Aug 04, 2015 City Council on 2015-08-04 1:00 PM

All right, this is it's 1 0 5 on Tuesday, August the 4th. We're calling the work session for the Denton City Council to order a quorum is present. We're meeting today at the City Hall at the work session room. And I'm here because our esteemed mayor is in route back from a fishing trip to Alaska. We understand that. I don't know if he caught any fish, but we know that the grizzly bears did not catch him. So, so at least is that is concerned it's successful. To talk a little bit about this evening, he will probably be back and has had asked that we consider rearranging our schedule for our regular open session and rearranging the order and moving the consideration of the gas well ordinance to the last item, because he thinks he would be back and able to participate in that discussion and a vote if we are able to get to that tonight. So, with your indulgence is that all right. And probably what we would do is, is when he arrives, we would call a recess, and I will go back to a more comfortable chair, and they will, they can reset the board in order to have us record votes and do that the way it needs to be done, I'd have to sit in this chair up there because I have to see who's queuing up. Who's queuing up to speak, because that's the only monitor where you see that. Are we good with that. The first item is citizen comments on the consent agenda. Mr. Manager. The next item is request for clarifications on consent agenda items. Yes sir Mr Johnson. Thank you Mr Mayor pro temp. I have one item H. And my question is a simple one just. It's a. You want to wait call somebody George. So my question is just simply so this is an agreement between University of Texas at Arlington and the city didn 't just want to throw out there to know if either of our local universities have the same capability of so give them the opportunity to look at it. If I could, Mr Johnson yes john fortune if he would address this I know that we've worked with you today for a long time on this project. Yeah, I don't know if this particular project is a continuation of some work that you T has been worked and started some time ago and so I don't know specifically if you and T or T.W. could have picked that up. But I know very specifically you T.A. has a program that's geared to do this and so we'll certainly be happy to look at that in the future but I don't believe that would work this time. Okay, thank you. Other questions. All right. The next item. There's a question we're going to have both as work session items and as closed session items discussions on nominations for city boards and commissions and at least some of them. And then discussion on the gas well what's the pleasure of the council would you rather do the work session items and the open session first or do close session and then go into open session. Well I see one of each. Specifically on the gas well. It should be helpful to do the close first. Okay, both of our members in of that committee. Still prefer open. We're gonna do them both right. Yeah, it's just a question of order. Just a question of order. I think it might help the open session. To have the briefing and possession first. Okay. Okay. What about the nominating on boards and commissions. We have an updated sheet. What are we discussing during the work session with the nomination. I don't know it's, it's there just so if we need to discuss we can. Okay. Really I'm indifferent to that one too. I just thought where we left the last time talking about boards and commissions given some of the specific role requirements and stuff we're trying to get back to. I thought we're left last time was that we would have a closed session to discuss some of those specific requirements and whether or not we wanted to vary from those at all replacement capabilities. So to me, I think the benefits to do the closed first. Okay , to get clarification on those some of those specific requirements as far as industry capability in that and then have the open after verification. Miss Briggs. I wasn't sure that that we could discuss those in closed session. Legal, we certainly cannot discuss advisory boards in close session. That's absolutely right, but we can discuss government. Okay. So there's a limit to what we can discuss in closed session. All right, seeing that there's no enormous objection, then we will hold on work session reports, a and b, and go at this time in the closed session will convene in closed session at 110. And we will consider the following deliberations of real property under gov Texas government code. Back in open session, we have a couple of workshop shop items left to do work session reports and item three a receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding nominations to the city boards and commissions and we have our nomination sheet and we might want to work through that and if any members want to have need to make any changes and anything make any changes. If you don't mind, I'll just go down to the list. Airport. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was trying to let you sit down. Oh, I need to stand a little bit. All right. Secretary Airport Advisory Board. Mr. Rodin. I'm going to re nominate Stu Morehead. Thank you. Community Development Advisory Committee. Councilmember Rodin. I'll be nominating Adam Haseley H a S L E Y. Okay. Mayor pro tem. Oh, you're you don't have that one yet. Hist oric one mark. Human Services Advisory Councilmember Rodin. Renominating Yesenia Centilla. She's currently serving current I'll just put current general fix it for me. Councilor Mayor pro tem Gregory. Do you have someone for human services? No. Okay. Councilmember Rodin Library Board. Renominating Patrick McLeod. He's currently serving. Okay. Parks and Recreation Councilmember Rodin. This is the punishment for not turning this in earlier. Renominating Vicki Bird. Currently serving. Public Art Committee Councilmember Rodin. Renominating Glenn Ferris Squibbs. Currently serving. P.U.B. Councilmember Rodin. Renominating Lillia Chavez Byn um. Currently serving. And Mayor pro tem Gregory. I'm not ready with that one. I actually do have a name for the Human Services Advisory Committee. Okay. All right. Meredith Bui B U I E. Oh, okay. I believe that's all the vacancies at the moment. I did want to mention that we will have this updated and Jane will bring me some clean sheets that have all these new nominations on them. And should the nominations go through as is on this sheet, if you nominated Kent Key, Lisa, is it Piper? Peeper. Peeper? What'd you say? Peeper. Peeper. Andrew Rosell or Greg Sockle. I don't have applications for them, and so I have no way of getting a hold of them or confirming their status. So if you could get a hold of them and ask them to complete an application and send it in. And then also I wanted to mention that as you consider these, we can do them by board. Do say, for example, Airport Advisory Board, but should you decide you maybe want to vote on some of those separately, just as an example, say you wanted to vote on Stu Moorhead separately, you could say, well, I'd make a motion to vote for so and so, but I'd like to vote separately on so and so , if that makes sense. So you have the ability to pull one or a number out from the board and vote on that nomination separately. Yes. Can an application be filled out online? Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's online. Okay. Andrew Rosell, fill out your application online. I'm texting you. Because I bet that Andrew's watching right now. Yes, I'm sure he is. Is there any other questions or nominations that I can help you with? In more discussion on this, in the past, we've generally just taken the entire sheet and said move approval of all of the names. I do have a concern regarding the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, and so I'll be asking for us to vote on that one as a separate from the rest, and if there are any of you that want to vote on any of the others separately from the rest, just make mention of that when it comes to this point in the agenda. Or you could tell me now and we'll have that ready. I did have one further question too about the Zoning Board of Adjustment with the alternate position. If that had been resolved or if we're going to vote on that separately. Apparently what we're going to do, my understanding is we 're just going to vote. Okay. We'll, so we'll have to take that out. Okay. Pull that for a separate vote. Okay. So we'll pull at least two of them that I know of. Okay. Anything else on boards and commission nominations. Do we okay so we have another item, which is hold a discussion on complementary amendments to the develop development code regarding gas well drilling ordinance. So we're going to have some complex. Is this where we complement certain parts of the ordinance or. Okay. Yeah, certain staff. So, we'll, we'll open that item three B. Are there any things that that the council wants to talk about in here. Any other recommended changes or additions to what we did and closed session, or you can wait and talk about those and the regular session. Yes sir. Mayor pro tem, should we announce possibly how we're going to do the order of events. Yeah, when as soon as we get in after we've done, done the call to order and the pledges I'll explain the order. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else to discuss here. Yes, is this where we can pull out something on the agenda or should we have already. If you want to pull out well at this particular point, will . If you're going to do that and help to know that we've got the right staff here if you're going to pull it out and need staff response to it. I talked to Brian earlier and he said that he was willing to do that. So which item on consent. Yeah, yes, he and D and E. Just so we can explain the process. So consent agenda, you're going to ask for items D and E for individual consideration. Okay. All right. Are we all good then? Then we will adjourn the work session and we will reconvene . I'm sorry to interrupt. Would it be beneficial if we heard that now since we have a little bit of time just since we're expecting a long meeting. I'm just as long as it's heard. As long as it's just. We're not posted for that. Okay. We need to wait till open session. So we'll do that in open session and we'll convene back in open session at six. Good evening. We're going to call the regular meeting of the Denton City Council to order. We have a quorum present. Mayor Watts may arrive later. I'm hoping that he does. In which case we will call a very short recess so that we can reconfigure the boards. I can move to my seat and he can resume his seat here. At this time we will stand for the pledge to the flags. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I honor the Texas flag and pledge allegiance to thee, Texas , one state under God, one indivisible. We don't have any proclamations or presentations this evening. We will reorder the agenda just a little bit and hold the discussion for the gas well ordinance to the end and insert the public hearings. There are several people here for public hearings. It appears that those will go rather quickly. So we will do those public hearings and then we will go to the gas well drilling ordinance consideration. Also, remember on the gas well ordinance consideration, the public hearing is closed. And so if you would like to comment on the gas well drilling ordinance, we will take public comments. But you do need to fill out a blue card. You can get those here and hand them to one of the staff people and they will get them up. You can fill out a blue card if you want to speak or you can fill out a blue card even if you don't want to speak. Just make a clear statement as to what your position is. [ Inaudible ] And we need those blue cards in before the item is called. I'm getting coaching. I need a lot of coaching. We have a citizen's report on our agenda now. And it is receive a citizen's report from Monica Jones regarding a complaint on animal control and code enforcement. Is Ms. Jones here? She is not. So we will go to item four, consent agenda items. There's a motion from Mr. Hawkins. >> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I move approval of consent agenda items A through P, but we are pulling D and E. >> Okay. Mr. Broden. >> I second that. >> All right. There's a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda , but pulling items D and E. Please vote on the board. The item passes 6-0. Then we will go to consent agenda item D. Mr. Manager. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to call on Chuck Springer, our director of finance, if he would address in fact both of these items D and E and he can take those one at a time. Thank you, Chuck. >> Thank you. Mayor and members of council. Make sure I have the items correct in the order. Item D is a budget amendment for two departments within the city. One of them is materials management. We run a warehouse operation in the city and we've seen mainly because of the increased capital program, just a large dollar increase in purchases through the warehouse. The warehouse actually buys the goods and keeps them in inventory. And then when they're used by the departments, the departments are charged. So there's kind of a pass through of the funds are increased so far this year and warehouse purchases is up by about 34%. So we're really just amending that budget to cover the warehouse expenses for the purchase and sale of those items in the capital program. The second item is amending D and E's operating budget for $10 million. This is really for the use of these funds to pay down some of the TMPA debt with a cash payment versus refinancing that debt through 2024, a portion of it. So it relates to item E. But that's really what the expenditure is for. Conservatively, because of savings in the energy management group, we probably won't need nearly all of this $10 million in terms of total budgetary authority. But we wanted to be conservative to make sure we let the council know what we were doing with the refinancing. I don't see any request for discussion. Is there a motion for item D? Mr. Johnson. Move approval of item D. Mr. Hawkins. I second. All right. Let's vote on the board on item D. It passes 6-0. Is there a motion for item E? Mr. Roden. I move approval of item E. Oh, did you do? I thought you did both. Pardon me. Well, let's go ahead and do your presentation. I'll make it very brief. Item E is authorization to issue some refunding bonds for the utility system. There's really two items here. One is refinancing some of the TMPA debt that comes due in the upcoming fiscal year. There's about $25 million in debt payments. A portion of that can be refinanced or extended out. What we plan to do here is take that $10 million in cash plus about $3 million in bonds to refinance that through 2024. The purpose of that is just to try to level out the impact on our ratepayers from this debt that's coming due from TMP A. The rest of it, the majority of the refunding, is some utility bonds issued in 2005, 2006 that can be refinanced. The debt schedule will remain the same in terms of the years that we're refinancing, but it's really taking debt that I think averages about 4.8 % and refinancing it at about 2.2%. The total savings from the refinancing is over $3 million because of the lower interest rate. This parameters ordinance just gives us the ability to have a competitive sale over the next couple weeks to sell the bonds. In the past, we've had some concern expressed by citizens because of issues of refinancing. Some folks would describe that as simply delaying payment or extending it or not paying on the principal. But this is not an attempt to avoid paying it. It's an attempt to pay it early. Well, it's really paying it over the same term. We're just saving interest costs. So what we call this is kind of a level savings. In other words, we try to level out the savings in each year across the term. So we're still paying off the debt in the same length of time. We just have a lower interest rate, so our total payment is lower. It would be the same as taking a 15-year home mortgage and refinancing it for 15 years the same term, but a lower interest rate so you have lower costs. So dropping it from 1% to what percent? I think it's average about 4.84% to an estimated about 2.2 %. For a savings of? Okay. You said it before. About 2 million? Yeah, there's, let me give you two numbers in terms of the savings. One is the net present value savings of about 2.79 million over the term of it. But in terms of the actual savings when we apply the, excuse me, when we apply funds we have on reserve utility bonds require a reserve fund. And when we apply those reserve funds, the total savings with the application of that is about $7 million. Ms. Briggs. And this is to keep our rates from increasing? Yeah, I mean really the purpose of it is to keep our costs down as much as possible for the rate payers. Okay, thank you. Well, I want to say thank you to staff for recognizing a way of saving money and taking the initiative to bring it to us. We have a motion. Mr. Roden. Thank you, Mayor. I now move approval of agenda item eight. Thank you, Mr. Roden. Mr. Johnson. Second that. Thanks. Vote on the board then for item D. Excuse me, item E. Passes six zero. We are done with consent agenda. Go to items for individual consideration. This is consider nominations appointments to the city's boards and commissions. City secretary. That's fine. I like the city secretary, Jennifer Walters to please address this. Thank you, Mayor. You have in front of you. Can you hear me. Barely. Well, I can speak louder than that. I have in front of you a revised list of recessions. However, the number of revisions to the list is noted that the nomination from compliment or wrong was not eligible to be reappointed as considered in the term. I understand. So we're we're going to be pulling the nominations for the animal shelter advisory committee and the nominations for the zoning board of adjustment and Mr. So I move approval of everything except for those just noted by the mayor pro tem animal shelter advisory committee and zoning board of adjustment. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Second. Thank you. Then please vote on the board for our boards and commission nominations. Now, city secretary, I'm not sure if we can do this on the board or if we need to do it by hand. Can you give us direction. I think for animal shelter will just take each one of the nominees individually. How do you want to do that? We can take the animal shelter advisory committee and take the first name and y'all can vote and vote on the board. We can do that. All right. So then for the animal shelter advisory committee, the nomination is already there for David Zeltner and we have a request to speak. Ms. Wasney. David Zellner is my nomination for the animal advisory board. I stand behind my nomination. He is a licensed practicing veterinarian in the city of Denton, longtime resident of Denton, and he has volunteered for this position. Thank you. Any more discussion. Then all those in favor of Mr. Zeltner would. We're voting. Okay. Ms. Wasney has moved to nominate Mr. Zeltner. Is there a second? Ms. Briggs. All right. Then let's vote on the board for Dr. Zeltner. That fails four to two for Kathleen Duffy. Is there a motion? Mr. Roden. Mayor, I move approval of nominating, appointing Kathleen D uffy to the animal shelter advisory committee. All right, Mr. Hawkins. I second. All right. Please vote on the board. Kathleen Duffy. Thank you. Now we'll go to the zoning board of adjustment. There are nominations. Would it be acceptable for the count? Okay, Mr. Roden, you 've got a motion. Mayor, I would move approval for, I'm going to separate this out a bit to get to the relevant one. So I'll move approval of the nominees, John Morris, Sarah Bagheri, John Paradise, Greg Sacco, and Connie Baker. There's a motion for those names as listed. Is there a second? Mr. Johnson. Second that. Thank you. All those in favor of the list as presented by Mr. Roden, please vote. And now we have the alternate. Mr. Roden. Mayor, I move approval of appointing Marshall Surrett to the zoning board of adjustment. Is there a second? Mr. Johnson. Second that. All right. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Then let's vote on the board. Oh, excuse me. Excuse me. We do have discussion. Can we hold off on the vote? Did you want to discuss? Yes. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I did want to just note that this is a reappointment, right ? Yes. And just his attendance was good and that sort of thing. Just putting those things into record. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? I can't see it on my board. So you're going to have to raise your hand. Ms. Wasney. Just to clarify, because we have two names in front of us. So we're voting for one first and then the second one second. How does that? Because of the way the motion was made, if Mr. Surrett gets a majority vote, then we're done. Is that your understanding? Good. I'm Mayor Pro Tem. Good job there with the gavel. There were two ways to approach this. It could have been a nomination process or it could be a motion to make the appointment. The motion came into a point. So that's the motion on the table right now. It does have a second. So do you have more discussion, Ms. Wasney? So the only way to look at candidate number two would be if this doesn't pass. That's correct. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I guess what I would just say to clarify is that what we're really talking about here is not necessarily that one of these particular people is better or more qualified or anything else than the other . It's simply Mr. Surrett is a reappointment. He has never missed a meeting and is willing to continue to serve and I think has been a pretty productive member of the board. So that's why I'll be supporting it. Okay. Ms. Briggs. My nomination was for Kathy McMullen. The spot was empty and so I made a nomination as her for the alternate and so that is the other person in question here for the vote. Okay. And you guys are going to have to raise your hands because I'm not seeing anything on my board about who's wanting to speak. We haven't seen. Anybody else want to speak. Okay, then, if there's no more discussion, then the motion is to approve Marshall sort for the alternate position on zoning Board of Adjustment, please vote. It carries six to two, four, four, excuse me, four to two. It went by way too fast. We will, as we said earlier delay item five be on the gas well drilling ordinance and move to public hearings. The first public hearing is six a hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning for from a neighborhood residential for in our four district to a community based use general district on approximately 8.4 acres of land generally located on the west side of easily lane. That's farm to market road 2181 approximately 600 feet north of Hickory Creek Road, the planning and zoning commission recommends approval, five to zero. Thank you, I'm gonna ask me visit or director of planning and development if she would present this public hearing. Thank you, Miss visit. Thank you Mayor pro temp and city council members. Good evening, everyone, good evening, everyone. Thank you for your attention. The first case you'll be considering tonight is a rezoning for sprouts shopping center. It's generally located at the west side of Teasley and 600 feet north of Hickory Creek Road. It's a community mixed use general. The future land use map is also designated as community mixed use. To give you a little bit of background on this site in 1999 , this property was residential zoning and everything around it was residential zoning in 2005, the southeast corner of Hickory Creek and Teasley was rezoned to facilitate commercial development. Again in 2009, the southwest corner was zoned to facilitate commercial development and then in 2014, the northwest corner was zoned to facilitate further commercial development, specifically to accommodate sprouts in that shopping center at that time, which may be why you feel like you're hearing this twice now, but I'll get to that in a moment. The things that we have considered going into this zoning request is residential growth. When this when this property was zoned for residential originally, it was a very rural area. And over the last 10 to 15 years, we have really seen a huge growth in residential development out there and as a result that has spurred a need for commercial development in order to support the residential use, which is why we've seen these corners be rezoned over the last several years in order to support commercial uses. We also took into consideration the mobility plan. Hickory Creek Road and Teasley Lane are both primary arterials and therefore support a denser community mixed use development in that area. We also looked at the floodplain as we did our staff analysis to determine whether this existing tract would support the existing zoning of NR4 and if you'll take a look on the top left of the screen, you'll notice that the floodplain clips the top corner of the lot. And as a result, in order to develop this as a residential development, we would require a secondary access point into that property for the safety of the residents and the flood plain would prevent that from being able to happen. As such, their only entrance and exit into a residential neighborhood would be onto Teasley and as a result of that, we don't feel like that's an appropriate zoning for that area any longer and so it certainly supports a more commercial mixed use zoning. We also took into consideration the impending widening of Teasley Lane. We have been able to identify a median opening and an access point from Teasley Lane onto this specific property that provides connectivity to the property to the south, which would be the future Sprouts location and the property to the north, which is a pharmacy and a medical development . And so this does provide further connectivity through the commercial development area. The intent really, when Sprouts came in and rezoned the initial property, there was a request that the property to the north be rezoned as well for compatibility with the whole neighborhood and so they've been willing to accommodate that request and work with the adjacent property owners. Criteria for approving a rezoning is that it must conform to the land use element of the Denton Plan 2030. It does that the future land use plan calls for commercial mixed use in this area and that it should facilitate the adequate provision of utilities and infrastructure in the area, which we have analyzed and looked at the widening of Teasley and looked at the mobility in the area and determined that it is facilitating adequate provision. We mailed 13 required certified notices on June 21st and 42 courtesy notices to property owners within 500 feet and we received one response to the legal notice in favor of the rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 50 and staff recommends approval as well. And we do have the applicant here if you have any specific questions for them and they may wish to speak. Actually, I think they may be here. They might not be. I don't want to lie to you. They're here. All right. You're done with the presentation. We have a couple of questions from Council. Mr. Hawkins. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. Tonight we're just deciding on the zoning change. There's a site plan has not been submitted or that is still being decided. That's correct. Yes. But it will the site plan and the design will have to meet all criteria for a large. Specific to the trees. Development like this. Yes, that's correct. Thank you Amy. Ms. Briggs. Well, that that answers my question. I was I was concerned I was looking at the the overall site location and it looks like the forest is getting smaller and smaller. And so I was curious about the the tree plan. That is upland habitat area. However, it's a commercial development. So they're not required to preserve it, but they would be required to mitigate it and then to replant per archery ordinance to provide the canopy coverage necessary. That's our current code. Mr. Roden. I have a quick question for the applicant if if they're available to answer. And it is quick, I think. I'm William Winkleman Winkleman associates a civil engineer at 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Drive Dallas, Texas 75230. Thanks for coming here today. And it's not often that as a council member you get asked a question over the weekend that you get an answer for within a couple days. And the question I was asked while I was at the community market is when is didn't going to get a sprouts. I said, well, as soon as we get everything approved. So that's the question. How any ETA should this be approved tonight and move forward in the process? Is there an ETA and a lot of folks are really interested in this sort of grocery store. Well, I don't want to speak out of turn. First of all, let me tell you that the staff here has been very good to us. I mean, I think the ETA would have been on regular schedule November or something. We've had some meetings as well yesterday, actually, and they're helping us with text out with the driveway and the preliminary plots actually tomorrow at PNC. So they have helped in my opinion, moving us up a meeting at least. So I think our developer would really like to be moving along in September. But again, I don't want to speak. You never know. But I mean, at this point, we are on track for getting approvals in September, if I'm correct. Mr. Winkleman, I'm new at this. So would you state your name and your address, please? I did do that. Oh, you did? Oh, that's how new I am. I didn 't even listen. I'm not the one that's usually here. My son does this, but he had a child yesterday. So I'm a grandpa. So I had to come on second teams here. All right. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. I've been asked to when is sprouts coming? So thank you from the residents of Denton. We're excited. So thank you all. I know from our client and I've heard that from several people. And again, thanks to the staff. And I mean, it's all of them. I mean, Tracy, the whole crowd has really been a pleasure working with them and they 've helped out a great deal. And I think it's going well, but we're not there yet, obviously. But we're working at it. But thank you all. And thank you, Council. Ms. Briggs. I'm just curious, how did you choose this site? Well, number one, I didn't, but I'm sure the client picked it. It's at a major thoroughfare intersection and they can get access because of the two tracks. The one we're zoning out, they getting access, the median opening coming through the other track is very important to them. And, you know, if you look around, there's a lot of housing there. The grocery stores, they have to have a certain number of rooftops before they even consider a site. So again, that's their decision. I just do the grading, drainage and paving and low life civil engineering stuff. I only ask because I live on the other side of town. So I was just, I was just curious. Well, if you find a site, I'm sure I'll give it to them because it means more work for me. That'd be great. Thank you. This is a public hearing and we only had the one blue card from the applicant. Did you have anything else that you wanted to share? Again, thanks to the staff. I really wanted to say that. Do we have any other citizens that wish to speak on this public hearing? Anyone else wishing to speak? Anyone else? Then we will close the public hearing. Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I move approval of item 6A. All right. Is there a second? Mr. Rogan. Before I second, I just want to say to Mr. City Manager and the staff, I love hearing compliments like that for the staff working through difficult issues. So thank you. Thanks for everyone involved working with them. I second this. I did walk down memory lane as I was looking at those maps. I remember about 25 years ago when the Denton Independent School District cited McNair Elementary School out on Hick ory Creek Road. There were only two students that lived within two miles of the school. And people were thinking that the school district was crazy to build. They referred to it as Corpus Christi Elementary. Things have changed. All right. Let's vote on the board. It passes unanimously. Going to item B, hold a public hearing and consider rez oning from a neighborhood residential 2, NR2 district to a community mixed use general district on approximately 1.7 acres of land generally located on the east side of North Bonnie Bray Street, approximately 475 feet north of West University Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request 5 to 0. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Amy Bissett or Director of Planning and Development to also address this item. And Amy, if you had another comment about the previous case that you will look like you were going to make. I can clarify that their preliminary plat is scheduled to go tomorrow along with their ADP and that their final plat we're shooting for September 2nd and looking at running as much of the building plan review concurrently as possible. They hope to break ground in September. All right. Our next request is also a rezoning from residential to a commercial zoning. And because my other hat is the Economic Development Director in the city, I can tell you that while I can't tell you who this is, I can tell you that you're going to love them just like you love sprouts. This is a consideration of a rezoning from NR2 to Community Mixed Use General on 1.7 acres of land. This is on the northeast corner of Bonnie Bray and University essentially. This is a little sliver of land that was formerly a part of North Lakes Park. We have now sold that property to the developer and they are also acquiring the property to the south, which is the old Billetter Ford site, so that they can combine that acre age for this development. I already said all of that. The existing zoning is NR2 and the proposed zoning is Community Mixed Use General. The future land use map shows that this is right on the line between commercial and parks and open space. Staff and their analysis considered the following things. This was originally zoned in 2002 as NR2. It was zoned that way because it's a park. Most parks are zoned NR. NR2 is primarily intended for single family residential. It's not an appropriate zoning now that it's in private ownership and immediately adjacent to commercial zoning. We looked at the location, the criteria for approval. We looked to see if the rezoning conforms to the land use element of the Denton Plan 2030. It does. That land use element is designated as commercial and that the rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of infrastructure and utilities. That is also being contemplated with their plat. Their conveyance plat goes to Planning and Zoning Commission tomorrow evening. We've already got our engineering department and TechStat involved on this one as well since it is a neighboring 380 and it's right on the edge of the widening of Bonnie Bray. So we've already started taking a look at integrating this development into those current construction projects. Public notifications were mailed on June 21st. One property owner was notified that is within 200 feet and five within 500 feet were notified by courtesy. We received no responses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 50 and staff recommends approval as well. The applicant is here to answer any questions and they may wish to speak and I'm glad to answer any questions as well. Questions? So we're opening the public hearing. I do have some cards. We had some confusion with the cards, but I believe on this item, Mr. Beck, Larry Beck would like to speak on this item. Were you intending to speak on this public hearing? Just yes or no? Okay, I think we got them confused. Okay, forget the blue cards. Okay, so is there anyone that wishes to speak on this public hearing? Anyone wishing to speak? Final call. Then we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I move approval of item 6B. Thank you. Ms. Wasney. I second the motion. Thank you. Then no discussion. Please vote on the board. Passes unanimously. Thank you. The next item is item C, hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton regarding an initial zoning district and use classification of neighborhood residential 1 and a specific use permit for a semi-public hall, club, or lodge. The approximately 10.8 acre site is generally located on the east side of Barthold Road and approximately 2700 feet north of Ganser Road. This would be adopting an amendment to the city's official zoning map and providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000 for violation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 520. Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing and Ms. Bissett will also present this case. Thank you. This is a consideration of an initial zoning as well as a specific use permit. The applicant here is Denton Shop with a Cop. What we're essentially looking at is the Denton Police Officers Association having a location where their officers can go while on duty during their meal breaks in order to be able to cook a meal and relax for a little bit of time. But we'll start with just getting our bearings and what we 're looking at from a zoning perspective. This is a request for an initial zoning to NR1 and a specific use permit for what the DDC defines as a semi-p ublic hall, club, or lodge. This is on approximately 10.8 acres. This is the location here. It is, it abuts Barthold Road and is a little bit south of Ganser Road. This is what the property looks like. It is currently zoned as Rural Residential RDX 5, which is the rural designation that is automatically zoned when we annex a property. This was annexed in 2010. We call this a placeholder zoning. The RDX 5 as a zoning is intended to maintain rural residential uses to preserve and protect farming, forest, and environmental and scenic values that would be incompat ible with development. The surrounding zoning is ETJ and RDX 5 today. The surrounding land uses are residential Ganser Estates, which is a 65-home, single-family home development where the lots range in size from about 1 1/2 acres to 11 acres. And the property we're contemplating today is a little over 10 acres, so it's similar in size as those. There's also an event center just southeast over here, which is the Merritt Event Center, or Buffalo Event Center. It used to be called Merritt. I'm not sure which one it is today. And then there are agricultural uses as well. The Future Land Use Plan calls for a rural designation, or I'm sorry, rural areas. Their proposal is that they be allowed to use what is currently a single-family home, which is about 2,700 square feet that sits on about 10 acres. They want to be able to use that as a semi-public hall, which would provide daily meal breaks for their officers, which would generally look like one to two officers being there at a time, about 10 officers over a 24-hour period, and then about four times a year to be able to have general membership meetings there where they anticipate 10 to 12 officers attending those, or I'm sorry, 12 to 15. This proposed use is not allowed in RD5X. However, it is allowed in NR1, which is why you're considering both a rezoning and a specific use permit tonight. The site itself, the structure would remain. They're proposing a future addition of 400 square feet for rest rooms in order to be able to accommodate those four general meetings a year that they would have. And if approved, the site would have to comply with all DDC requirements for a building permit. So they're requesting two things, an initial zoning of NR1, which is our lowest density designation for residential, and a specific use permit for their allowed use. The criteria for approval is that it must conform to the future land use designation. We looked at the zoning of NR1, which has a maximum density of one unit per acre that meets the low density goals of the Denton Plan 2030. And the intent of NR1 is that it will also maintain rural character and allow supporting uses such as veterinary clinics. It's a very similar description as the placeholder zoning. As I mentioned previously, the surrounding areas are established single family, Ganser Estates, which is a small number of large lots. The criteria for approval, the specific use permit, I'm sorry, the specific use must be compatible and not inj urious to the use and enjoyment of other property owners. The surrounding areas generally residential and agricultural. We expect very low or limited impact with this use. It's a very similar use as if it were just to remain a residential use and to not impact or impair property values or the enjoyment of the neighboring properties. The specific use must not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding area. The normal and orderly development would be to preserve its rural character. And so this would certainly be in keeping with that. All driveways and parking spaces must provide for safe and convenient movement. The current driveway and proposed parking area is consistent with surrounding properties. It is a gravel driveway which would be allowed to remain. And they would need around six parking spaces by our estimation. And there's a very long driveway with plenty of room to park there today. Sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony. We don't anticipate that this would generate a nuisance at all . They're going to maintain the rest of the property as a green space. We had originally made a recommendation that they add some additional landscaping along the southern edge. And the planning and zoning commission didn't feel that that was a necessary criteria, which I'll get to in just a moment. It's got to be in similar scale, bulk and coverage, which this is maintaining the existing scale and not changing with the exception of adding 400 square feet for restrooms. We don't anticipate that the use of this property will significantly impact traffic whatsoever. Architecturally compatible with the area. This is a, as you saw in the picture, this is a barn style, architecture style. And it's consistent with what's in that rural area today. The proposed use must meet noise requirements. We had initially, as staff, recommended limiting the use of hours to reduce any noise impacts. But the planning and zoning commission didn't feel that that was a necessary limitation or condition to put on them since it's going to be such a low amount of traffic. And the officers work 24 hour shifts, so they would want to be able to have the use of that facility as well. The applicant proposes activities which are low intensity and the reuse of the existing single family dwelling will have little to no impact on the surrounding built environment. And will allow the adjacent properties to develop with the rural character that they already have. We mailed out two notifications in 200 feet and six courtesy notifications. We received no responses. The staff recommend approval of this subject to a couple of conditions, which I'll go through momentarily. And the planning and zoning commission recommends approval of this request with the following conditions. That any additional improvements above and beyond the 400 square feet that they're planning already would require them to come in and get approval of a new specific use permit. And that the approval of the SUP is for the Denton Police Officers Association only and cannot be transferred to another entity if they ever decided to sell or make other use of that property. With that, I will answer any questions. Ms. Briggs. I have a question. If the neighbors have an issue with noise, who do they call? They would call us. We would go out and test the noise level and determine whether there was a violation. The police department does that. Thanks. The guy's on duty. Ms. Wasney. I'd like to point out that this facility sits on 10 acres, correct? That is correct. 10.8. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Well, this is a public hearing and we have one card, but remember that others can't speak. It appears that Virginia Nichols would like to speak on the item. You may come forward and state your name and address, please. Your time may begin. Yes, sir. My name is Virginia Nichols and my address is 16 01 Oak Shores Court in Crossroads, Texas, 76227. I am president of the Denton Police Officers Association and we're requesting a zoning change so we can occupy the property out there and purchase it from the current land owner. As the young lady stated, the only reason we're buying this property is so we can have our officers a place to go. Do they do their breaks, their meal breaks and stuff like that? And we do have four meetings a year, our membership meetings, and we would hold our membership meetings there. Record time. Are you done? Yes. We have a question. Ms. Wasney. I want to thank you for your service to the citizens of Denton and to all of our uniformed police in the city. And I applaud this move to give them a much needed place. And again, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to say also thank you to the staff at the planning and zoning, especially Julie Wyatt. She's been superb. She has helped me through this. I'm not an engineer and I don't know a lot about the process, but she's been just absolutely excellent help to me. Don't leave yet. Mr. Hawkins. Well, just maybe while you're here, you can give the shop with the cop a plug and tell everybody what it does and who it helps out. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Denton shop with the cop is our program for at Christmas time. We take needy children. We, the police officers association members association. We take donations. And with those donations, in addition to the funds that we have, we take usually around one hundred and forty five or one hundred fifty children to Wal-Mart for a shopping spree . And each child gets to spend one hundred and twenty dollars on toys and clothing items. Pretty amazing program, not to cut you off. Very good turnout for it. And we've been really fortunate folks in Denton have been very generous with the donations to our project. The Denton Police Department is just class act. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson. So in keeping with the plug opportunity, if a citizen was so inclined to help the cause, is there a Denton shop with a cop website or something? Actually, there is. They can they can look online and it is Denton shop with a cop. And there is a place on their PayPal bill. If you'd like to make a donation, it is our address on there. If you'd like to donate via the mail, that's fine. We have our mailing address on that website as well. Thank you. And my question for you as the applicant, the planning and zoning put a couple of special conditions. Are you all OK with those? Absolutely. Yes, we understand what they are. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. This is public hearing. If there are others that did not spell out a lot of blue card but wish to speak on the item, you may come forward at this time. Anyone wish to speak? Last call. Then I'll close the public hearing. We have a motion from Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. If I lived out in the country, I would love to have police officers coming and going at the house next door to me all day long. So I'm going to recommend approval of this item. Thank you. This was the second the motion. Thank you. Then let's vote on the board for item C. And it passes unanimously. I believe that concludes the public hearings. So we will move back in our agenda to items for individual consideration. We are on item five B, consider adoption of an ordinance am ending sub chapters five, 16 and 22 of the development code relating to the gas well drilling and production definitions and procedures. The planning and zoning commission recommends approval seven zero. Mr. Manager, I believe we have a staff report. We do. Thank you. I'd like to call on Darren growth or gas well administrator if he would make a presentation. And as he's getting ready, I want to remind folks this is an item for individual consideration. Individuals may speak to this item. You need to fill out a blue card. You need to turn that blue card in to one of the staff members. So if you're holding a blue card, we're not going to know what to do with you. So if you make sure that you get it to one of the staff members, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Mayor pro tem members of the council. This item is back before you as we can delayed action from last week. So as an item for individual consideration for development code amendment 14 nine, this is regarding gas well drilling and ordinance revisions. So I kind of have a condensed presentation from last week, but at least for those watching, give a summary of PNC and city council's actions, identify how we posted the draft ordinance for this evening, highlight some of the changes from the current ordinance that we have, and then I can stand for any questions. So this case was remanded from city council and brought to the planning and zoning commission on July 22nd. They recommended approval with some amendments. And then last week on July 28th, city council reopened their public hearing on DCA 14 nine, closed the public hearing and delayed action until this evening. There was significant discussion during both of those hearings. What that resulted in is revisions resulting from all those stakeholder comments. The public input that was received, both planning and zoning commission and city council provided some deliber ations that resulted in a draft ordinance that was posted online on Friday. There's been some in this rapid schedule, there's been some cleanups since Friday. You have gotten those at your place. We left some copies out in the hallway as well that will identify what those changes are. So you'll see from what was posted on Friday, there's still some wordsmithing that was done. So I just want to identify that that did occur. And so when we talk about the posted draft, what you'll see is those setbacks are based off of the discussions that we've had during those public meetings. So there was a red line and clean draft published on the city council's agenda and to the gas well inspections division website, which was mentioned last weekend. The address is here in the middle of the screen. That ordinance was drafted with an innovative delineation of zoning categories. That pretty good summary of what this does because it actually incentivizes drilling in industrial zoned areas. So again, what was posted on Friday hopefully was available for review. You can still see that on a tablet if you have it or if you need the copies that are in the hallway with a red line. So the next couple of slides I'll highlight some of the prominent changes from what we see today under our ordinance that was adopted back in January of 2013 and what 's being proposed for you this evening. The first is that DDC section 35-5-10. That is a new section added to the zoning chapter of the Denton Development Code. And what that primarily does is simplify how the zoning set backs are calculated, measured, and defined. They will be based on location of drilling production site by zoning districts. So this proposal will have the new well setback remain at 1 ,000 feet in residential and commercial zoning districts. And we also identified an opportunity to clearly define how the measurement will be taken for existing sites. We have some older plats and some sites that have been in existence for 10, 12, 15 years. This ordinance will help us identify how to measure set backs and reverse setbacks to those existing sites. And how those setbacks will be measured is shown on the next two slides. From last week you'll see the discussion kind of condensed residential, commercial, and industrial down from three to two. Residential and commercial is combined. So the site setback in both of those categories will be 1, 000 feet. The minimum in those districts will be 500 and a reverse setback will be 250 feet. And in industrial districts only then, the site minimum and reverse will all be 250 feet. MPC and PD districts, the setbacks if identified in the master plan community or plan development district, will defer for those requirements that were approved under the MPC and PD ordinance. Unless there is a change to the activity for the MPC or PD, in which case we'd apply some new standards. So existing sites as we have in the current draft for industrial districts, it's a site distance of 250 feet, minimum of 250, and the reverse of 250. But for all other districts, the site requirement would be 500 feet for a setback, could be reduced to 250, and the reverse would be 250 feet. And same thing for any existing site, the MPC and PD districts would primarily prevail as far as setbacks unless those ordinances are silent. Then we'll apply these standards in this proposed ordinance . Some other changes you'll see, I walked through the different section references here, but there was an authorization via gas well development site plan for multiple wells per site. What that ties into is those site setback distances are calculated with the gas well development site plan application, and then you can pull an individual permit for each well on that location. So a gas well development site plan will be required for new wells, and that site has a presumptive size limit of three acres, unless additional acreage is required as proved up by the operator, there is a max size limit. I believe the proposal you have says seven acres. That can also be taken to the zoning board of adjustment if additional size is needed, typically to restrict current locations from future drilling. So the size is addressed. The constructed sites, unlike current, will be actually verified in the proposal through an as-built gas well development site plan that ensures the location of the site, and that's part of the permitting process. So you can see that in order to get a permit, you have to submit that as-built site plan that helps us verify where the location of that site is, and it was actually located as approved. So per section 35.5.10.6, setback reductions will require either waivers from 100% of the protected uses, approval from the board of adjustment, or there is an opportunity for administrative relief if the operator does agree to restrict the existing drilling production sites by not adding any additional new wells. The next couple of changes here talk about definitions. What we tried to do is ensure clean, clear, and consistent descriptions throughout all the definitions. You'll see a lot of language red lines through that. And then there's significantly more new, brand new notification provisions. So 35.22.2, 35.22.7, and 35.16.7, 16.7 being brand new for notifications. But some of the highlights are that new signage requirements for each drilling production site are required , and it will clearly mark those sites for the benefit of the public. In addition, city and property owner notices for different various activities, and I said property owner, but it says just property on the screen, and there's a difference between the notice that is sent out with an application or a waiver process to a property owner versus the activities are actually sent to the property itself. But those will be required. In addition, any property purchase would be notified through section 35.16.7 through various requirements. In addition, there's a redesigned sound mitigation procedures. What we're going to require is that a professional qualified in noise mitigation submit a noise management plan that will identify the conditions for each site, topography, sound direction, proximity to other uses, and that plan will identify how to achieve the standards in the proposed ordinance. So there will also be enhanced standard as setback distance are reduced. There's one of those is again a new procedure that will add production monitoring, and that stipulates periodic evaluations to determine if on -site equipment is functioning as designed. So that's a lot of the changes from what we currently have. Hopefully summarizes with last week's presentation where we stand today, but if there are any additional questions, I hope to answer those for you. >> Mr. Hawking. >> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Darren, I had an interesting phone call with a resident this morning, and can you just go into more detail why we 're taking the stance, we think that it's better to measure from the edge of the well site rather than the well head? >> Well, I think what my experience has shown from doing this over the past decade is that a lot of municipalities have tried taking measurements from a well head, and what you get is kind of a changing distance as additional wells are drilled. If you have in this case a thousand foot setback distance, but you have 30 foot well head spacings, each time you measure that you're changing how that calculation is made. So measuring from the boundary not only protects the movement of the wells, but allows the drilling of additional wells on the same location and affords the thousand feet plus for any well drilled in the center. In addition, what we've noticed though is that some of the concern isn't just from the well. So by having a site setback, what you're protecting is all operations on that site from a distance of whatever that setback distance may be. So if you have appurtenances or tank batteries, something located could be 75 feet or 100 feet away from the well. There's also some concern with those other pieces of equipment. So again, a site boundary affords the opportunity to locate everything within the same site, and no matter where it's at on that location you still know that you're meeting that minimum setback distance. >> And how does measuring this way benefit the adjacent property owner in your opinion? >> Well, I think what it does is give the opportunity for a clear delineation and a one-time measurement as opposed to multiple measurements. One of the requirements for any ordinance change is obviously it has to be commercially reasonable and cannot prohibit oil and gas development. So if we took a measurement from every well, we would not give that property owner any distance separation necessarily from those other pieces of equipment. And we may preclude an operator for getting the opportunity to add additional wells. So that certainty I think for both the surface property owner, adjacent surface property owner and the gas well operator is one of the things we needed to find that balance for. And this site setback helps us get there. >> Thanks, Darren. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Broden. >> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. A few questions, and a lot of the comments we've gotten up to this point either last week or even via email or phone calls or whatnot represent these changes, these amendments as some sort of major retreat from our previous ordinance. And I just want to ask some questions to try and clarify that because as I see it, in some cases it's not a retreat at all. It's actually a better ordinance. So maybe from the perspective of a frac ban, I could understand that. So I just want to clarify that prior to getting some comments just to give us some historical perspective. So prior to today's amendments, the current status quo set back for new wells is what? >> The current setback would date back to our January 2013 ordinance that requires a 1,200 foot distance from the site for every well. >> So we're doing 1,000. >> We're doing, yeah. >> As being suggested in this one, in certain zoning categories. >> That's correct. >> Right. In the 2013 ordinance, the minimum setback was what? >> Was 500 feet. >> Okay. So in commercial and residential, that's the same in this ordinance. Reverse setbacks in 2013 ordinance? >> Reverse setbacks in 2013 were 250 feet, but one of the problems due to the application of that was that we have a lot of these sites that predate our 2013 ordinance. That 250 foot measurement came into adoption in the middle of 2010, August of 2010. But it did not identify a way to measure for some of those existing sites. What this will do as far as not retreating is actually give us the opportunity to provide those same separations from existing sites and new sites to that same distance of 250 feet. So again, not necessarily a retreat, but what it does is capture a way to provide that reverse setback through the clarity of adding the definition of existing drilling production sites and giving us a measurement for those. I think again, it's not a retreat, but it also gives us the opportunity to measure reverse setback, not just moving forward, but for what's on the ground. >> So to press into that a little bit more from a reverse setback, one thing we've been discussing, and I want to ask you a question about just so it's clear for anyone here, is trying to give our first responders a 300 foot buffer, so to speak. So while we have 250 feet as our designated reverse setback , can you explain how it is that we're actually achieving what we're calling now an effective 300 foot setback? >> Well, yeah, that's a good point, and not being the fire expert, I don't think I touched upon that on my presentation. But I've learned from the fire marshal and through talking with our fire chief that their practice in response to any type of emergency is to set a perimeter of 300 feet. And so what our ordinance proposes is an opportunity to address their guidelines as far as setting that perimeter, not necessarily to a lot line as our 250 foot distance would require, but a 300 foot build area. So within your property, you would have the opportunity to use the rear setback, and within the gas well drilling and production site, you'd have the opportunity to use any internal setbacks to meet a 300 foot separation from those pieces of equipment that produce or store flammable liquids and gases. So from a tank battery, again going back to the previous question, the opportunity to draw the boundary gives at least 250 feet. And we've learned that a lot of the tanks operationally are probably set in 30 to 50 feet from the boundary of the site . So that 300 foot distance may be met. But again, it's an opportunity for the fire department and our emergency responders to have a distance that gives them that initial 300 foot measurement as they set up the perimeter and evaluate the conditions on the ground. >> So from that point of view, the setback's technically gone up from the 2013 ordinance. In terms of notification requirements, what was in place in the 2013 ordinance? >> There was some confusing language about how notifications were sent. So the main thing that we did is add some provisions that clarified notifications are required as signage at the location. So that's brand new. It wasn't required other than a couple of technical issues that had to do with an inspector or the railroad commission being able to identify the well. It's actually saying that this is a drilling and production site. That's new and it helps clarify that people are aware that these locations exist and that additional wells could be added. But we also have an application requirement now that wasn't in our, well, isn't in our current ordinance. And that gives the opportunity for the operator to notify surrounding properties if they're submitting a site application. It also requires a newspaper notification and a sign posted at the location saying that their administrative application was filed. So those things, again, are all brand new notifications. In addition to that, the clarification came for actual activity performed at the site. So not only is the city notified and we specified which items get notification, but we clarified a threshold for when those are submitted. And again, I don't think it's a retreat. I think it's actually going to allow the operator an opportunity to notify residents probably more frequently due to those changes. >> And not just property owners, correct? Anyone who resides at a residence within the prescribed set back. >> That's correct. >> And specific activity notifications go to the dwelling. >> So renters. >> The renters would get, absolutely. >> And then the sound mitigation is a brand new concept in terms of requiring a sound engineer to come in and mitigate the sound within certain distances, correct? >> That is correct. What the sound engineer will do is identify not only for the operator, but also for the city so that we can do a compliance check to make sure that the operator is actually complying with that plan. But it outlines the steps that the operator must take to ensure that whatever threshold that ambient level sets. So before the noise management plan is even identified, there's an ambient level that determines what the noise is. So the impact isn't a standard across the board threshold. It is going to be based off of the existing conditions. That's what the ambient gives us. And then allows some overages, some flexibility there. But the noise management plan will actually address that, the current conditions and what the operations will produce as far as sound pressures go. And then it gives the opportunity for the mitigation to address the existing conditions on the ground. So that's a brand new requirement and that plan will be submitted with each application. >> And finally, I know others want to talk. Sorry. I'm just trying to kind of put them side by side. >> Yeah. >> I think there's a certain myth of retreat here from the 2013 ordinance that I'm trying to clarify. And then finally, there's this production monitoring, which is brand new, wasn't conceived of in 2013. You spelled it out a little bit. What will that actually entail in the event that someone is in close proximity? What type of monitoring is happening? >> There's an actual evaluation done of the equipment at each site. So every piece of equipment on that location is supposed to have a standard operating pressure, standard operating procedure. The way it typically functions is going to be identified either in the emergency response plan or their measures that are submitted. So what this new proposal would give us is the opportunity to evaluate whether or not their equipment is functioning as they told us it would. So if there's any leaky valves, if a thief hatch is left open, that will give us the opportunity to identify those and take any corrective action as necessary. >> Thanks, Darren. >> Yes, sir. >> Ms. Wathen. >> This has to do with people who rent. There were a lot of citizen comments and concerns, some comments on planning and zoning as well about people who rent and notifications. So I want to emphasize that notice with any type of production will go to the property so that that renter will be notified. Item two regarding waiver, it is the property owner who will have the authority to say yes or no on a waiver, not the renter, so that everybody is clear on that. >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I know some people will read the ordinance and notice two different references, and I think what you spelled out helps clarify that in some instances, yes, it will be a property owner. Just due to the fact they own the property, any waiver would have to come from the property owner. But in the event of the operations at the location, you are correct that the notice would go actually to the property and not to somebody living in New York that happens to own it. It goes to who is there. Thank you for that. >> Mr. Hawkins. >> Thank you, mayor pro tem. Two, in previous ordinances we have not had an access and transportation plan, have we? Is this a new thing or have we had that before? >> We have had that before, but I think one of the things you may pick up on is the fact that we're using that plan now to identify that site access shall not be taken from a neighborhood street. >> Right. >> That's an actual category identified in our design criteria manual. So an engineer knows that site access on those levels of street. So we use the term residential, but some people would think if there's residences on it, it's residential. But any neighborhood street, so we do get the plan now, but there wasn't that caveat. So we would review it and make sure it supported the equipment and the truck route. But now we're actually looking for a restriction on those neighborhood streets. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Ms. Briggs. >> I just kind of wanted to go back to 35.5, 10.6A when we were talking about waivers and notifications. I heard this correctly earlier by moving the homeowner, by moving into the well, waives the right to -- it's an automatic waiver right from the production site setback. Can you go over that a little bit? >> Absolutely, yes, ma'am. Number one on this screen right in the middle there, so per section 35.5, 10.6, the reference I think asks for explanation on number one there. So the waivers from 100% of the protected uses, one of the ways that we can get that is an operator could go out and ask for a signed letter from each protected use owner. We have the opportunity to identify that in the event that property owner developed next to the site up to the reverse setback, that there wouldn't be a need to go back to that same property owner and ask for that signed waiver. So I think your comment is addressing the fact that in the instance somebody did build to the minimum, that would constitute their waiver. So the opportunity for an existing site to use that same setback distance of 250 feet is what the reverse is. They would have to get 100% and they'd be starting out with at least that one. It would only affect that one property that somebody built to, and it's only perspective so it won't go into the past, but after this were to be adopted, the language would say in the event somebody builds to, that that would constitute a waiver. >> So they decide to build their house and move into the minimum -- the setback. And so from that point on they have no say in what goes on. They waive their right. >> Well, not quite. They didn't waive their right. They still own the property. They can still develop the property. The only thing that we considered is their consent to reduce the setback. >> The setback. >> There's still a minimum setback. >> Okay. >> But since we only address the setback once per site, there won't be a time to go back and address it again. So what they waived is their consent to it reduction, consent to a reduction. >> Okay. I just wanted to make note that our fire chief is here in case we have any questions. Or the audience has any questions. He's here for that. >> Ms. Briggs, do you have any questions for the chief? Why don't you have the floor? You're good right now? Okay. Mr. Hawkins. >> Well, just to make sure I understand. So the house goes to the gas well. That is a reverse setback. That would be 250 feet if this passes. >> That's correct. >> Let's say that gas well site puts a second gas well on there. That setback now is 250 feet. Right? That's what, since the house went to the gas well. >> Well, what we identified in the setbacks is that there's still, if it's an existing site and somebody built to it, if an operator in a district that isn't industrial requested a gas well development site plan at that location , they would have to meet the site distance of 500 feet. But there are opportunities to reduce that. In the event that Councilmember Hawkins' condition laid out and somebody did build to 250, the setback isn't reduced to 250. What we consider is in the operator's requirement to get 100% of the protected use property owners between 500 and 250 to consent to that reduction. That property owner that chose to develop at 250 feet, they 've essentially submitted their consent to that reduction. But the operator would still be required to get the 100% from other property owners to reduce from 500 feet. It only addresses the one property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> I don't see any other questions for staff. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Now, here's how we have about 20 cards that wish to speak. Now, if you want to speak to the item tonight, you have to do a blue card. So you need to turn that into a staff person right away. We'll have about 20 cards. We will hear comments from our citizens. We ask that you follow the rules of decorum, that there's no expressions of delight or disapproval. Let folks have their chance to speak. This is going to take a little over an hour for these cards . I think we'll probably stop and take a break about 830. And then we'll finish the cards and then we will have a discussion among the council and motions or amendments and things like that. Ms. Wasign. >> I'd request that who's ever on deck go ahead and come down and be ready to then come up to the podium. >> You bet. And I will call two names at a time so that we'll know. So I believe we're ready. So first up will be Larry Beck. When you come up, if you would state your name and your address, your time would begin. And then on deck would be Topher Jones. >> Good evening. My name's Larry Beck. I live at 915E Sherman Drive. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. What we find ourselves deciding today after being denied our fracking ban vis-a-vis a VHB 40 is the limited ability to prevent the oil and gas industry from doing what they do at distances where damages will be hopefully minimal if a well head explodes or the waste product gets spilled into streams or drainage pipes. It's become clear that land which could be used to develop new homes or businesses face restraints that consume large areas of their land because of setback distances from wheel heads. Land that essentially becomes valueless because of the serious health and safety risks that gas and oil wells pose . Landowners understandably want a minimal setback distance so they can utilize as much as the land that they can for development. This of course benefits us as a city as we grow providing more homes and jobs. But should we plan our future with an economic vision only? In our efforts to widen our tax base and make room for expansion, do we unthinkingly minimize the hazards that lie within close proximity of this new growth? This issue doesn't directly affect me where I live off of Sherman Drive near the old Piggly Wigley so I have no skin in this game. So why am I here to insist that we ensure the greatest possible distances for these setbacks? Think back to April 2013 when an ammonium nitrate explosion occurred at the fertilizer plant in West Texas. The emergency services personnel who were responding to a fire at the facility prior to the explosion were instantly killed along with two civilian volunteers. All total 15 people were killed, more than 160 were injured , and more than 150 buildings were damaged or destroyed. Before this deadly explosion occurred, the writing was bold ly written across the wall about the threat this plant posed to the health and safety of workers and nearby residents. The plant owners had been warned and fined numerous times by various state and federal agencies and yet buildup of ammonium nitrate was never resolved. I remember shaking my head when I realized that the people that could have done and should have taken action to prevent this fiasco did essentially nothing. No one took responsibility, no one stepped up and said enough is enough. Now 15 families have suffered the worst possible outcome of this do nothing attitude. I don't want Denton to suffer this consequence from doing too little or simply doing nothing. Those who feel the need to see Denton's future and the economic promise of this land yet to be developed must be prepared to be responsible enough to also see the consequences of their action that allows homes and businesses in close proximity to a deadly toxic industry not unlike that of the West Texas fertilizer factory. Thinking such a horrific accident will never occur or worse , hoping it won't, will do little to assuage the conscience of us when a deadly explosion takes out nearby homes and the people who reside therein. Families with children and even babies who put their trust in the decisions of people who put more emphasis on economic development than they did sensible health and safety standards that would protect human life. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Beck. Mr. Tofer Jones and up next is Ed Ireland. Hi, Tofer Jones, 419 Fulton Street here in Denton. Thanks for allowing me to speak tonight. My neighbors and my friends and I and many citizens have worked hard to keep fracking out of our neighborhoods. We fought for our health and safety. We knocked on doors throughout Denton and we voted to keep this type of industry out of our backyards and we won. In light of this, I'm asking the council to please pass the strongest possible ordinance. And I'd like to kind of reiterate what's been said before and what I think this means. I believe that we should go with 1500 foot for both setback and reverse setback distances. Both Dallas and Flower Mound have these in place and I don 't see why we shouldn't go for this also. 250 feet is completely unacceptable for reverse setbacks. And if this doesn't work, then I'm wondering why we can't keep the 1200 foot with like that of the 2013 ordinance. 1000 foot is the absolute minimum that you guys should approve for both setbacks and reverse setbacks. It's also a bit bothersome that there's some possible conflicts of interest with some of you maybe regarding set backs. And if that's the case, I would hope that you would not vote on this tonight. Excuse yourself from that. I think you should do away with variances. What are the real purpose of these things? I mean, it seems like that these just give industry priority and maybe grant some exemptions for them. So please do away with variances in this ordinance. I suggest that when a permit has been approved for continued fracking in the neighborhood, that community get notification at least two weeks prior to the beginning of operations. Anything less than this, I think, is unacceptable. Notifications should not only be on the city website, but I think they should be handed out through mailers or flyers and possible maybe a sign posted in a neighborhood for all to see, not just the frack well site, but maybe an entrance to a neighborhood also. And anyone moving into Denton should, especially renters or maybe somebody moving into a new neighborhood that are moving to an existing frack well site should be notified prior to moving in with a separate flyer or something like the lead paint flyer that you get when you move into a new place. Air and water testing should be completed both pre and post fracking. I think it should also be completed during the process. This should be completed by a third party and paid for by the industry. If this is a safe practice industry, as they suggest, then they should not, they shouldn't be opposed to this. We need to know if they're operating within the state and federal laws. I think that you should also be talking about requiring vapor recovery units. Please push for vapor recovery units. There's also I think that pits should be banned and permit, the permit fees should be increased significantly. There's no need to make this easier for the industry to continue fracking. And they know we don't want in here and so do you guys. So I'm asking you guys to take a look at these, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question for staff. When we talked about the notices going out to residents and to property owners, notice for activity, what is the timeline? According to the ordinance. Do you need a minute to look it up? Yeah, I'll take a minute. But it's a notice that goes out to the properties for any activity where you're drilling, working over, performing completion, completion, completion, plugging and abandoning or performing other maintenance activities. And it has to go out. It has to go out no sooner than 20 days and no later than two days prior to those activities. Twenty to two days. Twenty to two. Okay. Ed Ireland and after him, Randy Sorrels. My name is Ed Ireland, 777 Taylor Street in Fort Worth, Texas. At the city council meeting last week, there was a discussion about whether or not a 1000 foot setback in a neighboring municipality is commercially reasonable under a prima facie clause in HB 40, which would provide a legal basis for the city of Denton to implement the same setback distance. I emphasize again that there is a that that is a misreading of the law for three reasons. And I prepared a fact sheet that I sent to the staff and I think maybe it got distributed electronically just so it was written down. But three reasons that that's a misreading. One is commercially reasonable is only one of the criteria for evaluating the legality of a city ordinance. Second, a five year prima facie status is not irrefutable, as was emphasized by your city attorney who said, quote, what it is not is an irrefutable presumption of reasonab leness. In other words, satisfying this five year prima facie status will not automatically make a setback distance commercially reasonable. And third, specific conditions must be considered. Every city is different, which is why HB 40 did not establish a statewide standards for commercially reasonable . Factors such as population, population density, topography and other surface realities vary across the state and even within a city. Regarding one of the provisions about preemption by state law, I wanted to emphasize I think your proposed ordinance does not cover vapor recovery units. And that is the right decision to make because vapor recovery units are not required for the most part in the city of Denton. The gas that's produced here is dry. There are no condensate tanks. There are no tanks. There is nothing to hook a vapor recovery unit to. They will not operate. They're not needed. Finally, on pad size, pad sizes, pad site sizes, I believe in your proposed ordinance now you have a three acre site. That is small, but at least it's workable size. I think you shouldn't have a size limitation. You should just be able to let the operator prove up whatever size is needed because that's how you encourage multiple wells being drilled on the same pad site. So if you make a requirement that they're too small, you will not get the multiple wells drilled on a pad site. So a three acre minimum with proving up whatever size is required I think would be your most reasonable approach. Thank you. One thing that I should have asked each speaker to do at the start, I'll ask you at the end, is as you start, after you say your name and your address, if you would just say that you're opposed to the current proposed ordinance or you're in favor of it, are you opposed or in favor? There are parts of it that I would be opposed to and just cited my suggestions, but overall I think you've come up with a tough ordinance, but for the most part it's workable . Okay. We have some questions for you, Ms. Briggs. As far as a legal challenge, I just want to remind you that the law has to be applied on a rational basis, and I ask industry not to manipulate the intent of HB 40 from what the legislature intended by saying that setbacks in different areas for different situations won't work. That's all. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Rogen. I did want to dig into this comment about commercially reasonable as it. You started off talking about this comparison to other cities. And if something works in one city maybe it's not going to work in another city because of differences in geology, top ography and all these things that you mentioned. Then you made a clarification. You said that might even be the case within a city that there might be a setback provision that works in one situation that doesn't work in another situation. Is that true? Is that kind of how you understand the commercially reasonableness concept of HB 40 and how that might be played out that even within a known -- internal to a city, there might have to be different rules for different well sites? Well, HB 40 did not specify that it has to be between the municipalities. It just refers to commercially reasonable. Right. So I guess ultimately that's however that's interpreted. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hawkins. I too was puzzled last week by that and I was trying to figure it out. I think I still am. And I bet you I know the answer to this. But if minerals were more difficult to get out of the ground for us to be commercially reasonable, are we supposed to have less stringent of an ordinance? So if the topography was, you know, rough and rocky, we're supposed to have a more lenient ordinance? Well, again, ultimately that is going to get determined through I would imagine a legal process. Sure. And so however that might play out given all the factors that would have to be taken into consideration. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Thank you, Mr. Ireland. Thank you. Randy Sorrels and Bobby Jones is on deck. My name is Randy Sorrels. I live at 3501 Rose Lawn Drive. We have approximately 100 acres of property there in the city limits. And your position on the ordinance, your favor or opposed? Well, my position on the ordinance is I'm concerned with the people that were grandfathered in or already have existing wells on their property. I want to make my comments about that. Sure. We have three immediately around our house that we can see. We have a water well that sits almost in the middle of the triangle between three gas wells. I've had the water tested three different times. We've had no problems, no issues, same as it was 20 years ago, a little high in sodium, soft water, that type of stuff. But when we drilled these wells or when these wells were drilled, we went through the city. We dotted our I's, crossed our T's, complied with all the ordinances, everything that was needed. We have minimum setbacks. We've had no complaints. These wells have been operating since 2003. We've had no issues of noise, any issues of complaints. We've had no problems. We've raised three children. They're all Duke scholars. We have 50-plus animals that live out there, two different tanks we fish out of. We've had none of the issues that we hear from other people . And this was with the older technology that we had years ago. Sad to say, in every industry, there are sometimes incidents. If we had a plane crash this afternoon, we wouldn't shut all the planes down in the United States because there was some type of a tragedy. It happens in the industry. We like the regulations. We support responsible people and their operations. But we also enjoy this winter when we're heating our schools and stuff, that the price of natural gas is at a record low right now so that we can heat our buildings, keep our kids warm in school. It's a very positive thing. So my comments were that I live in a situation where all this stuff has happened with the older technology. I look forward to the newer technology where they can red rill these wells from a half a mile away. I won't even see them. That's a potential that we could have and re-get production , things go good. And it's been a very positive thing. And I hear a lot of the other comments, and I just want to state my side of it. And we're very happy and still living there. Thank you. We have a question, Ms. Briggs. I'm just curious how close your home is to the wells. The first gas well, every morning I see it when I walk into my bathroom. I have two four by six glass windows. And as I look out, it's about 300 feet from my house. 300 feet. Approximately. I mean, I have to get out there and measure it. Maybe 400. I have two, I'm a very green person. I have two wind turbines on my property. I get my electricity from wind. I also have solar. So I'm not quite the old, I am a property owner, I am a mineral owner, and I'm happy about it. Yes. But I'm also trying to do my part as far as other things. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you all. All right. Bobby Jones and after him, Mr. Gilbert Horton. Good evening. I'm Bobby Jones, 1824 South Bonney Bray Street here in Denton. What I'm here, and I'm not opposed and I'm not for, I'm mixed up a little. Well, so are we. And I understand. And I want to thank you all for the job you do. What I'm here about is on existing wells, the reverse set back. I don't have a problem with the 250 foot reverse setback. What I do have a problem with is when my wells were put in, they were put in and designed from the well head, not from the well site. So now in this new rules, when we go to the well site, I'm losing more surface acres around and not only that, but like one well head is exactly 250 foot off as required with a waiver from the city off of an existing building that has since been sold on another property line. And then my home from that same well is approximately 300 foot the other direction. When we start going out, not only is everybody losing money by going out, but then it's just confusing everything. I mean, I did everything by the book. I planned for development back in 2001 when we leased. These wells have been there since 2002. Absolutely no problems. We got another well which is approximately 300 foot from my mother's home. And like I said, we've owned this property except there's 82 acres there and 18 and a half of them we owned for 40 plus years. The other remainder, 73 years. We've been here. We pay our taxes. And I just, I don't feel like we need to take any more away . And then I think it's going to add to problems on existing wells, not only in my place, but elsewhere, when we start moving where our setbacks are, because they were designed by a set of rules. Thank you. Okay. We have a question. Were you done? Yeah. Okay. We have a question, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jones, thank you for coming out. Because you highlight one of the real -- there's a lot of challenges with this, right? And no matter how we decide on this thing, people leave unhappy, which makes it really uncomfortable sitting up here. You mentioned that you've lived on that property since -- what did you say? Well, my grandparents come to Denton 73 years ago, and they bought that property. And so they actually had it since then, 35 has cut in. They had it -- so now we've got property still on the west side in a joint venture of 35. Then we've got the property on the east side. And another challenging thing that I just thought about was the city's getting ready to take some utility easements down there near this well, so I'm getting condensed when we keep moving both directions. So the last -- Ingress and egress. Yeah. Well, the last gentleman that spoke talked about he's got a water well on the site, and he's had his water tested. Do you guys have water wells out there, or are you on city water? My grandparents did have water wells, but we are now on city water. The water wells had to go away because -- and I'm not blaming North Texas, but when they went to water the golf course all the time, they lowered that water table so low that it was just better to be on the city water. Have you guys had any health issues as related to the wells being -- Look at me. Kindred spirits. Thank you. Absolutely none. I've got my family living there, or me and my wife have my mother-in-law. My mother lives right up about 400 foot in another home. We've been here, and everybody's been there since 2002. Both wells, I think, were drilled in two. I think actually my well was maybe the first in the city of Denton. Thank you for coming out. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you. Gilbert Horton, and then next is Walt Lindrose. Thank you. My name is Gilbert Horton. I represent Devon Energy 1209 County Road 1304 in Bridge port, Texas. Again, Council, I want to -- speaking tonight with the ordinance as is and as presented, leaning towards supportive, doesn't mean we don't still have some very big concerns about it, but all in all, I believe it's been a product of compromise . I just want to thank you again for the city staff and for the Council for working through this exhaustive process to get where we are today. I know that much time has and effort and late nights have been expended getting to this point. We appreciate the progress we believe that's been made the last couple of weeks in tightening up the ordinance and clearing up ambiguities. The city staff has been very open to listening to Devon's concerns regarding where we needed clarification, where we felt like this language needed to be tightened up, where we felt like this was a loophole. They've been very, very open to listening to those. They've agreed to some and others -- they've not agreed to all of our wordsmithing recommendations, but I think it's been a very fair process. This product before you -- no way is perfect. It is, as I said earlier, a product of compromise, but it is a tough set of regulations. I believe Mr. Grove referred to just some of the enhanced -- like the noise mitigation. I mean, that is an extremely tougher and expensive, but I believe ultimately more effective way to mitigate noise than what you have currently had. So we're going to try our best to strive under the -- and to strive to work with to comply with the regulations that are before you tonight should you pass them. We do still have one main concern, and that's really what I want to focus on, and that is the setbacks on new well sites. We believe that as an industry, we have consistently demonstrated through this past decade or 15 years of activity that we can operate safely and efficiently within the boundary of our pad sites. You add to that the extensive set of mitigation and nu isance controls proposed in this ordinance before you -- noise management plan, traffic analysis, erosion control plans -- it's our belief that these proposed setbacks of 1,000 feet for new gas well sites can be further reduced to a more reasonable distance to not only protect the rights of mineral owners, but to be certain such a distance is in compliance with state law. So that is our one big overarching concern over the whole ordinance. But I do want to finish by saying thank you. From as sincere as we can, we appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns, to work through this for the past six-plus months to get where we are tonight. And again, as presented, Devin is, although we still have some concerns, I believe overall, if you take it as a whole , we are supportive of this proposal before you. Thank you. We have questions from Ms. Briggs. Thank you for your time in helping us with our ordinance. I appreciate that. You do realize that there's a variance process currently in that, right, that you guys can go through? I do realize that there is a -- and I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but I do realize that there is some sort of process. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Walt Lindros and then Chris Rosbrum. My name is Walt Lindros. I live at 825 Lindhurst Lane, 7620 5 Denton. And I sent all of you, I believe, an email in which I was wrestling with the term commercially reasonable, and I came up with a prudent operator named Anadarko Pet roleum and what they had done in Colorado. And one of the things that was acceptable to them as a pr udent operator is the thousand foot setback. Another thing they did was to erect walls around the rig site, 60, 80 feet high, lined them with hay bales in order to deaden the noise, also to restrict the light from going into the surrounding houses, the surrounding community. They found one spot where they could bring their trucks in order to distribute water to the different well sites, and this cut down on the 18 wheelers running through the neighborhoods. They had monitors set up in order to test the air constantly, and also they had underground monitors set up so that they could determine what kind of toxins were coming into the -- to the soil from the well site itself. I don't know if your ordinance is complete as it is right now or if you're just talking about setbacks. The other thing is that in listening to this gentleman, he 's presenting you with a lot of things and also presenting me with a lot of things, and much of it was summation. And I'd like to have an opportunity to take a look at this thing a little bit more thoroughly and study it. I'm being hit with this all right now, and I'd like to look at it more thoroughly. Thank you. Questions? Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Rosbrum and then Brandon Finley. Chris Rosbrum, 2113 Emerson Lane, Denton, Texas, and I'm speaking in favor of the ordinance as presented. There's another factor that I don't remember having heard come about in all these discussions. A couple of years ago, I was called on by a family that had two tracks side by side on Country Club Road in City Limits , 50 acres each, and they didn't have a survey, so I had a survey performed. And then I had Allison Engineering take a look at it, and each family owned 50 acres. And of course, they were thinking they were going to be able to sell 50 acres. They had a gas well on each site, and by the time we took out the road that it took to get back to the pad site and the resulting pipelines and everything else that was associated with that, one side ended up with 30 acres that they could develop, and the other one was 22 acres. So it was a dramatic reduction. It's not just simply the pad site that you have to look at because you've got to get your trucks to it, and you've got to get the resulting gas away from it. So there's a much more dramatic impact on it than just the simple pad site that we've all been talking about. So I'm in favor of the minimal setbacks that you can possibly address so that we can have more commercial development for vacant land tracks within the city and help the taxes. So I'll speak in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Brandon Finley, and then on deck is Eliada Thomas. My name is Brandon Finley. I live at 806 Dent Street. I'm opposed to this. If you can't get it right, then don't make it worse. We've done an excellent job of selective listening, and I applaud the gall it takes to do that. Hear this. We voted for a ban, and when it was repealed, I don't recall hearing anybody say, "Let's roll over and be a good boy for the oil industry and do whatever they want." I do recall saying that if it was repealed, we wanted the toughest regulations in the state, and here I've watched as you cower before HB 40, which is set in place to eliminate patchwork regulations like variances all over the place, and let's do 250 feet here and 40 feet here and 1,000 feet there. We see who oil and gas industries do ally is, and that's developers and landowners, and it really makes for strange bedfellows, all now worried about the one thing they care about money. But it's not about money. It's about health, safety, and welfare. That's why you have a drilling ordinance to protect people with a setback in the first place. If regulating the oil industry hurts developers or land owners, let them take it up with the oil industry. It's not your job to appease these big money interests. You work for us. We put you in these chairs, and you need to remember that or not. We'll be ready to remind you soon enough. The following regulations, anything less than a thousand foot universal setback on all gas wells is unacceptable. Low price permits and a Swiss cheese set of regulations that gives industry every chance to gain waivers they need to drill anywhere they want as long as they put a pretty little fence around it aren't acceptable. Giving the gas well administrator the power to grant wai vers, one person who's not elected is not acceptable. Absolutely no protection for our air and water is unacceptable, especially our water. It's not even a protected use. It should be. Our drinking water should be protected. Our surface water should be protected. There should be some kind of monitoring going on before and after. I do believe there is a conflict of interest as well. And if we don't have water, we don't have a city. That city gets targeted by the state or the oil and gas registry. It's because a weak city government, not because of any of our regulations. This council is hard to watch work, hard to listen to, and hard to read about. 2017 can't come soon enough. Thank you. Any questions? I don't see any questions. Thank you. Ms. Tamez and then after that, Jess Hardgrave. And I apologize if I didn't say your name correctly. Alita Tamez. Thank you. And after you do your address, your time will start. And could we have the overhead, please? You can't see who wrote this, but that's George Orwell. Thank you for your public service. My name is Alita Tamez and I live at 1700 Willowood Street in the lovely Dena neighborhood. In an act of universal deceit, in a time of universal dece it, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. But I will argue that we are no longer capable of telling or of discerning the truth. Many of our elected officials do only what benefits them and big money. The media is run by American corporations. The admin of these corporations tell us a consuming lifestyle of affluence is the only measure of a person's success. What is the truth? The truth is something very different to many of us in here . There is the truth of the oil and gas industry. The truth of the mineral rights owners. The developers. The Greg Johnson CEO of Veris Truth. City Council truths. Truths are so subjective. Truths are not moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are true regardless of whether anyone believes them or not. Filling your lungs with water will cause you to drown. A moral absolute. Fracking uses a toxic chemical cocktail known as fracking fluid. A moral absolute. Fracking removes millions of gallons of fresh water from the water cycle to be permanently contaminated by toxic chemicals. Moral absolute. UTA study links groundwater contamination in the Barnett Sh ale to fracking. Moral absolute. SMU study links earthquake activity in our region to fr acking. Moral absolute. We know fracking in our neighborhoods and cities is morally and absolutely wrong. Knowing these moral absolutes, why would we not pass the most stringent regulations possible? Let's beef up our setbacks to the most restrictive possible regulations aligning ourselves with Flower Mound and Dallas . Strength in numbers. 250 feet. Would any of you on this council choose to live 250 feet from a well? If your answer is no, then stand up for the people of Dent on who are counting on you at this critical moment. If your answer is yes, I urge you to contact Greg Johnson at Varus. He has some real estate that he can sell you. I think I know the answer here, but I'm going to ask it anyway. As city council members, as elected representatives of the people of Denton, will you side those who believe with those who believe they are telling you the truth or with the moral absolute? Thank you. We have a question. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor. Well, we have a new narrative tonight and I have a question for staff. Can I ask a legal question now or during the public hearing ? Because maybe we can bring some clarity. So obviously there's a new theme, conflict of interest, that was brought about last week. And I've received some phone calls from a variety of folks. I've spoken with anybody that was interested to call me and have a conversation alleging, making an allegation against me that I have a conflict of interest, which I didn't believe I did, don't believe I do. Asked the question before we ever started talking about this topic, which was a year ago. So, Madam City Attorney, I came to you and I asked you to review it. And I asked you to give me a written opinion of whether I have a conflict of interest or not. And given that now we have people willing to come up here and make accusations of me by name, I'd like for you to address that, please. Certainly. You did approach us and you did ask for an opinion with regard to the conflict issues which arose, which were presented by certain members of the public. We looked at that at length. We've thought about it, we've talked about it with you. And we did issue an opinion. It is our opinion that there is no conflict of interest under the provisions of state law, under the provisions of our charter, under the provision of our ordinances. So that is our opinion. No conflict exists. Thank you. I might add that perception -- Well, he asked her a question. But we do have another question. Yes. Mr. Hawkins. I don't know if it's a question or not, but I just -- I wanted to speak to Greg Johnson's character publicly, too. And I've sat in lots of meetings. He's a father. He does participate in real estate in this town. I've seen him turn down deals that weren't the right deals, too. And I don't think the accusations tonight are going to help the proceedings in any way, good or bad, tonight. And I just wanted to go on record with everybody watching saying he has a very high standard of character, very involved with the community in lots of different ways. And it's getting frustrating to me, also. Okay. May I make a comment, please? It needs to be short. Perception is everything. When you're a public servant, that trust that you build with your community can be easily undermined. Okay. That's not the kind of conversation we need to be having. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hardgrave will be up next, but we are going to take a 10-minute break. And I will caution folks when we come back that we didn't play the rules for regular comments. I guess it's citizens' reports. But we do ask that you keep your comments to the entire council, not to call out individual council members, and try to keep on the topic of the issue that's before us. So we'll call a 10-minute break. Let's try to all be back so that we can start promptly at 8 40. We are back from a break. It took 50 seconds longer than we had planned. A couple of announcements. We're going to accept blue cards for five more minutes, five more minutes. So if there's anyone that needs a blue card, staff is distributing those at this time. We are on item 5B, items for individual consideration, consideration of adoption of an ordinance, amending several chapters of our development code regarding gas well drilling. And I will say that if we have speakers that single out council members, I will stop the comments. And we'll have to end the comments for that speaker at that time. So please keep your remarks on topic. I appreciate the majority of the remarks and the ability to stay on the topic and not make personal comments. So our next speaker is Jeff Hardgrave. State your name, address, and your time will begin. And next up will be Carol Self. Thank you. My name is Jeff Hardgrave, Vice President of Operations for Atmos Pipeline Texas, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, Texas, 752 40. And I am speaking in opposition of the ordinance as I const rue it to apply to gas utility operations for natural gas storage. Mayor Pro Tem Gregory, honorable council members, city staff, and residents, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight regarding your proposed ordinance modification as it impacts our natural gas storage facility located wholly in the city of Denton at 5642 East McKinney Street. Our natural gas facility has been in service since 1967, operates under a permit from the Texas Railroad Commission. Atmos Pipeline Texas is a gas utility as defined by the Texas Utilities Code. Our facility is comprised of some non-natural gas storage wells and a compression facility. We store gas in a unique depleted reservoir ideally suited for such service. Most importantly, this facility plays both critical and strategic roles in energy needs for our area. Perhaps you remember the frigid winter of 2011, February 2 nd to be exact, when the temperatures in Denton here reached 11 degrees. During that time, the traditional production well supplies across North Texas became frozen and gas production rapidly declined. Yet, because of our Lake Dallas storage facility, critical energy supplies and deliveries for residential and commercial customers continue to be made. Atmos has sought opportunities to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our facility. We've invested some $44 million over the past five years in improvements. Further, we have sought to acquire property in and around our facility. This purchase has not been motivated by future expansion, but to ensure that operations were sufficiently buffered from the surrounding growth the city of Denton enjoys. Atmos Energy respects the challenges the city faces in regulation of oil and gas production wells. However, the only resemblance of a typical natural gas production oil and gas well to a storage well is that they must be drilled. I have a picture of one of our well sites here on the dais. Once drilled, our wells occupy a very small footprint, 20 by 20. In fact, here's a picture of one of these wells. There are no storage tank batteries. There's no treating equipment. There's no truck traffic to haul away fluids. It is the surface equipment that you see here. These storage wells are designed for 50 to 75 years of life because gas is moved out of the reservoir, but also into it as well. The benefit of a utility's natural gas storage is vital to meeting energy demands. As you consider the modifications to your ordinance, please be mindful of our storage facility, an operation that is unique to the North Texas area. This facility has met the demands of customers for almost five decades now, and we enjoy being a part of this community. The gas utility, which operates in the public interest, the inability to retire and replace a storage well due to new requirements could jeopardize energy security of our region . Thanks for your time, and I'd stand for questions if you have any. Well, we do have a question. Thank you. Council Member Rudden. Thank you for your time and your comments. I remember that winter well on February 6th of 2011, my now four-year-old son was born, and we were driving across town at Super Bowl night. Overall, that icy conditions, my wife was cussing the whole way to the hospital. But anyways. That was out of order. I've heard. I'm trying to ascertain what specifically with this ordinance is concerning to you, and do you have specific citations that point to something that you feel diminishes your ability to continue what you're doing out there? I actually do. For example, if you were to look at this particular sample well site, we don't consider a pad site essentially two or three acres. It's have a relatively small unobtrusive footprint. However, if you did measure from that site 1,000 feet, since all these wells pre-exist the existing ordinance, that we would have to consider a new site and a new gas well site plan. That 1,000 feet would put us clearly into adjacent neighborhoods. You mean 1,000 feet measured from site to site or 1,000 feet? Well, essentially from the well site outward. Gotcha. Okay. So it's a little bit unique, maybe from the examples that maybe have been mentioned earlier. Well, we might get a chance to ask some questions of staff to try and clarify the provisions as it relates to this. Thank you for your questions. Yeah, I'll wait for staff to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Rudden. Well, I guess I'd ask it to be out of order to ask a couple questions of staff to try and understand. I think it would be in order. And so ask and we'll figure out which staff person needs to answer. Well, I guess, Darren, you heard him and his concerns are, is that represent a correct understanding of our ordinance as it would relate to the type of activity they're doing out at the Atmos site? Well, it is a correct interpretation that says this draft would include those types of wells. And so if they did drill a new well, we would still require a permit. One of the provisions as far as the operations, I can assume he's relating to notifications. I know they're, I believe, across the street from a mobile home park. So providing notice in those examples, there isn't necessarily a site that they're measuring from. So I would assume his concern may be are they measuring from their entire property, which you'll see again nine specific well heads dispersed throughout a large acreage. There isn't a site plan even. So if it were measured from the existing site, they may not meet that thousand foot. I think we can work with him to clarify that. But I would assume those are some of his concerns. But as far as drafting any new requirements, we would look for the operations to continue. As far as our annual inspections, again, these would be captured by definition. So the applicability of the ordinance would be there. Only if there were something new on the ground, though, would we ask for a new site plan. Okay. That's helpful a bit. And I do remember recalled a couple years ago having an SUP request for that particular property because it was considered drilling. And so we're treating it like a typical drilling operations , although we understood at that time the difference of use of that particular site. It didn't involve fracking. It didn't involve all these other sorts of things. So I guess my request would be for Darren, you, and perhaps maybe someone from the legal team at some point to huddle with him to understand more clearly some of the issues so that we can make sense of this so that either tonight or in the future we can make adjustments accordingly. Yes, sir. Mr. Hawkins. Yeah, that was my request too, just to get with legal and somehow see if this can be penned in a way where they can still continue to operate in the way that they are. Because it seems like this is different from a hydraulic fracturing site. Yeah, just to be clear, everything that's out there was considered in writing this. So they can continue to operate as is. They would be an existing site. There won't be any applicability here unless something changed. So I definitely will do that. But I just want to make sure that there isn't any thought that because this ordinance, if it were to be adopted this evening as presented, it shouldn't permit or I guess produce any conflicts between their current operations, what they're doing out there. Again, we'll get with him, but I just want to make that clear. Thank you. Yes, sir. I think something that we're all acknowledging that maybe not all of our audience is aware of, but the moratorium runs out on gas well drilling in a couple of weeks. And therefore, it runs out in a couple of weeks. And we have not, we don't have anything posted to extend the moratorium, so it's running out in a couple of weeks. Which means that there's some action that probably needs to be taken tonight, which also probably means as we discover tonight or in the coming weeks, there will be revisions to any ordinance, anything that's done. This ordinance with amendments or not amendments. There will be ongoing work that will have to be done and as we discover unintended consequence that that are things that are brought to counsel or to staff. I am sure that that this is this will not be the last time that we deal with this. Thank you. So we have Carol. So, oh, Mr. Johnson, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Darren. I have a question of you. As it relates to Atmos's operation, would we even consider that to be the same kind of operation? Because it seems like they're putting gas into storage tanks, right? And then taking it back out. They're not. They're actually not even putting the gas into storage tanks. They use a formation. There were some wells drilled, I think as Jeff pointed out, in 1967 into the Strawn formation. So different types of wells. That was gas that migrated up from the Barnett and got trapped in a different formation. But those sands serve as a good reservoir for holding gas. You can see they had been there for many years. So Atmos is using that formation to actually store produced gas. They put it, inject it into the ground. So these are wells used to store gas below the surface. So as he showed in that picture, that is really the only equipment other than the compressors that they have out there. Yeah, I mean, I said tanks. I just meant storage. Oh, yes, sir. In other words, what I'm wondering here is does this ordinance even apply? Because they're not harvesting natural gas from the earth through traditional drilling and fracking and all those things. It's a void area. So I'm just wondering if maybe the easiest thing to do would be to have some staff conversation to talk about whether or not this even applies to that type of an operation. And once we determine that, if we need to make adjustments or consider adjustments, we can do that because I don't think there's any intention to stop that storage operation. Thank you. Thank you. So Carol Sofe and then after that, Ed Sofe. My name is Carol Sofe and I live at 1620 Victoria and I am opposed. We must be ready. We are not crying wolf about protections from accidents involving gas wells. These accidents have happened. They are fact, not hypothetical situations. They could and will happen again. The city must keep its current setbacks in place based on the fact that we have had accidents that could have been much worse if luck had not played a huge part in the outcome. We may not be so lucky the next time lightning strikes. The question here tonight before us is, do you put the bottom line of an industry first over the safety of the citizens? Please keep the 1200 foot setback in place with no reverse setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. Ed Sofe and after Mr. Doctor after Ed, Jennifer Lay. Good evening. My name is Ed Sofe. I live at 1620 Victoria and I'm opposed to this as well. In his remarks at the May 12th, 2015 City Council work session about the gas well fire in the West Gate neighborhood, Deputy Fire Chief Hedges stated that 330 feet is the protective distance from an incident before a neighborhood is evacuated. In other words, homes, hospitals, churches, apartments, assisted living centers, businesses and schools all would be evacuated if they were closer than 330 feet to a gas well production site. In the ordinance revision before you, the reverse setback for new drilling and production sites in both neighborhood residential and regional mixed use center districts is 250 feet. That's 80 feet less than the fire department's evacuation distance of 330 feet. I heard anecdotally that the firefighters could not get any closer than 900 feet to a gas well fire. So I wrote to the fire marshal for clarification. And she wrote back to me, quote, various factors including but not limited to the type of chemical involved volume containment type of equipment or structure involved and environmental conditions like wind can greatly impact the nature and effect of an incident. All of these factors could apply to a gas well production site, so an assessment of the actual conditions on the site at the time of the incident would ultimately determine a perimeter distance. In other words, they figured out the distance when they get there. Unlike the incident at Westgate where the well had fortunately melted and the gas flow was diminished, the time spent figuring out on site what to do and how to do it could be crucial in saving lives and property. Without the specialized equipment and expertise necessary for offensive action at an incident, our first responders can only act defensively. The setbacks are their first line of defense, and they are ours too. Truly protective and precautionary distances cannot be determined until the impacts have been determined by an un biased and transparent risk assessment of a potential worst case scenario at a gas well production site within the city in any zoning category. Thank you. In my remaining time, I just want to say that it is disappointing that there's no air monitoring involved, that there are no electric engines instead of diesel, and we know the horrible impact of diesel on our air quality. And to correct Mr. Ireland, who said there was no need for vapor recovery units because of we have dry gas. Well, we might want to remind him that there were two tank batteries out at Westgate, and they were condensate tanks. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer Lane and after his lane, Ron seaford. Oh, I'm sorry. Key lebriggs had a question I beg your pardon. Mr. So I just wanted to say thank you for sharing that email and 300 feet that you mentioned has been a concern of mine is a minimum as far as fire safety and then you mentioned 330. I watched the video a number of times of that work session. And if you haven't, you should. And the she deputy chief hedges distinctly said 330 feet and if he meant 300, that's still 50 feet. Right. Off. Is that, is that chief still with us or. No, we have a fire chief here. Can you come down and explain to us the 300, the safety. Are you is that all the questions. Yeah, thank you. I do like to hear from him. Mayor pro tam and council members, the D O T requirement is we've discussed in previous sessions lists for a for a fl ammable for a flammable gas lists a a isolation distance of 330 feet. What we've identified in our discussions and what chief hed ges has shared is that we effectively as an industry use 300 as a standard as a generalized measurement of for the isolation distance. And as we've indicated, the isolation distance is that primary area where we make our size up an assessment and then based on the conditions presented, whether we've got a a liquefied release and we're talking about topography and and downstream runoff or whether we've got a gaseous release. And we're talking about when direction and escape. That is what will help us to identify the direction of an evacuation zone and the size of an evacuation zone. But we start with an isolation distance of 300 feet and work from there. Thank you. Jennifer lane and then Ron fever. My name is Jennifer Lane. I live at 1526 Willowwood Street in Denton, Texas. Code 76205 property values have dropped here in Denton while rising elsewhere. I'm sure you know that from other sources. My own house built by Anderson and Wilson, the architect of Houston's Astrodome, has dropped approximately 20 K in the last year, even though maintained and upgraded. Eventually, as brought forward by Carol Sof and also by others, there will be an explosion like Arlington's. We were very lucky last April when the well caught on fire because there was very little gas in it. Struck by lightning. It strikes me sort of at the last minute in terms of catching up. Mr. Groth has been given increased discretionary power to approve setback waivers. This kind of power, in my opinion, should be reserved for elected officials only. And HB 40 says local control results in a patchwork of regulations. How is weakening our ordinance as compared to say flower m ounds not a patchwork also. I've been away and I've been shocked to follow what has gone on here since this past May. Governance here puts counsel in the position of acting not only as our elected officials, but as a Supreme Court over the will of thousands of Denton citizens. Since we banned fracking, our city officials and staff should be proposing the strongest ordinance around, not the weakest one. Thank you. Thank you very much. On TV and then Cindy spoon. Hello, my name is Ron. I live at 1400 Moran Drive. You know, I also appreciate all the work you all have done on this. I'm going to talk like an auctioneer because I want to get through it all. I can't say I'm in favor of it, but there's some things that we could do a lot better on. I echo everything that's been said about new well setbacks. There's I think a strong case has been made that industry disregards local control with HB 40. They're going to go after you all no matter what it is and the courts will decide what a reasonable setback is. So let's stand by the people, the Democratic will of the people and stand by our strong setbacks, make allies of those that are taking the strongest line. It's strategic. We can align ourselves with Dallas, Flower Mound, etc. 1500 foot setbacks. Let's go for it. There's no reason to incentivize industry. They have an ins atiable lust for gas. They do not need lower setbacks for industrial areas. They will come for it there. They'll come for it here. They'll come for it everywhere. We should not lower setbacks for them under any circumstances. We just heard from the chief. It shouldn't be that low regardless, but we don't need minimums. Let's do away with minimums. If you offer a minimum, what that says to me is the setback is just a jumping off point. It's not a real setback. It's the real setback is the minimum is what this says to me. We want no minimums. Please just put a setback on there, match it to the reverse, and have a variance process that is reflective of accountability so that you all can have a public hearing, and we can take each case individually. We don't have to aim for a minimum, but we can comment. Let these folks, if they want to come into this town and fr ack, let them have a public hearing and explain to the people why they deserve a variance. Let us confront them. It's like due process. They want to come and poison us. They have to come before us and convince us that they have the right to do so that we should allow them closer in than how we legislate. It's fair. It's reasonable. It's due process. You all can do that. We don't want these folks who don't, we don't have direct accountability to like the zoning board of adjustment or like the gas well administrator to have so much power. Let's see. Right. So on that gas well administrator should not have this ability to reduce setbacks by 50%. That's extraordinary for an unelected official. We should do away with that. I don't understand why these, if we're existing wells, you all have this pad minimum that can be exempted to five acres. Let's just keep the minimum or the maximum at two. Don't put it up to three, please. Leave it at two. The existing wells can apply for their five or their existing things. Don't give them more right off the bat. And notices. I echo that there's no reason we should have a maximum. After this already been approved, the notice that fracking activities are going to start, two days is unreasonable. If people want to save themselves and get away, they need a month's notice. Make, like if I want to move away, I need to give someone a month's notice. That's just standard. Make industry let people know 30 days we're going to come and poison you and give them a chance to get out of there. And then why cap it at 20 days notice? If industry wants to give us two or three months notice, please just let them. Thank you. Thank you. We have no questions. Cindy spoon and after Cindy Tara, Lynn Hunter. Uh, Cindy's fair and 2210 Westwood. I wrote all of y'all my concerns and my recommendations for amendments. And I tried to post them on your Facebooks and tweet them at you and all that good stuff. So hopefully you all read them already. Um, I think that the ordinance needs amendments and I hope that y'all are going to be adding those amendments. It's obviously not good as is if Devon energy and at Ireland are so comfortable with it and think that it's so workable. Um, I went to a gas well forum this past weekend in Ar lington with the railroad commission and the TCEQ representatives there. People from Arlington were asking them what they believed a safe setback was. The railroad commissioner said or the representative of the railroad commission said we do not deal with that. In fact, the direct quote was we don't take into consideration where people live in relation to this activity. So I bring that up because y'all have to know that y'all are our only line of defense. You are the only people that are going to protect us. Um, so please keep our setbacks 1200 foot at least no reverse setbacks. And then this 250 feet. I mean, God, we just heard from the chief. I'm hoping I want to believe that that's definitely going to be an amendment tonight that nothing below 330 feet. That's crazy. Um, industry is not going to be satisfied with anything. They're probably going to sue us. They're not going to sue all of these towns. So like other people said, strengthen numbers. Um, and if they do see a Suez, at least they'll be forced to define what commercially reasonable is in court. Um, one of my biggest concerns where I would like to see an amendment is in the zoning of the MPC and PD zones where they are actually exempt from this ordinance is my understanding. Please correct me if that's not right. But my understanding is that those zones are exempt from any ordinance that we pass. They get to write their own regulations of what a setback is. It can be below the minimum. I hope I'm wrong, but this is my reading of it. Um, so that sounds like a huge loophole and also areas where we know fr acking is coming in. So that is absolutely unacceptable. That needs to be an amendment. Um, I have a concern about where industrial zones border non-industrial zones. Uh, then you, it seems like you can get your setback down to 500 feet. That seems like unnecessarily burdening people that might already live closer to industrial zones. So why would we do that? Everyone should get their thousand foot setback or whatever. Um, I agree with the last speaker that we need to remove the increase of production sites from two to three acres. Why are we doing that? I don't understand any positive changes that are incentiv izing fracking. Like, you know that we don't want that. Um, no variances. I don't understand the need for a variance. I would love to hear, like, articulate the legal justification of why we need a variance process. Maybe I'm just not aware. Um, I think we should ban open surface pits. That's not currently addressed in the ordinance, but it is surface level activity. So why? There is one close to where I live. Um, I think we need vapor recovery units. Uh, I think we do need air monitors if we cannot regulate, uh, if we cannot add regulations to air emissions. We deserve to know, at least we deserve that data, and we deserve to know what we're being forced to breathe. Like, why, why not? Um, I think their permit fees should be increased. 500 dollars is nothing for an industry that makes a lot of money. And definitely two days notice before fracking is absolutely unacceptable. I have to give two weeks notice before I can quit a job. Surely an industry can give me two weeks notice before they 're coming to my community. We have a question. Mr. Trogantz. Well, thank you. Uh, it was more on the NPCs and the- PDs. Yeah. If we could have legal or Darren maybe explain kind of moving forward, they definitely are going to have some, um, setbacks and that sort of thing. They're going to have to bring us a master plan to, uh, city council in order for us to okay that. Um, just if you could speak on the details of that, uh, clear that one up, please. But thanks for bringing that up. Are there any other questions before she walks away though? No? Okay. Uh, you had mentioned, uh, if legal or Darren could. I was hoping you chose legal, but I'll be up here and, and probably lean on you, uh, for any assistance. But what, what we're proposing is not that there's a loop hole for MPCs or PDs that you could go out and apply for an MPC in lieu of any requirements. What we're doing though is recognizing that we have master plan communities and plan development districts that already exist in the city. Uh, Cole Ranch, Hunter Ranch, Robeson Ranch, Razor Ranch, a lot of ranches I guess just love being, uh, specialty district. But those actually were approved with a set of zoning regulations, uh, in some instances that address gas well drilling. So if they do, what we're saying in this proposal is that anything that's out there would, uh, be authorized under whatever it was that approved it. And for Robeson Ranch as an example, I know that site has, or that, uh, district has, uh, site specific authorization. So they actually submit a plan that identifies by meets and bounds description where each of these gas well drilling production sites will be. So in the event that that district already addresses a set back, uh, what we're proposing is to keep that. In the event, however, that there were any changes made to not only the drilling and production, the gas well development site plan, or the, uh, MPC or PD district, there'd be an opportunity to review that zoning district under the MPC or PD district and see where and if there could be any modifications to make those requirements comply with, uh, our, our new zoning chapter addressing gas well drilling. So it's, it's not, it's not something moving forward that an MPC would get you out of this. Right. And there isn't a loophole, uh, for this type of zoning outside of the gas well ordinance. But it does recognize that these exist and in some instances there's development and existing sites that already have, uh, lesser setbacks. Robeson Ranch, again, being an example, theirs is a hundred feet. Okay. That there are sites a hundred feet away. So if a new MPC comes, comes to Den here, they either have to follow the new ordinance or they have to get an approval by city council. Well, actually both. Okay. Any new MPC or PD district, we would review it for the compliance with this new ordinance or whatever gets passed. Uh, what we would do then is take that zoning regulation that the MPC and PD would be approved under. It goes through a public hearing with the planning and zoning commission and then comes to the city council for approval. Okay. Thank you. We have a question from Mr. Roden. Uh, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Darren. And, and thanks for those questions. I did get the email and pinged on Facebook and I think Twitter today, tried to respond to some of them, but I was in meetings all morning. Uh, but they were very thoughtful and showed that you spent a lot of time with the ordinance. So I, I appreciate that. They're really good questions. So I want to, I want to get a couple of these addressed, um , for me or for you. And there's been a couple comments about your ability, Darren, to, uh, to, uh, allow for a variance in certain occasions. And I just want to clarify that because it's under some pretty specific conditions, uh, trying to, again, incentiv ize the type of behavior we're trying to do with the drill ers, which is take some of these sites offline. Can you spell out in what conditions you are authorized to grant, uh, a waiver and what sort of, uh, a variance and what sort of variance you're allowed to do? Yeah. Just to, to kind of clarify, there, there isn't necessarily any discretion or authority granted. Uh, I am the gas will administrator currently, but it's, it 's written as a position and that gas will administrator is basically the, uh, appointee under the city manager, just designating how some things get approved. So that positions authority in this proposal would allow for administrative variances in the event an operator owned , uh, three drill sites in, in 120 acres of leased area. What the proposal would give is the opportunity to administratively reduce the 1000 foot setback as an example in the event that operator were willing to restrict two of the sites and only request, uh, new development on one. And not only would they have to restrict it, that would be recorded. So there'd be a document that says there won't be any future drilling. So in that scenario there's a specific calculation that allows that administrator the ability to reduce, uh, 50% if it's 1000 feet for one, then you can go down to 750. And if both sites were restricted, you can go down to 500 feet. So what that gives us is instead of allowing the gas well operator the opportunity to go seek waivers for all three sites or go to the zoning board of adjustment for all three sites is to avoid that process because you may not be able to find all the property owners. Uh, you may have some public hearing notifications and, and timelines with the zoning board of adjustment. So in the event that you're willing to self restrict, we have an administrative process that just happens to go through the administrator. Good. And the end result would be less drilling sites, less impact on surrounding uses. There would be fewer new wells on multiple sites. Yes, sir. And so on this point too, the question of the industrial z oned area and why are we, why are we incentivizing drill, drilling activity on those sites? The idea is, and I'm asking this in a question, the idea is Darren, right? That we all agree that this is most properly an industrial use. It just so happens that Bay State Law, it can happen in across all zoning categories. And so what we're trying to do is to say, I'm asking you if this is correct, that we would like as much as possible for this activity to happen in industrial zoned areas where everyone in the city understands that's where appropriately industrial use activity should go. Is that correct? Is that the whole thrust of lowering the setbacks? One word answer. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wasney. So to confirm master plan community, MPC, PD plan community, the rules right now, if they were approved, they have their own set of rules. Going back to 01, 06, and 09 for three large communities encompassing 8,000 acres in southwest end. So when you see that little asterisk, you know, if they were approved, the only way they would have to come back online and conform with what we're looking at tonight would be as if they came in and asked for a change. To that MPC. In which case, now, to get approval, they would have to come into line with what we have. If new master plan communities, and again, these are our big, big, big communities, new, new master plan communities would have to conform to our rules. But I just want, you know, everyone to know that what has been approved in the past, it's set. So unless they come in , unless they initiate a change, it's set. And her question is, is that an accurate understanding? Yes . Thank you. All right. Terri Lynn Hunter. And then after Terri Lynn Hunter, Jody, and I'm going to even though you wrote your name phon etically, is Mert, I believe that is so. My name is Terri Lynn Hunter. I live at 918 North Bell Dent on, Texas. I'm opposed to aspects of this new ordinance. I'm glad to hear that renters will be notified when fr acking activity will occur. But this does not solve the greater problem of who is allowed to grant variances. So I want to address that. And I hope I'm wrong in my understanding of this. I just want to say that. For granting variances, the ordinance says that waivers are needed from 100% of protected uses. But we're still only talking about the owners. Owners who could live out of town, out of state. Despite some of the notification improvements, the overall sense that I get from reading this ordinance is a priority list with industry still at the top, then developers, then property owners, and then way down below is renters and the health and safety of all of our residents. Our vote showed that we wanted health and safety at the top . There are ways in this ordinance that I see lives are being prioritized based on what they own. I emailed this to you all earlier, but I just want to share this with the public as well. If you can see this chart here. Is there a way that we can see that? Thanks. Okay, so I just want to, for us to get an idea of how many people we're talking about that rent in Denton. So these are the demographics. And 48% of the overall housing units in Denton are occupied by renters. That is higher than the percentage of housing units that are owner occupied. That's my understanding. Out of the occupied housing units, 52.3% are occupied by renters. So this is a ton of people that we're talking about that don't have any say in this. Choices about whether or not this portion of the people of Denton will be in close proximity to a gas well with the potential for blowouts, fires, and the assured exposure to ongoing emissions will not be made by these people. And with notification, as Councilman Gregory's question pointed out, these people could receive as little as two days notice. They're actually prevented from being notified any sooner than 20 days. So I would be very entertained to hear the justification for not telling people as soon as possible. There has been a lot of talk about people's choices here. The argument has been made that if someone wants to live near fracking, that is their choice. I do not believe that this situation truly paints a picture of people being able to make informed choices. I know that it would certainly not be a reasonable amount of time for my family and I to make financial and log istical plans if we wanted to choose to leave during fr acking. I am calling on you to eliminate the potential for var iances. The industry will always go for a variance if we allow for them. They will always aim for the minimum setback. We have the responsibility to create an ordinance that protects all and informs all residents, not just those who own certain things. We have questions. Mr. Rhoade? >> Thank you, Terri Lynn, for your comments and the concern for renters because I think it's a good one. I think I'm going to ask a question of our legal team because I raised it, others have raised it as we're struggling with this particular issue. As it relates to notification, I think we're able to kind of get that to anyone living in a particular address. The question of variances as to whether or not a renter of a property can waive certain rights on behalf of the property owner, is that something that a city can allow according to state law? >> Well, and let me clarify, that's not what I'm calling for. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm calling for the ability for the property owner to do that. I don't want the ability for variances to be made for the renters, nor do I want the renters to be able to make that choice for future renters. Does that make sense? >> Right, but I just want to address the question as to whether or not a renter, a current renter, could even waive the rights on behalf of a property that they don't own. >> Right, this has been a topic of some thought and some discussion among the staff and also between the staff and the city council. The concern there is really one of standing, as we talked about, and that is who would have the standing to affect those waivers on behalf of the property itself. And as we've thought about it and as we've looked at it, we believe that it would need to be the property owner and not the renter. The renter could not affect the waiver on behalf of the property owner. And so we really don't see another way to craft the ordinance in order to address that issue and that problem. So we've done the best we could in drafting the ordinance around that concern of standing. >> Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Terri Lynn, you championed the cause of the renter or the tenant very early on and I think, and I appreciate that because I think because of that, we have made modifications to the notice provisions versus what was originally thought of. So the notices will now go to the current resident. >> I do appreciate that. Is there a way that we can increase it from two days or take off the thing that says that they're not allowed to be notified more than 20 days in advance? I'd just love to hear some justification for that. >> I would think that we may see, I don't know, I cannot predict the future, except that we need to be done by midnight. But there may be an amendment on the notification timeline. I would imagine that having been around a while that when you send a notification out way in advance, sometimes people, because it's so far in advance, they forget. So I think that there's probably some optimal times, but there may be a motion for an amendment when we consider the ordinance. >> Sir, are multiple notifications? >> No, I'd love to ask my question. >> Okay. >> I was just wanting to give you a compliment before I ask your question because I'm curious about this one. You said you believe that operators will always ask for a variance to get closer to the protected use. I'm curious because I don't know the answer. Why do you think they would have a desire to get closer? Because I don't know how they think, right? But if I was one, I would want to not draw any attention to myself, get my minerals and not incite anybody if I could help it. So I'm curious, why would you think they would want to always get closer if they didn't need to? >> Sure. I think that because I drive through Denton every day and I see the layout of our neighborhoods. I see the vintage neighborhood where the neighborhood sign shares a wall with the frac wall. It seems like wherever there's a profit to be made, they're going to go for it. And I just agree that there's no reason to set one standard and then create a minimum over here. And the variance process is just to go through a non-elect ed board or to go through all the property owners or to go through Mr. Groth here. Those don't seem like fair processes to grant those var iances. So I'd like to see the variance option eliminated. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, y'all. >> Jody Ismert and then Morgan Larson. So was that close? >> You got it. >> Wow. >> Thank you. Jody Ismert, 819 Anna Street, Denton, Texas. And I just wanted to say that last week I stood before you and spoke about two scientific studies. I did bring a visual today showing these studies this week. It's quite a big visual, so you may have to pan out a little. Anyhow, I'd like to go ahead and read some quotes off of that that I read last week regarding the scientific studies , especially one quote that I read last week from David Carp enter. I'll pull that away for a second. Cancer has a long latency, so you're not seeing an elevation in cancer in these communities. But five, 10, 15 years from now, elevation in cancer is almost certain to happen. And I'll go ahead and place that back so others can see the studies. There's so much already documented about the ill impacts on human health with regard to the chemicals used in fracking. And this growing body of evidence, it just simply keeps mounting. Considering that a 1,000 foot setback is much less than the studies would recommend, I don't think it's prudent to reduce the reverse setbacks to 250, nor do I think it's prudent to create variances down to 500 feet for residences. I actually think this is reckless endangerment based on even what we heard from the chief this evening, the fire chief. And what Ed so eloquently spoke about as well. So I do believe it's reckless endangerment of current and future residents of Denton. And I say this knowing the recommended evacuation plan of acceptable standards is typically the 1,000 feet and down to 330. When a well explosion occurs, and also all of the evidence I've already presented of health impacts that occur to people living at much greater distances than 1,000 feet. And so I don't really think it's prudent to go beyond, to go below 1,000 feet. I think that's the absolute bare minimum that we should do. I also have a second visual. I'd like to show you some of the chemicals that we know are involved in fracking that would seriously adversely impact families living near fracking. We have volatile organic compounds, benzene, which is a car cinogen, it impacts neurological, it causes asthma, as well as respiratory issues. We have toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic and lead, which are both heavy metal, poisonous heavy metals. All of these chemicals are known to be found near fracking. Lastly, I'd like to talk about speculative land investing versus public health and safety. Speculative investing is a high risk activity, and that's what the unimproved land investment is. It's a speculative investment. The bottom line of returns of the investor should not be equally weighed against the health and safety of Denton residents, especially when it's your responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the public. To equally weigh the two would be a false balance, and especially when 59% of the population voted to ban fracking altogether, knowing the health impacts. I really just hope that you guys go ahead and please maintain 1,000 foot setbacks, 1,000 foot reverse setbacks, no variances, no loopholes. That's what I'm asking for this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Morgan Larson and then Kelly Barr. Hey, y'all. I am Morgan Larson. I live at 2210 Westwood. I am in opposition to this or in opposition to parts of it, right? I also sent you guys an email with, you know, my thoughts on the ordinance. So there's that for you guys to look at. But in echoing what other people have said, I do not want first of all, I agree with Ron. Let's stand and fight with the rest of the counties that are here in Texas. Let's stay and let's fight with Dallas and Flower Mound and the other ones. We have a fight on our hands. It's no good to isolate ourselves, right? So let's stand with each other and fight these ordinances. We're going to be challenged no matter what, no matter what these setbacks are. So why are we -- why not push for the most when we get our ban taken away? Why do we're anything less? So across the board, 1,500 foot setbacks across the board, period. Let's see. No minimums, period. To the same reasons why other people have said why, what, minimums. Our ordinance is the minimum. What are we talking about? Let's see. For 35.5.10.6 -- I'm sorry, I don't know how to say it. But relief measures, right, when we're talking about those, operators may obtain reduction in the drilling production site setback requirements of section 35.5.10.2 by procuring written notarized waivers from 100% of the owners. We've already addressed that. I stand with Tara Lynn. No reduction in setbacks. What else? Oh, yeah. So the part that says the Board of Adjustments shall hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the gas well administrator and so on and so forth. Why isn't this public? Why is this small body deciding something for the rest of Denton? I don't get it. I agree with Ron. Make it available to the public. Let us decide and hear very publicly what's going on. I don 't get that at all. And you guys, right? Not just the City of Denton, but y'all , too. I don't understand that. There's lots of things in here that I don't necessarily understand. But I appreciate you guys working very hard because I know this has been a very long, arduous process. Let's see. I would also like mandatory baseline soil and water testing paid for by the industry. Let's milk that cow. They can pay that, right? No open surface pits within city limits. End of question. There has to be vapor recovery units. This is a surface level activity. Why wouldn't we get it? We should have air monitors, period. End of subject. And I agree with Cindy. Increase the application for these people. Why not make a profit off of it? If so many people want to come for Act Denton, why not make a profit off of it even more? Just thoughts. We have a question. Kelly Brink. Yes. You brought up about the fact of the variances in the Zoning Board of Adjustments. And I too had that same question and talked to legal about it. And I wanted as well for the things to come in front of council each time. So there was this -- because Arlington has the two-step process for the public to know what's going on. And I was -- can you explain -- it's something about the way the ordinance -- it's a zoning ordinance. I'm going to let her explain because I too had that request . Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Sure. Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten just a little bit on that particular point. I think it's important. We've heard a lot of citizen comment along these lines. Our ordinance is probably unique among North Texas ordin ances in as much as it's crafted as a zoning ordinance. For example, for Orr's Ordinance it is not crafted as a zoning ordinance. It's crafted as a police regulatory power ordinance. Ours, however, as a zoning ordinance puts these variance processes in a little different light. And we must in order to ensure that our zoning ordinance remains such, follow state law as it concerns the variance process. State law provides that we will go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It does not allow us to go process these variances through the city council. That's just the way state law is written. And so in that respect what we've done is crafted the zoning ordinance, I think for some very good and valid legal reasons. And then that puts us in these variance processes at the Z oning Board of Adjustment and not the city council. And so that's why we've crafted it this way. I think we must follow state law and I think there's a good reason to do so. Ms. Briggs. Okay. And I wanted to, about the pits, is the, we only allow freshwater pits, is that correct in our ordinance? Because I wanted to know about that as well. Yeah, our requirement for the pits dating back even a couple years has specific constituent requirements. So basically if it's not a freshwater pit, it wouldn't meet those. So any of the pits that exist, we're not proposing to close , but they would be a freshwater pit typically used to store that water for the next stage of drilling activities. Thank you. I don't, oh, I do see another question from Mr. Roden. Just to follow up to the question for legal on that. And just to clarify, because ZBA is a public meeting body, correct? So any of these variances requests would go through a public process and would that involve the public being able to speak at that meeting? Right. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body. And there are certain notice provisions that will apply before the Zoning Board of Adjustment can actually hear cases that come before it. So those notices will go out. The public will have an opportunity to be present and to hear and present information with regard to the case that's coming before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. So in that respect, it will be a very public process. And the nomination and appointment process for that body is also itself a public process. Having seen that just tonight. Right. Just tonight. Yes, sir. Thanks. And who appoints the members of the Zoning Board of Adjust ment? That is the City Council. Okay. And do you care to elaborate on why we decided in the city to place our gas well drilling regulations in zoning code? Briefly, I'll address that without going into a great deal of detail. The City of Denton early in the early 2000s decided to approach gas well drilling a little bit differently, I think, than other Texas, certainly in North Texas and other Texas cities. And we required these gas well plats. And so these old gas well plats, some of them quite large, have been an issue that we have grappled with for a couple of decades, really. And so we've decided to craft our ordinance, our gas well drilling ordinance as a zoning ordinance to assist us in addressing some of those problems that we experienced with those plats. So this is, I think, a valiant effort and a good attempt on the part of the city's legal team to address a number of those problems. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Kelly Barr, then Rosemary Candleria. Comrade Barr, state your name and address and you can begin . Hi. I'm the local Russian agent again. Kelly Barr, I'm at 1005 West Hickory Street. And I wanted to say that I'm glad to see that some positive changes have been made regarding notifications to residents in particular and also monitoring and enforcement of site equipment standards. Those are all great, but that's very low-hanging fruit. The most important part of this ordinance is the setback distances. Given that, these revisions miss the forest through the trees, is my argument. That forces the entire city landscape, as you just mentioned, that where so much land has been gobbled up by oil and gas development over the years, that it leaves all of us, those who do and do not own land in Osari State, because much of that land remains unusable in perpetuity. And so we're left with the legacy of these really bad previous land use practice decisions. So HB40 is a big part of our story in this revision process , but the other big part is that history of poor land use decisions. And by poor here I mean, to use the now infamous phrase, a patchwork quilt of decisions that were designed to promote as much mineral land development as possible. So now we have to deal with that legacy. An important part of that legacy is who our land use practices are designed to serve. And that's what I want to focus on. So I urge you to pass an ordinance that serves the people of Denton, generally. Because when it comes to land use in Denton, special interests always have been involved in the policy infrastructure and embedded in the policy infrastructure. To think that we started on a level playing field with regard to the balance between oil and gas operators, land developers, and the public in Denton is a mistake. Promoting land development is so embedded in the policy infrastructure that we are constantly tempted to understand this problem in terms of a home ownership and a land ownership problem. But passing the ordinance is not a homeowner or a landowner issue. It's an issue of the public good for the city of Denton as a whole. It's not about individual property rights. It's not the same kind of issue as being able to paint your house whatever color you want. We know that the downstream impacts of fracking are never contained within the bounds of a pad site or a plot of land . We know that. We know that the impacts leach out. And we know that fracking is dangerous and that more evidence of this rolls in on a regular basis. Fracking harms people in the immediate vicinity. Over time, it pollutes the air that whole communities breathe, right? Not just the people around a frac site. It winds its way into our water. It erodes our public roadways, and it degrades our health and quality of life. So regarding whether or not we allow homes to be built near fracking operations or new operations to be put in next to protected use properties, a better analogy is deciding whether or not someone can turn a neighborhood backyard into a hog farm or whether someone can build a school on the wrong side of a levy. The real sticking point here is deciding on land use practices that are sensible and safe for everyone in the long term. This means not only the people who are here now, but future generations of Dentonites, including master plan communities and plan development community people, too. So I echo concern about the kinds of suggestions that have been posed here tonight. Things about no variances, right? A thousand foot setback or more. Reverse setback and minimum setback. I think all those should be equal. We need things like air quality and soil quality monitoring . These are very basic, sensible things to do. We need things like vapor recovery units. A very sensible thing to do, right? So and some, I urge you to pass an ordinance that actually reflects that fracking is something that impacts the entirety of the city of Denton and therefore is something that concerns how it is that we use land in the city as a whole and not just in individual situations. There's a question from Mr. Hawkins. Thank you. I always appreciate when you speak. I think you're very articulate and you make some very good points. Just under House Bill 40, our struggle is, you know, we're trying to not take away these families have had these chunks of land for a long time. It's been in their family for a long time and they plan on developing part of that. And just with some of these setbacks, it just takes back, I know you know this already, just takes away huge chunks of that. So legal or staff and all of us together came up with reverse setback and we're trying to really beef up the notification process to let these people know what they're getting into. Do you see any other measure that we could put in place to beat that up more or on the notification process? I'm not saying that you necessarily agree with the reverse setback. I get that. But I just want to make sure that we haven't left any stone unturned in that way. Well, I mean the notifications are pretty small stone. Really. So I mean something that you could do immediately, which is what Tara Lynn recommended, which is reduce the requirement that people can't be notified until 20 days before the operation starts. I don't see any reason why you couldn't allow for advanced notification. And I know even in my own rental property unit, you have to give 60 day notification if you're going to move out. I think we're talking about two separate things. If you're about to buy a house and that process. So like disclosure requirements? Yes. Yeah, I think that should be a public process. I mean, if it's the case that we're going to allow the industry to use even more land than they've already taken, right? Even more land. And if it's the case that they're going to be impacting even more people, that needs to be something that we deal with together as a city. Right? Because this isn't just an issue of individual properties or individual people who are being impacted. This is something where the impacts leach out into the city as a whole. So something like having town hall meetings where people are notified of when new fracking activities are going to take place. Something like, you know, like a chunk of text that the city defines as standard boilerplate disclosure text that anyone who is selling property in and around Gaswell Development or anyone who plans to develop property or anything regarding land ownership, transfer of ownership or something like that, new residents that come in who are renting a property. Right? The city can define this boilerplate text that has to be that that would need a disclosure requirement. And it could say something about the health and safety impacts of fracking just so that people are alerted that this might be something that's really dangerous. I mean, obviously, it's not the case that every existing pad site is going to be refract. How would they be alerted? Well, I don't know much about what the typical disclosure process is. Well, just in this, the notification process, there's four of them listed. And so we're trying kind of during a close, you know, when you go buy a house, like getting that close, I know there's a bunch of signatures required, but you're just, you know, notified four different ways. And I'm just trying to in that way, just make sure that if I agree to the reverse setback that that person that's buying that home is notified, you know, they know what they 're getting into. That's what I'm struggling with. And I just want to know if you had an opinion on that. Well, I mean, that's where thinking about more. I think it might be the case for a lot of people that the date of the closing is too late. Right? They've already invested a lot of money and time and energy in getting to that point. So maybe thinking about something that could be done before they get to that point would be helpful. But again, I want to reiterate that I don't think the notification or disclosure is the most important part here. The most important part is the setbacks because we already know what happens when you co-locate houses or other kinds of protective use with fracking activities. We know that leads to definite harms and that people are not happy with that. That's not a wise use of land. So I think the setback distance is so much more pressing. You've got a couple people up here, but thank you very much . Okay. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I, too, think you're very articulate and I think you make a lot of really good points. I want to see if I can maybe see if you understand maybe a different twist on the value of the land. You're talking to a philosopher. Yeah. So because what I hear from you pretty often is referring to the special interests, right, the developers and making more money and so on. Right. I want to make sure you understand, at least where I stand and I think where most of our conversations are, is it's not about money. So those gentlemen that spoke earlier, the family land, the land's been in their family for 70 years. It's not so much about how much money he can make. It's about whether as government we have the right to take it or to tell him what he can or can't do with the property because, because you're very passionate about this and you're very articulate about it and you feel very strongly about the health hazards, right? And people can agree or disagree. Some people say they don't think it causes any health problems. You do. And in this country, we have long had the ability to civ illy disagree. So the question isn't really so much about money in my mind where if we say 1,000 foot setbacks and 1,000 foot reverse setbacks, we're talking about 100 and something acres of somebody's property that we as government would say you now can't use it for anything other than put your cows on it. That's the dilemma. The dilemma isn't to say we want a house built on every piece of property in the entire city or we want to make sure that people can make as much money. It's not our job as policymakers to make sure that they make profit. It's the philosophical question of where does government's role stop and start because there are differing opinions on whether or not the fracking is going to make the water contaminated or the air. You have an opinion and you're certainly rightly to have it . Other people have other opinions. So then it just boils down to really if we impose 1,000 foot reverse setback on somebody's property, they've got 100 acres in their family. There's a well on the site next to it. We render their entire property unusable. So my question is if you -- unless you own the property, I don't know if that makes sense to you or to know what that would feel like. But do you -- I mean, do you know what we're dealing with with that sort of dilemma? I know it's a crappy situation all around and I know that it's difficult to have to deal with the history of land use in such a way that means that we might have to make really unpopular decisions right now. I get that. I totally get that. But this is about public policy making, right? This is about making policy that governs an entire city and everyone who lives in the city. Remember that Tara Lynn just showed us that close to 50% of people don't own land or homes here, right? So those people still need to be protected. I mean, I resist framing this issue in terms of individual property rights because it's not about individual property rights. So it is right that this question of the limits of government comes up. But the way in which it comes up is important. It comes up in terms of how is it that we ensure that most people are not harmed by something that we already know to be harmful. So it's not just my opinion that fracking is dangerous. It's not. I mean, you can't argue with the fact that people who have been living 250 feet from fracking activities are sick and have been sick and got sick as soon as it happened, as soon as the fracking started, right? You can't argue with their experience. You also can't argue with some of the studies that have come out recently about the possibility of water contamination. You can't argue with the fact that Oklahoma has had 500% increase in earthquakes because of injection wells. So at some point, we stop arguing about opinions and we start to talk in terms of facts. So we can already start from the perspective that fracking is dangerous. Just like last week, you've done a fantastic job of answering my question. I do appreciate it. There's one point still that I haven't very quickly. You asked the question, sir. Because it was a yes or no question. This is a good question. And actually, this is a question that's going to come up. Yes, right. Okay. So this question of the limits of government, right? So the government has already decided on one use for their land, which is to develop minerals, right? It's not an infringement on their rights to say that because of that decision that was made, you can't use that land for other things. It's just like in the case when Dallas redeveloped the Trinity River floodplain and they decided that the levees needed to be farther out, right? Other people had to get their land bought out because that was considered to be a dangerous place to be living or to have a business or other things like that. So there are already situations where we recognize that things are too dangerous to allow people to do certain things with that land. So what I want to follow up with though is do you remember when you spoke very early on in this process and you talked about the percentage of Denton surface owners who also own the minerals? Yeah. What was that percentage? Well, at the time I think I said it was 8 percent, but actually on further study it's like 2 percent. 2 percent. So in fact your argument that you just made about if they sold their minerals they don't have a right to - it doesn't jive, right? So I'm just saying we can't have it both ways. So because I think it's a mistake to paint the picture that the person who owns the surface has already made his money on the minerals and therefore that he doesn't have a right to complain about the impact of the mineral acquisition on his surface value because less than 10 percent of the people in our city that own the surface also own the minerals. Those minerals were stripped off a long time ago. So this person's rights are up here. His value is up here. It may be his value to hold it and give it to his grandchildren or to develop it. But you can't - in other words we can't paint the picture both ways is all I'm saying. So I appreciate your comments. And that was not a question, but Ms. Briggs does have a question. Okay. Well, I had a response, but okay. I know you would. But we - go ahead. Well, mine is mostly whenever Councilman Hawkins was talking about notifications or how do we advise that, the image in my mind of getting a box of cigarettes that has the big giant warning on it. Surgeon general warning. Yeah, right there. Or when you're in a bar and you're in the bathroom and there's like pregnant, don't do this, this, this and this, you know. I mean we're even told to wash our hands because of the dangers of germs. So I don't know how we would get that information out because you can't put a sign - I mean you could put a sign on the site, but I don't really know. But that's the kind of image that popped into my head when you were asking about that. Yeah, something like a surgeon general's warning about fr acking would be great. Something like that. Yeah. All right. That's all of the questions. Thank you. We have three more speakers. Be mindful of your questions that you're asking because it 's coming up on 10 o'clock. Rosemary Candelario and then Deborah Armator is on deck. Rosemary Candelario and I live at 602 Woodland Street. Our air and water, our health and safety, our Denton. This simple slogan was at the heart of our campaign to ban fracking in Denton. Our priorities were and remain to make Denton a healthy and sustainable city for all of our residents to live and grow. In other words, we declared that we want Denton to be a place guided by humanly reasonable standards. The majority of Denton voters agreed last November that fr acking within the city limits is incompatible with this goal . When HB40 nullified our ban and told us that we had to make decisions instead based on what is commercially reasonable, they stole from us our best means of protecting the health and safety of all the people of Denton in addition to our air and water. In effect, this leaves our gas well ordinance as a last line of defense. And this is really what's at stake here tonight, I think. Nothing less than the question of Denton will insist upon being humanly reasonable or merely commercially so. I believe that what you do here on the City Council is not only to represent and serve all the people of Denton, but also to do everything in your power to protect the well -being of all Denton's residents, not only the interests of industry or of developers or of property owners. And a number of people have already spoken quite eloquently about the rights of renters in Denton. And I appreciate everything you've said in response to that . But I am really concerned, however, that the current proposal leaves the people of Denton in a worse position than we were in 2013. And I joined the course of other Denton residents calling for no reduction in setbacks from the 2013 levels, not even in industrial zones. I believe the City Council owes it to us, your constituents who voted overwhelmingly to ban fracking, to protect as much of the city as possible under HB40. Our 1,200-foot setbacks are still less than Dallas and Flower Mound's 1,500-foot setbacks, which had a record of being commercially reasonable even before that term set the new standard. I also want to reiterate the call for reverse setbacks to not be lower than production site setbacks. How can something that's unsafe at a particular level, whether that's 1,000 feet or 1,200 feet, suddenly be safe at a distance of 250 feet just because a developer wants to build there? Again, we must be guided by the principle of what is human ly reasonable, not just what is commercially possible. And along those lines, I did have one question about the notice activities section. I'm really glad to hear that people are concerned with not ifying tenants when drilling is happening. But I'm concerned about the notifications in the ordinance about that operators have to give prior to filing applications for approval of gas well development site plans. My understanding is that that is still just limited to not ifying property owners. So I'd like to hear more about that. And finally, I do want to echo calls for simple and effective means to monitor the impact these commercially, quote unquote, commercially reasonable fracking practices has on the air, water, health, and safety of Denton residents. Like they sign air and water testing paid for by industry pre and post fracking and air quality monitors so that we confirm that they are actually operating within existing state and federal laws. And I think these are all simple but powerful amendments the city council can take to ensure that Denton is a reasonable place for humans and not just for commercial interests. Thank you. Thank you very much. And the last speaker would be Earl Bates. Hi, I'm Deborah Armitar and I live at 2003 Mistywood Lane here in Denton. I wanted to begin just by speaking to something that came up recently, the subject of the rights of service owners. And I once saw a quote, I don't remember where I heard or saw this, but I believe this very deeply and that is that your rights or one's rights end at my face. That is to say, your rights or any service owner's rights end where my health begins. I don't mean me, just me, I mean any individual's health. So I believe that that's the answer to the question about service owner's rights. Of course they have rights. But if something that they believe to be their rights is damaging somebody else, then that's not a right of theirs. It's actually an infringement on somebody else's rights. I want to say that if our ordinance is indeed a zoning ordinance, which means that everything is subject to the Z oning Board of Adjustment, then I would like to see our city charter eventually changed to make the Zoning Board of Adjustment an elected body, so that it can be accountable to citizens if it indeed has the power to make such significant decisions. I also want to say that even though state law might have these certain requirements for a zoning ordinance, I don't believe that state law says anything about var iances in setbacks being mandatory. That's up to us to decide, as I understand it, whether we want to have variances in our ordinance, and I believe we should not. The way that I think of it is like this. If a pedophile wants to live within two blocks of a school and there's a law that says, say, he has to live a great distance away, that pedophile shouldn't be able to negotiate with any special board to be able to move closer to the school for any given reason. Now, I understand that industry providers are not actually trying to harm people, so I don't mean to say that they are pedophiles. And again, many pedophiles also aren't intending to harm anybody. They're just sick individuals. They have a disease. And fracking, I see, is a disease. And so we need to, you need to, we're pleading with you to protect our children from the disease of fracking in this way. Thank you very much. Earl Bates. Last but not least, thank you all for your good work. My name's Earl Bates. I'm about at 5163 Shaw Lane. I'm from Omaha, Nebraska. I'm here for about six years. And I'm here because I was so inspired by Tara Lynn and by Cindy and Ron and all these good people that did this band thing. I thought that was fantastic. I know how we're fighting our own battles up there about the Keystone Pipeline and things like that. So many people here have come up with so many good details. I can't get into all that. It just, I can't wrap my head around all the, you know, the setbacks. And I just wanted to talk about the spirit, the spirit of what these folks have been trying to do. I'm not a Texan. I don't pretend to be. It's a great part of the world, though, and I'm glad to be around here. But I was so inspired by their good work. I was elated. I couldn't believe how could they possibly do this? How did you do it? And they did it. And then what? It's not about the money. It's not about the money. Well, it's all about the money. And the Texas legislature pooped on these guys. And I don't want to be, you know, I'm just here to say, please think about the spirit of their good, hard work. And I would say to you, if I may, your work now should be, since they voted for a ban, I would think that the city council would do everything in its power to make it hard to frack around here, to make it almost, you know, within the confines of the bill itself. Your job is to say, that's right. They don't like it, so let's do everything we can to restrict this fracking. And it's not about the money. Well, if we don't want to infringe on these good people that own property, I would suggest that this council and the good people here do everything we can to repeal HB 40. Let's go there, too. No fracking. Let's let the folks have their property rights. We had a story. Tara Lynn said it. She said we had a story. And before the ban was taken back, we had a great story here. Where'd that story go? Where'd it go? I'm hearing all these details. Well, we're missing a point. The point is fracking is not a good thing. We need the gas, we need the oil, sure, for now. We'll fix that later. But all I can say is we're going in the wrong direction, and I think the best thing that this council can do is to look into your hearts and listen to what the people have said here. The people that have inspired the heck out of me -- and you guys inspired me, too. This is hard work. I know it is. My head is spinning right now because I can't keep up with all these details. But the best thing you can do within our situation now is within the law, do what you can to restrict this fracking, whatever it takes. And like Will Rogers said, never miss a good chance to shut up. Thank you all. [ Applause ] Oh, there is a question, sir. Yes. Mr. Hawkins. I got a chance to talk to you last week, and I enjoyed it. Yes. And I appreciate you moving from somewhere else and caring about Denton and all that. I promise you all I'm trying to do up here is figuring out, like you said, within the law and everything in our power how far we can push it. That's all I'm trying to do up here. That's all anybody can ask right now. Okay. The next step is to -- No, it's not a question, but -- Yeah. And I appreciate what you said and the spirit and all that. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bates, and thank you for admitting that you 're from another state. You know, there's an old saying, never ask a man where he's from. If he's from Texas, he'll tell you, and if he's not, why embarrass him? [ Laughter ] So you embarrassed yourself. But thank you very much for your comments. Okay. Thanks for your -- All right. That is all of the people that have indicated a desire to speak. We have several people that have filled out cards, and I will read those into the record. And I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. And then I'll read them out loud, and then I'll read them out loud. Opposed saying that sentbacks should equal 1,000 feet, reverse sentbacks 1,000 feet, show some backbone. Allison Trapp, opposed, should not support this weakened ordinance tonight. Rhonda Love, opposed, allowing oil and gas development within 250 feet of homes and other spaces such as hospitals , parks, et cetera, is simply unsafe. Adam Briegel, in support, please increase residential reverse setbacks. Please disclose presence and risk of gas wells to all residents, not just owners. Please protect future residents of MPCs and PDs. Justin Lemons, in opposition, please have disenchanted developers slip their complaints into the suggestion box of the oil and gas industry. And Diane Robinson, opposed, I'm opposed to the change in setbacks. Please be brave. Keep it as it is at 1,200 feet. Those are all of the comments. There is a motion on the board. Ms. Briggs. He requested to speak first. Mr. Rudden. That's all right. I appreciate it. What a great conversation tonight. Very impressed all along this process. I mean, it's been several years. And I'm constantly impressed by the intelligence, the passion of our community and just the civil dialogue we've been able to foster just while we've been up here. It's a highly charged issue on all sides. But I just want to say I appreciate everyone involved and thank you for coming and continually participating in this. This reverse setback issue is quite a difficult issue. We have found ourselves unable to regulate the industry the way we want to be able to regulate it as cities. The state made sure of that during their legislative session. And it becomes difficult to say because we can't regulate this industry, all of a sudden we're going to put the burden of that onto a completely different and unrelated industry, which would be the surface owners and property owners in the community. That's a philosophically that is a very difficult, strange dilemma to be in as a city. And so I just put that out there. We understand that's a difficult issue and that's why we're all struggling with it on this question because it's been raised as to the fire marshals comfort level with the current ordinance as proposed. Given this discussion about the 300 foot zone by which they feel comfortable reacting to issues, particularly as it relates to the Department of Transportation's recommendations on certain types of chemical spills. So I just want to clarify on that issue. While we do have a proposed and I guess this is for Darren, maybe legal can jump in. I just want to clarify this and clarify the comfort level of our fire chief and fire mars hal on this because it's been raised. While we do have a 250 foot reverse setback in all the categories, we have this effective 300 foot setback based on where we're making measurements to in order to create a buffer zone from combustible sources within a pad site to the edge of a property in order to achieve that 300 foot buffer that's been talked about. And we talked about that earlier on in the evening. Can somebody clarify maybe the fire chiefs here that the fire chief, the fire marshal is comfortable with the ordinance as written with that new 300 foot effective reverse setback provision. That's correct. While a lot of the material that's distributed lists the 250 foot distance, what we've crafted into this ordinance and this particular final draft is an effective 300 feet that achieves our safety goal of 300 feet as the minimum even on setback. So basically there are options that are available to reach that and depending upon where they measure from and it would include putting combustibles and stored product further to the center of the pad to create part of that distance or it can mean pushing the developed structure back further onto a lot that's encroaching onto this zone. But effectively, we achieve the 300 foot minimum goal. Thank you for clarifying. Are you done. Okay, the next person was Ms Briggs to make him up. Oh, yes . Mr Mayor pro tem if I if you would allow me to offer a little bit of a roadmap on the ordinance here I think I could facilitate the discussion just a little bit. And also for the purpose of the listening public. I think I can help you understand what we're what we're doing here tonight to. We do ask tonight that you act if you move forward and as you consider this on the substitute cover ordinance this cover ordinance really is the whereas clauses and the findings. It's not necessarily the substantive piece, but we do ask that you act on the substituted cover ordinance. And additionally, while we've been on the dais, Aaron Liao from my office has prepared and cleaned up these sections in the underlying ordinance. They are consistent with this addendum list that you saw earlier today and that members of the public have picked up outside the council chambers. So what we've done is a nice cleanup and we've got copies of all the substitute section sections that are referenced in this addendum. And so what you will do is you move forward depending on how you're going to vote on it. You would look at this as a package and substitute these sections in your for the sections that are actually in the book before you. So that help a little bit as far as is where you need to go with this. This brings. My motion. Yes. Okay. Well, I think that we were wanting to vote on this tonight. But my motion is that we postpone it until our mayor can be here because I believe that we need a full council for something this serious that's going to affect a lot of different people. Okay. There's a motion to postpone to an event certain, which is the appearance of the mayor. Is there a second. Is there a second. There is no second. So that motion fails. Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Just I was going to kind of piggyback on what Kevin said about the reverse setback. I think that there are many surface owners out there who probably did vote for the man and just under House Bill 40. I don't necessarily think you all are against each other. But the struggle is for me at least is with the reverse set back, the notification process and just on record. You know, that 300 foot separation between combustible and protected use. And just if you can clarify, Darren, if they were to add a second storage tank or anything else after that 300 foot distance is measured, they would have to abide by that with additional equipment. Is that that's correct? That is correct. There's a new proposal that would apply not only to the development of the protected use, but also to the locating of equipment. So ultimately it's whatever is greater, whichever would be greater. Correct. Thank you, Darren. Okay. I'm going to go in order that we have. So Miss Wasney and then Miss Briggs. You know, this is a work in progress. It's never just poured in stone. We're learning. You're learning. And industry continues to change because their technology changes. So just wanted to put that on there. We've talked about a lot of good ideas tonight and I think we'll see things coming down over the course of years and years in terms of changes regarding the timing of trying to get something passed tonight. We touched on this at the beginning of this council meeting that in two weeks time, our moratorium expires and that we have to get an ordinance on the books. And so by midnight tonight, it fits within that two week time ticker. So that's why we are trying to get this done tonight. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. At the risk of saying things that have already been said, I 've been in Dent for 22 years and I've sat out there a lot and I've never seen a topic or an issue that has received this much public testimony, this much passion by citizens, this much engagement by citizens. And so I want to applaud all of us for that. I don't think I've ever seen a council spend this much time on any one issue and it's a very difficult one. And sometimes we disagree. I think we would all agree we don't want drilling or fr acking in our city. Unfortunately, we can't control that. And we'll likely vote here in a minute, but I think it's just important to remember that when we're in these seats, you know, we have a responsibility to check our personal opinions. And personal goals and personal investments and whatever else at the door. And we have to we have to make our decisions based on all of the citizens of Denton. And, you know, the there's been a lot of talk about the band tonight, which rightfully so. There's a ton of people that worked hard and the band passed. The fact is, 12 percent of the people in the city voted for that band. Eighty eight percent of the people either voted against or didn't vote will shame on them for not voting. But it passed and it was a good thing. And then it went away. So we have to deal here with the playing field that we have . And we have to think about everybody who's a citizen of the city, not just those who are here. Just like many of you don't live anywhere near a gas well site. You're here to fight on behalf of somebody that's maybe not informed or doesn't care or whatever. So we're in the same position here. But all I want to say before before we vote is that somewhere somehow we lost the the the idea of civil disagreement. You know, we've been called weak cowards, rollover like dogs, accused of taking bribes, accused of being gutless if we didn't go get arrested, received rude profane laden emails. Now we're going to wreck us. We're accused of reckless endangerment. I mean, these are these are things that aren't civil. And so I guess what I would request is to think about, you know, those are tactics that don't make people want to listen to you. Those are tactics that make people want to ignore you. And and I would I would just hope that regardless. No, that's no. I would hope that that all of us can learn and learn from each other in a very civil way as we go forward, regardless of how this vote ends up. Thank you. Thank you. The next person up is Mr. Rodin, who is made wants to make a motion. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I'd like to make a motion to approve individual item for individual consideration. Item five B as contained in the substitution and supplement ary packets that we have in front of us. And with the substituted cover ordinance as well. Absolutely. And with the substituted cover ordinance, you know, except for the 200 foot reduction, as I mentioned at the outset and the questions back and forth with Darren, I think we have in most cases the exact ordinance we had in 2013. And in many cases, a much better ordinance. Considering the context we're in, I think this is a good place to be. So I'm going to support this. We'll hear the second and then we'll have discussion starting with Ms. Briggs. But the second Mr. Johnson. Second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Briggs. I would like to make an amendment. Is that when I do this now or can I. Now is the time. Okay. Well, I have I have several but I want to start with the notification because I think that putting a minimum on that of 20 days is is not good. So and then two days minimum is not good. So I would like to go from 30 to 10 days. And then if you want to go before 30, that's fine. We shouldn't restrict any industry who wants to let homeowners know. So instead of the two day minimum, at least a 10 day and you know, industry can do it earlier or later as that. But two weeks, I think, is is a good is a good amount of time. If I could suggest that if you're going to make several amendments, it might be easier to take them one at a time. Okay. We could deal with them. So your first amendment is to amend the ordinance regarding notification times. What is the maximum? What is the minimum that you're recommending for an amendment? Well, instead of 20 to 2, my recommendation would be 30 to 10. Okay. So there's a motion to amend the ordinance for notification from 20 days down to two days to 30 days to 10 days. Do I have the motion correct? Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Johnson, I would second that. There's a second to the motion. Is there any discussion on that motion? Well, I wanted just a little clarification of what that exactly meant before I was going to second it to you. Mr. Groth, what do you think it means? What I think it means is at least with the 30 days, one of the requirements is that this is for every stage. We are saying that if you are doing any maintenance activities that you're going to give at least 10 days notice, I don't see the practicality to that. A lot of these things happen much sooner than that. I'm just wanting to make sure that you understand or that we understand what we're saying here, that this is a notification to owners and to -- This is a change to notifying the city and notifying homeowners or dwellings from 20 to 2 days up to 30 to 10 days. Okay. So that's what you understand. Does that help you, Mr . Hawkins? So if somebody is working on a piece of equipment on a well site, is that what you just said? There's a list of activities that would be effective. Is that one of them? That is one of them. So this is just change -- it's not saying that they have -- this is the notice that's already there. It's just changing the days. Yes. Okay. Does that help? Yeah. Okay. Let's see, Mr. Johnson. Okay. So I'm going to ask for more clarification then because I thought that that notice was specific to what we had defined in there as those major activities, reworking, fracking, drilling a new well, redrilling, not maintenance and those sort of things. And Mr. Leal. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I just wanted to clarify that the section you're referencing, Council Member Briggs, is 35-22-7, C, subparag raphs 1 and 2. Is that correct, ma'am, for the notification? That way we know exactly what you're referring to. It's 35.22.7.C, subsections 1 and 2. That's where the 20 and 2 days is referenced. So if I can help with that. So as I'm reading, it says this is about notification. Any operator who intends to perform the following activities. Number one, drill a well. Number two, work over operation. Three, perform completion or re-completion operations. Four, plug or abandon a well. Five, perform any other maintenance activity that involves the removal of the wellhead at a drilling production site. Or six, conduct seismic activity. So that's the list that we're talking about. Okay. Well, that's not the one. I was speaking about the major things that Johnson about fr acking and then re-fracking. Well, that's drilling a well, work over, performing completion. I think that's the one that you're -- Drilling activities, yes. Drilling activities. Fracking is part of the completion process. Okay, then yes. Fracking is included. Does that help clarify for you? Yeah, I'm going to withdraw my second. Okay. So is there a second? Is anybody else interested in seconding that? There's no interest in seconding? Okay. Mr. Rhoade? Well, I don't know if I'm interested in seconding because I see 20 days several places in this subchapter. I'm just going to ask for the sake of -- amendments are pretty serious as we're adding things, and there might be a good reason to have one. I think we're going to have to cite the specific section that wants to be amended and offer some specific language or else I'm afraid we're going to be writing an ordinance on the fly here and having some unintended consequences. So my recommendation as we have amendments coming that we cite where that is so that we all know what we're doing. But in this case, I'm still unclear as to what we're am ending. Well, as I understand it, we're talking about a motion to amend section 35.22.7 paragraph B -- excuse me, paragraph C , section 1. And it's on page 2 as you're looking at that. Actually, it's included in sections 1 and 2. All right. We want to make sure that we know what we're doing as we're doing it. Does that help, Mr. Rogan? It helps identify the area at this point. Yeah, thank you. All right. Ms. Briggs? This is my first time to do this process. So, you know, sorry. What I'm trying to say is that I think that homeowners need two -- more than two days before someone comes in to frack or refrack a well. I don't know right now the number, but that is what my intention was and I will find it for the next amendment. That's what I was trying to point out. Okay. Mr. Hawkins? I think that almost would have worked here for C. My only hesitation was perform any other maintenance. If there was a piece of equipment that was not working properly at a gas well site, I want them to fix it quickly. So that's why I agree with what you're saying. If we could even get legal or somebody to help her find that. If you'd read that whole sentence, it says perform any other maintenance activities that involve removal of the well head at a drilling or production site. So it's not any maintenance. Okay. It's maintenance specific to removing a drill head, a well head. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Okay. So -- yes, sir? Okay. So that's why I withdrew my second was because my understanding was that that's where I was going with it. If something's wrong and they need to go do maintenance because they've got a problem, I don't want them to have to give us 10 days notice and use that as an excuse to not go do the repair. So that's why I'm trying to -- I'm a little stuck because I don't think it's good to say here's two days notice and we 're starting. But I also don't want an unintended consequence of what we 're thinking of give these people more notice that it actually works against us. So it was. Ms. Wiesman? Yeah, gosh, I'm just worried about the unintended consequence. I know that we have spent days, weeks, and there have been so many people pouring through every single word, comma. We have studied every paragraph, subparagraph, subparagraph s of subparagraphs to try to get this right because this becomes a law on the books. And until we have time to really study as we have all of these different pieces and parts and I come back to this is a work in progress. So that, you know, I hear good things that have come out of tonight. We knee jerk and try to throw something into an ordinance that we really haven't studied to understand all of the impacts at every level just like we have been pouring through every single line of this ordinance. So that's my concern. All right. My own comment about that. I guarantee you, I completely understand your concern about the unintended consequences and doing this on the fly. But I will tell you, I predict that even these things that have been gone over several times within three months, we 're going to be having to go back and correct some things because we're going to discover some wordsmithing that says something that we didn't really intend. So I understand what you're saying, but we'll do it anyway. Now, I don't see any second. So to the to the motion for changing the notification date. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Thank you. Now that I've had sufficient time to work through the ordinance in question, I am comfortable if I understand it would be raising the 20 to 30 and raising the two to 10. Yes. Yeah. And just a comment on that, because we wouldn't want to go too much further out in terms of their ability to come and pre forecast something. Otherwise they can have one day a year they're giving notice that hey, I'm going to be doing something this year, which wouldn't have the intended result of what we're trying to do by giving some specific notice. But after working through that, I am comfortable with the second thing that amendment. So there's motion and a second to amend the days of notification. I just I just had a comment and maybe it puts these provisions in a little bit of context. A lot of these provisions as we reviewed Fort Worth's ordinance, we discovered that they had some notice provisions that we had not crafted into our earlier drafts in 2010 and 2013. And so we captured a lot of those provisions out of the Fort Worth ordinance. We then staffed all of these provisions that we've got certainly through the community. The communities looked at it. The planning and zoning commission has looked at it and the industry has looked at it and they actually had some comments. I don't have all that data in front of me, but I'm thinking the industry did have some comments and thoughts about these very specific time frames. We received some information from them. I'm sorry. I just cannot remember exactly what it was as I'm sitting here, but there was some concern about some of those time frames. So I raised that issue so that you're aware that that was a piece of the staffing that did occur as we work through this ordinance. And it was a particular to the specific time frames. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment? Yes, Mr. Roden. I guess on that point, there would be a question as to what exactly. So if I give, say I have a 10 day or two day, whatever it happens to be, do I have to be precisely on target? In other words, do I have to say this date 10 days from now or 12 days from now is the date I'm going to do a work over on that well? Or if I miss that date, am I required to re-notice? I mean, is there that amount of specificity in there or are they allowed to give notice and say sometime in the next two weeks, we're going to be jumping in there and doing this, that, or the other? Well, it would become an ordinance violation, which of course, you know, we would try to craft something that's reasonable so it doesn't put a difficult situation out there, either for citizens or for anyone else in the industry either. So that's why I indicate that we have worked with this pretty carefully. The Planning and Zoning Commission, we spent hours in meetings and meetings with them. They were very particular about some of these specific provisions and whether they were days or business days and the industry had some concerns as well. So I know Mr. Leal is indicating to me that he probably calls the specific provision, which unfortunately I don't. So perhaps he can enlighten us. Thank you, Madam City Attorney. I think the reason why we settled on that is to also allow the ability that when an operator contracts services from a third party, provide that sometimes delays occur and they can't get them . So if we keep pushing these notices farther out and they have to, they give the notice and a delay happens three days before, then they have to start all over again with the notification process and it delays their ability to get to do the activity. So the 20 to 2 days was more, would give them sufficient time and if there was a delay, the chances for delay would be minimized with a 20 and 2 day window rather than 30 or 45 days and 10, 20 days. Wouldn't it be possible for the notice to say, because clearly there are, there could be factors of the subcontractor not being able to get there when they said they were. There could be issues with weather that delayed it by a day or two so that the notice might say within this window of time, we anticipate reworking the well possibly starting as early as this date but no later than starting on this date. And if it doesn't happen within that window of time that they provide the notice for, then yeah, they would have to re-kick it off. Wouldn't that be possible within the way this ordinance is crafted for a notice to come out like that? It's possible. I'm not going to, I try to, you know, I remember some of the concerns the industry had regarding that part of a notice. I know that they could answer that much better than I can but I do know that the ability, that having to re-notice it with, the probability increases whenever a delay occurs from a third party service. Okay. Mr. Rhoade? Yeah, I think again it hinges on what is, what are they saying in the notification and whether or not they have to pinpoint a precise date or whether or not they're able to window and it seems unclear in the ordinance. I think what we're attempting to do here is say we're stuck with this sort of industry in town and there's, to put, as someone put it, this is perhaps a small stone that we're haggling over so I remain in support and I think if there's such a need to come back and look at this I think we can do that another time but I think this is a reasonable request. All right, Ms. Briggs? I'm good. You have, you're asking to speak. Oh, sorry. Okay. Seeing no more comments, let's vote on the amendment to change the notification as made. Some motions made. It passes unanimously. Are there any other motions to amend? Ms. Briggs? No, I have a motion to add vapor recovery units as described in the Fort Worth ordinance. Can you cite the section in the ordinance that you want to change? Hold on, Kevin, don't get mad at me. I'm so bad in all this paper. It was in the Fort Worth ordinance. At this particular point it would be nice to have that, you know, when the TV goes out. Well, it's not in our current ordinance so I don't have a number to reference in our current ordinance. So it is in their ordinance. It says vapor recovery equipment shall be required for tank batteries that have an estimated rolling annual aggregate emissions rate of 25 tons or greater of total volatile organic hydrocarbons per year per wellhead. Vapor recovery equipment must be operated and maintained in such a way to ensure a 95% recovery efficiency between the internal and external atmospheres of the tanks. So your motion is to simply amend the ordinance to add that language and that the staff could place it appropriately. As the Fort Worth ordinance. Mr. Hawkins? I have a question for legal on this one. I know that this has come up a bunch of times during this drafting of the ordinance. Can you advise on this one, please? Well, with regard to the vapor recovery units, there are a couple of issues going on. I don't know, first of all, when Fort Worth added this provision. I suspicion it was absolutely certainly pre-HB40. I suspicion it may have been also pre the date that the federal government added the vapor recovery regulations to the law. And so I think there is some concern there. We've looked at this. We've looked at it repeatedly. I have serious concerns that this issue is in fact preempt ed and I'll be glad to discuss that with you further in closed session. Thank you. Is there more discussion? Is there a second? I see no discussion. I see no second. So that motion is dives. Is there another motion? Oh, Ms. Briggs. I have a motion to change all the reverse setbacks to 300 feet. The reverse setbacks from 250 to 300 feet. Now, are you talking about all of the setbacks or the set backs for the for the residential zone? Residential and other districts all except for industrial. Okay, we we need to make sure that we are clear on that and where that is in the ordinance. It is thirty five point five point ten point two B. But when you get there, one, two and three, there's paragraph one. New drilling. Yes, sir. So paragraph one item C. Where the reverse setback would not be 250 but 300. Yes. Okay. Do you see any on the next pages where you would change it? See number. Well, look at you. No. Yeah, that would be it. That's it. Yes. Okay. There's a motion for changing that setback to 300 feet. Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I know that 50 feet does not sound like a lot, but is anybody in the room have the data what 50 feet does to the acreage used? I mean, rendered useless there or not useless, but unde velopable. Just in general. It appears we don't have that. Do you have any other questions? No. Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Road. I just want to verbalizing in in this discussion of the 300 foot effective setback when this topic came up and it came up in a few different settings that the council discussions . In the last couple weeks of the need to want to meet this 300 foot buffer. And so there is much work to be done to try and figure out how to do that in a way that got the fire marshal the fire chief to where they needed to be. But in the same time to be able to maintain the 250 foot general setback. So I think given that our fire chief confirmed tonight that he and his department were comfortable that this setback gave them what they needed to me that met the need that we 're all going for with that magical 300 numbers. So I'm fine with the ordinance as it stands. Is Briggs. Well going from what Mr. So said with the blow out in the the old fire chief saying that 330 and I do understand that that's a recommended. But if we're going with the 250 and then the little bit that we can get with the line to line. I feel like if we do the 300 the three the 30 extra feet for safety there is included in that extra that you guys were talking about from where the equipment is located. So for me that that makes me feel safer and a little bit more willing to relax a little bit about the safety. I mean it's not awesome but I feel like it's a it's a good balance for that 330 distance that I heard earlier. That's why I did that. I'm seeing no one else wishing to speak. Our rules say that the chair is unable to make motions or to second motions. If I were sitting in my usual chair I would second but it's clear that when the vote happened it would be a vote that did not pass. So I regret that I'm not able to at least second so we could have the vote but I'm not able to do that. But but I don't think that would have made any difference because of the what we have. Mr. Hawkins would you like me to make a motion to suspend the rules or I can't ask that. Yes ma'am let me clarify that point just a touch if you would bear with me for a second. We have worked pretty extensively with the fire department the fire chief and the fire marshal and we please remember we did drop this additional provision in a 35 5 10 2 section F. And that provision would require a meeting of the 250 foot setback as measured pursuant to that section that council member Briggs referenced. Or the greater 300 foot setback as specified from a measuring point in that other section which is in that section F. So we've really overlaid that requirement of the 300 foot setback on top of the 250 foot setback requiring that the larger setback be met. So we've tried to address it in any circumstance. Just if I could still have the mic just moving forward if council's pleasure if we could suspend the rules on you being able to second or anything in the absence of our mayor I would be okay with that tonight. But I'm just throwing that out there. I don't know how that works. So it's a motion to suspend. So, all right. Well, I'm going to say that that that at this time this motion fails. Is there a motion. Is there another motion then. Yes, Mr. Hawkins like to make a motion to spend the rules tonight. So that the mayor pro tem may participate in. How am I saying this second in making motions making motions or seconding okay second to that. There's a second by Miss Briggs. I second I think you should be allowed to to partake in this. Okay. Is there discussion. All right. All those. Vote on the board. Thanks guys. You're still up. You have a request to speak. Okay, Miss Briggs. I'd like to make a motion for an amendment to increase the permit fee from $1,700 to 3250 as in the 2009 Decatur ordinance. Okay, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins and then. Well, attorney. Mr. Mayor pretend this issue of the fees is not before the council tonight. It's not posted. It's not in the ordinance and it's not before you for consideration tonight. So I don't think that's something that we can consider tonight. However, I will say to you that there is a separate fee ordinance and we will be looking at that and bringing something forward in the future. Just by way of laying a little bit of foundation as we look at the fees, the fees need to be consistent with the work that's actually being performed. So we'll get these issues very closely and we'll bring something forward that will be consistent with that concept . So you'll be seeing seeing that in the not too distant future. There is no second to that motion. So that motion fails. Are there any other motions to amend? I have another motion. I can't I haven't been able to find the number. I admire your persistence to require electric motors instead of diesel. May I suggest that we take a moment and be specific as to where those would be required. Yes. Okay. It's it's it's not urgent yet. Mr. Road. While Councilmember Briggs is looking that up, I guess I'd like to ask a question of legal on that point. We're writing this in the context of HB 40, which clarifies to a certain degree what what a city can regulate and certainly clarifies what they cannot regulate. Your understanding of that legislation with something like mandating certain operational activities such as what kind of generator they can use, what kind of motors they can use . Does that fall under the simply a surface activity where it seems cities have a bit of leeway or is that more of a regulating an operator's activity? How do you understand that? Let me make a comment before I try to circle back to the specific question. I think you're asking this idea of using electric motors is not something that arose tonight. This is something that we have been hearing from citizens and we have been looking at and thinking about for really many, many months. This is also something the planning and zoning commission desired to look at. And the staff has done pretty extensive research, even pulling in some subject matter experts to look at the kind of capacity that might be available, the kind of capacity that that that it would take to run these generators and that kind of thing. And it's it's episodic. Consistent load. And so there's a whole science behind all of that that we looked at pretty carefully and we've we've tried to think through. The planning and zoning commission, as I recall, made a determination not to carry that issue forward because of some of the concerns that that arose at the commission and determined not to make that recommendation to the council. As we look at the issue, I'm also hearing and I'm sure there's a lot of science behind this as well. But the electric motors create a different kind of noise, which may or may not actually solve anything. And I think our guess what administrator has given us quite a bit of thought as well. And so he could probably more fairly address the science piece of it in the industry and the noise impacts. I do believe that we we are entitled to regulate noise issues. I would say to to us as we look at this ordinance and try to determine how to craft it, we've we've tried to craft the provisions so that we are setting a standard and then allowing the industry to meet the standard. How so ever that can be done, and that's probably a reasonable way to approach this. Certainly, we we've thought very carefully, carefully as to whether or not we want to try to regulate the specifics of the industry or set the standard. And we've determined that setting the standard is probably the better approach. But perhaps we could allow Mr. Groth to address this other issue if you're interested. If I can ask Councilmember Briggs, are you is is is your intent to regulate no diesel motors and to have electric motors instead. Is that an attempt to mitigate noise nuisances or is it about emissions? Both. Both. I think that there's an opportunity maybe to do something with noise nuisance, but I'm not sure. Okay. I just was curious about that. Have you found where you. I haven't. I haven't. It's not in here so I don't know where where to look. Okay. So. All right. Then, if it comes up, if in the course of our conversation, if you want to bring that back out, but for this time, it looks like that fails due to the lack of a second. Of course. More discussion. Now the motion to amend is there's still one with Mr. Br iggs name on it. Have you have you punched in another one. Have I what have you are you know it just didn't go away. Didn't go away. You can make that one go away. I'll do it. Okay. Well right now the motion on the floor is to approve the ordinance. With the caveats by rodent and the second by Johnson. And with the one amendment that was in fact added to the the. For the for the for the notifications. Mr. Rudin. I was just re indicating my initial motion on the board. Is there any further discussion. If there's no discussion, then we will vote on the ordinance. The motion passes. Okay. We're now to the last item on the agenda concluding items. Are there any council members that have anything they want to put on there. Any items. Mr. Rudin. I'm sorry. A couple of things. One is we've had a. We had a previous work session on noise ordinance. I was kind of focusing on some downtown issues and how does . How to address that. I've had some questions from. Business owners who have concepts. In mind that they're worried might impact whatever that potential ordinance might be. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. And I think that's a good way to address that. Are there any other comments? Are there any other comments? Are there any other comments? Look at that. We beat the deadline by an hour. We beat the deadline by an hour. In that case, we are adjourning at 1101. In that case, we are adjourning at 1101.