Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer addresses the Fresno City Council on Sept. 3, 2026. Photo by Ben Hensley

The Fresno City Council voted 7-0 Thursday to begin drafting a citywide data center prohibition, adding requirements to notify councilmembers of applications and explicitly cover land later annexed into the city.

The vote advances the proposed measure from Councilmember Nick Richardson. Earlier this week, Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer publicly announced his support of the measure.

Thursday’s vote did not immediately enact a ban. It directs staff to draft a 10-year prohibition that would become permanent unless amended by a council vote.

Richardson said he chose the decade-long period to put a future reassessment beyond the current councilmembers’ potential consecutive terms, allowing another council to consider whether technological advances warrant a different approach.

For now, officials said no project is awaiting approval.

“There are no applications and there have been no inquiries,” Planning and Development Director Jennifer Clark said Thursday.

Drawing the line

Much of Thursday’s debate focused on whether the proposed rules could leave openings for smaller facilities or data centers operating inside existing businesses.

A revised definition, developed with the mayor’s office, describes facilities primarily devoted to large-scale servers, data storage and network infrastructure. It explicitly includes AI model training, cloud storage, high-performance computing and cryptocurrency validation.

The definition describes typical characteristics including power demand exceeding 2 megawatts and building footprints exceeding 20,000 square feet. The updated resolution provides the starting point for staff’s work.

Clark said those characteristics would not automatically exempt smaller facilities from the proposed prohibition.

Richardson said the proposal would not prohibit businesses, hospitals or city departments from adopting AI or maintaining servers that support their own operations.

Councilmember Miguel Arias pressed that distinction, using a hypothetical conversion of part of an Amazon warehouse into a data center. No such proposal was identified.

Clark said selling cloud services from part of a warehouse would constitute a separate primary use. Additionally, serving a company’s broader network would differ from dedicated servers supporting the local facility’s permitted operations.

New notification requirements

Arias initially sought to suspend the planning director’s authority to approve data centers while the amendment was developed.

Fresno’s code does not specifically list data centers as a permitted use; it provides a determination process for unlisted uses. City officials maintained that data centers lack the comparable permitted uses needed to qualify.

“You have to do public outreach. You have to present the project to an advisory group,” Richardson said Tuesday.

He said the process also involves review by the Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission.

Arias instead secured immediate notification to all council offices of applications involving data centers, including proposals describing the activity as incidental or auxiliary.

“I want to know when the application comes through,” Arias said.

Councilmember Brandon Vang also secured language explicitly extending the proposed prohibition to land annexed into Fresno.

City staff cautioned that Fresno cannot regulate development on unincorporated county land. The council could, however, decline an annexation involving an existing data center.

Jobs and future tech

Dyer acknowledged that technological improvements could reduce water consumption, electricity demand and noise, but said limited employment remained a deciding factor in his opposition.

“The one thing that they can’t overcome is job creation,” Dyer said.

The debate overlapped with Thursday’s hours-long discussion of SEDA, the city’s southeast development proposal. Richardson said clarifying Fresno’s position would help other development discussions proceed without speculation that proposed projects were intended to accommodate data centers.

Richardson said technological changes could eventually warrant a different decision.

“Perhaps that is a decision that I’m comfortable leaving to a future council once we block this for 10 years,” Richardson said.

Another vote to come

Residents and representatives of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Power California urged stronger protections, with some speakers seeking an immediate interim prohibition or a voter-approved ban.

A representative of the city attorney’s office said an emergency ordinance requires an imminent threat to public health or safety, not undefined potential activity.

The council did not adopt an emergency ban.

Staff must now develop the code amendment and determine the required environmental review. The amendment must undergo advisory review and consideration by the Airport Land Use Commission and Planning Commission before returning to the council.

Clark said the item could return before the end of the year, depending on environmental review.

No firm return date was adopted Thursday.