Travis County Commssioners Court
November 19, 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 3
Item no. 3. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> . . .the last direction we got from the court was to put
together issues pertaining to this hazardous pipeline ordinance proposed by
the city of Austin. They would be sort of joining city and county staff issues
we see from whatever perspectives we see be it subdivision or platting or
what have you. Get that list to you by end of the day last Friday. And I will
have to admit that that deadline was missed. You only got these Friday afternoon
as a full court -- I'm sorry, Monday afternoon, yesterday. So for that, I
apologize. The other issue was to -- or direction you gave us was to put together
a list of potential contacts that these issues would be mailed out to. So
the overall package that we're looking at is to get -- and the purpose is
to get more public input as well as other entity input that this might affect.
As you recall, the proposed ordinance being given our house bill 1445 interlocal
with the city of Austin would be jointly adopted in those portions of it that
affect the e.t.j. And, of course, it is always the discretion of the court
to adopt other measures into the pure county jurisdiction. So with that said,
what we can do is just walk through the list of issues that we have drawn
up, if you would like to do that. If you haven't had time and would like to
postpone that, that's a possibility, but we do have, as far as I know, the
impending deadline of this item going to council December 12th has not changed.
>> I do think we ought to get the issues before us. We talked
about them last week, asked that we try to come up with a complete list, if
possible.
>> certainly.
>> is there more backup covering these issues? More than
we had last time?
>> that was e-mailed, like I said, late in the afternoon
yesterday. If you do not have that, we can pass that out right now.
>> I need a copy of it.
>> okay.
>> that's what this is.
>> yeah, but keith, you've got the list of issues they need
to look at.
>> and so if we have gotten e-mail from people who attended
and have some concerns, can we give those names to you and you will e-mail
them?
>> certainly. All of these issues as well as you will see
on the third page there's a list of stakeholders that we've put on there,
and all of this information is intended to be just draft almost to get you
guys thinking for additional policy and contact direction that you would like
to give us, such as it's just a beginning, but I think it's a pretty -- as
far as the issues go, a pretty healthy beginning. And you can give us other
inputted -- input that we can fairly rapidly put in there. First issue, there's
two things. A little over one page actually of the issues. First goes to geographic
scope, and given that the ordinance applies in part to the e.t.j.s, discussion
would be would this apply to e.t.j.s of other municipalities and specifically
the pipelines that we see being applicable by this ordinance would pass through
the entities of -- of course, the city of Austin, hutto, Pflugerville, elgin,
manor and Mustang Ridge. And the question being also how does that affect
our existing interlocal with Pflugerville. Moving through, coordination processes,
the interlocal also involves the option for you guys to form working groups
to address issues such as the. The question being would you like to invoke
that privilege in the interlocal, 1445 interlocal to create a working group
with the city and affected people on this ordinance. Third issue, getting
into the specific portions of the ordinance. Part 2, we noted that over the
course of the last week, the environmental board, city of Austin environmental
board did approve the substance of the ordinance with some caveats and changes
that they would recommend including that the protected area -- or restricted
area, rather, be extended from 10 to 25 feet. If you recall, that was that
no excavation could take place or no structure could be placed within 10 feet.
Within the easement itself or within 10 feet of the pipeline. The other suggestion
that the environmental board made was to increase that distance from -- for
new construction and prohibited use areas from 200 to 500 feet. So, of course,
the question naturally is that something you would support or not. And then
moving through down into the portions of this section that rely on the authority
of the building code, zoning and building codes, there is a possibility under
senate bill 873 that you would extend that authority into the e.t.j. Or the
county jurisdiction proper. Would you like to do that? That's another issue
that pops up. And if so, these sections reference various codes that pertain
to fire departments and so forth. So, you know, the fire criteria manual,
the uniform fire code, would we have to adopt that? If we have to adopt that,
is that something you would be willing to do? Moving down through, we're almost
done here, it was the, I guess, sort of collective t.n.r. Opinion that this
applicability to this ordinance to existing ropbsz as it pertains to remodeling
could be problematic. Our general opinion was maybe that's not advisable.
>> even relocation, what's going to happen if someone needs
to be relocated, who is going to pay for that?
>> right. So we asked that question. You know, that's just
another issue out there. Should the ordinance language be modified to exclude
those provisions. If not, you know, we just have to ask these other questions
that are in bullets there. Is it reasonable to apply it to additions. If so,
what brings it to the threshold that it does apply or does not. How will the
ordinance generally affect people who want to remodel and what level, you
know, would bring it to view under the ordinance.
>> has the city addressed that issue? On the remodeling,
I guess invokes this ordinance from the city 's perspective.
>> this is holly with the city legal department. She would
be in a lot better standing to answer that question. Chuck is here with watershed
also.
>> the -- I'm holly melk wefplt the city law department.
These are all issues which have come up both that the -- at the environmental
board and the four public hearings which have been held on the ordinance.
The -- concerning existing stprubg structures, the ordinance does not apply
to existing structures. It will apply to new construction occurring if you
added a wing or a -- if you tore down your house and rebuilt or if you removed
a mobile home from a lot and tried to, wished to replace that with a new mobile
home.
>> how much remodeling triggers the ordinance?
>> that is -- what would be considered reconstruction, not
normal maintenance. So reshingling the roof would not -- it would be --
>> say you add a room to your house. How large would the
room have to be, or does it matter? Any size?
>> an exterior room to the house, that addition would --
the ordinance would come into place. That would fall under the definition,
the existing definition of new construction. And that is something that --
a hardship that has been articulated by several people at the public hearings,
and that's something that the fire department is looking at and will be reporting
back to council concerning what level of protection would be afforded fireproofing
a single room that's added to your house, whether that would afford protection
or not. They are running models on that, the fire department is. But when
you added on the room, it would apply to the -- the addition that you did
would have to be out of fire -- you know, some sort of fireproof material.
You would not have to retrofit the rest of your house. It would only be that
portion that was new.
>> so the new part would have to comply or you would have
to get some sort of exception under the ordinance.
>> precisely. Yes.
>> I know this has gone through the environmental board,
which is going to be looking at it with a certain perspective. What about
other boards and commissions? And I'm thinking more in terms of ones that
are more focused on the public safety aspect of this ordinance as opposed
to other kinds of things.
>> the planning commission will be considering this tomorrow
evening.
>> okay.
>> and the building and fire code will be considering it
December 4 December 4th.
>> great.
>> at their meeting. And then council asked that it be brought
back to them December 12th for discussion. And a report back to them.
>> thank you.
>> one question we asked last week, john, was what it is
that Travis County needs to do to be able to make our decision by December
12th. And I guess we were mindful of the other jurisdiction that might be
impacted radio.
>> right.
>> other than city of Austin and Travis County. There's an
e-mail with a long list of them.
>> correct.
>> judge burns has to try and give input to the city related
to this evolving process and we give them the best advice we can based on
the last and greatest version before it goes to the city council. But I thought
our intent was always that once they decide and lock in on the final version,
that's when it comes back to us about whether that is something that we want
to adopt as well or it gets kicked into the 1445 negotiation process, et cetera,
et cetera. But in terms of taking a stance on a -- we're kind of waiting to
see where it is that they landed because I think everybody anticipates many
changes between now and the 12th in terms of what that final ordinance is
going to look like. But I thought our intent here was to give them the best
advice we could about our questions, our concerns, and see how many of those
get addressed as it works its way through the city board and commission process.
Environmental done and gone on to those other places as well.
>> if we're seeing an an obstacle, I'm sure the city would
appreciate us calling it to their attention.
>> absolutely. Absolutely.
>> and I would point out, I believe it's pointed out in the
county draft issues is the only section that currently applies in the e.t.j.
Are the subdivision requirements, which those are designed to prevent accidental
ruptures during development activity. So it's not the 200-foot, it's the not
the -- the zoning prohibitions, and it's not the 200-foot corridor where we
have additional construction requirements. Those don't apply in the e.t.j.
>> I guess I just thought of a question, john. Have we shared
this with our fire marshal?
>> yes. I gave it to pete baldwin the pweurs day that we
addressed it -- first day that we addressed it and I was hoping he had shared
it with the staff.
>> has it gone to capital area fire chiefs?
>> I have not provided to them. Do you know if it's gone
to them?
>> city of Austin is a member. But the ones that would be
impacted most, phraofl, the ones that already have fire codes, they need to
speak with a voice as well related to cafc. Trigger the design of a one-hour
evacuation standard, who would review the plans, sign off on the adequacy
of those plans in the e.t.j.? We already have --
>> that particular requirement does not apply in the e.t.j.,
The city's requirement. And within the city, it would be the fire department
engineering group.
>> and did we get any kind of -- we've raised the question
the triggering of whether you put in a new septic system. Is that going to
be something that is going to trigger incompatibility with this ordinance?
>> well, you would not -- excavation for a septic field,
that would come into play with that portion which applies in the e.t.j. Because
no excavation can occur within the easement area of the pipeline or within
10 feet of the pipeline. That's to avoid accidental rupture when digging for
the septic system. You could go for a variance. And there is an action where
the director can allow excavation within the area close to the pipeline if
it is a type of activity which he can be assured will not have an impact on
the integrity of the pipeline. So I imagine that --
>> but to follow up in terms of when you talk about new construction,
are you talking about the structure itself, or would a septic tank field be
able to go within that 200 to 500-foot setback as well? Is the field going
to be able to go into the set back still respecting that no dig zone of 10
to 25 feet, whatever it's going to be wind up being? Because all of a sudden
you've got a lot of stuff that the requirements related to a septic field.
>> I can say with impunity that that particular kind of new
construction where the fire chief is concerned about people being able to
evacuate from it, it would not be a structure which people are standing in.
>> okay.
>> so that would not trigger the construction standards.
>> the same way with our flood plain ordinance, there's certain
kinds of things where there's not an actual occupation and living in that
area that certain things can still happen there, it just gets inundated and
it doesn't impact anything.
>> yes.
>> the city would enforce the ordinance in the e.t.j.?
>> the city will enforce the subdivision requirements in
the e.t.j. Not the construction requirements and not the zoning prohibitions.
And [inaudible] financial responsibility. But the rest of it, the subdivision
requirements, they -- [inaudible].
>> the city would enforce part 4 in the e.t.j.
>> yes, sir.
>> and so, joe, if the city adopts this and the county adopts
it for unincorporated areas, then we would simply try to put appropriate enforcement
features in the subdivision requirements. Notice different things and putting
a subdivider on notice that they need to come to the county if some of the
provisions are being --
>> we may need the e.s.d.s to enforce the fire code if we
adopt the full scope of the city's ordinance in the e.t.j. And also in the
unincorporated area outside the e.t.j.
>> what do we think about adopting full ordinance in the
unincorporated areas, or full?
>> depends on how much of part 4 you want to model. As if
[inaudible] it were the same as the city's ordinance.
>> part 4 leaves out a whole lot of the other features. I
guess what I'm thinking is if part 4 applies in e.t.j., It impacts us anyway.
So it makes sense in the name of consistency for us to go ahead and apply
part 4 even in unincorporated areas.
>> it would have to be consistent under 1445.
>> right. But I'm not sure that the same is true for the
other parts of the ordinance. In fact, it may make sense to wait two or three
years and see how the other parts of the ordinance really work out for the
city.
>> yes.
>> you all would level with us on impact three years later,
wouldn't you?
>> I think it will be obvious. [laughter].
>> the whole ordinance, I guess, seemed to require a whole
lot more than just a part 4. Part 4 dealing with subdivisions, we do a whole
lot of that anyway. And it may be simply adding a few additional provisions.
Putting people on notice of the new ones and then trying to enforce them after
adoption. I'm not suggesting simple, but I am suggesting simple compared to
trying to do the whole deal.
>> yeah.
>> that's one question we would have to answer ourselves
on this, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> if we want -- we went the fire code route, would that
be the uniform fire code for the entire county, or would each -- or the ones
that the e.s.d.s are adopting?
>> that's a good question.
>> there's something pending at c.u.c. Right now, Margaret
orbgs the platform about whether they should be allowed to go to the international
fire code, and I will claim total ignorance as to what is the difference between
that and the uniform fire code. But they are talking about, again, another
standard for the legislature to consider allowing e.s.d.s to go to.
>> it looks like we need to touch base with our fire marshall
too.
>> and I think I would ask our fire marshal to touch base
with the e.s.d.'s, and I guess first as to part 4, what impact they think
that will have. Looking at it, it will be minimal. But then the next question
would be assuming that we apply all of the parts, what would the impact be.
All of it meaning parts 1 through 9. My guess is that at a meeting in a closed
reading they would be able to give us preliminary comments in response to
those questions. But I would think we need those to let the city know.
>> sure.
>> you think that you all are moving toward a December 12th
presentation to the city council?
>> yes. We will be going back to council on December 12th.
Whether or not they will take action at that time, I -- I don't know. But
they did want us to bring it back as soon as possible.
>> but the council, in is one of those matters the council
does three readings on?
>> yes.
>> and those three readings will occur at three separate
meetings?
>> they can occur in one meeting.
>> oh, they can?
>> if you get 6-1 or 7-0 votes it can go on all three readings.
>> with a super majority they can do that.
>> you all don't meet between December --
>> that's the last meeting in December.
>> if they don't take final action that day, there is more
opportunity for their to be input and second and third chances.
>> and given that there has been quite a bit of commentary
and council may wish to take it under contribution and act -- consideration.
>> what do you think the city would like to hear or know
from the county about this ordinance? And don't say whether we like it or
not.
>> we want to know -- [inaudible]. I think it would be helpful
to the city any comments that you all receive would be --
>> accepted suggestions.
>> yes. And if certainly the city would like to see the county
adopt part 4 and support the city in that. I don't know what other information
would be helpful. Let me ask chuck.
>> I can't think of any. I think I agree with holly is that
if there is any concerns or issues that the county staff identify or certainly
the commissioners court or any issues that citizens raise, we would essential
like to hear about that. You know, we've tried to make this a very open process,
and there's been issues raised that are very legitimate that honestly I think
we didn't consider when the ordinance was first drafted. And sort of unique
situations, and we're trying to look at that and address that. And so I think
that's what the council would like to hear about, and certainly from the county.
Probably most of all from the county.
>> how do you evenhandedly grant exceptions? Typically you
would have some sort of written policy, written criteria that says if you
meet these requirements, then we may waive application.
>> exactly. There are -- there's an existing variance process
in place for subdivisions variances. The -- some of that analysis is similar
to a takings analysis that the application of the requirements would deny
all reasonable use of the property, things like that, and the action, the
relief being sought is not needed because of an action taken by the applicant.
And that it affords maximum level of protection.
>> especially if we go through the current --
>> the current findings of the variance for a variance from
subdivision requirements. For variance from the construction requirements
that are in place within the city, that would go under the existing, I think,
building and fire code procedures where it's the an alternate method is what
you are asking for. You are asking for an alternate way to comply with the
ordinance. The -- to lessen the burden on the -- the applicant in that particular
situation, and it depends on the exact situation that comes forward. I believe
that would be the process that would be used for the construction requirements.
So those are the two avenues that would be open to obtain relief if a particular
applicant was in a situation where -- because of the con tours of the land
or their particular circumstances that they were -- found themselves on a
lot that otherwise would be unbuildable or would not be useful.
>> I don't want to make this more complicated, but that's
half the joy of this job. How does this impact, if at all, new construction
of roadways/toll projects? I mean, we've got a lot of things happening in
eastern Travis County that is a lot of digging and a lot more disruption of
the land than any kind of subdivision that you can even think of. And I'm
-- you know, if the intent here is to try and keep the general public away
from these pipelines, one could construe that of would you route some of these
highways where you have people consistently going by these places? I'm just
wondering what are the limits of this and, quite frankly, some of the massive
construction projects -- it's not about a mobile home, it's not about a subdivision.
Is this going to impact in any way planned roadways, construction, et cetera,
related to setbacks?
>> not -- not directly, except -- and it probably is very
consistent with current practices. The no excavation within the pipeline easement
does not apply to roadways. The -- and if you are building a roadway you have
to -- what you do have to do is show engineering that protects the integrity
of the pipeline during the construction process, which, of course, would be
current practice, design practice. In all probability currently. So it should
not impact the ability to build a roadway. Although I'm sure that it's something
that would be taken into consideration in siting a roadway.
>> there's a legal issue too, holly. The road being built
by a an eminent -- a entity that has eminent domain powers, this is all being
applied under subdivision statutes, the common law is not subject to subdivision
raoeurplgts. So it's -- requirements. So if it's a state or a toll authority
or a county, it's the not going to be subject to the subdivision requirements
or they wouldn't apply. Obviously, as holly pointed out, whoever is building
the road wants to plan the road based on this policy anyway, they can do that.
But it's the not a legal obligation.
>> certainly the governor was talking about his transtexas
corridors and the idea of pipelines be it for, you know, whatever utility
or water or I'm not sure that he eliminated gasoline or oil being moved throughout
the state. So I'm just wondering in terms of consistency, but I think tom's
question gets to that about [inaudible].
>> this ordinance is supposed to address issues that have
surfaced as a result of pipeline incidents or --
>> yes. It originally came to the city's attention when the
longhorn pipeline, years ago, six or eight years ago began negotiations with
the -- for the sale of the pipeline to another company, and the city council
was asked if this was something that the council had reviewed, and that was
the beginning of the council's involvement and education in pipeline safety
issues. And then the -- [inaudible] and other pipeline accidents had been
brought to our attention and become part of our resource.
>> okay. So you want from us any constructive suggestions
we have. You want us to adopt part 4, if not the entire ordinance, I guess.
And any other concerns or issues. And tom will share with you the three-pager
that was distributed today, right?
>> yes.
>> e-mailed. And you hope to get any additional information
covering these three areas by when? Asap?
>> asap. And before we go back to council would be December
12th would be helpful to us. And we can work with staff in providing information
and also in making sure that you all know what comments we have from boards
and commissions and what we intend to take back to council. You will have
that.
>> well, can we have that real soon? I guess [inaudible]
some are major, some are minor, it would help to get the ones you consider
major as soon as possible.
>> we can give those to -- share those with staff now.
>> okay. All right. Then I think at least we ought to let
our fire marshal know, confirm that he's received a copy of this and request
that he try to meet with the esds in Travis County.
>> I would add the fire chiefs specifically are part of cafc,
bring them in.
>> we would be interested in getting from them any suggestions,
concerns or issues that surface after a reading. And if they would pay special
attention to part 4 and then the entire ordinance and give us any feedback,
that would help. So is that all right? Anything further today?
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM