Comme, c'est.

Comme?

Comme.

Comme All right, we'll go ahead and get started here.

Welcome everybody to the Zoning Commission.

Uh today is July eighth.

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.

Just a reminder uh here at the Zoning Commission, we are a recommending body.

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 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.

With that, Dave.

Welcome to the July eighth, twenty twenty six zoning commission public hearing.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at WW.fort Worth Texas.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 eleventh 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.

Those that are not able to speak today are encouraged to submit comments or sign up to speak at the city council meeting.

The Friday before the scheduled hearing date.

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 817-392-8028.

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 six members to approve a zoning case.

The following members are present today.

Mr.

Chair, we do have a quorum.

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the previous months minutes.

Alright, at this time we are open for a motion to approve our regular meeting minutes.

Mr.

Chairman, I make that motion.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Warman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 11 to 0.

The minutes are approved.

Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-070.

The address is 2 115 Bell Avenue.

The applicant is Care Bridge Health Services, LLC, Yuzoshi, and Elinor Anucom.

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 y'all.

So we did go back.

So we did go back and um fix the issue.

So yes, we uh we did change it to PDE.

So with uh with an updated site plan.

I don't know.

Do we so yes?

Proposed parking parking spots.

We are required 102 spots, and we are providing 106 with additional ADA parking.

Okay.

This is a quick summary of what our commitment would be, uh parking management, noise mitigation, um, and pretty much curating a space that 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 gonna remain as is.

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 s the top 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.

His name is Edward Kaleo.

We spoke to Lauren at Streams and Valleys.

So we've covered our bases this time.

Appreciate that.

Do you all have anything uh 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?

Um there are three additional waivers 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 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 waivers to remain in place, but we would need to notice based on that because the revised application didn't note that those deficiencies were there, but they were shown on the site plan.

I repeat what you said, sorry.

Oh, 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're 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.

But yeah, 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 it okay.

All right.

Um with that said, so sorry about that.

We could 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 Trujillo let you make that recommendation.

Yeah, I'm good with continuing and having it renoticed for them so I can go off the site plan that they've currently submitted.

Do we have a second to continue?

Okay, all right.

Uh we have a motion uh by Commissioner Trujillo to continue this case to our August hearing and a second by Commissioner Welch.

Do you want to clarify that it's easy 26-070?

Thank you for that.

Got it.

Okay, we have a motion to continue.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

For the vote eleven zero.

Motion passes.

Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-071.

The address is 1297 to 1309 odds.

Cantrell Samson Road.

The applicant is MC and Janet Brister.

Hopewell Development 2 LP.

Kimley Horn and Associates Inc.

Brandon Middleton.

The request is from F General Commercial and KV Industrial to I Light Industrial.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn.

We originally submitted this zoning request for street zoning, similar to adjacent zoning cases to our south.

In further conversation with Councilman Flores, along with the neighborhood association to our north.

That did trigger the need from RN to revise our application to include a site plan requirement.

Since when we met with the neighborhood association on June 3rd, we went out there and topo the site, did a tree survey, did some flood plan modeling, and so we've had to kind of make sure the site plan that we're submitting makes sense.

And so we have submitted a site plan.

It was I believe late June.

So we're asking for another 30-day continuance to give staff time to review that site plan to be considered in office.

Okay, so you're asking for a 30-day continuance?

Sir.

Okay.

Uh there is no one here to speak in opposition.

Uh so at this time we'll close the public hearing, leave it open for some discussion or a motion by Commissioner Trujillo.

So like you're good.

Okay.

For ZZ-26-071, I move for continuance.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion to continue to our August hearing and by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds?

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-060.

The address is 6732 Blue Mound Road.

The applicant is Blue Moundstone Partners.

Take five properties, SPV, LLC, Brandy Zachary with Arnold Consulting Engineering Services.

The request is to add a conditional use permit and E neighborhood commercial for an automotive repair.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Thank you.

And so originally we had submitted a request for a zone change.

I think it was proposed to the F zoning to allow for the old change facility.

And after some discussion back and forth with the staff, it was noted that that would not be supported by the comprehensive plan and things of that nature.

So we were recommended to instead of trying to go for a rezone, just requesting additional use within the current zoning that would allow for the take five all change.

We are technically listed as an auto repair, but we don't do any repair.

Everything happens inside the building for the quick service old changes.

I don't really have anything else to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

We did provide a SOP plan with the submittal as well.

And to my knowledge, I think after we got comments back and resubmitted that the SOP plan does meet all the requirements now.

Right.

Yeah, we did just review uh your case uh earlier today.

Um you also have an Andrew Barclay signed up to speak.

Yes, he's we've got her and he's here also if you have any questions.

Okay, for questions only.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Um commissioners, uh, 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 Trujillo, this one is yours.

For ZZ-26-060, I move for approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Hi.

Commissioner Mayo.

Hi.

Commissioner Trajillo?

Hi.

Commissioner Welch.

Hi.

Commissioner McCoy.

Hi.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Hi.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Hi.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote eleven zero.

Motion passes.

Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-064.

The address is 1401 Alameda Street.

Applicant is Taco LLC, Rayo Jeski, Kelly Harton Hallman, LLP, Zach Racusen, Rack Equities.

The request is from A5 1 Family Residential.

If you'll go back just a couple of race, sorry about that.

Sorry about that.

I jump to Dave.

And F General Commercial to PDI plan development for all uses in I Light Industrial, excluding Massage Parker and Tattoo Parlor, site plan included.

Welcome, sir.

Alright.

Hey, Ms.

Chairman, members of the commission, Ray O'Jeski on behalf of the proposed developer.

Today we're seeking a continuance to your September Commission meeting to meet with some residents of an unregistered neighborhood association that we didn't have contact information for, but did send in opposition correspondence yesterday.

Obviously, we've reviewed the correspondence, but haven't had chance to meet yet.

So 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 best network of people about our case.

But uh 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 as part of our project.

Uh we limited our access to West Point and the 820 frontage road, and um did not seek or really have any access whatsoever to Alameda 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 continuance 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 be in 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 3 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 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.

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 gonna 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 cutoff that they're gonna try to come 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 uh my comment to y'all is that uh I'm gonna be having a July 23rd community meeting, which I invite that whole community out there, west of loop A twenty and north of I-35, 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 gonna try to operate in a way that'll be not a negative to our community.

So I would ask for the continuance too to give us more opportunity to reach out to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hogan.

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 of opposition?

Opposition?

Okay.

You're okay?

Okay.

Um, 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 ZC 26-064.

I'll make the motion to approve.

To approve.

Or to uh to decline.

Approve a continuance.

Oh, the continuance, excuse me.

Continuance for 30 days 60 days 60 day continuance, I'm sorry.

A 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.

Hi.

Commissioner trijigo aye commissioner welch commissioner mcoy aye commissioner edmonds aye commissioner robinson aye commissioner peers aye commissioner rogers aye commissioner worman aye and commissioner castro aye with a vote of 10 to 1 motion passes for a 60 day continuance next case zc-26-066 the address is 3550 Ulysses Main Street applicant is Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership Dan Clark Inc.

General Partners Coleman Hands the request is from Ag I Light Industrial and PD 14 PD 492 plan development specific use for petroleum supply distribution and truck transport storage and staging areas 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 uh although it's technically a rezoning 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 PD 492 which provides for trucking and some petroleum uses we're trying to clean that up and just have the whole site be light industrial 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 appreciate you guys taking the time and you have someone else signed up to speak with that to speak or they're just here for questions you're here for any questions.

Yeah okay thank you very much we have no one signed to signed up to speak in opposition commissioners you have questions okay seeing none thank you all for being here we will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion uh or a motion by commissioner edmonds seeing no discussion Mr.

Chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve CC 2606 eight I'm six six I'm sorry I have two revision this morning all right we have a motion to approve by commissioner edmonds and a second by commissioner rogers commissioners how do you vote Chairman Reigns aye commissioner mayo aye commissioner trajillo aye commissioner welchemer McCoy aye commissioner edmonds aye commissioner Robinson aye commissioner Pierce Commissioner Rogers aye commissioner castro aye the vote 110 motion passes next case zc-26-068 the address is 3136 and 3200 house anderson road applicant is oh and j coding scene j arturo andrade the request is from agricultural to I Light Industrial is the applicant present welcome to zoning commission hello uh my name is J.

Arturo 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 uh can you talk about what other options you might be exploring uh wait 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 can still gonna go for light industrial uh but we're gonna try to do the the right steps this time okay all right very good uh we're 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 afternoon everyone first I want to uh my name is Jeff Pointer I'm the chair of the president uh Moser Valley property owners association and I want to commend y'all for for thinking of Mosul Valley as a historical district because it is uh we've had the proper paperwork uh presented we've been awarded historical um uh district so uh community and uh I want to thank Ms.

People also she's been behind us very much on the zoning because it's kind of outrageous um you can see there the historical cemeteries there um just a couple of um maybe a block down and we've we've working with the with the um uh University of Texas and uh uh Fort Worth um um historical society we have created a full plan for the development we haven't brought it yet uh to uh up front yet but light industrial there it is just not gonna work and we will never ever be because we're gonna develop it we're gonna bring more homes in there we have enough industrial Moshe Valley from not being zoned just be a free fall that's basically over with this association and I do appreciate uh y'all um you know taking the time 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 uh um sentimental to all of us the city of Arlington on below the cemetery there uh we're preparing with them about uh some property that 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 whole 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 it's just it needs to be cleaned up for one so we know if it's from light industrial and then my my my um good um friend of mine owns a property right next door where they want to do the light industrial they're gonna develop housing there and then miss brown is on the other side rest of so uh her family's panel doing on some some housing there so we're coming but it just has been a 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 the association is it's registered with the state with the city with the county is recognized it's recognized historical community so it'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 the historical is historical uh ag that's part of Moshe Valley.

But they're already there and and 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 uh Fort Worth uh historical side you're gonna love it because we're gonna bring in more housing bring more people we got a new park coming in 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 the house recently but I am opposed to the uh rezoning of that property and uh we're already running into some issues there we recently built uh three one one three house anderson one of the first new homes constructed on the street in a decade or or m multiple decades possibly um and unfortunately uh after we built it will quickly became apparent that the existing O and J coatings 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 recurring 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 a property maybe used at times for temporary living or gathering spaces semi trucks parking across the roadway completely blocking traffic on the dead end it's on a dead end street and the s 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 at 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 rezoning request has occasionally hosted large gatherings and they can those events can go on into their 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 O and J Coatings 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 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 rezoning at 3136 and 320 House Anderson.

Thank you very much sir before you before you step down if I may it's in 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 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 sixty days I would we both would we'll see you speak up to the microphone please we I'm pretty sure we both would we're just gonna 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 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 got homes there and we can do some more development just for a living, you know, could be close that's we don't have very much left of Moshe Valley.

You know, so it's taking it steady encroaching what it's it's private down there.

He's right.

The the noise I've I've I heard about the burnouts, the the vehicles stacked up you got storage there that we don't you see just 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 c as a as a um the um association we're gonna 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 gotta dig deeper because we really want them to clean it up.

Thank you.

That's good.

Do you have any qu other questions for the opposition?

I meant so for the fellow commissioners.

Okay uh thank you very much uh 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 alter 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 continuance we are for the other case.

Okay.

I um if I may uh given the historic um history of Mosier Valley I'm very familiar with that area and it is deemed a historical landmark area um Mosier Valley is a very it's the first place is it's a 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 five.

So the way the way that I I see it and Beth I uh 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 interesting 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 different way 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 sixty days and I think that's a disrespect to that area and also to the historical value that is brought to the city of Fort Worth again that it's a 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 Mosher Valley.

Commissioner Evans what what were you thinking?

Well, I have a natural sympathy for people that aren't familiar with the process and ask for a continuance.

But in this particular case, the staff has made the strongest case for denial of all three incompatibilities.

And I see that zoning is it being incompatible in that location.

So I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no further discussion.

It's all yours, Commissioner.

Thank you.

I make a motion to deny.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds to deny and a second by Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Merman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of a 11 to zero.

Motion to deny.

Passes.

X case.

DC-26-069.

The address is 3201 House Anderson Road.

The applicant is O and J Coding's Inc., J Arturo and Drade.

The request is from Ag or AG Agricultural to A forty-three one family residential.

Welcome back, sir.

This one, if it's gonna get approved, I don't I don't have any comments.

You're just looking to change this from AG to uh A43 single family residence.

Yes, I was thinking about building my house there from property, but if the other ones get denied, I think I'm gonna have to find another place to uh conduct my business.

Are you asking to withdraw this case?

No no, just keep it for a pool.

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, I'm again.

Uh thank you.

Um we I'm just I'm I'm gonna stick with the same thing.

We're gonna I won't we're gonna I'm gonna pose this uh until um you know you really sit down with the association in the community like it's like a just man I I didn't even know he was gonna 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 a you move across the street to build a home.

Does that really stop anything?

F first we need to settle, you know what we got going on on other side getting that clean up here.

I don't think right now we really want to change anything to we can really sit down with it with him uh with the Mr.

Orange and uh the community and decide because that's what we're doing now.

We're coming together as a community on everything moving in Moser Valley.

We have to come together and agree on it.

And uh I think that's what I think we'll leave it at that for now because we we have some other issues um um uh which is saying um the surveys, you know, the is it actually that how many addresses is is is actually there.

You got you got um buildings there already, how are they gonna be tore down?

How are they gonna be torn down?

You know, things like that.

We really want to sit down with uh uh all the business owners.

Anytime we want to switch something uh in the community.

So we won't pose 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 uh um with the company and see exactly what they're trying to do.

Okay.

I don't understand that.

Um 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.

He wants it.

Yeah, um I'm I'm all I'll ask the applicant.

Hold on.

Let me yeah.

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 continuance.

Okay.

So excuse me, before you sit down, so you and your proposition is you want to deny it?

Yes.

Can I ask why?

I do want to deny it.

That's the why.

You want to ask why?

Well, I I was in Mosier 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, it was a he asked for residential yes.

Well, sorry.

So you're opposed to a residential use.

I'm not exactly I say opposed, but if we don't be because we have several other properties there where they've built four houses on one in one area like that.

And we don't know it, we have no idea of what's going to go there at this time.

So I would say I want to deny it.

You have to come back in and once he's set down, and if he only go back and redo it and wants to communicate once we speak with community, it's a little different then, but uh right now I just want to deny it until we further information.

Well, the reason I brought up continuance was in denial if we denied the case, then he would have to file a new case.

Right.

It's not a continuance.

Right.

That's what I would have.

You're asking for a denial, and what you sounds like you really want is you want a continuance 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?

Mm-hmm.

Well, that's not a denial, that's a continuance.

Well, he had to ask for the convention, so I'm gonna say no.

We can we can motion to continue it.

Okay, you can motion it.

But yes, we right now we just don't want to.

We can't let me uh let me ask you a couple questions.

So right now, uh this this is an ag property, and it's uh what's before us today is to rezone 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.

So this would start you down that path.

Um so if we were to continue it or deny it, that could possibly harm what you're trying to do, which is turn this all into 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 uh that does help clarify some.

So let's let's just say let's continue it until I speak with him on on to the community speaks with him on exactly what he wants to do.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may.

Jim, do you have a question for this gentleman?

I do, actually.

So, just want to make sure that you're aware, so this is a single family one acre 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 gotta come back and ask for a much smaller uh 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 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, um 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 that general sense up here is that this is worth moving forward um to continue with the council.

Understandable.

Um still I would like to um uh uh.

Okay, if there if there are no more questions, uh we'll go ahead and move this along because we're we're running out on running out of time here.

Just because make sure he understands that uh A43 is for building one house on one acre, which is one of the less intensive uses in residential 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 approved because we don't know the plans.

So even if it is only one house.

So if he does anything beyond that, then he's in violation.

Okay.

And once it's rezoned to what he's requesting residential, then there's different code compliance requirements for that too.

So if he's getting extra junk on the property, you know that's all no commercial, no s no store, no commercial none of that any in it.

Okay.

Thank you for uh clarifying.

Thank you very much.

Does that clear up your opposition?

Good.

And now at this time, I'm gonna 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 have the same opinion that I was trying to give that example there.

I 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 is we have him on record correct.

Okay, uh, it's all yours, sir.

In the case of uh ZC 26-069, I make a motion that we approve it.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Mayo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye, Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote eleven zero.

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.

The request from A 10 One Family Residential to A5, one family residential.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

My name is Steve Smith.

I'm with uh Nehemiah Development.

Um I'm here to request uh continuance to the next month.

We have met with uh the councilwoman on this.

We have met with leadership from the uh central Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association and the Meadowbrook 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 office.

Uh the neighborhood association asked us to continue this.

We have a meeting scheduled next Wednesday uh in the evening to uh to uh discuss our plans and talk about how this development uh what we anticipate it will be and get input for the neighborhood.

So that's we're requesting this be continue to the the August zoning commission.

And I'm 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 KC-26-073.

We ask for a continuance for 30 days.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Castro to continue to our August meeting and a second by Commissioner Warman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Hi.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote eleven zero, motion passes.

Next case, ZC-26-075.

The address is 604 Luxton Street.

The applicant is General Whitfield.

The request is from A5HC one 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 duplex between these two properties.

One side of my property is uh fourplex, and the other side of the property is uh eight-unit uh apartment complex.

I'm just trying to duplex in between it.

That's all I'm trying to you own the can you tell me again what which property you currently own?

A property six oh four Lux.

There's a fourplex on one side and an eight uh uh apartment eight 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 in that area right there?

It 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.

In the middle, right?

Okay.

And I am a builder here if you have any questions.

Okay.

Okay.

Alright, 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 uh my only comments were um 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 multi-families.

One's like a fourplex, 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 the general consensus is it makes sense because land use compatibility as staff notes, it is compatible, but it doesn't follow the comp plan and it doesn't follow the spirit of the rezoning, in my opinion, and it seems like the neighborhood the whole point of what you know doing that, um, rezoning 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 rezoning all this to begin with to A5.

So um, that that was that's 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 nonconforming.

Correct.

Yeah, they're legal non-conforming, so they're allowed to be there.

Um, but uh they're something happened.

Correct.

Unless they have to reboot.

Yeah, they are zoned A5, but they were already there first, so they're they're legal nonconforming.

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 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, uh, 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 rezone this to A5 because they wanted a single-family neighborhood, and now here we go, add multifamily 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 it looks like the neighborhood's trying.

So, um, so I would tend to want to think about it.

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.

That's it's a great it's win-win.

Uh I just 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 zone A5, but due to the the population growth, I agree with uh 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 in housing, 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 applicant's request if you're familiar with that area.

It's not out of place uh when you when you see it.

Uh and again, uh 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 is 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'd I'd lean more on your comments than than mine.

You're more familiar with the area.

Right.

Uh, and and perhaps it says something that there was no opposition to this case and that no one wrote in.

So I just wanted to share my my thoughts on it.

But the only downside I see, Commissioner, is um in all of our districts we've gone through rezoning.

I mean major rezoning in the past 10-15 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 say that that original that rezoning that we went through the council initiated rezoning but cooperating with neighborhoods uh that now we're kind of turning back the clock a little bit on that, because if either 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 rezoning.

Can you as staff can do you happen to have with you when these were rezoned and that happened?

These all went back to A5.

Is it 20 I believe it was 2007?

2007.

Right.

That's 20 years ago.

Yeah, it's the the area has changed.

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 we're 10.

We're yes, we're number 10, we're number 13.

This is 2022.

So it's bigger than new Austin.

Right, exactly.

So it's a major uh we need more housing.

Um, like I said, that area it it is it's also it is a historic area, um, and there's so many infill housing that's there.

Hopefully one day we will get housing development there, not as many infill housing, but you know, I feel like it does fit the the proper land use, and then I'm proud in 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.

A 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 that.

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 step.

All right.

So, I'll did you change my mind?

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 case ZC 26075, I move for approval.

Second.

All right, we have a we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Pierce and a second by who is that?

Commissioner Rogers?

Yes.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of it 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case, 26 , I'm sorry.

ZC-26-077.

The address is 2008 Edmonia Court.

The applicant's Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church.

Bruce Datcher.

The request is from CFCF slash SS, which is community facilities with a stop six overlay to BSS, two 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 taken place in stop six.

We have built other properties in the stop six community.

But what we're looking at is building a multi-generational where a traditional residential house in the front, maybe with a small house in the back that can be used for age and 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.

Any questions?

So we will go ahead and close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion, or a motion by Commissioner Evans.

Seeing no discussion.

And in view of the fact that you take such great care to come here and be with us today.

Thank you.

Alright, we have a motion uh by Commissioner Edmonds to approve and a second by Commissioner Mayo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Sir, if you wouldn't mind staying up here, I'm going to make a change on our order.

Let's just move case 26081 up.

Same applicant.

Go ahead and knock both of these out.

Next case is ZC-26-081.

The address is 1910 and 1912 Amanda Avenue.

The applicants is Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, Bruce Thatcher, and Jack Thieler.

The request is from A5 stop 6 overlay to B two family residential with a stop six overlay.

Same concept as well.

We put the single house in the front with a living quarters in the back.

And both of those lots, you know, side by side adjoined together on Amanda Avenue.

And also to bring some more uh affordable housing in the community as well.

Very good.

There is no one signed up to speak in opposition on this one as well.

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.

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, uh, Regina Blair, I believe.

Well, that's probably yes.

I I have communicated with Ms.

Blair by email, but Ms.

Blair and 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-by-side duplex.

And that's not what we're doing.

As I stated to her, I have built over 12 houses there in the stop six 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 at community, I've worked to try to improve the stop six community.

As a matter of fact, I was the genesis for bringing the Whitsey, the workforce innovation training center in collaboration with the Fort Worth Housing and Aetna 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 close the public hearing and leave it open for discussion or a motion by Commissioner Edmonds.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, the case is EC26081.

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.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Hi.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case on the agenda is SP.

Sorry, Sash for messing y'all up.

Is SB-26-009?

The address is 6251 Stevenson Oaks Drive.

Applicant is MRC Senior Living Fort Worth, Chuck Steele, JM Civil Engineering, Andre Suttiono.

The request is to amend the site plan for PD 1174 plan development to revise the skilled nursing facility building.

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 two 34-bed traditional nursing home.

Since COVID, the world has changed, and what we do.

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 five percent 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 gonna 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 um want to uh make a motion to approve SP 26009.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Robinson and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairman Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trajillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Warman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case.

ZC-26-080.

The address is 406 and 408 Diamond Avenue.

The applicant is Cooper Congo Group LLC, town site, Mary Nell Pool.

The request is from J D U D D Medium Industrial Downtown Urban Design District Overlay, Samuels Avenue, Rock Island Character Zone to R1 D U D D Zero Lot Line Cluster Residential, Downtown Urban Design District Overlay, Samuels Avenue, Rock Island Character Zone.

Mr.

Cogger, welcome to Zion Commission.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name is Cooper Conger, 251 Sunset Lane, Fort Worth, Texas.

We are proposing to rezone this property at 406 and 408 Diamond Avenue from medium industrial to R1 residential.

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 for industrial currently, but the surrounding properties and surrounding community is purely single family residential, as you see from this aerial view.

And then that's the future land use for the properties surrounding it, are also of a of a mixed use.

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 is this is this residential use.

These are smaller lots, as you can tell, they're pretty skinny, about 46 feet on one of them and 38 feet on the other.

So they all they are smaller.

So we're proposing these two-story cute little houses here with surface parking that'll fit on these smaller, narrower lots, 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, 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?

A larger 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 we went with that R1 zoning code.

Questions, Commissioner Rogers?

All right, very good.

Thanks, sir.

I 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.

C C 26080.

Second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Rogers and a second by Commissioner Werman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Commissioner Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds?

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 11 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case.

ZC-26-082.

The address is 5851 North Freeway.

Applicant is Brookhollow 1170 LP.

Moji Hadad.

Of Chido, Madeline Capshaw.

The request is from G I 35 West Light Industrict, intensive commercial I-35 South Overlay District.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

My name is Madeline Capshaw.

I am with Upichido, located at 1008 Macon Street in Fort Worth on Suite 101.

And we're here today requesting a zoning change for the property located at 5851 North Freeway.

So this is some of the site context current currently.

It is that G Intensive Commercial Proposed Zoning is light industrial, with the proposed use being a Class A warehouse cluster of buildings.

The intention is that we would meet all of the standards of I-35 overlay district with loading screen from I-35, which is important with some of the community engagement that we did.

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 I zoning.

This is the 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 it 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 Councilman Flores.

We received pretty positive feedback from everybody 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 rezoned to I'm and I'm here to answer any questions.

Do you have someone else sign up to speak?

A 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 gonna be traffic and large trucks because if they're coming from the north, we're gonna have to ask exit western center, go through that light, just to get down the road to where they're located.

There's no offering to work with these uh area is already pretty congested as it is, so you have a plan for traffic.

Um we are pretty early in the process, but some of the engagement that we did to get the neighborhood, um, they requested that we don't put any traffic onto Old Denton to the south.

Um, so what you can see is 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's something else that we need to consider.

Okay.

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 or a motion by Commissioner Trujillo.

How are you feeling about this one?

So the biggest concern is gonna be the traffic that it adds to Western Center, and you know, how do we ensure that they don't take Western Center back roads to come around to get to it?

That's a big concern because those streets aren't very big and yeah, it's semi eyes to them.

We can have 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 was that would be my biggest concern having an industrial, you know.

Like we've had two other cases like that today, you know, uh 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 opposition.

All the people that live there.

Some warehouses right there on the south of the site, too, but they usually access from room out, I believe.

The next road off 820 itself, which is easier access.

If your biggest opposition your biggest opposition point is traffic, if that was commercial, um, I think that there would be more traffic.

Right?

Am I thinking about this wrong?

Oh, when you look at the aerial view, it um it doesn't look like a good fit.

Because it's so close to residential and the traffic is an issue and uh it's not compatible with any of our guidelines, according to staff.

Yeah, my land use standpoint and and the the future land use map, yeah, doesn't fit.

That's why I'm saying I'm surprised the neighborhood didn't come out in opposition.

It could be a noticing issue.

Well, I mean, I I know we notice uh, you know, we do know we do that.

Some modifying exactly outside the 300 feet.

Oh yeah, that's true.

Yeah.

That's part of why everybody should sign up.

From the city of Fort Worth.

Get your notices.

For your council district, not just your house.

Yeah.

Um it's very landlocked.

You can use Mark 4 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 that 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 any sort of kickback or pushback 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's it uh the the my other uh another opinion is is just it's it's been Jake, we've talked about this before, or Commissioner Worman, sorry.

You can call me J.

Well yeah, you know, when we when we lose commercial property, it's gone.

And so uh, you know, it rarely gets rezoned commercial.

Um so you know, being that this is surrounded by commercial, you know, to give that up to industrial.

Uh and I'm an industrial guy, so I'm definitely not anti-industrial.

Um but uh it just seems like this location isn't the right fit for something like this.

I'm just surprised there was an opposition.

Okay, I'm ready.

Ready?

Is there?

All right.

So for Z Z 26-082, I move for denial.

Second.

We have a motion to deny by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Warman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairman Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Mayo.

Commissioner Trujillo.

I.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds?

All right, Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 11 to 0.

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 two one six five three 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, 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 1, 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, established 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.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me back.

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.

And if you have questions at the end, I'm happy to answer that.

So Jessica McAkron, Assistant City Manager that works with the Development Services Department.

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.

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 well versed in what is a data center.

We've heard a lot of talk about them for quite a while now, especially here in Texas.

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 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 start 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 most visible things that a city has the authority to regulate, and that is with 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, 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.

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, 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 uh the uh uh sorry, 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 Tarrant Regional Water District, who is our raw water supplier.

DRWD 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 if TCEQ 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 TCEQ.

Because TCEQ and the state set all of those rules, we have no ability or authority to set any regulations beyond what the state sets.

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.

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 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.

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 state alone 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 average 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 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 that the first phase was built 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 on a tract of 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, because they all four have their zoning in place in order to construct.

All four have 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 extraterritorial 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, it's also to the school districts, to the county, the hospital taxing district, Tarrant 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.

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.

It's worth noting two of these data centers are adjacent to residential.

And 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 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, 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 two, just a water standpoint and resources, any development that is constructed in Terrant 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 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.

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 water is discharged from a site, what goes into the wastewater treatment system, and ultimately that is discharged later on into our streams and rivers.

We hear a lot again about the availability and this 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, 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 overproliferation.

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 Terrant Regional Water District attend 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.

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, 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 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, 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.

Alright, 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, 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, and again, 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 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.

So the front setback would be 20 feet if the development fronts residential, so across the street.

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 I light industrial to three stories or 55 feet.

For medium and heavy industrial, that max height limit is 12 stories or 120 feet.

Landscaping and buffers are required on 4% of the net site 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 feet of a residential district, and I have that word underline.

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 underword, the underlined word district.

So right now, this is how our zoning ordinance is written.

But in the last legislative session, 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 multifamily 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 feet from all residential uses and districts.

Again, that covers SB 840 potential developments.

We would propose to allow parking and driveways within that supplemental setback of that 250 feet.

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 developers and operators as well as some of the citizen groups that again realize 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.

By the way, for a lot of these, we looked at other city standards as well, and then a lot of the citizen feedback for how we got to this list.

So I'll note that.

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 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, and 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 we know early on is related to the outdoor lighting right now, and 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 cutoff 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 that people enjoyed seeing because they could they could see what do we actually need 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 uh because it's so small on that larger screen, but that slanted text between the standby generators and 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 side-by-side 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 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 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 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, and 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 screen.

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 uh we hadn't spoke in the work session.

I'd like to give uh kudos to um the uh 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 uh 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.

Uh power technology is continuously evolving with battery backups and everything, and watered 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.

And you've taken a lot of uh risk mitigations techniques and strategies, and I just want to say thanks.

It's good.

Thank you.

Our stuff has worked incredibly hard on this, and and we've had the 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 afford 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're recommending today are rules that we feel are the best practice for Fort Worth 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 so 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 they're 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 and IKA and J.

Correct, yeah.

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 takes that backs aside.

Noise is probably the next largest concern that we hear along with water and energy.

So water we're solving for, noise we're 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.

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 of things we discussed in the workshop, uh, Chessler.

Um we talk about noise.

We're in the city, we're normally talking about music, or 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, 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 systems 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 v 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 me to have one on our military complex we don't have a problem with that um we have one that's self-contained for 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 not sure that one size fits 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 and 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.

Our entire noise ordinance today is built on the decibels 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 meetings coming up with our staff where we can learn more about the the C-weighted and tr 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 was saying 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.

Um 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 sight of that I don't believe I agree.

Thank you.

I would make the uh common if I'm sorry go ahead now sorry commissioner no go ahead you went first.

The comment that I want to make is jumping off you mentioned a couple times that noise is not part of zoning.

Yeah in the ordinance it talks about acoustic screen twice.

So that's kind of a cascading issue that would overlap with code compliance is my understanding that code compliance is not carry instrumentation for measuring 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.

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.

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, and 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.

But really, what happens is when a development is being proposed, when they have their site design team designing it, they're doing 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 Max standard is going to be.

And that's the plan that then they submit with their um along with their building permit.

My 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 decibel.

Is that correct?

Say the question again, I'm not sure I'm understanding.

Our noise ordinance today is built on the frequency uh DBA, A-weighted sound.

Correct, but 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?

Okay.

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 uh I know back in 2000 and then all the microwave tire uh 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, it'll build 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've I've always wondered that that impact was at 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 an everything and uh and just technology in general.

Your banking is online.

The grocery store, even if I think I'm not using it directly because I'm paying cash at the grocery store, the grocery source systems may or may not be using AI, I won't say that, but 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.

I guess for 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 gonna be real honest.

My personal opinion is if we don't have our regulations here for Fort Worth, that's fine, they're gonna 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 kinda?

Yes, right, yeah.

Right, any other questions?

Clarifications?

All right.

Thank you all, actually.

Thank you very much, sir.

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 of 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 primary?

No, well, you know what?

I'm gonna 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.

But you have to look at the whole uh aspect of the project itself to determine whether or not uh something is a primary accessory use.

So in theory, that could be fifty percent, forty-nine percent, right?

Well, 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 gonna 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 I I can't think of what's the use, but that's not compatible.

Uh uh they put in the mechanic shop, right?

That is still an enforceable 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 that he 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.

Those are some kind of checks once it's in place to enjoy the safe.

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, so someone uh submits plans to build a data center, uh, they get approval, build the data center, uh 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 CEO and they stop operating.

Would that be how that would be that would be enforcement, whether or not that is a lawsuit itself, an injunction of some sort.

Okay, see, all right, very good.

What is the distinction on primary then if crypto is not allowed?

Yeah.

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, better example.

Let me say it this way.

Um, so let's say the the data center, a developer comes in and they tell us, okay, we're gonna 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 gonna 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?

So it's a necessary form of the debate.

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 agree that it shouldn't be the primary use.

But hypothetically, Terrant County College, I mean I don't know that they have a data center, but I'm gonna 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 data 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 gonna defer.

Wait, currently the way the proposed ordinance reads, all it just says is cryptocurrency is not allowed.

That's all it says.

Oh, okay.

So it doesn't say anything with regards to a primary use or anything like that.

So it's not something that 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.

So there's some confusion there.

Yeah, because the way that the way the amendment probably be tidied up.

If I could one moment, the text amendment reads cryptocurrency mining prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts.

Is that correct?

That's what my that's what my paper says.

That is what the proposed ordinance states.

Okay.

So crypto mining would not be allowed in the proposed amendment.

I'm not sure where that the other stuff came out.

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, and so there we go.

So my slide needs to have that as primary use removed.

Yeah, we're we're gonna 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 that's what's in front of us, that's what we're gonna go with.

Um that's what we're gonna 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, is so far they want to be good neighbors, and so we've given them all of these on our proposed and said, Hey, will you still do this anyway?

And they so far again have said yes.

But if they don't say yes, 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 is just telling them hey if you want to be annexed in the future you really need to play by these very specific rules.

Alright I'll come back your Scott on.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate Jessica and we'll uh we'll bring you back up at the end if we need some clarification after the opposition.

Hey could you actually can you leave your slide up and go back to the one that uh compares what's currently the regulation I think that's an important slide that we can we'll point to.

And before I I call 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 the city government welcome.

We are a little bit different than council.

And those of you that have been here before 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.

But we typically off five minutes and then allow the opposition seven minutes and that's not seven minutes each that's seven minutes for the entire opposition.

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.

So we gave city more time we're giving you more time as well.

All we do ask is that uh try not to just repeat what the last person said.

We are all volunteers we are not paid to be here.

We don't work for the city.

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 uh like the authority we have uh which is almost none and so 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 decibels 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 so again thank you for being here um please try and keep your comments brief there are 22 of you we've never had that many um so thanks for being here uh 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 ahead and I'll name a couple people at the same time so y'all can start lining up.

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 that.

Uh we'll go with uh Miss Faith first, and then followed by I've got uh Lydia Faith, uh, followed by a Ronnie McCollum and a Fran McCollum, and we'll start there.

Welcome.

Hi, um my name is Lydia.

I'm a member of the Fort Worth Environmental Coalition of Communities, FWECC, and I'm urging y'all to put the data centers as heavy industrial.

So for decades, Fort Worth has rezoned black and brown neighborhoods from residential to industrial, actively poisoning community members.

These neighborhoods like Echo Heights, Stop Six, North Side, 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 gonna 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 gonna get the resources for this data center?

It's already coming, it's gonna 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, it 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 I, 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 impact 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 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 Barney McCollum, and uh I live in uh district four, you know, 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.

Um I worked all my I'm a retired engineer and I've spent all my life in public service, so I I sort of know what you guys deal with in 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 all the chatter that's that's about.

So I would like to just um since you are also our 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 or clearly defined.

And it takes a while.

I understand that it's it's gonna be a living document from from now on.

And uh for instance, what Mr.

Edmonds 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 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.

And after Fran, we'll get Oliver, uh Oliver Plant.

Figure uh Michael uh Rawlson and then uh Miss Sharma.

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're 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 uh 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 gonna say that that's one of my concerns, just the fact that they are hyperscale figure 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 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 sub to dry or whatever.

So um the pa the water use of the total total campus, okay.

I assume that we have an overlay district so that we can impose some regs.

Uh, it seems to me like that's what I've been reading night and day, and at least I know what overlay district is, but 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 mean, you know, isn't there some regulation if you have an overlay district over the industrial one?

There's base zoning that uh this would sit on if as proposed, it would sit under IJ and K zoning, and then we're they're proposing additional regulations for data centers.

Yes.

Uh, the way the language is now, very little regulation, almost none.

If it's treat them the same as industrial, so um what the city is proposing is a lot of additional regulations specific for uh 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 decibel 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 decibels louder than the surrounding.

But again, is that counting the structures all around it that generate now in the the decibel stuff again?

And I know you want to talk about it, but the we can't we can't have any control over that, unfortunately.

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 24-7.

I like that.

Okay, closed loop again, it's not everything.

Okay, so um increasing the setback then.

Uh the very thing that 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 think, okay, so that alone for 400 feet.

I would say 400 feet would be the minimum if you're only looking at that.

Or it's gonna be hard to do acoustic enough, even though I love their acoustic idea.

Um, 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 started up with a couple of servers, say 200 servers.

It's gonna 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 gonna 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 hasn't.

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 it's gonna happen.

So again, two or three miles might be better.

Just honestly saying okay.

Thank you very much.

Sure, there's more.

Thank you for listening.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh Oliver.

And after Oliver, we have uh Michael Ruhlman and Mbika Sharma.

I think I spoke to Dave.

I'm sorry if I'm getting your names wrong.

Good afternoon, my name's Oliver Plant.

For 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 335 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, Professor Wren of UC Riverside, growing demand for AI could push the annual public health burden of U.S.

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 1,300 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 begin reporting lung irritation, breathing difficulties, and construction dust settling over houses and playgrounds.

While weekly tests to back backup diesel generators spike local nitrogen oxide levels, worsen the areas elevated childhood asthma rates.

While childhood asthma rate is up to 23.6.

And in the whole state of Texas, 108 hospital businesses for 100,000 people is reported due to asthma.

Does 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 Fahrenheit, making life hotter for more than 340 million people in the country.

Is 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.

We want our children to experience such horrible events.

Now imagine constant buzzing 24-7.

This is yet again one of the issues.

Is the fact that noise pollution is linked to poor cognition, increased learning, and lower reading comprehension of children.

Is this really what we want for ourselves and our children?

Um I've heard north of Dallas for two years, cattle stillbursts 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, 24-7 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, is I heard about property values, our taxes.

Well, all this pollution that data centers think ranking, I would think that would go with property values.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh Michael.

And then after Michael, yeah, Miss Sherma.

This thing around.

Is this working?

Yes, we 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 with my chop my arm off while they're doing it.

With this current regulation.

We I went to um the meeting where they're 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 moratorium.

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 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 we should have regulations on the feet that data centers be able to 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 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 Descartes.

Uh and then uh Esme.

Am I getting that part right at least?

Alright, very good.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ambika Sharma.

Uh, I'm gonna 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 are 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 sweet 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.

Those of those can take you places, but they're vastly different use cases and different price point.

Um, so the AI data center that I am in against and I'm against of right now.

I'm just asking for a moratorium 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 under 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's 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 CPU-based data center, central processing unit.

If you have a laptop, I'm sure 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 of 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 centers, 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 gonna give you like noise canceling because it's gonna 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's 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 it what it is.

And second, uh, is my second non-negotiable is because these are heavy industrial, these should be at minimum one mile radius when it comes to residences, when it comes to hospitals, when it comes to um uh uh schools.

Right, thank you, Ms.

Tess.

Ms.

T.

Um, so those are the two I'll leave you all because I wanna 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, Kim.

Hello, my name is uh Kent DeCardness.

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 see 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 that I've heard probably five or six times, having heard it originally to the city council and listened to it multiple times in recording.

Um treating all data centers is the same as 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 IJ and K districts, hyperscale 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 f effects of low frequency noise.

We should, for noise reduction reasons, require tier four 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 four, 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 one-foot 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's certain uh ordinances within our current zone where standards get dropped if there's a street in between uh 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 areas 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 or 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, Kevin.

Yes, we have to ask me as uh Letitia.

Hello.

Uh my name is Esmi Suniga, thank you very much.

Uh, real quick, a little bit of 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 where I was talking to I'm the infra-sound 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 infra sound, 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 gonna listen to it and you can put a data center 250 feet 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 enforceable.

So my worry is that when people call to have complaints about these data centers, they're going to be told by their council member, oh well, it's not legally enforceable because that's what we've been told about FedEx, and they're 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 also whoever wrote the wording on this, I'm sorry, it it says that um prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts.

Does that mean it's allowed in residential districts?

No, they're only allowed right now in right by ride, IJ and K.

So there's perhaps 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, Ms.

Walborn, and we'll have uh Krista RB.

Because to me, y'all are treating this like it's Disneyland, and it's not this is a data center.

Look at what happened, what's happening in Memphis, Tennessee.

And in Sunday's paper, according to uh Mattis Parker, Good Nature Green Space Institute, we are losing 50 acres a week of prairie, and most of this land is going to data centers.

Um, y'all don't have anything.

I'm looking at the regulations, like Esma said y'all 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's the way this is set up.

I'm looking at uh light industrial.

Fort Worth is an industrial city, and most minority communities, most low-income 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 redlining that y'all refuse to drop.

This is serious, y'all put in black mountain next to a landfill with gas.

Okay, that's next to a community that's next to a garden in an 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.

Ms.

Wilburne, can we stick to the topic and not call out 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 a 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 glow grow and grow and grow.

Some of us who are old enough remember remember this movie called The Blob.

Anybody remember that movie?

It was this big red piece of gel that it rolled 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 affects animals.

Y'all don't have anything up there about animals.

Y'all don't have anything about day character.

Y'all are not doing anything to protect children or senior citizens.

What about pregnant women?

The noises that they hear is going to affect their babies.

They're 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 policy 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 are allowed to do whatever they want to do.

Matter of fact, I think Miss Weston said y'all pass that at 10 a.m.

in the morning.

People said, what?

Some people are still asleep at 10 a.m.

So it's like there's no transparency.

It's 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 in for 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.

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 gonna protect these data centers in these communities?

I mean, these communities, right?

We're homes over these status centers.

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 met with fire to come up with this is the zoning commission, so if you could stick to the subject, I'm just talking about regulations.

That should be on y'all's regulations.

What's gonna happen?

You're speaking about things though that we can't rule on.

And so I'm just saying y'all's regular.

Your comments are very valid, but they're more for city council to hear for you know uh the the Texas don't have the regulations.

Y'all don't actually regulate that for y'all's regulations.

You don't do that, and also we keep hearing on y'all's regulations.

We can hear hearing y'all talk about closed loop.

Have y'all heard about what happened in Cheyenne.

Wyoming?

They closed loop?

How it close, Luke?

I 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 enforceable.

All y'all are doing basically, y'all saying and y'all still crypto is fan, but y'all have all of this, and y'all still they dispanded, unless it's for specific purposes or whatever.

So it either is uh is an oxymoron.

What's going on here?

So I'm just saying this is not this land, 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 solution issues that y'all are not giving one fellow being out 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, it's not affecting Richard.

It's not affecting people that live on golf courses.

It's uh disaffected 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 is updated, but we all know the city of Fort Worth don't care.

That's just the Fort Worth weight, which is red line.

Alright.

Thank you for your comments, Krista.

And the next we'll have Anne Zeta.

My name is Krista Irby.

I'm here representing the 2871 community coalition.

We want to address the specific amendments before you today and what we believe 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 feet 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 unenforceable.

Finally, prohibiting cryptocurrency mining only is not sufficient.

It fails to account for other high-intensity uses with the exact same concerns like AI training facilities, high performance commuting computing facilities, and blockchain validating facilities, which also require 24-hour operation, extreme power consumption, 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're 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 Edmonds for voicing some of these concerns, and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

And after Miss Sada, 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 for 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 mentioned 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 management and emissions and management.

The recommendations 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.

Fort Wars 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 Wars recommendations and ensure that Fort Worse 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 Steven, we'll have Mr.

Hogan.

Hello, Chairman and board.

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 who's done that.

Uh, but I spoke to a couple of acousticians that are on a national council of acousticians uh consults.

They're like a it's just like a huge conglomerate of a bunch of acousticians that come together every year and talk about uh basically the environment and how uh we're just kind of trashing it and polluting it.

Um so they write papers, they're peer-reviewed, 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, they're 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 uh a couple of data center developers, um, and then they kind of just um voted them out of 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 feet as a blanket is not appropriate.

So, for example, I was in Red Oak, um, at Compass Campus.

They don't have uh 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.

Recording at 250 feet from that facility is right across the street is residents.

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, 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 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 building, how the size of the building.

You can scale this, you can scale the noise by by uh 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 gonna be different right now in June or July, right now we're in July, yeah.

So it's gonna be different.

So you can't have a 72-hour baseline study for the noise ordinance and then be like, well, we're gonna do 250 feet, but you don't even know what those baselines are yet.

So putting a 250 feet uh set back 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 uh limits need to be um whenever you whenever that happens you can uh propose these regulations and scale them per facility.

Um, for for generators, as uh my colleague has mentioned, they uh they need to be a certain type um for noise monitoring because I know you can do that.

Um you can add regulation into 24-7 monitoring.

The federal government monitors their own data centers 24-7.

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 get 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 could 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 or per, you know, per um data center site uh development.

Um again, and scale, because some of these fillers are small, some of them are huge.

Definitions need to be added, right?

Hyperscale, co-location, 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've I have a meeting with people here.

So it's just like they're 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 y'all'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 uh more.

More here.

Amen.

Sorry.

Hello again.

Excuse me.

Uh I am too.

Uh back in the day when we had gas 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 gonna protect our city during the gas 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.

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 the cryptocurrency mining prohibiting the use in all non-residential districts, but then up above it says non-residental 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 gonna 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, 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 moratorium, but we need to look at this.

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 dais, and 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 to.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Uh we've got Aemon up next, and then we've got Jackson and Sue Weston.

Reading zoning commission.

Uh my name is Eamon 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 gonna 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 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 five 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 uh 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 y'all.

Thank you, Amy.

All right, uh, we've got Jackson and then Sue up next.

Good afternoon, I'm Jackson Weston.

Um, thank y'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 data 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 Cypress should be used.

Evergreens in general, like Eamon 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 on the I've been a CPA for forty six years, so you kind of get in some of the 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 is really come behind us with the historic designation.

I can't imagine that it could ever be voted on that it 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 uh mortar versus it's Portland now.

And they say that just the vibrations from the data centers will just continue to shake the w 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 Ms.

Weston your vision and and everything you've done in this garden this is more this is more beautiful than Monet's garden in Paris.

I said have you been there?

'Cause 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 Chong uh Carlos Silva.

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 sown it industrial, it's for producing something.

The use here is generative a AI.

I 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 twenty years.

I mean it's true right like the internet has been around since the nineties that 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 the city's making because this is a technological revolution that it's a different kind of technology that uses resources very differently and 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 prohibitive AI training and use as a primary use.

Now then the 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 you are those GPUs or 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 uh part of that holistic viewpoint is resource use, but also economic um, you know, when we talk about the economy 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 gonna 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 those 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 intelligent 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, and then that is our last speaker.

Josh Lucas.

Um I haven't spoken to this committee or spoke to anyone in this room before.

But I'm here today, as 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 gonna be fought over water.

That's what the experts say.

So having a data center that uses up all our water, I mean, what what are we gonna do when Fort Worth runs out of water?

I mean, that's that's what we're looking at.

And it the precedence is set.

If we have one data center, and we do all these regulations, and it's all hunky door, honky 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 the I guess the other issue is the health aspect, because the low note is causing terrible things to happen uh to one's health.

So that's the kicker.

I mean, if I would ask you to recommend something as 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 O'Leary, yes, the one from Shark Tank in Utah can raise temperatures by five degrees in the day and twenty-eight 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 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 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, in terms of electricity, quote from rooters, uh, for years, electricity costs for the Bell and Brick Company in Sugar Creek, Ohio have 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's 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, my uh 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 gonna 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 I has anybody heard of the insect apocalypse.

Anybody up there?

I want you to be aware of something.

I've spent all my um retired time looking as the 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.

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.

Alright.

Um commissioners.

Uh I think asking for comments from specific individuals might be challenging.

So does anybody have something specific they wanted to talk to about with somebody before I close the public hearing?

We're gonna give city staff one more chance to come up.

That's part of the rules that we have set up.

If she has anything else she wants to say to close this out.

But uh before we go, uh 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 y'all taking time out of your day to come uh let us hear your thoughts.

Uh, 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.

Uh we take that stuff very seriously too.

Uh, but we know that this text amendment is a lot bigger than that, uh, and it affects a lot more people.

So uh we do appreciate it.

Um however we decide.

Some of you are not gonna like it, some of you are gonna love it, and there's gonna 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 gonna make our best decision.

So I hope you know.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to say as you coming forward, um person really makes a difference in this hall.

I mean, I listened 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 uh 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 slight change in the distance um setbacks 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 until 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 on 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 moratorium, but we do have a pause on AI Center 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 last at your brief.

I was just gonna say, exactly.

I I've listened to everything, I've taken tons of notes.

We also have the, you know, nearly a 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, but also elsewhere, we are still talking to cities 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 uh 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 or staff before we move an order discussion?

Okay, excellent.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Yes, I have a question.

Okay.

So 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 gonna add those words to the so I think?

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 uh I think it was more dealing with the uh cryptocurrency?

Yeah, so like on this slide, for example, says prohibit cryptocurrency modules.

I can answer primary use.

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's 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 McCall.

Chairman, the chairman.

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, but 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 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 recommendation 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 gonna 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.

And 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 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 differently.

Am I correct in assuming that you would the this it would be helpful um if not necessary for us to be pretty specific in our recommendation as in if we were to approve this and we were to say, but we don't like the term 50 feet, we recommend five thousand feet.

Like that we need to be pretty specific, correct.

I would recommend that, yes.

So any uh what I mean it's just not being general, like well, the city should better define 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 at 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 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 suppliers are creating different ways not to even use water in a in a closed loop system.

So yeah, it sounds like you've 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 so I mean that's the way I'm looking at it's uh start.

Yes, absolutely, framework for moving forward in this whole yeah.

Uh I I don't I I would hope I'm not uh alone in that whatever we come up with, whatever we recommend, and we're not gonna be a hundred percent in agreement between all these different people up here.

But whatever we ultimately recommend uh in 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's decided this isn't the end.

You know, that we'll continue 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 gonna 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, um, 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 that in that a lot more should probably be thought about.

Um, that said, 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 if we were to delay our piece of this, there are still the other regulations that are going to go before council, and it would leave out zoning.

So I don't think that that's helpful.

I don't think us stonewalling here helps that at all, because there are still these big picture things like your noise regulation, your water wastewater regulation, your economic development piece, those can still be voted on.

You would just be delaying the zoning piece.

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 slowdown.

And you all this is just one person's opinion.

We have other people up here that are about to speak too.

But uh the slowdown can happen next month as well.

Um 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 IJ and K industrial uses.

Um so 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, uh as we are better informed.

Um, so I I say all that to say I hear you on slow down.

Um the second thing is um there's 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 I would recommend that we double that uh uh step back to from 250 to 500.

Um and in doing so, um the standby generators 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 IJ and K.

I would propose that we limit that to just J and K, 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, talking about water.

Um 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 now.

That's why it's in K.

So I do think that while you know some people might why are they talking about this stuff that's not doing zoning?

I do think that there's a link that's important that we put 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 a bit of a fear of this is gonna sound crazy, maybe, but uh if we over-regulate this, if we make this, if we put in a two-mile uh standard setback, which some people in this room would probably love, um if we start doing those things, we're effectively saying don't build in Fort Worth 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 gonna 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 uh I I think there is a strong case to be made to do that so um that is all 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 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 the 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.

And that's we'll make a note of that.

If you want to see the the setback 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 we are gonna 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 gonna have to do uh is we're gonna have 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 uh deciphering those down before because it's gonna take a minute to make a motion because we're gonna have unless we're just voting the straight up or down which uh I don't know that how responsible that is 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 five o'clock we all turn into pumpkins and go home.

Yeah.

We spent four months deliberating the stockyards amendments and we're gonna do this in five minutes.

I have a problem with that.

Well I don't know that it's gonna be five minutes.

Well no but it is I mean it's after five we'd be kicked out of here by the we won't we've already asked the uh police department to let us stay well he so we're not gonna be kicked out there is there is I a little bit and it's not a pressure thing we can come up with every 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 just feels very under the gun.

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 Chairman I think I think what the commissioner's saying though is that um it may take some time to digest what we've heard.

And that maybe what we need to do is consider having a call 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.

Then 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 that that uh that process just doesn't seem uh efficient.