Travis County Commssioners Court
October 22, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 7
>> since we have you here, why don't we pull up item no. 7. Is the city here, I saw a representative a few minutes ago. That deals with the time. And leveraged the federal sources that were out there wi th our local dollars. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> since we have you here, why don't we pull up item no. 7. Is the city here, I saw a representative a few minutes ago. That deals with the hazardous pipe line. Discuss proposed amendments to city of Austin code relating to hazardous pipelines and take appropriate action. That way if you all wants to say. If you all want to say.
>> I saw john pool just a second ago.
>> just outside.
>> there they are.
>> give commissioner Davis six copy, he will pass them down.
>> okay.
>> one will be for the clerk and one for each member of the court.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners, john pool environmental officer with Travis County. Looks like I will be functioning largely as an -- hopefully an emcee here, because we have quite a few visitors. Esteemed visitors. With us today to talk about the proposed ordinance. This has to do with the -- with the regulation of hazardous pipelines primarily within full purpose city limits, but also within the tooej as it -- etj as it pertains to the development code. I have fire chief warren here, holly noelke with the city attorney's office, you will be hearing from chuck lesniak and pat murphy in watershed protect. I am sure tom nuckols will chime in frame. In -- chime in from time to time. You will have to remind us, polly probably caught some of those as well. But the idea is that the city has decided, I think a lot of this they can tell you more about, but they will probably -- they were probably stimulated to get this thing rolling as it pertained to the longhorn pipeline project. One of the of course first things that you will see as -- as you look through, I think it's about a nine-part ordinance, but first four parts are the ones that seem to be the most -- most critical in terms of changing the code. The first section provides for enhanced insurance requirements, you know, by the actual pipeline contractors. And in place -- places a minimum of $50 million environmental liability policy and then there's also a -- a stipulation adding that, you know, that within the full purpose limits, they would add a million per mile there. Also adds an offenses component to -- to the code itself. And ties it to -- ties it up there. As you move into part 2, the ordinance actually gets into some land use prohibitions within setbacks from existing pipelines and I suppose proposed on pipe lines would be affected by this. And sets back 200 feet for uses such as congregate leaving, convalescence, daycare facilities, detention facilities, hospital, general and limited as well as larger medical offices, private and public primary educational facilities and retirement housing, at least large sites. And also gets into the prohibition of -- of new construction within that area. Now, I suppose there are some -- some potential variances for those companies if they can document that there are sufficient evacuation protection measures as well as early detection, notification of -- of leak systems. I think it kind of boils down to a one-hour evacuation or something to that effect.
>> so, john, this says that 200 -- who says that 200 feet is enough? Who says that 200 feet is enough?
>> I will be glad to let the chief answer that. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... Beyond that 200 feet?
>> this is assuming it's on fire already. If it's on fire, then the radient heat will only be a serious consideration for 200 feet on either side of the pipeline.
>> what about the liquid?
>> [inaudible] at the point it's burning. It doesn't take into consideration liquid leaking out and running down the creek and out to the river that's not ignited. It's mostly a fire protection consideration.
>> okay.
>> chief, could you clarify in terms of -- obviously this is going to impact anything within the city of Austin. How will this impact stpheug anything within your five-mile e.t.j. Which gets into Travis County land and whether we would have to have some kind of caking impact analysis needs to be done because of something overlaying in the county related to how this impacts private property rights.
>> well, the portion that I would see extending into the e.t.j. Would be the review of subdivision platting. Once again, all I would be asking is the opportunity to review those plats and see that proper measures are being taken, for the most part.
>> but because it is going to be something that is going to be going through our subdivision process as well, joe, or whomever from tnr, do we have to do an impact analysis because of this overlay or is this an overlay of the city's and they are not required to do anything like that in terms of a new ordinance that impacts private property rights? That might be an attorney question. Which is not expected at this moment if it's advice.
>> I think you have to put it into context of subdivision platting generally. When you say e.t.j., First thing that comes to mind is house bill 1445. Operating a new world and subdivision platting in the e.t.j. As you are aware what the law says as well as what our interlocal with the city of Austin now says, essentially we're supposed to be adopting regulations in the e.t.j. That are consistent.
>> that's right.
>> so for the city to adopt this, we have to adopt it. For us to adopt it and make it part of our regulations, yes, we're going to have to analyze the private property rights preservation act and go through the drill of doing the t.i.a., Unless we're subject to one of the exceptions. We haven't gotten that far down the road, but that's definitely a hoop we would have to jump through.
>> but we would be talking about adopting the more stringent?
>> well, we're supposed to be adopting exactly what the city has.
>> so I would feel that if the people within the city of Austin are protected well, then that means that folks in the county would be protected as well. So -- okay.
>> keep in mind, even with house bill 1445, there are still some issues as to what statutory authority the city has versus what the county has. For example, the first part of the ordinance, the insurance requirement, I note that that expressly implies only in the city limits, because I assume the city is not doing that under your subdivision authority, you are doing that under some other legal authority that to, my knowledge, the county can't exercise in the e.t.j. Likewise, I think part 2 where it talks about the 200-foot setback and the various uses, that's an amendment to the city's zoning ordinances.
>> right.
>> of course, the city can't zone in the e.t.j., So I'm not sure that the 200 feet is going to apply in the e.t.j., Or at least I don't read the city to be intending the 200 feet to apply in the e.t.j.
>> for the zoning -- the zoning [inaudible] will apply only where we have zoning authority. The construction requirement regarding the fire code and building code requirements will apply in this [inaudible] limited purpose e.t.j. That was not beyond that. That's the extent of our --.
>> so when we have to take care of that problem ourselves through legislation? [multiple voices]
>> > okay, we're going to have to address this, then.
>> we kind of asked that for the part 4 of the ordinance regarding -- that part 4 in the ordinance is the subdivision requirements and those are ones that you should be specifically concerned with. The [inaudible] impact analysis is not required for the city because that is required in all parts of our e.t.j. But it is for us. It will determine what needs to be done in the county.
>> okay.
>> with regard to prior question of commissioner Davis concerning notice to property owners of pipelines on this property, we would certainly recommend that any property owner research their plat. The -- most of the pipelines have an eastment across property. And it should show up on the plat. And the same thing with people who are purchasing property.
>> will it show up on the property owner's deed?
>> yes.
>> it will show you, when you buy your house, the title commitment will list all the encumbrances. If the easement crosses your lot, that's one way to find out about it. If the easement just goes through your subdivision, it doesn't cross your lot, you may not know about it. But the title commitment may refer to plat. It will give you a page number and volume number for the plat, you know, and if you do your due diligence, you go get a copy of the plat and look at it. You can't guarantee that's done.
>> most of these pipelines were put in place years ago. So -- a good place to look is the plat if you can identify that. In addition, the proposed -- the city's proposed ordinance requires that a person who is conveying a lot containing a restrictive pipeline area, that the easement will -- before title is transferred, deliver to -- deliver a document describing the restrictive paoeupl line pipeline areas, and the name and address of the pipeline owner or operator.
>> let me go back to new construction.
>> uh-huh.
>> and I guess if I'm understanding this correctly, in fact, it may still be revisited, this ordinance still have an opportunity to be revisited by the city council as far assetback. What I'm hearing the setback right now [inaudible]. But I'm hearing another argument on the other hand from the fire department folks saying the research that was done shows that it is sufficient. 400 feet floating around, maybe more or less, but i've been hearing that figure floating around. I don't know where the city council is going to land on this finally, but as far as the county is concerned, under h.b. 1445, we have to work in concert and work an agreement with what we're doing. However, after you get out of the city limits, you get out into the county, of course, there are -- there is going to be some differences, probable differences. Now, the point is, the authority that we have to make up that shortage because probably made in error as far as the required setback even from this ordinance here. And I guess what would we be both looking at here we working in agreement with another local under h.b. 1445, and yet when it comes to applying and looking at plat review and depictings where the pipeline is within the plat and all these other kind of things, we're going to come up with some differences. So what are we looking for to ensure that the persons that are living in the area get the protection that they need [inaudible] pipeline and depicting under new construction. And then number 2, what's being transported in the pipeline. I think all of those things are contingent upon distance. In other words, if we have something that will not only after it explodes causes houses to burn or whatever else, but the inhalation of that into your system can be just as devastating. So we're talking about bodily harm also and property harm for an individual if we do have a hazardous -- a mishap in the pipeline. So those concerns I don't know are intended in the distance or not. How far do they have to be away from -- 30 yards away from something that explodes before I inhale, do harm to my body. As opposed to doing harm to my structure, where I'm dwelling. So are these things con continuing oepbt -- is the distance contingent on what? Property damage or bodily harm?
>> I'm hearing two different questions or two parts to your question. One is the inhalation part and the other is the -- I want to stress that our ordinance, there's not a set setback. Other parts of the country have developed setbacks where construction occurs, has to be set back from a pipeline. The -- our ordinance provides that within 200 feet of the pipeline, certain construction measures must be met. That's because the fire department is developing -- will look at -- it's a performance based standard and it's also developing prescriptive requirements that will meet the one-hour evacuation and a heat radient burn standard or something. The -- the fire chief can articulate. [laughter] the other parts of the -- in other parts of the country, they've looked at how far away do I have to be in order to be safe if I do nothing. No construction requirements. Which in the county may be a more appropriate approach because in the city we have building permits and we have other development regulations [inaudible] which allow us to put construction measures and construction requirements in place for public protection. It has to do with something that is available to us as a tool. The -- as far as chapter 1445 and those areas where we have joint jurisdiction, that is outside the city limits in our e.t.j. Where our subdivision requirements are pretty much what we're going to have to make sure it does comply with our interlocal. The construction requirements apply to the city, not in our e.t.j. So --.
>> well, that's the point I was trying to get to.
>> but you will certainly have to --.
>> that is the point I'm trying to get to. There will be a variance, even if it's construction-related things. Some things that we are able to [inaudible] before it's construction related. And that's another good point.
>> the -- I would let the fire chief discuss some of the issues of inhalation because I think that they are modeling those.
>> that's true. The 200 feet was set purely for a fire burning at the pipeline.
>> fire burning. All right.
>> just burning.
>> all right.
>> and that 200 feet [inaudible] by the amount of heat put off by the fire and what kind of damage [inaudible]. [multiple voices] plaintiffs plaintiffs there are statistics that show the vast majority of pipeline accidents happen within the first 1 feet. That's within that 200-foot. So the other thing I would mention is that we did want to consider what would happen if vapors are being released without ignition and how far they could travel to cause a problem when it ignited from a remote area and flashed back to the leak. And for that reason we will be considering when we review those properties and these plats what kind of vapor detection and alerting systems are available to be used for those properties and those people that live in those areas. If we have vapor detection and alerting, we have a much better chance to avoid inhalation and ignition from a remote source and flashing back, which causes -- could cause a lot of damage. So we do have some consideration in that, but it will be at the review thing.
>> in the review thing.
>> yes.
>> well, will that also come under the -- I know not only dealing with haz-mat and other things that we have to respond to on an emergency basis, there are -- there are the planning process as far as evacuation, for example. So is all this also being taken into consideration how do we evacuate safely the residents of the area that even with the construction mode of this maybe not be sufficient enough to protect, but there is also a plan of evacuation whereby the persons will be able to leave the property safely.
>> there is a -- and I think all of the area fire departments would agree that evacuation is a process that's done for each neighborhood in a customized manner. Because the way the roads go, which way the wind is blowing, the type of material released affects those plans. So they have to be made up on the scene at the moment considering the conditions that exist. So all these haz-mat technicians that we were talking about are all trained in being able to ascertain what kind of evacuation needs to be done. But they are custom to the event.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> could I -- my question is why is -- during the natural gas pipeline is not included in this?
>> the natural gas? We modeled that also and we found that the same kind of problems that we would be looking at for the other pipelines, if it was a very large pipeline with high pressures, the zone would be 40 feet or less. And so it's almost not worth dealing with considering the extensive network we have in the city for administrative reasons, we decide to do exclude the natural gas.
>> okay. I was curious. Thank you.
>> did we give you all a chance to finish the presentation?
>> I think the only area that I was going to go into next that I hadn't really covered as far as distances, because I know commissioner Gomez was very interested in that issue, the 200 feet, is this sort of definition of a -- what do you call it? A hazard today's pipeline area I think is the term that's used throughout the ordinance. Basically that definition is placing -- relates to placement of structures to within 10 feet of that -- does that mean anywhere within that pipeline easement? Is that the way it's meant to be interpreted?
>> yes. The restricted pipeline area is the area within a pipeline easement as well as within 10 feet of a pipeline. There are some pipeline easements where the pipeline was actually outside the or at the edge of the easement.
>> so you've covered it both ways.
>> yes.
>> okay. And there were some logical exceptions, of course, to that prohibition, and that would be the actual pipelines are pertinent to [inaudible] other structures related to those, and also roads, utility lines, service connections, those kinds of necessary pieces of infrastructure. I'm sure would be reviewed on a case- by-case by cyst.
>> and before a western would place a road, the director must get a certification from a registered engineer that the proposed construction activity will not disturb the pipeline. That it has been designed specifically not to disturb the pipeline area. We find that the chief cause of pipeline accidents is intended -- unintentional ruptures during construction activity. So that was why the subdivision regulations, that was the reason we did those.
>> right. As we go into the subdivision requirements, basically there is a requirement that the subdivider has to determine the presence and depicted on the map. There is a prohibition of lots smaller than an acre being able to have a restricted pipeline area in there. And then you have the same mirrored structure placement and excavation prohibitions that you saw in the prior section within that subdivision requirement section.
>> uh-huh.
>> and, of course, then the requirement for the description and the name and address and so forth of the pipeline owner or operator, requirements holly just mentioned. And then the requirement for the plat notes to be -- to be depicting of the hazardous pipeline area or the hazardous pipeline itself there. So that's pretty much -- that last section, if this thing moves forward and is passed is something we would have to adopt as just a reteen part of our business here.
>> part 4?
>> yes.
>> I would also note that in part 4, the subdivider has to determine whether the pipeline crosses the subdivision, and it must be restricted -- it must go depicted on the plat. And in addition, part d says a residential lot that is less than one acre may not include a restricted pipeline area. So that's something else that would be a part of what you all should be considering for adoption.
>> okay.
>> I'm trying to -- you've got an ordinance here, part of which clearly would apply only within the city of Austin because have you powers and authority within the city limits that we -- you don't have outside.
>> right.
>> and then you've got this section that you believe is legally applicable in the e.t.j.
>> uh-huh. Yes.
>> and so we need to do an analysis of adopting this concurrently with your adoption, I suppose, and what that would invoke on the county level, like the t.i.a. It seems to me that it would be probe, and this is my opinion, to look at while we're doing that under 1445, to look at what might be appropriate under 873 outside of the e.t.j.s so that there is a uniformity to the extent we have authority county-wide. That would be an examination I'm sure you haven't really made. We have some new authority under 873 that we haven't actually used yet, but this might be an instance where we would want to take a look at that. Especially if there is going to be a hearing process.
>> do it one time.
>> have you all had hearings already?
>> yes, we have had two public hearings at l.b.j. And johnston. We have two more public hearings at langford and bowie. Following that we'll have board and commission hearings with the environmental board and the city planning commission and the fire and building code.
>> this will take how long?
>> until the end -- the very beginning of December. And we're going to try to bring this back to council in December. With a report back to council.
>> so at langford it's Monday, October 28th?
>> no, October 28th, yeah. At langford elementary. The following Monday will be at bowie.
>> do you all summarize public comments after the public meetings? Written summaries?
>> we will not -- we'll probably have a written summary. We've been taking down all of the questions and comments so we do have a record of that. That people are welcome to -- to get copies of.
>> I recall a memo asking for our concurrence within 30 days. If you had your druthers, when would you like to see the county take action?
>> the -- the -- I think it would be helpful for the city to be in dialogue with the county about what your thoughts are since this is being floated as a draft proposal and is -- the council may after receipt of public comments determine that some changes are warranted. So I'm concerned about you all taking --.
>> adoption of what we think of the proposed ordinance may be premature, but we need to weigh in on what our thoughts and concerns and questions might be so at least we're position-wise in concurrence.
>> exactly.
>> you would like our input as soon as you can get it.
>> that would be really helpful.
>> let me ask one question before we fully shut this off. Tom, you know, we look at this particular ordinance and looked at the necessary input you made [inaudible] back to the city. In some rational time frame. And looking at this from the aspect of looking just into the e.t.j. Of the city of Austin as it exists now under 1445, h.b. 1445, if there is any change in the future of this ordinance, would we have to revisit this issue again to make the same change -- accept the same change to the ordinance or is that something that would just be -- take another action from the court, that's the bottom line.
>> you mean if the city and the county both adopt this ordinance?
>> yes, agree to this ordinance.
>> if one or the other of you wants to change it in the future?
>> yes. There may be some changes that -- I think there's probably going to be some changes to this ordinance, I don't know exactly what, but i've got a feeling there is. If it does happen in the future, we'll have to revisit that?
>> yes. Because, again, house bill 1445 and the interlocal basically assume that the city and the county are going to have regulations in the e.t.j. That are consistent.
>> okay.
>> so take that assumption, and the first conclusion you've got to reach is the city and the county both need to adopt the same ordinance in the first instance.
>> okay.
>> if either the city or the county wants to change it later, you know, the same provisions are going to apply.
>> okay.
>> under house bill 1445 and the interlocal, one entity is not supposed to either adopt new regulations or amend its existing regulations in a way that results in a conflict with the other.
>> with the other, okay. That basically answers my question. Then again, would senate bill 873 still need to be hashed out and looked at maybe even to allow us to look beyond the e.t.j. Of the city of Austin. But right now I just want to make sure if there are any changes that are being [inaudible] your process, there may be changes. And if so, later on in the future, then I want to make sure we're doing the things we should be doing. Those are my concerns.
>> and respect to the idea of taking action on this outside the city of Austin's e.t.j., Obviously in the part of the county that is not in any city's e.t.j., The county is free to adopt whatever regulation it sees fit to adopt. It's the not constrained by house bill 1445. But to the extent you want to do something that applied -- applies in other cities' e.t.j.s, you have interlocals now with Lakeway and Pflugerville that mirror the city of Austin. So if you want to adopt this ordinance in the Lakeway and Pflugerville e.t.j., You would then have to go consult with them separately.
>> exactly. I know in Pflugerville -- [multiple voices]
>> 6:30.
>> that's good information. Thank you.
>> holly, can I ask one question?
>> go ahead, judge.
>> the 200-foot restriction is a zoning restriction, so you are not intending to apply that outside the corporate limits?
>> it's a zoning and site plan requirement. And it will be just within the limited purpose.
>> okay.
>> so site plan just in limited purpose.
>> limited purpose for the construction requirements, yes. And the subdivision requirements -- those are the only requirements which will apply in the e.t.j.
>> just out of curiosity, why not apply the 200 feet? Across the board in the e.t.j.? Why not apply to it the subdivision?
>> because it's essentially a building code requirement. And our building code does not apply in the e.t.j.
>> yeah, because it stops.
>> it's a jurisdictional matter.
>> well, anyway, [inaudible] earlier. Could it be carried on through. That's one of my concerns.
>> and it's building code. That's the mechanism or one of the major mechanisms where it will come into play is through the building code. And our jurisdiction is limited. That is why the specific construction requirements are -- can be utilized.
>> okay.
>> tom, I guess when the -- [inaudible] causes that done tphreubgt between the city -- causes that conflict between the city and the county, how do we reconcile that? I know we hope it wouldn't happen.
>> if the attorney general opinion that came out, if you read it literally there is no conflict because the attorney general basically opined that whatever authority the city had in the e.t.j., The county could take advantage of.
>> but that wouldn't relieve us of the requirements we have which are separate and apart related to the taking act that applies --.
>> the taking act applies to the process how you get there. The a.g. Opinion said basically the city and county could end up in the same place because the legislature intended essentially for counties to have all the authorities cities have.
>> okay. So I take it what we need to do is brainstorm internally, try to figure out if we have significant issues that we need to discuss with the city about the ordinance.
>> right.
>> secondly, try to determine what changes we have to go through caused by maybe 1445, 873, and other legal standards. Then thirdly, we need to see what -- if we think we know what we want to do or can do, we need to see what impact it will have -- our action will have on other cities in Travis County.
>> the geographic scope. Exactly where do unit it to apply.
>> and could we have something just general in time for next Monday's hearing? Because I know that my constituents are really interested in that. And they will probably go to the langford hearing. And then the bowie hearing is November 4th. The day before elections. At bowie, before election day.
>> is that on purpose to keep the candidates from coming? [laughter]
>> no. [laughter]
>> I think our constituents will be there anyway.
>> it's not a city election day.
>> so if we can have just something general that I can share with them when I get those calls. I will get calls from margarite.
>> then in terms of the county actually taking any kind of final action, we would need to see what the city does in its final form and then playoff from there as opposed to be premature and doing something and it gets changed and then we have to come back. Yes.
>> I would -- I don't know, but in all probability, council -- the city council will formally propose an action. I don't imagine that any staff proposal that they would take action on immediately.
>> right.
>> I don't know what their meeting schedule is for December.
>> there are just two meetings in December.
>> that could take us easily into January.
>> we'll be going back -- we'll be ready to go back to council December 12th, I believe they have a meeting.
>> okay.
>> and maybe one other meeting.
>> [inaudible].
>> that is the last meeting in December. So there will be a report back to council on the 12th. In all probability with staff recommendations. And -- which we will certainly apprise you all about.
>> we have our work cut out for us over the next 30 to 40 days.
>> if there is anything that the city staff can help you with in terms of providing you information, if you have questions, we would be -- we have a lot of people working on this. We would be happy -- we also will be -- we're looking at putting the maps that we have, the pipeline map, we're looking at putting that on our website. Our map -- you have a really good map that john has. Both of our maps we used the railroad commission information from. The railroad commission information is notoriously incorrect. It's very approximate. So we encourage people not to rely on it as an absolute locator. We are doing what we can to update and to verify the exact placement of the pipeline, and hopefully we'll -- we'll correct our map as we get additional information and certainly share that with you. But that will be on the city's website as soon as we can get it on.
>> state or federal requirement that pipelines [inaudible] hazardous material be clearly marked so that passerbys can --.
>> yes.
>> is there a similar requirement that this notification be updated periodically or maintained?
>> do you speak of, like, a mailout or some other type of advisory? I don't know of anything like that, but ...
>> I have in mind notification on the ground. Some universal signal that says "pipeline underneath. Danger." I've seen markings.
>> there's requirements, but you are dealing with some pipelines, and I know an example over by manor where there is -- it's been inactive for years and years, and, you know, they are just like any other industry, from time to time their focus may not be on seeing like that and signs wear out and so forth, but technically, yeah, I mean, you could force that. And the railroad commission with a phone call would be happy to make that compliant, if they were out of compliance. Just to tell you, this map i'll make available to all of your offices, we'll get you a copy.
>> thanks.
>> the red line just shows you the applicable 8-inch or larger hazardous lick wide pipelines in the jurisdictions. It runs into some colors, it made it hard to see. Once you look close up, it will be evident. Also included here are lines that aren't applicable in this particular ordinance but that you might have been interested in such as the natural gas lines or the ones that are smaller than 8-inch inside diameter. So their map is here. It's obviously very well suited to their needs and have a few more details that shows you some of the pipelines that are inactive at this time and so forth. A little bigger picture here. And like holly said, that will be available I guess pretty soon on the website.
>> very good.
>> we appreciate your input. We should have this back on the commissioners court agenda again.
>> thank you all very much.
>> a letter from the city manager asking for a 30-day [inaudible] period. If you wanted to try to address that prior to then, I suppose you would be looking at right before election day. Or election day itself, rather.
>> November 12th.
>> get back with you all on that, john?
>> more realistic.
>> let's try to get as much done between now and then.
>> i'll get back to you on my concerns.
>> I think that's realistic, judge, in terms of knowing what the council schedule is as well. It's going to slide a bit.
>> very good. Thank you all again.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM