh any other questions before we really need to get to our opposition here. >> Yes.
>> Yes, sir. Jessica, um, speaking about the ETJ, how does the proposed ordinance and text amendment protect Fort Worth when a data center that's in the ETJ is part of an annexation case?
>> Great question. So, zoning is really for properties in the city of Fort Worth and it does not apply to the ETJ. Where I do think we have leverage though in our experience so far with those couple that are in the ETJ um is so far they want to be good neighbors and so we've given
them all of these on our proposed and said um hey will you still do this anyway and they so far again have said yes >> but if they don't say yes >> if they don't >> then are we permitted as the city from a land use perspective to say no we don't
want to annex you because you've built a uh crypto dump We yes you the city council always has the ability to say no to future annexations if they if they don't want something here absolutely they do not have to >> in essence you know it's just telling
them hey if you want to be annexed in the future >> you really need to play by these very specific rules >> all right I'll come back >> you're spot on >> thank you very much appreciate Jessica and we'll we'll bring you back up the end if we need some clarification uh
after the opposition. Hey, could you actually can you leave your slide up and go back to the one that compares what's currently the regulation? I think that's an important slide that we can we'll point to. Um, and before I I call up the opposition, um, I see a lot of familiar faces out there. So, welcome back to
zoning. Those of you that are used to coming to city council or maybe you haven't ever participated in a city government, welcome. Um, we are a little bit bit different than council. Um, and those of you that have been here before are probably wondering why in the world we let uh staff drone on for so long.
Not droning on. That was sounded negative. You didn't drone on, you did great. Um, but we typically allow five minutes uh um and then allow the opposition seven minutes. And that's not seven minutes each. That's seven minutes for the entire opposition. Um, obviously
we allowed the city much more than five minutes. We know this is a really important in-depth topic that's important to a lot of people here. Uh so we gave city more time. We're giving you more time as well. Um all we do ask is that uh uh try not to just repeat what
the last person said. Um we are all volunteers. We are not paid to be here. Um we don't work for the city. Um we're here uh you know we're we're we're your voice too and we are a recommending body. So, uh, no matter what we decide up here today, um, it's a recommendation
to city council and city council has the ultimate, uh, authority to decide, um, so, um, whether you like what you heard today or you didn't feel like you were heard, please come back to city council, come back here on August 11th, uh, and speak again. Um, and as Jessica alluded
to, um, some of us up here like the authority we have, which is almost none, we're again we're recommending. Um that's not true. Uh I think city council really appreciates uh our point of view and really takes to heart uh our recommendations. Um however, there's a
lot that we don't have authority over and I know you guys have opinions and I do too. A lot of us up here, we have our own opinions too on some of the other things uh that are around this uh topic. Um and it was it was brought up and and you're free to to bring up what you
want. Um, however, um, if if continuing to bring up stuff that we can't regulate or that we can't have any, um, effect on just isn't really helpful and would be more helpful if you brought that to council. So, um, try and keep your comments to stuff that we can actually
regulate. So, talking about setbacks, you know, going from the current regulation of 20 feet to 250, if you're like, it should be 5,000, give us that. Um, because that's stuff that we can talk about and why is important. um you believe that um but uh just you know
talking about the water the electricity um the the noise decibb itself like I get why that is important it is important it just we can't make any decisions on that so if you're talking about noise and I know it's it's important um a way you could talk about
it is distance because that is stuff setbacks that's stuff that we can talk about and and make some kind of judgment on um so again thank you for being here um please try and keep your comments ments brief. There are 22 of you. We've never had that many. So, thanks for being here coming to talk. So, just out
of respect for the next person that needs to talk, please try and keep your comments as brief as possible and give us something that we can actually act on. That would really help us. So, uh I'm going in no particular order here. Um I'll I'll go and I'll name a couple people at the same time so y'all can
start lining up. Um and then if you'll just uh present your case to us, we would appreciate it. Uh your opposition. So, and if I get your name wrong, I apologize. My handwriting is terrible, so I uh no no uh no shade to to that. Uh
we'll go with Miss Faith first and then followed by I've got a Lydia Faith followed by a Ronnie McCullum and a Fran McCullum and we'll start there. Welcome. >> Hi. Um my name is Lydia. I'm a member of
the Fort Worth Environmental Coalition of Communities, FWCC, and I'm urging y'all to put the data centers as heavy industrial. So, for decades, Fort Worth has resoneed black and brown neighborhoods from
residential to industrial, actively poisoning community members. These neighborhoods like Echo Heights, Stop Six, North Slide, and um other communities now have industrial corporations in and around their community.
The person who got up and said for them to be a good neighbor, like how many times have we heard that? Um you can talk to any of these community members and they will tell you that these corporations get up and say we're going to be a good neighbor and then they never follow it and then the city never
follows up on them. We're dealing with that right now in Echo Heights with FedEx. Um, and so where are they going to get the resources for this data center? It's already coming. It's going to come from these black and brown neighborhoods. Um, and city just
approved Encore to take more residential land from Echo Heights to help power these data centers. And then also FedEx promised that that they would put trees up. They would put a little border between FedEx and these neighborhoods. and it has been over a year and nothing
has happened. And that was like what they promised. We were here a year ago and none of that has promised or been followed through. And then we know that there sorry we know that there are already data centers in Fort Worth, but
these data centers being proposed are not the same. They're just not the same. And it is not the same eye same AI. And to come here and to say that is just completely incorrect. And you have to listen to the facts because the facts will show that they're on our side. Data centers must not be classified as light
industrial or medium industrial, but rather strictly as heavy industrial use. Based on their immense scale and capital costs, data centers are far more in line with heavy industrial operations. The scale of their site development and construction alone will have massive negative impacts on surrounding
communities. Restricting data centers exclusively to heavy industrial zones will ensure the highest level of compliance within the city zoning code and properly limit the number of locations where they can operate across the city to protect Fort Worth neighborhoods. We have also been actively fighting against the industrial
industrialization for years through the Fort Worth 2050 comprehensive plan. Um so classifying data centers as light and industrial would actually go against the proposed policies in the 2050 comprehensive plan. Connecting the zoning issues for the data centers with
the process for creating the comprehensive plan should also resolve these issues in a fully open and transparent process. So please protect our community members and do not um put it as light industrial. >> Thank you Mr. McCollum.
>> Hello, my name is Barney McCollum and uh I live in district 4 and I've lived in Fort Worth for almost 33 years and I I love this town and I have a lot of a lot of history here. Um and I want to thank
you all for the volunteerism you have and uh and what you do. I worked all my I'm a retired engineer and I've spent all my life in public service. So I'm I sort of know what you guys deal with on a daily basis.
Um, what I'm concerned with mostly is the speed by which these things seem to appear to be pushed through and it is it's too fast in my opinion, the way the way it's it's showing up in in all the
chatter that that's about. So, I would like to just um since you all are are stewards of our city, I'm I'm speaking to you all to implore you to take a pause and carefully look
at what we're doing. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying it's it's haste makes waste. And I just want to make sure that these definitions and our um regulations they and how they're defined in the code are clearly defined
and it takes a while and I understand that it's it's going to be a living document from from now on and uh for instance what Mr. Edunds said about the the sound issue that in itself just will take a long time to parse and get where
it's usable. So, I would encourage the city to give itself the gift of time to pause the process, develop the pertinent zoning regulations that adequately serve the
citizens of Fort Worth, confer with third party experts in the field, and gather all that can be known, and then operate from that point. So, just as cities adopt national fire codes, they often add their own
amendments to to the code that speaks specifically to the unique features of their city. Data center zoning regulations, they they should be no different. If these data centers are right in Fort Worth,
then they will be right in the future after a sensible, methodical development and appropriate regulations can be adopted for proper zoning. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now I've got Fran. >> Yes.
>> And after Fran, we'll get Oliver uh Oliver Plant. >> I'm related by >> figured Michael Rson and then Uh, Miss Chararma, >> I want to add that my husband is a fire protection engineer and I I haven't got
the hang of this, but um, okay. So, he really actually expressed to me concerns about the wiring heating up. The chips are very hot for AI chips. We realize that the old ones are not like the new ones. These are much bigger. So, the
average is much different. And a AI runs very much hotter. uh GPU as opposed to CPU. This is graphic chips. They are very hot. So fire actually happens in these centers and it pulls away resources sometimes from fire
departments. So it it's almost like there should be a percentage of what's allowed. But without any monitoring, I don't know how you could even tell um how hot it's getting and how many fires. But I would think as several calls in a row from fire departments that they
should have to sustain at their own or help beef up the fire departments nearby. Um I'm going to say that that's one of my concerns. Just the fact that they are hypers scale bigger and AI two very different animals from what we're
used to. So now as for the regulations here, I almost don't know where to begin because I'm trying to leave out the words water and it's hard to and electricity. But I do want to say considering the campus is important.
It's not just an AI data center building because most of the water and I'm sorry I'm saying a four-letter word here. Just kidding. But it is within those four walls. Yes, closed loop takes little until you change it out maybe a couple
of years later all the water again. But outside of it, right outside of it where all the power is generated because because our governor has said bring your own power which we like, right? That is the expensive part for water. It's more
expensive outside the data center, but we're leaving that out of the conversation if it's not measured. a ton of water more so than in the four walls is happening. It's being taken uh sucked to dry or whatever. So, um the p the
water use of the total total campus. Okay. I assume that we have an overlay district so that we can impose some regs. It seems to me like that's what I've been reading night and day and at least I know what overlay district is. Um I'm I'm sure I don't know everything
and I you're very kind to everybody who's presented today. So, but if you know what I you know, isn't there some regulation if you have an overlay district over the industrial one? >> There's base zoning that this would sit on if as proposed it would sit under J
and K zoning and then we're they're proposing additional regulations for data centers. >> Yes. >> The way the language is now very little regulation almost none. treat them the same as industrial. So, um what the city is proposing is a lot of additional
regulation specific for uh data centers. So, there is base zoning. Yes. >> Even though the city also came up with some astonishingly good ideas so far. And I I count the five decel rule. I don't know if that was even in today's
presentation, but the zone the new zoning would be apparently the center could only be five decibb louder than the surrounding. But again, is that counting the structures all around it that generate now >> and the decibel stuff again and I know
you want to talk about it, but we can't we can't have any control over that unfortunately. So, >> okay. So, now these >> please come back in August and talk about that, but we just it's not before us today. And you already mentioned the 247. I like that. Okay. Closed loop again is
not everything. Okay. So, um increasing the setback then uh the very thing that I'm I'm trying not to talk about which is these generators that by the way if they bring their own power it's not secondary anymore. They're not backup. Those were not backup
generators. They're primary. We have to consider their primary. Okay. So they make more noise. Just saying. Okay. So that alone for 400 feet, I would say 400 feet would be the minimum if you're only looking at that
or or it's going to be hard to do acoustic enough. Even though I love their acoustic idea. Um, inspect. If there's no inspection, we don't know what's happening. But one more big point I want to make and I don't know if I've heard this much in
media or anywhere else is that these are not just a building set to go and you test it which is great. They want to test it before and after starting it up. They start it up with a couple of servers say 200 servers. It's going to have millions. I mean did you see how
many shelves racks these things are? Everything is its own server. I'm feeling a little emotional because there is so much and it is hot. Okay. But you add then you've got a medical one, then you've got a government one, then you've got a this and that. Um you all of a
sudden your water power noise everything is different. So nobody's going to monitor that unless they come back and see what's happening. And I really would seems like there must be some We're in a home rule charter, right? Not the Dylan thing, but
the home rule one. That to me means there's some ability to hopefully inspect. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I hope there is because it should be happening often to know even what's happening in those four walls which matter too.
Okay. Last but not least, uh AWS was targeted by Iran. We don't have one. San Antonio has one. But there are other things that we have and any one of them can run who knows how many military as well. I would say the setback would be two or three miles
if you just count that it's a surgical strike that happened in Dubai and UAE on those centers. That was the data centers they were bombing because it's intelligence for the war and those are now over in the US and Europe because
they don't want them in Dubai anymore because they know what's going to happen. So again, two or three miles might be better. just honestly saying okay >> thank you very much >> there's more thank you for listening >> yes ma'am uh Oliver and after Oliver we have Michael Rman
and Ambika Chararma >> I think I spoke to Dave >> I'm sorry if I'm getting your names wrong [clears throat] my name is Oliver Plant I'm a concerned Fort Worth resident I'm here to speak to you today why I'm against the building of massive data centers within the
vicinity of our community Texas currently has 33 35 operational data centers with 248 planned projects in development. Building of data centers need to be stopped as this causes irreversible harm to our ecosystems and humanity.
According to the recent research from Professor Ren of UC Riverside, growing demand for AI could push the annual public health burden of US data centers air pollution to more than 20 billion dollars in 2028. The air pollution from data centers can
contribute to about 600,000 asthma symptom cases and around 1300 premature deaths by 2028. Now, if we take into account that Fort Worth is already the ninth most polluted city in the United States, we need to be ranked number one
before we could fully realize the irreversible damages the data centers pose to our health. At Amazon's Canton, Mississippi data center, residents began reporting lung irritation, breathing difficulties, and construction dust settling over houses
and playgrounds while weekly test of backup diesel generators spike local nitrogen oxide levels and worsen the area's elevated childhood asthma rates. Adult asthma rate in DFW is 8.4%. While childhood asthma rate is up to
23.6 and the whole state of Texas and in the whole state of Texas 108 hospital visits per 100,000 people is reported due to asthma. Texas need to see a spike of over 50% of childhood asthma rates before we can take action.
Data centers are becoming heat islands warming the land around them by up to 16 degrees F making life hotter for more than 340 million people in the country. Texas data centers are looking into small modular nuclear reactors for reliable
power. I'm very afraid that once these are placed potential meltdown events could happen in high level radioactive waste weather issues for our communities. We want our children to experience such horrible events.
Now imagine constant buzzing 247 as if you're suffering from itis. This is yet again one of the issues residents are reporting as well as the annoying lights is the fact that noise pollution is linked to poor cognition, increased
learning and lower reading comprehension in children. Is this really what we want for ourselves and our children's future? Um, I've heard north of Dallas for two years, cattle still births are on the rise. Cows cannot even give birth next
to data centers. How will this affect you? So, what are our data centers really for? AI, digital ID, digital currency, 247 surveillance among all others. We need to sacrifice our health, our liberty, our freedom in order to have
the so-called convenience safety and security. The only other thing I wanted to add because I heard about property values, property taxes, all this pollution that data centers
values. That's all I have. >> Thank you for your comments, Michael. And then after Michael, Miss Sharma, >> this thing around. >> Is this working? >> Yes, I can hear you.
>> Okay. I'm speaking out against uh the data center regulations because I think it's much too small and I don't think they're taking nearly enough like community feedback in this regards. Um it's essentially just putting like a band-aid on like a giant gashing wound.
If I chop my arm off, all they're doing with this current regulation. We I went to um the meeting where we were supposed to get community insight. Many of the other people back here did as well. And they presupposed in the meeting that there will not be a data center
moratorum. They're not going to restrict the access of data centers coming into our community at all. That's presupposed on the city website before you even show up to the meeting. So if they say they want to hear community feedback, clearly they're not wanting to hear our
feedback. That's that's primarily my main concern with this. And they mentioned how they had a thousand or a little less than a thousand people say they like the regulation. That's just because we have incredibly lax regulation right now in Texas and right
now in Fort Worth. That's why we have so many companies coming out here right now. They like they mentioned half-handedly that we have like all this tremendous amount of data centers coming out to Texas. Why do we have it? It's because we make it incredibly easy for data centers to come out here right now.
And we should be making it much much much more difficult. You talked about like saying um we should have regulations on the feet that data centers be be away from like the road and whatnot. We should be making it as difficult as possible for these data
centers to be coming out here. we should be doing 5,000 feet away from the road. You shouldn't be able to be within 5,000 feet of the road. You should you shouldn't have many of these things that they're currently allowing with this current regulation. Um, and furthermore, they talked about
having um a little under a thousand people in favor of the regulations right now. There's been how many thousands of people emailing the city telling them they don't want data centers at all within the city right now. And if we can
regulate cryptocurrency, you know, they're talking about banning cryptocurrency from these data centers. Why can't we just ban any form of like computing power from these data centers whatsoever? Because many of these data centers that are currently in Fort Worth right now
are just storing data. They're just storing chips. They're not actually computing like what many of these data centers are probably going to be used for in the future. So it seems ridiculous that she can say that, you know, they showed up to these data center buildings and they're quiet.
Well, many of them are just for storage. We have no idea what is going to be be built. Storage is much different than actual computing power at these data centers. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. >> And then next we're going to have uh
Kent Dart. Kent and then uh Esme. Am I getting that part right at least? All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Ambbeca Sharma. Uh I want to start by thanking you all. I understand you're all volunteers not
getting paid to spend the day with us. Neither are we. Um so we're in this together. Um my so yeah, my name is Ambaka Sharma. I've spoken about uh data centers a few times in the city council. This is my first time in front of you all. So I'm learning the process. Thank you for being very kind with your time
and audience. Um, so my background, I have spent more than half of my professional career in tech in the tech industry. Um, so I've taken companies like startups now that they are publicly traded companies. Um, my passion and
work in technology took me, you know, to the White House when one software bug became an issue of national security. Uh, and I give you all of that to say while I'm not the godmother of artificial intelligence, I carry some cred uh, street cred when it comes to technology. So, what coming from that
perspective, what's missing or where I take offense is we are treating all data centers equally. They're not created equally. So, thank you Mr. Edmund for reading our emails. You're my favorite thus far, followed by Mr. McCoy. Um, so
what is an AI data center? I was actually very glad in your cross- examination uh Jessica finally did use the word AI first time I've heard her use that word. Um so the data centers that have been discussed thus far by the city staff they refer to four data
centers three of which are up in the district 10 the alliance area so Facebook uh QTS data center etc. Those data centers do allow you to do web browsing, um, streaming Netflix, you know, the examples that Jessica gave,
but the AI data centers are vastly different. It's like comparing, I said on June 9th in city council, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a submarine. Both of those can take you places, but there are vastly different use cases and different price point. Um, so the AI
data center that I am in against, I'm against right now. I'm just asking for a moratorum to be more thoughtful in terms of what type of businesses are we even attracting to Fort Worth. Um, so I am the uh if you've heard about a data center moratorium, I'm the author of that. 30,000 plus signatures have been
sent to city staff and the city council members. But here we are. There's, you know, running through this trying to get these passed without any scientific studies done. The only individuals that I seem to have unders what I understand is only developers are being discussed in these meetings. developers as in like
real estate developers not software developers. Um so we need to also like you know bring different experts to the table and some of whom we've brought like I'm supposed to be speaking on like AI and economic policy. I know economic policy is not being discussed right now so I'll just focus on the AI part. We
have an um audio engineer here. He has gone to different data centers, the four that the city staff has keeps repeating and also the AI data centers around Dallas for Worth and he has done studies of what really are the noise levels at different time of the day and different
seasons. So he will hopefully present those. Uh we have somebody who's a pro in zone and coding and he spent I don't know how many hours looking at the code. Um so to get to the point um the AI data centers, what is technology? What is AI?
Um these data centers, there are two types. You have a CPU based data center and a GPU based data center. Um the four data centers the city staff keeps talking about. They are the CPUbased data center. Um central processing unit. If you have a laptop, I'm sure [snorts] once upon a time your laptop or at some
point got so hot that you either needed to turn it off or it shut off itself to cool itself down. That is a CPU. Right now we're talking about GPUs. Uh graphing processing unit. If you've done video gaming, you need totally different type of a laptop to do full-time video
gaming. So the AI data centers are nothing but a GPU hosted data center. So let's do a visual from a developer point uh you know mortgage developer point of view. So when you walk into the Facebook data center I haven't been there but I've been to a data center the one that are being built in Phoenix. So when you
when you go into those data center they're nothing but like racks of servers and these servers you know that's really what it is but it's still very loud. they're going to give you like noise cancelling because it's going to hurt your ears. But the AI data centers, those are also racks, but these servers that are sitting on these racks
are much heavier. Easily 5x plus depending on how heavy. So these um GPU servers are much heavier and then they also are stacked much denser because the AI chip that goes into each of these servers, it needs to speak to all of the
servers that are there. So it works as one single computing unit. Um, stick with me, Mr. Edmonds. I'm almost there. Um, so the point I'm trying to make is it's a totally different like industrial complex as a result. So you need like a different foundation for that building
to actually be able to carry and host the weight of these GPU servers. So to like you wouldn't be able to convert the Facebook data center up in Alliance overnight to a GPU hosted data center. It just isn't possible. That's why I keep saying it's like comparing a Ferrari to a submarine. That's not the
same thing. Um so yeah you need so one of my to have two non-negotiables when we when it comes to this body first non-negotiable is that these uh AI or GPU hosted data center these should be treated as heavy industrial and not light industrial because that is really
what they are let's call what it is and second uh is my second non-negotiable is because these are heavy industrial these should be at minimum onem radius when it comes to residences when it comes to hospitals when it comes to um uh
schools, right? Thank you, Miss Tess, Miss T. Um so those are the two I'll leave you all because I want to be mindful of other people in line. So those are my two non-negotiable. These need to be um heavy industrial and second they need to be one mile radius
from all sensitive locations. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Kent. Hello, my name is uh Kent Dardness. Uh I'm in district 11. Uh and I too would like to thank you guys for volunteering to be here just like all of us who are speaking. Um I'll try to stick to the
issues that this body has the power to address. Uh first of all, this process is being rushed. We need science and good design standards based on science to inform the decisions of this commission and city council. I don't see that as being evident in the presentation that you guys heard twice
today and that I've heard probably five or six times, having heard it originally to the city council and listen to it multiple times in recording. Um, treating all data centers is the same is counterproductive. Introducing an effective method to categorize data centers based by size, not on square
footage or acreage, but on power draw is key to addressing different developments fairly. We do this with different types of industry in our city already. That's why we have J andK districts. Hypers scale and AI enterprise data centers operate on a completely different level
with very different effects on neighboring districts than a data center that was built 20 years ago. Setbacks need to be increased because distance is the only effective method to reduce noise pollution, especially at the low frequency range that causes the most issues with such facilities.
Half if not all equipment should be placed in building courtyards with sound absorbing systems installed on vertical and horizontal surfaces. Building mass is another way to reduce effects of low frequency noise. We should for noise reduction reasons
require tier 4 generators. Generators should not be considered backup. They are required. As a matter of fact, data centers and high uh energy use uh facilities such as data centers have their next year's electrical rates based
on gaming the system and lowering their use uh during certain periods of June, July, August, and September. If they target it right, they turn their generators on, lower their electrical draw from the grid, they can save millions of dollars the coming year on
their electrical rates. This is part of their business model. Those generators are not backup. They are crucial to the business themselves. So zoning them as being tier 4, i.e. very much cleaner and
much quieter is is crucial. Uh we should not allow any equipment HVAC, cooling or generators to be roof mounted. Period. Nothing on the roof. Uh screening systems around equipment should have a higher height than the proposed 1-oot standard.
Uh all zoning requirements that pertain to adjacent to residential district or use should apply to all neighboring residential areas. Uh even if it's separated by a street, there are certain uh ordinances within our current zone
where standards get dropped if there's a street in between a industrial area and a residential area. So we need to have these standards apply to all neighboring residential areas. Uh we also need to have them applied even if the
residential area is in another city or in unincorporated county property. Um that's why we are looking at data centers on the south side of Fort Worth because they're targeting properties that are surrounded by other municipalities or unincorporated areas.
We need to be a good neighbor not just to make the data centers be a good neighbor not just to the people in Fort Worth but to our neighbors the other cities around us. And again, thank you guys for your time. Thank you for volunteering. You guys are real troopers. I appreciate it.
>> Thanks, Ken. Esme and after Esme is Leticia. >> Hello. Uh my name is Esme Siga. Thank you very much. Uh, real quick, a little bit of black background is that I am a master of social work student at UT
Arlington and I am studying the effects on mental health that these data centers are having. Um, so first of all, the wording in this is not protecting people. This seems like this was just done to shut people up. I'm being
honest. I I've come to all the data center stuff and I had an interesting conversation um where I was talking to I'm the infrasound lady. So um I talked to everybody there. Um now this is the
thing. I love technology so I'm not technology backwards. Um the older data centers I think currently are fine because honestly none of us are the same as we were 25 years ago. So 25 years ago, I was a college student and I was
young and I was having fun and now there's wear and tear on me. The same thing happens to these data centers. So the new data centers being built right now are not equivalent to the ones that were built 20 years ago. On top of that,
I do agree with the one mile radius and my logic behind that has to do with infrasound, which is sound waves and frequencies below 20 hertz. Um, but it can cause problems with the central
nervous system. It can cause cellular changes in plants and animals and that's dangerous. I know that um Black Mountain has been going through the process, which makes no sense because it's right near Weston Gardens, which is also has a
historical designation, and what's the point of a historical designation if nobody's going to listen to it and you can put a data center 250 ft away? Um, as far as enforcement goes, you know,
we've been fighting with FedEx and the city because they went without a permit for five years and then made a lot of promises to the city and to the community of Echo Heights and stop six that they have not lived up to. And we
were told it was not legally enforcable. So my worry is that when people call to have complaints about these data centers, they are going to be told by their council member, "Oh, well, it's not legally enforcable because that's what we've been told
about FedEx and they are not good neighbors. I don't trust these data centers to be good neighbors. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy living next to the data center." Um this
and also whoever wrote the wording on this I'm sorry it it says that um prohibiting the use in all nonresidential districts does that mean it's allowed in residential districts? >> No they're only allowed right now in
right by right I J and K. So this prohibits >> so I would >> I would urge you all to consider it heavy industrial >> because the damage that it can do the research is still
ongoing and new especially in these new types of data centers. Some of the data centers use jet engines for their their um their backup generators. So that's a lot of noise. There's a lot of
noise you can't hear and I just think that Fort Worth is better than this. >> Thank you for your comments, Miss Wilbornne. >> And we'll have Christa Christa >> be a little bit glooier because to me y'all are treating this like it's
Disneyland and it's not. This is a data center. Look at what happening what's happening in Memphis, Tennessee. And in Sunday's paper, according to uh Mattis Parker Good Nature Greenspace Initiative, we
are losing 50 acres a week of prairie and most of this land is going to data centers. Uh y'all don't have anything. I'm looking at the regulations. Like Esma said, y'all don't have anything in place to protect historical landmarks
or historical gardens such as Western Gardens, and she need to be protected. Y'all should have had that in place before y'all started to do anything. And y'all, the way this is set up, I'm looking at uh light industrial. Fort
Worth is an industrial city and most minority communities, most lowincome communities, majority minority communities are zone industrial, light industrial, heavy industrial. So, this
is going to impact them. And I know y'all hear me say this all the time, but Fort Worth has got to get off of this old school red lining that y'all refused to drop. This is serious. Y'all putting
Black Mountain next to a landfill with gas. Okay? That's next to a community that's next to a garden in a area that is already contaminated.
Bad water, bad air, bad soil. I mean, what more can y'all do to kill people to commit genocide? What more can y'all do? This is what's happening in Memphis and y'all are not going to stop. It's like y'all just don't get it. I hear uh what's her name? Tammy talk about
technology. We all understand technology. This is more than technology. >> Miss Wilborn, can we stick to the topic and not call out to people up here? We'd appreciate that. >> Okay. Now, back to the land. Black Mountain is asking for more and more
land. In the paper Sunday, it went into discussion about how they bought up land that was intended for homes. Now, y'all sit here today and y'all discussed affordable homes and houses. But then again, when these data centers come in,
y'all allowed them to just buy and take over and they just grow grow and grow and grow. Some of us who are old enough remember this movie called The Blob. Anybody remember that movie? It was this big red piece of jail that it rode and
everything consumed. It got bigger and bigger and bigger. And that's what this status center is. That's what Black Mountain is. And y'all will not put a stop to it. And I know y'all keep talking about noise. The noise you can't hear is more harming harmful to you than
the noises you can hear. And it affect animals. Y'all don't have anything up there about animals. Y'all don't have anything about daycarees. I'm a mother and a grandmother and y'all are not doing anything to protect children or senior citizens. What about pregnant women? The noises that they hear, it's
going to affect their babies, their unborn babies. It's going to affect them. Y'all are not thinking anything about any of those things. Y'all thinking about money. We get it. We understand technology. We understand money. But y'all sit up at the same
time. Y'all sit up and y'all talk about how y'all polic is supposed to protect health, safety, and welfare and the quality of life. None of this is going to happen. Look at what Black Mountain is doing.
That's a perfect example. And if they allowed to do whatever they want to do, matter of fact, I think Miss Weston said, "Y'all passed that at 10:00 a.m. in the morning." People was at work. Some people were still asleep at 10 a.m. So, it's like there's no
transparency. is kind of like y'all pushing stuff through, y'all sneaking stuff through under the table, which I'm not calling y'all corrupt at all, but I'm just saying it has the smell of corruption. And thinking of smell, nobody has talked about what infor enforces the odors because right now
there's no way to monitor anything. Two weeks ago, there was a major fire in that same area where Black Mountain is going. Fort Worth did not send out one thing about air quality and multiple different
fire stations reported to that fire in that same area. There was nothing on air quality to no one. And that's, you know, I'm looking at y'all's regulations and y'all don't have any of that on there. And here's the most important thing to
me. Y'all don't have a contingency plan in case of a disaster. Now I'm looking at all of these wars going on in all of these data centers that's been attacked. If the military cannot protect a data center, who's going to
protect these data centers in these communities? I mean, these communities, right, were homes. So were these data centers. So what's y'all's plan for that? Y'all don't have a plan for that, but y'all pushing this stuff through. Have y'all met with police? tell y'all I met with fire to come up with
>> Miss Worn this this is the zoning commission so if you could stick to that we can actually rule on >> regulations that should be on y'all's regulations what's going to happen >> you're speaking about things though that we can't rule on and so >> I'm just saying y'all's >> your your comments are very valid but
they're more for city council to hear for you know the the Texas what are they called >> regulations y don't >> people that actually regulate that >> we don't do that >> and also But we keep hearing on y'all's regulations. We keep hearing y'all talk about closed loop. Have y'all heard
about what happened in Cheyenne, Wyoming with that closed loop? How it released stuff for like months into the water system? And you know, I'm just saying y'all don't have anything that's really enforcable. All y'all are doing basically y'all saying and y'all still
crypto is fan but y'all have all of this in y'all still that is fan unless it's for specific purposes or whatever. So it either is or it's a oxymoron what's going on here. So I'm just saying this is not Disneyland. This is people real
life. Look at what's happening in Memphis. Y'all are not taking anything into consideration. Y'all are not taking safety into consideration. And I know y'all don't want to hear it, but y'all need to figure out a contingency plan in case some nutcase decides to do something with these data centers,
especially the ones that are close to homes. Y'all need to think about all of these pollution issues that y'all are not giving one hell of things about because a lot of y'all don't live there. And okay y'all, I'm almost through. But
this policy that y'all this this uh regulations that y'all have, that's not affecting rich people. That's not affecting people that live on golf courses and stuff. It's affecting people that live where I live. People that look like me and people that look like a lot
of people in here. That's who it's affecting. But we all know the city of Fort Worth don't care because it's the Fort Worth, which is red lining. All right, thank you for your comments, Christa. And then next we'll have Anza.
>> My name is Christa Irby. I'm here representing the 2871 community coalition. We want to address the specific amendments before you today and what we where we believe they fall short. The proposed 250 foot building setback is insufficient. Fort Worth's own gas drilling ordinance requires 600
feet from protected uses. Multiple jurisdictions across the country have adopted a thousand feet or higher setbacks, including in Missouri, Delaware, and Georgia. So 250 ft is nowhere near reasonable. The continuous row of evergreen trees along the perimeter is a start, but without
specific spacing, height, irrigation, and survival requirements, it's uninforcable. Finally, prohibiting cryptocurrency mining only only is not sufficient. It fails to account for other highintensity uses with the exact same concerns like AI training facilities, high performance
communing computing facilities and blockchain validating facilities which also require 24-hour operation, extreme power consumption and extreme noise output. The prohibition needs to be broader. The comments about CPU and GPU as well as the need to have tiers based
on energy usage are relevant to this subject. We also we have also not heard how any of these regulations would be enforced. Under Texas law, daily fines are not a meaningful deterrent for a billion-dollar facility. Without annual operating permits and compliance
regulations and a real compliance mechanism, these zoning standards are aspirational, not regulatory. We are also asking the commission to include in its recommendation to city council support for pursuing a moratorium alongside the ordinance. It is a safeguard. While these issues and others
are fully researched and the community has meaningful input, data center regulation is a fast-moving area where best practices are changing rapidly. We are asking the commission to strengthen these standards. Our full recommended regulatory framework is at 2871
community.org on our resources page. I'd also like to thank Charles Edmunds for voicing some of these concerns and uh thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. And after Miss Zeta, we'll have Stephen Sanchez. >> It is freezing in here, y'all. Um,
>> chair and commissioners, thank you. I'm Ann Zeta. I'm the executive director of Community Design Fort Worth. First, I would like to thank Chair Reigns for allowing all in attendance to speak today. As the former chair of this very commission, serving alongside Mr. Edmonds many years ago, I know that you all understand that this is important,
especially in the tight timeline this whole process is under. It's important to get all comments on record as soon as possible and I apologize if some of my remarks mention the items outside of your purview, but hopefully staff are taking notes for the overall regulation creation. We all understand the massive
electricity and water demands that data centers place on communities. That's exactly why we need regulations that match the scale of the impact, not just awareness, but action. CDFW has already proposed a strong modern framework that keeps Fort Worth standards aligned with the latest technology in cooling
efficiency, emissions and man and emissions management. The recommendation should be incorporated now, not later. Two requirements are essential. First, a public dashboard that shows real time water use, sound energy consumption and emissions. When facilities use this much
of our shared resources, transparency is non-negotiable. Second, a requirement that data centers rely on renewable energy as a condition of operating in Fort Worth. High demand users must contribute to long-term grid stability, not strain it. And importantly, even
Governor Abbott has stated that Texas should not provide economic development incentives for data centers. He's been clear that these facilities do not justify taxpayer subsidies for or should follow that guidance. No incentives, no abatements, no giveaways. The initial standards are a start, but they have to
be strengthened. I urge you to adopt community design Fort Worth recommendations and ensure that Fort Worth regulations reflect both the realities of this industry and the exceptions expectations of our state leadership. Our recommendations call for PD zoning to handle the unique nature of this approach and its ability to address
context and the comprehensive complexities of these uses. Therefore, whatever recommendations you pass forward today need to clearly state that the zoning commission's expectation is that the process by which the necessary additional standards be added be shared and available to the public ahead of
action by the council. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ann. And after Stephen, we'll have Mr. Hogan. >> Hello, chairman and uh board. Um, my name is Stephen Sanchez and I'm an audio engineer and audio forensic analyst. Um,
I've been going around DFW recording and getting baselines of these uh areas specifically next to data centers or proposed next to data centers. Um, what I'm finding out and I also spoke to acousticians. I don't know if city staff
has done that or any of anybody else has done that. Uh but I spoke to a couple acousticians that are on a national council of acousticians uh consults. They're like this is like a huge conglomerate of a bunch of acousticians that come together every year and talk about
basically the environment and how uh we're just kind of trashing it and polluting it. Um so they write papers, they're peer- reviewviewed, it's all based in science. Um I spoke to Nelson, David Nelson, who is
the um He was the creator of the noise ordinance proposals in Prince William County, Virginia. Um they pretty much uh just kind of didn't listen to what he's had to say and they made their own thing. Um in fact, their
uh their county kind of um uh dismantled their committee that they formed, right? It was a committee formed of citizens of zoning board members. um uh I believe
a a couple of data center developers um and then they kind of just um voted them out to not be a part of that anymore and then they did their own regulation. Um so for right now um obviously again
again you guys don't deal with noise but this is why this needs to be in conjunction uh with zoning. Uh, the noise ordinance has to be in conjunction with zoning. The noise ordinance has to be in conjunction with zoning. I said it
three times. It has to be in conjunction because right now 250 ft as a blanket is not appropriate. So, for example, I was in Red Oak um at Compass campus. They don't have a lot of screening, right? They don't have a lot of acoustic barriers or anything like that, which is
good on y'all to have something on there for that, but obviously not enough. Um, recording at 250 ft from that facility is right across the street is residence. Um, it's super loud. I actually played a
sample here in the chamber. Um, I believe somebody on the council or what somebody said that uh I turned it up or whatever, but that's not how recordings work. Um, but I also recorded them and had to boost them for playback in the
chamber. I don't know if you know anything about digital audio, but you kind of have to do that. Um, just so it's loud and everybody can hear it. But I recorded everything at the same level and boosted everything at the same level. So, it's the same level. Um, it's probably a lot less loud, right?
Because this room is full of glass and wood and it's not very uh absorbent. Um, so those sounds will be more louder if played in this chamber regardless of how they were recorded. Um, well, that's not
true because they were you could you could record them louder. Um, so here's the here's the thing. Um, you can scale all of these things. You can add um for example you can scale uh per power as per power per per building how the size
of the building you can scale this you can scale the noise by by a season because as I was recording some of these places um I've started my recordings back in May so um and in May there
weren't a lot of bugs and now there's a bunch of bugs and frogs outside. So your DBA and DBC readouts for noise are going to be different right now in June or July. Right now we're in July. Yeah. So it's going to be different. So you can't
have a 72hour baseline study for the noise ordinance and then be like, well, we're going to do 250 ft. But you don't even know what those baselines are yet. So putting a 250 ft uh setback when you don't even know what these places
already sound like or the data centers are there already sound like is inappropriate. Um it's you're kind of putting the card before the horse is what I'm uh kind of getting alluding to. Um it's not a big deal. I think you guys
can actually uh work with staff and get the noise ordinance under control. Um again you need uh the staff has to uh hire an acoustician and you know talk to somebody who actually understands what's
what's what uh what u limits need to be. Um whenever whenever that happens you can propose these regulations and scale them per facility. Um yes for for generators as uh my
colleague has mentioned that they need to be a certain type. Um for noise monitoring because I know you can do that. Um you can add regulation into 247 monitoring. The federal government monitors their own data
centers 247. They have weather stations that measure humidity and temperature. uh they calibrate their microphones every year which is required uh for legal purposes. So like my SPL meter that I own personally I have to get calibrated every single year. Um so that
needs to be in this regulation as well they have to be they need to be calibrated monitoring systems on on premises and that will keep them in compliance. whatever their number is that they come up with, right? Whatever. Hopefully they do scientific
measurements and data and they could hire a consultant to do that, but you have an obligation to put those monitoring and have those regulations in place on these sites. It can be a small it can it doesn't have to be the exact number that's from the
residential area but it can be an area that they can regulate per site per per you know per um data center site uh development um again can scale because some of these facilities are small some of them are huge definitions need to be
added right hypers scale collocation those are missing in these regulations and definitions uh I'm asking for y'all to continue this, right? Because you all need more time. City council needs more time. Staff needs more time. I need more
time. I'm still measuring things. I'm still uh I'm I have a meeting with people here. So, it's just like there we're rushing and you have an obligation to protect the city. As Jessica has pointed
out that in her slides that that's what yall's job is to do is to protect the city. and its residents. So that's what we need to do. >> Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Uh Mr. Hogan and after Mr. Hogan, we've got a a more
here. Hey, sorry. Hello again. Excuse me. Uh I am too. Uh back in the day uh when we had gast drilling coming into
the city of Fort Worth, I was appointed by uh my council member at the time to sit on that gas drilling task force to uh find out how we're going to protect our city during the gast
drilling days. In fact, I got the nickname of people didn't call me Mr. Hogan, they called me, especially the industry people called me Gaswell Gary. So, uh, that name stuck because some
people still call me that. But um I think I think the problem with what we're seeing today before you again is a lot of confusion the way that this is written because I do see the line where
it says that cryptoc currency mining prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts. But then up above it says non-resident residential district use adding data centers to only
industrial districts and add cryptocurrency mining under light industrial. That's kind of confusing when you're reading that how that's going to go into the ordinance. It's confusing to people
when they read it. That's up there and this is down here. So this wording of itself I don't feel can pass through like that. And again, I mentioned I was on the gas drilling task force
and we set setbacks just for gas well sites at a 300 foot minimum and a regular 600 foot. And 250 foot in these proposed zoning
regulations is exactly not near enough as the impact of a gas well site. even though you know in a neighborhood these are massive industrial heavy
industrial operations that you've heard all these impacts and if anybody's been reading anything about these data centers where they do exist and the impacts they're putting on people I think we do need to
put the brakes on this the city won't do a moratorum But we need to look at this. You know, we spent six months looking at gas well drilling before we came up with an ordinance on that. And then we set up
a special department. There's another thing that we're missing here is overview, oversight, and regulation. We set up a special department in the city of Fort Worth of in inspectors in places where
citizens could call in complaints and a staff here that would go out and inspect to make sure the industry was operating properly. We need that for data centers, too. So I agree with a lot what people have said here, but I wanted to second that
about that setback is not near enough for us to put this in our city and feel like we're building a livable want to live community. When I talked to the city council the last time we had a
meeting, one thing I did do is I went like this across the whole deis and [snorts] I asked you would you want to live next to one of these data centers or are you living
next to a proposed data center and would you like to have these regulations safeguarding you? That's what I would ask of all of you too. Thank you. >> Appreciate your comments. Uh we've got
Aean up next and then we've got Jackson and Sue Weston. >> Greetings, zoning commission. Uh my name is Aean Ibrahim. I'm the landscape designer at Weston Gardens. There is currently a data center proposed to be built next to us. Um,
I just wanted to, um, echo what everyone's saying. I agree. I think these should be at least a mile away from any residential. I think in the slide before this one, it talked about how we don't have any control over the air and the electricity. And I think
because we don't have that control, it should be a strong consideration not to put it near where people live. I was just listening to a podcast on the Love Canal incident up in New York a bunch of years ago and it sounds like there could be a lot of evidence that this might
create problems like that. Um, another point I'd like to make is um I looked at the landscape plan at the open house and it was presented on the screen there. One row of evergreen trees is not going to do anything. I think that needs to be revisited. I think that was done in
haste. Um, for one, evergreen trees, most of them don't work well here. In my 12 years of experience, I've found three that are reliable. Um, we warranty all the plants, so I do get feedback if some die. Now, the trick with that is that
they don't die right away. They die after the bad varieties that are constantly on a bunch of lists as good will die after 5 to seven years. An evergreen tree also takes about 10 to 12 years before it's big enough to be
effective and one row won't do much as far as blocking. So I think we need to revisit that as well just because I don't want to keep repeating what everyone said. That's another um comment I would like to make is that I think you need multiple rows of different evergreens. I think there needs to be a
I'll look at the list. I didn't look at what it was, but there there aren't that many good varieties. And um that's only if these go near residential. Ultimately though, I think they should be very far from residential. Thank you'all. >> Thank you, A. Right. Uh we've got
Jackson and then Sue up next. >> Good afternoon. I'm Jackson Weston. Um thank you all for your time volunteering and uh thank you for taking the time to listen to us. Um, I'm born and bred here in Fort Worth and uh I'm with Weston Gardens. I'm here to ask for strong
enforceable regulation on data centers in regard to historic properties and sites. Data centers should not be located next to or near a designated historic property um that's been designated that way by the city of Fort Worth. These should be zoned as heavy
industrial, not light, not medium. Uh Danish centers should be held accountable to have sustainable landscaping on these sites. They should adhere to a specific list of native and adapted plants. At least three rows of evergreen trees and shrubs should be
installed to block and limit noise pollution. But but drought tolerant trees like eastern red cedar and Arizona cypers should be used. Evergreens in general, like Aean said, are not drought tolerant in our heat, and you have to enforce specific ones that handle our
frequent periods of drought. If you don't plant drought tolerant evergreens, there will be open holes in these screens. Not when, not if, but when those plants die in the heat of the summer. Setbacks. Yeah, we should have a radius of a mile. No data centers near
residential. Um, not within that radius. Natural gas and backup generators should be completely enclosed to limit noise pollution. Uh constant enforceable tests should be performed to make sure these forever chemicals are not uh going into
our groundwater. Please protect the heart of this city and the people who built it and keep it going. Um and let the record show we are not afraid of change. As someone on this commission stated in April, we are active citizens who recognize obvious problems and care
about our city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sue. After Sue, we'll have Lauren, followed by Carlos Silva. >> I'm gonna make this pretty short because I think a lot of things have already been said, and I do appreciate all of
y'all's um time that you spend. I've been on several nonprofits. I'm I've been a CPA for 46 years. So, you kind of get in some of those things like I'm sure y'all do with your expertise. So, I do appreciate it. And I just want to say um that the community has really come
behind us with the historic designation. I can't imagine that it could ever be voted on that we would even risk losing the historic designation in the gardens. But the more that I read, especially with data centers, um just the vibrations. We have a lot of hundred
year old walls and it has lime mortar versus it's Portland now. And they say that just the vibrations from the data centers will just continue to shake. The the walls will all become cracked and then the rains and stuff will I'll
probably just be left with a bunch of rubble. So, it really needs to be addressed by the city of how to protect uh historic designations because we don't really have that many in the city. And I have people that come from all over for weddings. There was a lady out there a couple weeks ago from Washington
State and she kept saying, "Miss Weston, your vision and and everything you've done in this garden, this is more this is more beautiful than Monaet's garden in Paris." I said, "Have you been there?" Because I have. And she she hadn't. But uh it is we do we do need
y'all's help just to protect the things the history type of things that we do have and I do appreciate y'all's time. >> Thank you sir. Lauren Lauren Chong Carlos
and after Carlos I've got Josh Lucas. Hello, my name is Carlos Silva. Um, I am not super familiar with city government uh until earlier this year. So, as I'm understanding it, the zoning commission from everything I heard today
is really about land use. Correct. So, it seems to me like y'all should be the last entity consulted because land use comes with everything. The holistic picture that everybody here has
been painting, right? It's the vibrations, the sound, the water use, the energy use, and then the purpose of of what the land is being used for. For when we zone it residential, it's for living. um when you stone it industrial
it's for producing something the use here is generative AI I think it's very disingenuous from the city to not mention AI in this presentation at all uh and to say that data centers are
all the same and that they've been built for 20 years I mean it's true right like the internet has been around since the9s when it started going, you know, really big and you need data centers to run the internet. This is categorically different. This is a that's a category
error the city's making because this is a technological revolution that it's a different kind of technology that uses resources very differently as as they have as everybody here has outlined. And so our city regulations, our zoning
decisions need to reflect that. So, in the same way that you're um defining cryptocurrency and what that is, we could take number one here and just say prohibit generative AI training and use
as a primary use. Now, then to to Mr. McCoy's question, then it becomes a question of enforcement, right? Like how what can you actually do to audit a facility and say, are you using it for generative AI? Show me, you know, let me in and see your racks. what kind of um
computers do you have on there? Are those CPUs or your are those GPUs? Who are you selling your rack use to? And so you it seems like land use is a holistic picture that is not yet complete. It's it's I don't I don't know what
percentage I would give it to, but the holistic picture is is very incomplete. We don't know what the impacts of these um data centers are going to be. generative AI data centers. And then lastly to a point that I don't think
part of that holistic viewpoint is resource use but also economic um you know when we talk about the economy and and and the stock market rising. It's very it's becoming very clear that this is a bubble uh in the same way that
we've had when there is a technological change right when we had the railways and everybody wanted to get in on rail technology because the steam engine evolved so quickly uh and radically you had a bubble when you create the internet and people are trying to make money off of a new technology you have a
bubble when you take a get generative AI we're seeing a bubble and so who is going to be left holding the bag, right? It's going to be the city because we will have approved the zoning of these data centers. We will have approved
their permits to build. And if the whole thing collapses and it turns out we don't need new data centers because we already have less data centers to have AI now like these are speculative projects that are assuming that these companies will continue to develop the
AI into like super intelligence and replace all of this and all that stuff but it's a speculation and so we need to hedge against that by really having all of the information before we approve
land to be used for speculation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Josh, and after Josh, we'll have Jonathan, then Holly, and then Craig. Then that is our last speaker.
>> Josh Lucas. Um, I haven't spoke to this committee or spoke to anyone in this room before, but I'm here today because we're worried about the data center. It basically it comes down to two
things. We want to keep our fresh water and we want to have lower electricity bills. That's what the hoop law is. So, I just wanted to speak right to it. Um, the next big wars are going to be fought
over water. That's what the experts say. And so having a data center that uses up all our water, I mean, what what are we going to do when Fort Worth runs out of water? I mean, that's that's what we're looking
at. And the precedence is set. If we have one data data center and we do all these regulations and it's all hunky dor hunky dory, they can come back and do more and more. Um I don't think we should be giving these people a tax
break or any incentive because it's detrimental to our community. And I guess the other issue is the health aspect because the low note
is causing terrible things to happen to one's health. So that's the kicker. I mean, if I would ask you to recommend something, this is a recommending body. I would I would ask you to recommend not
to build the data center. >> Thank you for your comments, Josh. >> Jonathan, >> good afternoon, commissioners. um almost nighttime now. So, um yeah, I wanted to uh so after attending the meeting today,
I actually had a whole speech written out, but um it occurs to me somebody made a 5G comment and so it occurred to me that maybe not all of you are in the loop about why so many people are so opposed to AI. So, uh not just in terms of resources, but in general. Um I agree with most of what the sentiments here
are, and I'm asking for more intense regulations and oversight and data centers, if not a full moratorium. I know that's not necessarily up to you, but I want to use my time today to provide some context for this sort of outrage um and the many directions it's coming from related to AI. So, why are
people so opposed to AI? Uh so, first, we've already discussed this a little bit, but possible heat generation. Uh, Salt Lake Tribune reported an AI data center project by Kevin Oly, yes, the one from Shark Tank, um, in Utah could raise temperatures by five degrees in the day and 28 degrees at night at the
local area because these are essentially just massive massive buildings as other people have said that are just full of GPUs. And I don't know if you've ever like seen a gaming PC. I have one in my apartment and if I leave that thing running in the room, it will straight up turn the room into 90 degrees. Like if I
have the temperature set to 78, it'll turn it'll make my my apartment complex or my entire apartment. It'll make it 90 degrees. And these are huge warehouses just full of them. Um so that's the first point. Um so second is water and electrical use. Wall Street Journal had
a report a few days ago which stated that AI companies including the tech giants often do not f uh factor in the water used for their power plants. There has also been at least one case of a data center polluting a local water table. Um, and in terms of electricity, quote from Rogers, uh, for years,
electricity costs for the Belden Brick Company in Sugar Creek, Ohio, had been relatively stable. Last year, they surged by 90% largely because of rising power demand from data centers in the region. The 141-year-old brick manufacturer whose products can be found
in iconic buildings including the Texas Alamo and Notre Dame University is seeing power bills rise mainly from a monthly capacity charge which recently jumped from 1,600 a month to 12,000 a month. AI is also stealing jobs. It is being used to generate CSAM. It is being
used in military applications both by us and against us. It has helped children plan their suicides and there are active lawsuits regarding many of these things. Um there are also plenty of great applications as well, don't get me wrong, especially in the medical field. Um but this is an emerging technology and it has made a lot of people very
deep like deeply uncomfortable, myself included. Um and so this is not just about resources anymore. This is also just about what sort of city um and I know you're not supposed to get too much into ideology, but what sort of city are we to sort of support this technology
when it's being used to do things of this sort? Um, I think AI is going to be a good thing long term probably, but for the time being, um, we're just asking to slow down. We're asking for the most intense regulations that you can provide. Um, and that is the sort of
thing we want you to recommend to city council because some of uh, you know, just what it's being used for is very inappropriate. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Holly. And after Holly, it looks like Craig.
And that is our last speaker. Good afternoon. I wanted to say thank you for being very respectful and listening to every single person who signed up. That apparently is not very common in Fort Worth anymore. And so my
hat is off to you. When I retired, I volunteer all the time for all kinds of things. And I know this is volunteer for you. So you have my utmost respect. This is not an easy decision for anybody. Um, I want to bring up something different
that you haven't heard before. Uh, I don't want to waste anybody's time. Uh, has anybody heard of the insect apocalypse? Anybody up there? I want you to be aware of something. I spent all my um, retired
time looking as a naturalist and as a native plant person and as a native prairie person. The thing that Texas has that no one else has is land. All of the things that you make rules
about up here, those rules can be changed. If we discover that something is a problem and you're thinking, "Okay, we can fix that later." But I want to tell you, once you tear up that land and you build that enormous, humongous
building, there is no going back. that land, the seed bank is gone and it's over. So, I want you to think about your grandchildren having the use of a habitat,
the oxygen, the water. And so, if I could ask you to do a couple of things about your regulations. I want to first commend you for putting the lights pointing down. That's enormously important for our habitat, for the
birds, the mammals, the bugs, the moths. But I also want to point out that we can do better than that and limit the amount of light that's actually going to be put out. Um, the light and the sound that these things emit could very well push
some of our insects and our mammals over the border. Um, I don't have grandchildren, so I don't volunteer because I want my grandchildren to have someplace to live. I volunteer for your grandchildren. I
want every one of them to have habitat. So, please consider making these regulations as strong as you can to support the scientific evidence to protect our habitat and our people. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. and Craig. Is Craig here? All right. Did we miss anybody? Okay. All right. Um, commissioners, uh, I think asking for
comments from specific individuals might be challenging. So, um, does anybody have something specific they wanted to talk to about with somebody before I close the public hearing? We're going to give city staff one more chance to come up as part of the rules that we have set
up. Um if she has anything else she wants to say to close this out. Um but uh before we go before we do that and close the public uh hearing while we're waiting on staff to come up and give their closing remarks, I just want to say again how much we appreciate you
all taking time out of your day to come let us hear your thoughts. We know how this is this is really important. This impacts a lot of people. This isn't the normal zoning case that we get that affects one business and a few neighbors. We take that stuff very seriously, too. But we know that this text amendment is a lot bigger than
that. Uh and it affects a lot more people. So, we do appreciate it. Um, however we decide, some of you are not going to like it, some of you are going to love it, and there's going to be some people in the middle. Um, but I promise you that we do care. Um, and we are
hearing you. we are listening to you and we're going to make our best decision. So, I hope you know, >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say as she's coming forward, um, one person really makes a difference in this hall. I mean, I listen to every word that was said and
I read all the letters that came in. Um, you do make a difference and it's worth showing up and it's worth speaking. And even our next speaker who is part of our city manager's office said this
morning in the workshop that she's heard you as well and uh they're considering recommending a slight change in the in the distance setbacks uh before this goes to city council. So
I think that's kind of proof of the pudding that the city is listening. And I'll tell you one more thing. We didn't have a zoning ordinance before 1954. Took all the time we've been on this earth till 1954.
We didn't have a zoning ordinance. And guess what the first ordinance was? We zoned the entire city single family. The entire city was zoned single family. What a big difference there is from
today. And what I'm saying is that it takes time and not every plan is perfect and we don't have a moratorum but we do have a pause on AI center appro approvals by the city council. So you
have made a difference and I just want to tell you how much I appreciate you being here. Thanks. >> Thank you commissioner and Jessica. We'll ask that you're brief. >> Yeah. No, I will be brief. I was just going to say exactly. I' I've listened to everything. I've taken tons of notes.
We also have the, you know, nearly thousand comments that have come in before. So, we do know that we anticipate making some adjustments to our final recommendations. Again, we'll have that all on August 4th for the city council. Uh we'll also update everything on our city website as soon as we're
able to. Survey is still open for one more week through July 15th. We encourage everybody to submit anything on there. Um, you know, just again, there's a lot of things that we can regulate and there's some things that we can't. So, just trying to navigate where all that falls. Anything still related to electric, we just can't. We we don't
have that purview. Um, but there's ways to get around things. And the other thing I'll note, you know, Fort Worth is not the only city right now grappling with this conversation. So, we uh cities love to talk to each other and figure out what people are doing and what's successful. So, on top of all the research that we have already done
looking at what other cities are doing predominantly here in Texas um but also elsewhere, we are still talking to cities on on a weekly basis to see who's doing what. Have people changed? Are they staying where they are? Again, a lot of our regulations that we're proposing or the amendments that we're
proposing are really based on what we're seeing, what we think is successful in other cities, what we um feel like will be really good here. But, but this is by and large not totally done. I mean, we we still have a month to figure out what additional um edits we need to make, if
you will, for that. And we truly appreciate everybody that has spent their time with y'all today giving the constructive feedback. Uh and we will incorporate all of that. I've got all my notes here, too. >> Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Uh before we close the public hearing, wait one second, Jessica, just in case.
Uh are there any questions for staff before we move into our discussion? >> Okay. Excellent. Great. Thank you very Yes, I have a question. Okay. >> So, um, when you did your first presentation, there was some wording
that needed to be modified in order to, you know, make your case. Are we going to Are you going to add those words to the So, >> do you want to answer? I >> Yeah, I think Are you talking about the parking that I was saying was not on my
slide, but is in your draft ordinance? >> Is that the wording or what? When am I not? >> Yeah. Do you have a >> I think it was more dealing with the uh cryptocurrency. >> Yeah. So like on this slide for example it says prohibit cryptocurrency minus primary use and in the text here it says
prohibits in all non-residential districts. >> So I pulled out my big folder of notes that I'm hauling around with me. So where that as a primary use came out is when I originally had my slide. It did not have that on there. Um, and early on, so well before our June 2nd work session, I was doing a review with one
of my counterparts and in there it was a comment that was made and so I went and stuck it on my slide. The ordinance that you have before you is the draft ordinance that you are taking action on. And so that there is no distinguishment in the draft ordinance between primary
use or accessory use. So the draft ordinance that you have, as city attorney Chris Austria said, is prohibiting cryptocurrency mining in non-residential areas. Um it is also just to answer a question that was posed. It is not allowed in residential either. It is effectively prohibiting it
right in Fort Worth. >> Okay. Good. Everybody clear on that? Chairman McCo chairman chairman [laughter] >> Mr. McCoy >> since we seem to have some uh folks with
domain expertise in the room. uh was raised and I didn't have a chance to ask it. I wrote it down uh before the opposition, but it occurred to me that there's no distinction between
uh data center with AI or or crypto and it's my understanding that those are very similar and we are prohibiting one but not the other. And my question would be to the uh professional with the
domain expertise is can those be distinguished? Are those the same? Is it prudent to uh prohibit one and and not the other? >> Are you referring to like the CPU versus
GPU? >> The argument of the CPU versus the GPU. Yes. >> Yeah. You'll notice in our ordinance, we don't differentiate between GPU and GCU. When we looked at all other uh Texas city ordinances, none of them are differentiating on that. So, it's just
something that is not um in our recommend recommendation to distinguish between. Instead, what we're proposing is to set the parameters for the development itself. So, again, that's through these zoning regulations that you see here, through the noise limitations, through the water
consumption, all of those things. um we feel that these regulations that we're putting forward will set the parameters that will determine what's allowed. So aside from banning the cryptocurrency mining, you still have a noise limit. You have other things. Let's say we didn't differentiate it. We didn't
define it out separate, you still have these regulations that we're proposing that any development would have to comply with. Um I'll give an example. We went to a recent site tour. We were invited to go see a recent site that is a cryptocurrency mining operation and on site it to me it felt very different and
we asked them okay here's our proposed regulations that we're going to put on could you comply with this the answer from that one was maybe not I think that in and of itself helps also control what we're doing um again I would say it this way we are setting a standard or our
recommendation is to set the standards for what's going to be developed here and a development either meets it or they don't develop I mean That's kind of how I look at this. Um I still stand behind um defining the cryptocurrency mining separate and and prohibiting it the way we're doing. Um the other thing
I'll note and and I don't know why. So maybe I need to look into this to figure out why. Even the state of Texas has regulations that are different for cryptocurrency mining and blockchain that are different from data centers. So maybe I need to personally understand a
little bit more on how that's originating and why that is treated so differently. But that also, you know, kind of as I looked at all of the recommendations that were put before you in my mind too, why it made sense to to carve out this one separate is because I saw numerous instances of it um through
throughout our um administrative regulations at the state level that kind of bolstered it to me that okay, yeah, it makes sense. We're on the right track of treating it different. Am I correct in assuming that you would that this would be helpful um if not necessary for
us to be pretty specific in our recommendation uh as in if we were to approve this and we were to say um but we don't like the 250 ft we recommend 5,000 ft >> like we need to be pretty specific correct
>> I would recommend that yes so any >> what what I mean is just not being general like well The city should better define. Yeah. Uh the data like we we have to be specific. >> Yes. Absolutely. If you want to exactly if you want to do a floor amendment to pick a number already and put that
forward to go to council, you absolutely can do that. >> Um otherwise it goes forward as the draft is before you with the 250 but knowing that we staff are still going to recommend a change. >> Understand? Okay. Great. >> So let me make sure I understand. It sounds like you have the uh capability
to be able to modify based on discovery, right? And you've created this network to where you are, you know, you're getting information from the noise people and the studies maybe later on
with the universities do stuff, you know, but uh and the water you're you know the the suppliers are creating different ways not to even use water in a in a closed looping system. So yeah, it sounds like you you put together a
program that is adaptable and and you're trying to scale it, but you're getting discovery from all over the place. >> So I mean that's the way I'm looking at it's it's a this is a start. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Framework for moving forward in this
whole >> Yeah. Uh, I I don't I I would hope I'm not alone in that. whatever we come up with, whatever we recommend, um, and we're not going to be 100% in agreement between all these different people up here, but whatever we ultimately
recommend, uh, and city council ultimately puts in place, whether it's now or in the future, uh, I would hope that that everyone is open to continuing to learn more and make changes as we go and that whatever is decided this isn't the end, you know, that we'll continue
to to learn more and make further changes as needed. So, we have the power to do that. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, at this time, I'm going to close the public hearing and leave it open to some
discussion and then a motion. Uh, I want to say a few things before we start. Um, one, we just based on comments that we heard and I want to give everyone a chance to speak. Um, but, uh, I heard a lot, delay. You should delay. We need to
think about this more. Um and I I agree in that a lot more should probably be thought about. Um um that said um I need to understand we need to realize kind of where we're sitting and what our job is
and um how that affects the next step. So, um, if we were to delay our piece of this, um, there are still the other regulations that are going to go before council and it would leave out zoning. Uh, so I don't think that that's
helpful. I don't think us stonewalling here helps that at all. Um, because there are still these big picture things like your noise regulation, your water wastewater regulation, uh, your economic development piece. Those can still be
voted on. um you would just be delaying the zoning piece. Um and so I don't think that's helpful. I think they all need to work together. So I just want to put out there that I hear you on the slow down. Um and we all this is just one person's opinion. We have other people up here that are about to speak
too. Um but uh the slowdown can happen next month uh as well. Or the what I said a second ago of this is the start and should be the start. This should not be the end. Right now, we're in a
position where data centers can go up under our current regulations uh for J&K industrial uses. So, there there basically is none. They're treated like any other industrial project. So, I think we would all agree that's not
where we want to be. We want whatever happens is going to be an improvement on what is there. That doesn't mean that that is the end of it. It just means it's better than what's there today. Uh so I think it's important that we that we make some kind of recommendation and
start acting and that we continue to learn and that we continue to listen to the experts and make changes as the industry evolves as we learn more as we are better informed. Um so I I say
all that to say I hear you on slowdown. Um the the second thing is um there was a lot of talk about um the setback uh and staff is already open
to setback and setback um really speaks to the noise. it speaks to pollution whether it's closer to residential areas or schools or hospitals or you know these sensitive areas parks. Um so uh I
would recommend doing something above 250 right off the bat. Um also uh when it comes to the generators uh if we were let's just say and I'll just throw a number out there. I'm not just throwing it out
there. I would recommend that we double that uh set back to from 250 to 500 and in doing so um the standby generator should be 550 not 300 uh and also fully
fully screened. Um I would also right now the way the ordinance is written it is proposed to be available or allowed in I J and K. I would propose that we limit that to just J and K. um that it's a little bit of a heavier
industrial use. I think that's a better starting point. Um there were a lot of comments um about uh things that I think on the surface seem like y'all shouldn't talk about this. You're talking about heat, you're
talking about noise, you're talking about water. Um I I think there's a strong case to be made that that speaks to land use. If something is gets really hot, you don't want that next to where people live. So that's land use. Uh something's really noisy like a steel
mill, you don't want that right next to K. Um so I do think that while you know some people might why are they talking about this stuff has nothing to do with zoning. I do think that there's a link that's important that we together looking at the whole picture is important when talking about zoning
because land use sets up a lot. Um, so, uh, so I do appreciate those comments that we heard. Um, I also want to bring up the the ETJ thing because if we there I have a bit of a fear of this is going
to sound crazy maybe, but uh if we overregulate this, if we make this if we put in a twomile uh standard setback, which some people in this room will probably love. Um, if we start doing those things, we're effectively saying don't build in forward. And I know some of you probably
want that and that's okay. Um, but my fear would be is that the these companies go, "Okay, fine. We're not building them in Fort Worth. We're going to build right outside Fort Worth in the ETJ because we need your water and we need access to power and you've got both." So then they move there anyway
and now we can't regulate at all. So I personally feel like we should be very careful about overregulating where we then we have zero authority to regulate. um so that uh these companies don't just run from Fort Worth. Uh they come here
but we still take care of our citizens. Um so I I think there is a strong case to be made to do that. So um that is I'll see my time now, but those are my initial comments. So maybe
maybe uh is it is it okay if we just maybe go in a line because I bet everybody has something to say. So is that okay? Does anybody not have anything to say? >> Do you envision that we're going to come up with a number of items and vote on
them separately or do you envision we're going to have a package to vote on? >> So that that we can modify the package in terms of voting? >> I what what I think would be helpful is um you know if if you like it as is, you want to vote for it straight up just as
it's written, certainly say that. Um and that's we'll make a note of that. Um, if you want to see the the set back higher, name a number. You want to see the the generators further, name a number. You want a different acoustic barrier, you
want a different landscape buffer yard, you want to see it in different uh base zoning districts. Uh, I think you need to name those because we are going to have to be specific. Since the chairman can't make a motion,
what you're saying is you want some member of the commission to make a laundry list of items. >> I I think >> that we're going to consider >> I think what we're going to have to do uh is we're going to we need to hear from everybody. Uh, so I want to hear
folks comments and as I hear those comments, I can make notes of the different uh, ideas on what changes could be made. Then I'll list all those then we can start deciphering those down because it's going to take a minute to
make a motion because we're going to have unless we're just voting the straight up or down which uh, I don't know that how responsible that is. >> Mr. Chairman, point of order. One of the things that I'm really concerned about, >> what's the point of order? >> It's past five o'clock.
For the last five years that I've been on this commission, at 5:00 we all turn into pumpkins and go home. >> Yeah. >> Um, we spent four months deliberating the stockyards amendments and we're going to do this in five minutes.
>> I have a problem with that. >> Well, I don't know that it's going to be five minutes. >> Well, no, but it is. I mean, it's after five. we be kicked out of here by the >> No, we won't. We've already asked the uh police department to let us stay. >> So, we're not going to be kicked out. >> There is There is a a little bit and it's not a pressure thing. We can come
up with whatever numbers we want. That's fine. But I do feel like we're being asked to do this rather quickly. I know we've had time. We've all had time with it. I do understand that. It's very different than before. But it is a little bit like um
just feels very under the gun. Um and I'm not sure if what we can do. That's why I was hoping Chris would say something. But if we you know the whole time I've been on here, five o'clock everybody go home. If that's not the rule. >> No, we we uh we we don't we're not on a
time constraint at the moment. >> Okay. >> Well, Mr. I think I think what the commissioner is saying though is that um >> may take some time to digest what we've heard >> and that maybe what we need to do is
consider having a called meeting for this one item then we can gather our thoughts individually and come back and meet. If if the feel if the feeling is that uh you want more time to think about everything you've just heard um
that you would have to ask for a motion to continue and we'd have to bring this up again uh next time. Um council is planning on voting on all these other issues uh next month that are related to our issue. Um, so
I that that that process just doesn't seem uh efficient. >> Well, if our recommendation is to continue, >> that's our recommendation to pass along. >> Then recommendation that is that that
would result in the case being postponed and so it would not move forward to council. So >> yeah, this would not move forward >> if if the if the if the board is not comfortable or believes that add regulations need to be added. Certainly, it's well within the purview and I don't think there's anything wrong with the
with the commission to just recommend a denial. Correct. I mean, there's nothing that prohibits the commission from doing that to move it forward to council with a recommendation to deny that signals to the council members and the council as a whole that additional work needs to be
done. Correct? So there's nothing wrong with with making that um a continuence um to a next 30 days or so. I'm not sure how well or how more exhaustive >> development regulations will become.
>> You know, it sounds as if additional >> um more than just 30 days would be something that I believe the public is asking for. But again, if the if if the commission is not comfortable with the proposed regulations as stated, then certainly there's nothing wrong for the
commission to just go ahead and deny it to move forward to council with y'all's recommendation. >> Let just move to the council. >> Obviously, if you're comfortable with them, there's also an opportunity to recommend an approval, but to continue it that time frame, let's say if there's everyone comes back, has the same
discussion >> is is the commission then again inclined to continue it further. So there has to be at some point where >> the commission comes with some with uh the commission determines a recommendation and then moves it to council so council can be the final decision making.
>> Okay. I mean if there if there are enough people on this body that feel like this is moving way too fast we can make a recommendation recommendation to deny. >> Can't we just call a special meeting in two weeks of our commission on this one case and we that way it doesn't delay anything. And I I I do feel like being
pushed to make a decision today, approve or deny is uh denial is fine. Council's going to make their other recommendations. But if we were to continue it, the only person being punished is whatever company is trying to build a data center under these regulations. That's it. But if we come
back in two weeks, what's the difference? >> Okay. If we get too prescriptive, then we basically eliminate creativity because who knows, there may be a solution to to put the the generators 20 feet below the
grade and use geothermal kind of things. But we don't know. The technology is moving fast and we don't want to really be too prescriptive. The city manager's office has come up with a a plan, a
framework, a way of measuring. They're looking at three measurements, a zoning regulation, noise, and and water. You know, you kind of start there. They said they're flexible to be able to uh as new discovery comes in, we'll change what as
we go. There's a lot of moving pieces. You have the state, you have the federal, you know, all these different pieces. I I think this is a good indication that the city of Fort Worth has identified, you know, something that
is keeping that could be a potential problem in its growth and they're addressing it right before anyone tells them to. This is we're just doing battlefield triage, which is fine. I understand that. We don't have to invent the artificial heart while somebody's leg is bleeding. You know, they're
bleeding out. However, why I don't care about their innovation. I'm talking about land use and I'm talking about things that we have time to talk about. We're not talking 10 miles, a mile, even a thousand feet probably, but
things that we can discuss and move forward on. >> Would you be open to us kind of just going around the horn real quick and seeing what we learn? >> All right, let's let's start uh down here on this end. Um, and just give us your feeling, any changes you would like
to see or if you would just want to deny it all together or approve it as is. >> Yeah, I mean, you got to start somewhere. So, I think what the city's put together is great to start with and, you know, it will grow as we learn more. Um, one thing that they probably could do is, you know, define different types
of data centers. There's also telecombased data centers which fall under utility laws. That's a whole different, you know, government factor there. And then, you know, there's different sizes of data centers as well. So, it might fit in one neighborhood
where it doesn't in another based on the size. So, I mean, this is a good start. I think we, you know, got to start with something. >> Okay. >> And it will evolve. >> So, you like it as a start. Okay. All right. Beth, >> um, I do agree with some of the changes
that you mentioned and I do not think this is a oneanddone type ordinance. Um, I do think that with the city willing to make some changes, especially based on the comments that we heard here today, um, is
promising. So therefore, I think that some of the recommendations that you set forth, I do agree with. Um, at the same time, I don't want to not recognize the hard work that's gone into it from Councilman Crane. >> Oh, absolutely. >> The the um JA's office, etc. Um, and I
do think that everybody has taken tried to at least take into account all of the residents comments and experts comments and things like that. So, I do think it does need some tweaking. >> Okay. >> Mr. commissioners. Um we're discussing
right now um essentially is is this ordinance proposal complete and I think it's incomplete. Um I acknowledge that there's a lot of work that has gone into it. I really appreciate uh the
professional uh expertise that has gone into it, but I feel like we're being asked to approve or deny a moving target. And so there are some variables that uh certainly can
be discussed like including an Kindustrial the setback requirements. Um the uh you know whether it is adjacent or across the street you know is that going
to be the same setback requirements uh so on and so forth. And then, you know, I still have, I guess, questions about uh the distinction between a GPU and a CPU data center. And it seems like
that is something that's acknowledged with the crypto prohibition. But if it is the same as an AI hypers scale data center, why is that being omitted? And so
I can appreciate again the work. I think it's insufficient at this time. I think it's difficult to vote on something that has a lot of variables and uh maybe we'll get to it later because once the
genie's out of the bottle that that's it. And this is uh project or a you know a time in the city where this could cause great opportunity or consequence. And so being thoughtful >> y
>> and you know listening to the cogent arguments from the opposition you know these are things that I've just learned within the last hour or so >> and so to make a decision on that would be irresponsible. >> So as it sits now you would probably lean towards denial. I would vote to
deny >> at this point. Thank you. >> Well, there's a big difference between what we normally do, which is vote for a case that affects a limited number of people, and talking about passing a or
passing a recommendation on a proposed amendment that affects a million people, that's a big difference. And I appreciate everything Mayo said, everything the previous commissioner said, but
to me, if we're going to do this job properly, this wouldn't be the first time that we've delayed a case. Um, and it probably is not the first time that we've called a special meeting uh to consider an proposed amendment,
although I can't remember a specific time. Um, but I think we a lot of good information today and a lot of thoughtful information today and um I hate to see his vote up or down today.
I really do. I think probably at least for the zoning part of it, we need to maybe make some recommendations. And the question is, are we ready to make those recommendations today?
And I sense that um we're probably not ready to make those recommendations today. And whether that means we have a called meeting or whether that means we wait another 30
days to make the recommendation. Um I leave that up to my fellow commissioners to decide. But I just feel like um the setback obviously is not enough. Um, I feel like we probably should limit
this to a higher the higher zoning categories instead of I. I think I's too low. Um, and I think we need some clarification like um people have said, well, the buildings
one situation, but what about the generators? Well, to me it's a site and they both are on a site and they both come under our regulations. So maybe we need a clarification on that because that's the way I feel about it
and but some of the people who spoke felt like it was two separate issues, two separate noise issues, two different environmental issues. So um I'd like to hear what other commissioners have to say. May
>> Yeah. I look at this as a a classic, you know, program and using program management skills. The presentation that we were given, I could tell that they did risk mitigation. I could tell that they did uh evaluation
of alternatives. Um and they they they did baselining by going to similar uh companies or or you know asking questions of different communities and instead of coming out with a
fullblown specification of regulations they've just come up with something simple. Okay, something and they they've recognized that there are possibilities to change. This is not a endall. I
understand that um a lot of people get uncomfortable when you're chasing a target that's not defined, but like uh Beth can tell you, when you work in an environment that you know you're doing something that's never been done before,
you have to have a different mindset and you have to start somewhere. We have, you know, some key performance indicators that they've said that they would look at for uh regulation, noise, and water. And, you know, we'll just
continue to be in an agile state and change as discovery comes in and grow. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Robin. >> Here's my take on the data centers um
situation. Uh the setbacks I I would recommend at least 600 feet just like they did with the gas wells. Also those generators because the gas wells also had generators too. I would recommend those be 600 ft. Uh the rooftop cooling equipment I think
it needs to be doubled. Uh landscape buffering, we probably need to look at what's a tolerable plant is acceptable that could that can maintain year round. Uh today I'm not ready to vote on this as it is right now. It
needs it need it's a good start. This is an outline. It's a working and breathing document, but I think it needs some more work right now. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Pearson. Well, my my take on this, I'm just I I
took in all the comments and listened intensely to what everybody said and I thought about we just celebrated the 4th of July. America celebrated 250 years and in that 250 years we moved from the industrial revolution but prior to that
we were agricultural country and then we moved to urbanized cities and now we're moving into technology. America is a country about progression and freedom and equality. As I'm sitting here thinking, I'm taking all of this in. And
from being on previous boards and in positions of leadership, there's no way you can please all people. Somebody is going to walk away. Somebody's going to be upset. Are we willing to give up? as the young lady talked about uh utilizing
GPS, you know, are we willing to to compromise being able to pay your bills on your phone? All these things are tied into AI. And yes, techn I'm using the word technology u as well as 5G. It is so the way I see
it, we're never going to be able to come to a compromise. And that's why you have all of us as commissioners, we're in positions of leadership. And positions of leadership, you make sound decisions. You can't please the masses. You do the best that you can. And so I go back to
we talked about Fort Worth has moved forward from number 13 to number 10 in less than five years. This is a progressive city. And I look at this as part of the progression, as part of technology. Are we willing to let it go?
Most will not. So, I say the way that the city has put the time and talent and effort to put together this intensive proposal that we move forward because we're going to keep going over this over and over and over again and it's wasting
time and taxpayers money. So, I say we vote, we approve it, and we move on. Now, I am open to if we need to talk two more weeks perhaps, but I say we move forward. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rogers, if
>> he would give me permission, I would adopt Commissioner McCoy's words and if they vote today, I would vote to deny. >> Okay, very good. Thank you, Commissioner Worman. >> City staff did a great job doing this and this didn't just happen in a month.
I know that they've been working on this since the first one showed up. Um, I would I would just like to add that, you know, and I asked this of the the man from Black Mountain that was here seven times. How many more times are you going to come here? I think in the future, one
thing that we could add, and this is for everybody to hear, they better show up with 70% of their sight acquired because they came back month after month after month, and each one of those pieces they picked up was just another lever to pry another piece off the board to get more of what they actually needed in the end
because we never saw the full picture from the first two cases that we saw. It's a very different case than it was two years ago. Um, but city staff did a great job. Um, we just got to do what we got to do up here. We'll vote. We'll do what we do. And at the end of the day,
we're going to come back and do it again next month, whatever it is. Um, but I I think we can, you know, all know that we were here and we were sincere about what we want to try to get done today. Thanks. >> Would you be uh willing to vote to approve or deny today?
>> I don't know. Okay. >> All right. That's honest. I think for me the most insightful thing that we heard from the speakers today is that the city could afford to give itself the gift of time. We're rushing. We're not trying to do a sprint. This is
a marathon and we certainly have to train for it. Um I definitely would lean more into restricting it to the heavy industrial uh K. And other than that, um, right now I would vote to deny.
Somebody off my count. Okay, >> Jeremy. Jeremy, can I can I make the motion? >> We are open for a motion. >> Can I see the case number? Because it's been seven hours since we started.
>> It is 26087. >> In the case of ZC-26-087, I move to deny. >> Second. All right. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Worman to deny and a second by Commissioner Rogers. >> Commissioners, how do you vote? >> Commissioner Reigns.
>> Nay. >> Commissioner Mayo. >> Commissioner Trujillo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Welch. >> N is for or nay is against? >> Nay would be against the denial. >> Commissioner McCoy. >> Hi.
>> Commissioner Edmonds. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Robinson. I, >> Commissioner Pierce. >> No, >> Commissioner Rogers. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Worman. >> I >> and Commissioner Castro, >> I.
>> With a vote of I'll pause just to make sure I get it right. Three, four. Yes. 7 to four. Motion passes to deny the recommendation. >> All right. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate
your patience. Thank you for being willing to to listen and staying here. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Oh, >> is still in the audience? >> Yeah. >> Are you Yeah. Um I don't think Michael Crane ever got your data that you discussed in here. So, if you will email
it to him, that would be great. >> We are now adjourned. Thank you all very much. >> Good night.