Travis County Commissioners Court

July 24, 2007
Item 9

Number nine is consider and take appropriate action on a plat for recording in precinct 1, lehne addition, two total lots.

>> judge, we had a public hearing last week at johnny morris road. The neighborhood association was there, along with the applicant, aisd, officials. And even former gus garcia there and others that gave some very gut wrenching testimony. I'd like to again thank staff, anna bowel inand tnr staff and Travis County attorney's office and others to show their participation. There were a lot of things that were discussed. Staff -- tnr staff has supplied each one of us with a -- concerns that were raised by the participants of that night meeting, and we all have copies of that. Also, there has been additional information that has been forth coming and which I did get a chance to hopefully give all of you a copy, and that is a letter from the l.b.j. Neighborhood association, which has -- they brought many issue and concerns up that also are part of those questions that you received from tnr staff as far as what they was actually asking for. And also from the colony park neighborhood association, which these folks were basically opposing the location of the particular proposed use that have property by sun coast resource, inc. In addition to that, I have provided a short clip of film of some deaf at a timing evidence of above ground fuel tanks according to an incident that happened up in wichita, kansas. So that will be showed when those things explode. That will be showed later. However, today I have invited rents from the -- essentially there were a lot of questions asked. Representatives from the city of Austin, from the state fire marshal office, state of Texas fire marshal's office, tceq because there were a lot of thing that I think was raised as far as the Texas commission on environmental quality that particular tight knight at the meeting, so I felt that the tceq representatives should be here paib to entertain some of these things relating to tac 30 and section 334. Neighborhood associations are here today. There are a lot of folks here that I think can provide further answers to a lot of these concerns, even as far as the l.b.j. Neighborhood association. They even looked at some situations that may not have been included in the correspondence that we had initiated from staff, and that was basically looking at the tank settling, the soil in the area, how it shifts and moves. As you know that area out there is very unstable. We all have to deal with that, even when we construct our roads, Commissioner Gomez. We have to deal with the shifting soil and the way thing move around out there in eastern Travis County. We kind of are plagued with that particular movement of the soil. So -- and how it may affect foundations. We also heard, judge, that it's been -- it was testified that the operations that are going to take place at 7759 johnny morris road as far as proximity is concerned, proximity meaning, I guess, to this end, the proximity from other entities. It was mentioned I think during the testimony at that particular meeting, and I've heard it here also before the Commissioners court that the proximity of this particular activity would be within 3,000 feet. After talking with county tnr staff out to the site, the property line is about 180 feet from the property line of the school right across the street. So when you're saying #- 880-foot or less as far as that, that's pretty clos a school, which is the gus garcia middle school. But of course, there are other schools in the area such as the barbara jordan school and also the vernon overtown school. Again, I think a lot of concerns have been brought up. And it ranges from the impact of -- as far as traffic analysis stuz being conducted to health and potential risks in the area through the air quality and water quality monitoring, and also it includes soil in this particular arena because I think it's something they even brought up during the time of the meeting. Security was also an issue that was brought up. I think we need to take strong consideration and be very careful on what we're doing here. We are talking about as you heard earlier this morning on the items before the Commissioners court, it was talking about the quality of life in that area as far as the impact that happened on 71 and the public welfare and health? We're talking about children here that of course are going back and forth to school and the health of the community and are we the guardians of that or not. We've got film and downloaded it and gone through the proper channels to see if it's accurate and with proper commission through the county attorney's office and and also the company that produced this particular film up in kansas city, wichita, kansas talking about the situation that happened up there as far as above ground storage tanks, their ability to explode. This particular setting, what happened just recently was from static electricity. So at this time, judge, I would like to show a two or three minute clip and then after that, after media complete their showing of the above ground storage tanks, after that I think we can maybe go ahead and if it's all right with the court to start taking the testimony from these folks that have come down again to make sure that their public health and safety needs and the health risks, potential health risks are not ignored. So at this time, al, with the court's permission, I would like to show this particular film clip.

>> okay. It's two or three minutes?

>> yes, sir.

>> al?

>> the situation next door still a mess. Crews still trying to clean up what's left after the explosion and fire at the solvents plant. Here's what we know tonight. The air contamination levels are lower than they've been. Operations are scaled back crews are still vacuuming anything still leaking from the tanks. We know all 44 tanks from the tank farm were damaged and will have to be replaced. Traffic is getting back to normal. All residents are allowed to go home, but there may be a lot of equipment traffic and a lot of noise. They've lost business and nearly lost employees when the plant exploded. One company that shares a fence with the company reopened today. Workers say the explosion felt like someone picked up their building and dropped it. We have what workers saw just yards from the explosion.

>> cindy, cleanup continues over here at barton solients tonight. -- solvents tonight. Workers say they had just stepped inside their building and that's when everything inside me exploded.

>> it fet like somebody picked up our building and dropped it on the ground. It just shook.

>> their first day back seemed like business as usual, but thee presses had been shut off since Tuesday because of the neighbors they share a fence with.

>> we poked our head out the door and all we seen was a big fireball coming at us and we ducked back in and said run. I thought the fire was going to catch up with us and overtake us.

>> the explosion and chemical fire at barton solvents shook much of valley center Tuesday and these men were only yards away. After running from their building they turned away to see this tanker for lack be of a better term, taking off.

>> it looked like a space shuttle, like the space shuttle taking off. There was flames underneath it and it was going straight up. It went up about 200-foot and came straight back down.

>> around the side of the building you see somehow the only damage it received, a valve that flew about the length of a football field before crashing into their siding.

>> it's unbelievable. What's funny is we've always said if that place ever blows up, we're in trouble. And sure enough, it blew up.

>> they worked here all Thursday trying to catch up for time and money lost while cleanup continued across the fence. Environmental equipment is still set up around barton, testing the air quality in the area. We're only about 50 yards away from the tanks right now. It still smells a little bit like paint thinner in the area, but this 'equipment is showing there are no particles up in the air. The workers that we talked with today say the amazing thing is in a no one was hurt. Cindy?

>> valley Austin printing is the company that prints several weekly newspapers in the area, including the wichita business journal.

>> so you can see that these are it appears that they are potential hazards to adjacent subdivisions, schools and adjacent to people. So that is something that I wanted to make sure that would be considered when looking at and listening to the testimony of the concerns that these folks have here. So again, we have several folks that have come down again. Aisd did take a position as far as mentioning in their testimony relocation. Reheard from the city of Austin staff person that was there that when they participated as far as going to look at the particular property it was based on raw land. Did not know that there were storage tanks, above ground storage tanks on this site, proposed for this site. So I think at this time, judge, if you would law staff to go ahead and maybe bring the court up to speed as much as possible along with the residents here. Tceq along with the state fire marshal, city of Austin and also Austin independent school district. And of course, the residents. At this time I'd aisle just leave it open as far as your direction, judge.

>> ms. Bouldin? If you would, as best you can, address the issues for us. We've got a briefing three week ago, I think, but there's been additional research and public meeting since that time. So just bring us up to speed with that. And next if we could get -- if representatives from the aisd, tceq, city of Austin have statements to make, you're welcome to bring those. Then if we could have the residents come down. And I know the applicant would like to respond to questions that are raised.

>> anne bolin, Travis County tnr. Just remind everyone right now and the Commissioners court that this is a subdivision plat, title 30, e.t.j. Of the city of Austin. So that's what's at court right now. Also, though, not in a sbl site plan is being reviewed by the city staff and county staff, that is not here today.

>> what's the difference between the two.

>> the plat is the first stage in the development process, but we issue permits on site plans or on construction plans and on a site such as this it would be a construction plan. That's still being reviewed by both the city staff, the county staff. I know the fire marshal. We're not ready to recommend issuing a permit at this time. We're just going through the review process. Right now this is a plat and it's gone through zoning and platting commission and then as is the way with plats, after it goes there, we bring them here for approval. We did have a public meeting that Commissioner Davis spoke of and we heard a wide variety of concerns raised. Everything from traffic, the big thrust of the traffic concerns had to do with the arterial, johnny morris road, the projection similar toy the school. There were environmental concerns raised. Air quality concerns, water quality concerns, questions about the specific company's osha rating. There were -- those are some examples of the environmental concerns. The safety concerns primarily had to do with the proximity to the school and the neighborhood. What would happen if there was an explosion. How are these type of facilities inspected, what type of security would be at this site. Then there were health concerns raised trying to get a feel for what type of health risks could result from proximity to this type of facility.

>> would you mind mentioning what the health risks are? I think it's pretty gantt as far as birth defects, breast cancer and these other kind of thing that may be associated. Miscarriages and all these other things that may be associated with close proximity.

>> sure. Some of the specific health concerns raised that I heard were about birth defects, breast cancer, miscarriages and what the effect on children's health that might not be included in those other categories. Then the drainage was discussed, where does the drainage go from the site once it leaves the water quality and detention ponds. There were some questions about economics, how many jobs would this type of facility bring, what about the property values for the adjacent homes and adjacent neighborhoods. And then finally they were questions more about this site norkts just this type of facility. But how much fuel would be on site, what other products other than fuel and quantities on all those products that was discussed and questions about maintenance of the facilities, of the trucks that was raised. And then some questions about future expansion plans for sun coast because there's only part of this subdivision -- they're only proposing to develop on part of the subdivision now. Questions were raised about what about the other acreage and could there be buffering between this and some of the other uses adjacent to it. And some specific questions like why did sun coast pick this site? Were other alternatives considered? And thing of that nature.

>> it may help to get sun coast to respond to some of the issues that. Way there's no reason for us to wonder for the next hour or so what your responses are. Why don't we get your responses, then if the governmental entities that have come, the regulatory agencies have come to give statements, hear from them, then that will give residents an opportunity to know exactly what information sun coast is relying on. How does that sound? Can we get a sun coast representative to respond to some of the questions cd? These questions were se set out in your mexican-american plow and -- memo and they resulted from the public meeting?

>> yes, sir.

>> was it supplied to the sun coast representative?

>> yes, sir.

>> I wanted to make sure that connection had been established. Thank you.

>> thanks, judge and Commissioner. My name is david heartman, representative of the applicant, sun coast. I think what I'll do is just real briefly summarize a couple of statements and respond to as many questions as we can. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to be here today and that the court has taken, particularly all the governmental entities being here today and specifically Commissioner Davis taking such an interest in this project because we want to be a good neighbor. We tried to listen to as many concerns as we have and respond to them. For is record and by way of context, this plat does meet all statutory requirements and we request its approval. And for the record, the city zap approved it June fifth on unanimous consent. The county has meetings June 12th, July third, July 10th, executive session July 18th with the public meeting and then we're back before you today. I'd like to describe the context of the adjacent land uses, if I might. In essence what we're looking at is a 55-acre subdivision, generally speaking. We've got an aerial that will come as an overview. The land use to let you know that basically north of this site, what you have is undeveloped agricultural land extending on toward the north and have you a budweiser industrial facility further north and then the coke or currently called flint hills, currently called folk facility that is the fuel tank, as it were up there, that way. And then adjacent immediately to the south about 400 away from the property line is residential. We've got hours of operation expected for this site from five a.m. To five p.m. We've got six acres that will expand to 40 acres leaving on the balance. We will initially have about six 200-gallon tanks. Some office and administrative space spais. I think I'll jump to -- let me submit for the record some items. This is the zoning and platting commission material showing their approval. A couple of the issues raised at prior meetings involve perhaps notice for example, what might have been provided in terms of notice. And we have copies of the notice for the project that went to the neighborhood. In fact, we had neighborhood residents that were at our last meeting. That notice says that the applicant proposes to construct a 12,000 square foot warehouse, 4,000 square foot office building, and a 10,000 square foot fueling substation. It was sent to more than 200 people and 13 -- I noticed just recently --

>> what are the fuel tanks?

>> it says fueling substation and that is for the administrative site plan application actually.

>> does that mean fuel tanks, though?

>> so again, what we're describing is that the plat meets all the requirements.

>> hold on. The question I asked you and I want an answer, please, sir, did the notice say anything about above ground fuel tanks?

>> the notice that was sent out pertain to go the site plan approval, the subdivision plat application process, I don't know that a notice nts goes out and it says anything. Just that there's a requirement and the notice that was sent out read how I just read it. The issues raised pertain to safety and traffic as well. We've got a letter that we'd like to submit to the record and we'd like a representative of the -- basically the manufacturer of the tank that basically can speak to the fact that the tanks as we described numerous times are double walled tanks, backup containment facilities. And particularly I think this person can speak, as well as tceq and others, the fire marshal and others, the conclusion statement is that the tanks are mandated to have the proper size and have a vent shipped with the tank. We've not ever had a tank explode in our history of fabricating the tanks. Again, I think they can speak more to that. Again, kind of to the safety issues, again, a lot of the issues go on the above ground, quote unquote, subdivision requirements, but we're happy to provide them to the court. In addition, we'll have a tceq approved installation room called xl fueling systems. I've got a letter here from them that we'd like to distribute to the court as well as others that just basically says that they're going to comply with all regulations of the laws. They're a tceq licensed contractor. All work to be performed on-site I as specified by independent professional engineers. And then I've got a little summary of the select safety aspects of sun coast project that again kind of goes above and beyond what's required by subdivision code. The two areas that I'd like to conclude by addressing that I think. Matters raised, I think there were a lot of issue raised that I think were more the purview of tceq and other agencies here, but the answer is we're going to comie with all tceq -- to comply with all tceq requirements and I think the best answer to the question is there are a couple of areas that we heard from the neighborhood. We want to be able to respond and be a good neighbor like I said. And a couple of specific areas that I think we'd like to leave with the court today is that, again, for the record, that the subdivision plat complies with all requirements. We ask for its approval. There are, however, a couple of areas that I think that we can constructively be good neighbors and one which of is on the traffic issue. Sun coast stated at that meeting that basically the fuel truck will be required to exit the property. Basically it's lot two that we're agreeing to have 150 feet basically. You'll see that o. That there's red areas that are the environmental sensitive areas that are already a dedicated, they can't be be developed on. I think those two areas are ways that I think we'll address some concerns. I would just close again by saying I think it's probably important to understand what we're not. We're not a tank farm. What we are and what this project is is basically a filling station for a private fleet of nine trucks. Six what are called bobtail trucks and three of the larger trucks. And what it is, it's to run our own engines and we will go down to the coke facility, which is what I think approximately 300 or so trucks today go to to fill up, and then distribute throughout the city. So there are a lot of thing that I think there's been some misinformation, but we're not a tank farm. We're not evening close to that. Basically what we are is a fuel and lubrication distribution area. And with that, I think particularly addressing those two issues with respect to right turn only from the site and with respect to 150-foot buffer area with the neighborhood adjacent up in n. That panhandle area, I think that addresses the primary issues that are within our control. There are some other issues I think that were raised that the quick answer is will comply with all requirements. And the other authorities that are here today can do that better than I can. Soirks there's a 150-foot buffer. What will be on the rest of the property then?

>> right now we have no plans for the rest of the property. But again there's the six acre area that we've described in numerous meetings, including public hearing. I think it's shown as the future development that what we've said that we would probably do there is construction of two buildings, approximately 6,000 square foot each and a truck wash with two bays. And again, and in keeping and in comporting with our idea to be as compatible and do as good a job as buffering any possible mitigative effects is we're he keeping that possible future development on the northern side for the balance of the tract, meaning the other 40 some-odd acres we don't have any plans. It will ultimately be sold to someone. We don't have a user in mind.

>> I think what the residents want to hear is that 40 acres will not be used to store fuel or any other materials similar to fuel.

>> that's something that we've discussed and mentioned already in writing to the court. If it's important to the court, we can discuss it with our client. The two things that I'm able to say today is that we'll do the buffering area. Again, that's something that goes above and beyond what the requirements are. And we're agreeing to do the right turn only, which again is above and yoibd what the subdivision requirements are. I'm quite comfortable in saying that as long as we own it that we won't do fuel and storage, but I can return and revisit that at a later point point in this here if you would like, judge.

>> so the manufacturer sent a letter or is the manufacturer here?

>> correct, northern welding company? Would you mind coming up? Would you like them to come up?

>> yes. Can you describe a little bit about the storage tanks and the history of them? Especially with respect to accidents and explosions and etcetera?

>> the tank that they have purchased already are a fire rated double wall, insulated impact resistant, ballistic tested storage tank. These tanks have not been on the market for maybe the last 15 years. When you say all this, the tanks that we saw in the explosion are not these type of tanks. They have special emergency vents in them that stops the tanks from ever being overpressurized. When the tanks were originally designed, the test procedures require that they actually set a tank on fire in a 2,000-degree pool fire and let it burn for two hours. And what they're trying to accomplish is, of course, the tank's not exploding, but also the inner tank not being damage sod that there is no leak of e netank does stay intact with no damage through this 2,000-degree pool fire. The impact resistant, they use a 12,000-pound vehicle, 10-mile an hour impact. And again, they don't want damage to the inner tank, so it passes this test. And then you take a 30 caliber 150-grain bullet, shot at this tank and penetrates only the outer wall and does no damage to the inner tank. These are the latest, greft tanks on the market for above ground fuel for safety and contamination. The outer tank holds 110% of the inner tank's volume, again for secondary containment. We've been making them 15 years and have had no failures whatever due to fire conditions or explosions.

>> in other parts of the country, I guess, where you operate, I guess especially in the state of Texas, are you located in any -- can you give me the demographics or the socioeconomics of the area of where you're located presently? Are you located in any afluent areas? Maybe economically disadvantaged areas of where you're located? Can you let me know that?

>> mr. Davis, I can't understand you.

>> well, the location -- your current operation, wherever it may be. I understand you're in houston, he will campo, dallas, fort worst.

>> we have 17 plants coast to coast. 17 plants. There's 11 of them that are tank fabrication plants. We have fresno, california, orlando, florida.

>> do you have any above ground storage tanks at these other locations? In the state of Texas?

>> yes.

>> do you? Now, my question was, as far as demographics are concerned, in the economically disadvantaged areas, are they in affluent areas where the locations are? Are they out away from schools and neighborhoods? Can you tell me where they are located as far as that depiction that I just laid out?

>> well, they're used all over. In one instance I can think of where -- because they are allowed in the city limits of all major metropolitan areas today. Austin, dallas, san antonio. There's one in houston, cy-fair independent school district. They're bus barn is right across the street from the school. I don't know how many feet. They have three of these exact same tanks. And it's across the street from the school.

>> but you're with the manufacturing company. You're not with sun coast. You're not with sun coast. You're with the company that manufactures the tanks?

>> yes, sir.

>> so your customers buy the tanks and put them wherever they want to put them. You sell the tank to the people like sun coast.

>> right.

>> nationwide.

>> that's right.

>> the question, and maybe you're not the right person to ask. I guess this needed to go to the sun coast folks. I thought your affiliation was --

>> just the tank maker.

>> I'm sorry for directing you the question. Sun coast representative, that question goes to you.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]

>> ... From the 18th of this month, have you had a chance to evaluate those? Because I guess my question to you is especially under the things that they were questioned as far as the neighbors were concerned, I mean a lot of requests came up under that, traffic impact analysis, they brought in the hazardous material mitigation plan, that was a part of it. They brought in health -- health risks, what the potential health risks mention as far as for this particular site. So there was several -- evacuation plan. Nothing is foolproof. Things explode all the time. I heard what the gentleman said, but things still explode. So the evacuation plan. All of these things, have there been any attention, I guess, given by your company to address those concerns that the community have brought up? Air quality, water quality, all these other kind of things, the soil, all these other kind of things, the close proximity to the school, the children back and forth to school, walking close to your site. We don't have sidewalks out there so I guess you all have to walk in the streets, but we don't want that to happen. My whole point is this: did you give any recognition or seeing if you would do any of those things.

>> Commissioner, I think what's before the court is a subdivision plat that meets all the requirements. We're going to comply with all tceq requirements. I think a lot of those questions raised were answered by tceq. Traffic analysis, that's a question perhaps for subdivision staff. Our understanding is a t.i.a. Is not required. Of those questions that were raised there, the ones I think were not the purview, the city of Austin environmental staff, they reviewed, you know, the environmental aspects of it. Other those issues that were raised that we felt like we could address that would have been our control is kind of where we're at right now and that's basically restricting fuel trucks to right turn only which addressed a lot of concerns raised by aisd, we met with them a couple of times, and additionally the buffer that we're willing to do. Some of the other questions you mentioned are probably better answered by tceq and other governmental entities.

>> I think studies have seen that something that is utilized, environmental impact study studying the air, emissions. Of course, you don't have emissions from that site. The safety of those children. I think those are a lot of things that are in your purview. You are the one that is asking to locate in an area where it will cause potential hazards to the persons that are already there. So I think that's partly your responsibility. I feel very strongly about that. Thank you.

>> you are mr. Hill, right?

>> yes, sir.

>> any other questions for mr. Hill? Thank you. City of Austin representative. Anything to offer today? Want to give you a chance to give comments.

>> I think it's already been said.

>> any of the issues that --

>> I have a question for the city of Austin.

>> okay.

>> good afternoon. Mr. Nuckols, is that you?

>> yes, it is.

>> welcome.

>> boy, I tell you, look --

>> I do want to file a complaint. I drove into the garage and there was somebody in my space.

>> [laughter]

>> you know we can't hold them forever.

>> [inaudible].

>> my question to you guys, and thank you for coming. I really do appreciate the city being here because you all stick around, don't everybody run off after you get through testifying because the --

>> [inaudible]. My question is procedural. Procedural. As you know, the person did say they -- the applicant representative said they did send out a notice. I asked a question at that time did the notice have any indication that it would be above ground storage tanks, said no. The notice according to records supplied to us indicate that the first notice went out on September 17th of 2006. And there was a public hearing before the zoning and planning commission on I think June 5th, according to the backup. Now, the question is that during this public meeting we had, and I continue to hear the same thing, that no one in this community were notified, period. In other words, they didn't get a notice. And if a public hearing -- is the public hearing open? The question is this: the public hearing before the zoning and platting commission, city of Austin, can anyone participate, even the ones that have been served the notice? They did not participate because they were not aware. This was June 5th of 2007. So can you basically tell me how the process works? In other words, this first notice goes out in September '06, and then a public hearing is called on the same item in June, look how much time has expired. There is not a lapse of time as far as participating for the notice or do they do a follow-up notice and say, hey, by the way, we're going to have a public completing -- meeting on this that we sent out in September.

>> water protection and review department, city of Austin. There are two processes that are going on concurrently here. There's the subdivision process and there's the site plan process. The subdivision process, normally would be -- both of these processes are normally administrative. They are reviewed by the staff. They would not normally require a public hearing. However, in this case the subdivision was requesting an extension of city of Austin wastewater. And for that reason it did require a public hearing, but nootice was required ofha hearing. The site plan -- and let me give you some time lines.

>> [inaudible].

>> a public hearing was required, but no notice?

>> no notice.

>> well, let me clarify. There would have been open meetings act notices just as when the county has a public hearing, the notices you give is the notice that's required by the open meetings act. So there was public notice, it met open meetings act requirements.

>> thank you for clarifying. It must be posted. It doesn't require notice to owners.

>> like a newspaper notice is not required.

>> thank you for clarifying that because the statement on its face --.

>> just to clarify the time line, this subdivision application was originally filed with the city of Austin 2006. And the notification was not sent out at that time because, again, it was not required. It was simply a final plat, and we do not notify for final platsz. Then the site plan was filed on a portion of the same property three days later, August 10th, 2006. And we did notify for that. And city of Austin sends courtesy notices for all of our site plan filings. And we did send a courtesy notice to all surrounding property owners on September 17th of 2006, and it described the proposed project as --

>> described it as what?

>> a 12,000 square foot warehouse, 4,000 square foot office building and 10,000 square foot fueling substation.

>> substation, not above ground storage tank.

>> no, sir, fueling substation was how it was described on the application.

>> but what we're talking about here today is above ground storage tank.

>> that's correct, but the way it was described on the application --

>> it may have looked like a service station if someone saw it. Someone say hey, we're getting a service station, we need one. Go ahead and tell me --

>> because this project is located outside the city limits in the e.t.j., we do not have any zoning or land use regulations so the city cannot regulatwh goes on ugth iner of the use. Atevi oatered regutis,akur they provide detention d ter quity and tt they hav addressed some of the basic subdivision requirements. But we do not regulate the land use.

>> right.

>> so in terms of the chronology, the plan was under review for several months and it did not complete, did not comply with all city requirements at that time. After six months the plan expires so the applicant resubmitted it. In February of this year. February the 9th. And again, notification was not required for the subdivision, but a new notice was sent out for the site plan.

>> when did that notices go out?

>> that notice went out on March 20th, 2007.

>> so there was another notice sent out March 20th of 2007.

>> there was on the notice March 20th. Now, during testimony at the 18th meeting and from what I'm hearing here now, no one has received those notices. But anyway, I'm not going to stop you. Keep going.

>> but how do you determine who to send a notice to?

>> we notify all property owners within 300 feet and all registered neighborhood associations. And there were approximately 200 notices that were sent out.

>> so did you mail them out or --

>> by mail, yes. U.s. Mail.

>> so if I'm a property renter, I don't get it, you sent to it the owner of the property that I rent?

>> that's correct, just the owners.

>> and you mail it to the owner's address?

>> yes. The owners as list understand the travis appraisal district. But also the neighborhood association.

>> were any of these neighborhood associations sent notices, the ones that were here? Or does the neighborhood association have to be within the 300 feet?

>> they would have to be within the 300 feet.

>> that's kind of strange because I saw some things on the notice that we had, and we had folks that -- groups that were a part of this photo if I indication process.

>> what neighborhood association?

>> it appears the only groups registered in this area were Austin independent school district and the home builders association, so there were not any homeowners association that were notified. I'm sorry, I take that back. Here's another sheet.

>> what else have you got?

>> the northeast action group, neighbors council, colony park neighborhood association, and the lbj neighborhood association.

>> so you say they received notices.

>> they did.

>> do you have names for the association?

>> trek english with northeast action group. Laura morrison with Austin neighborhoods council. Mrs. Loving with colony park. And mr. Williams with lbj neighborhood association.

>> thank you.

>> continue, please.

>> the public hearing was held on the subdivision. The agenda was posted under the open meetings act. There were not individual notices sent out for the subdivision. It was approved by the zoning and platting commission on June 5th of this year. The site plan is still pending, although it is a separate process, it's not a joint process like the subdivision review. We do coordinate with the county very closely in our review of the site plan and we do not approve the site plan until the county has approved it as well.

>> there was a gentleman, I guess I need to get to the water quality folks. In our public hearing, there was a gentleman that did come back and represent the city of Austin, and the testimony was as such that he actually went out and did an environmental assessment looking at the water quality and stuff like that, but he based it just on raw land, not knowing that there would be above ground storage tanks on that site. Now, my question is, not knowing what that is going to end up being, would that have any bearing on his work as far as coming up with the water quality issues and things of that nature. Not knowing what's going there.

>> no, sir, I don't believe it would.

>> you don't believe or -- in other words, true or not true?

>> well, Commissioner, I'm sorry, I can't speak the environmental --

>> but that's part of the challenges that we're having here because it's in a watershed at walnut creek. Of course, contamination and pollution of our water quality is a big deal even though this is on the east side of 35 which is still a big deal on the east side of 35.

>> Commissioner, let me try to answer it for you.

>> let's give some factual answers.

>> the regulations both the city and county are applying are title 30, which is a joint city-county subdivision code. And the relevant environmental and water quality provisions in chapter 30 basically call on whoever is doing the environmental review to go out and look at the raw, undeveloped ground and look for critical environmental features. Like wetlands, sinkholes, streams, creeks. And the reason that's what they are looking for is because there are provisions in that regulation that say if you have one of these on your property, you can't build within a certain distance of it. So yes, he was going out and looking at the land in its raw state assessing it in its raw state because what's at play are these requirements that you set back from the environmental features a certain distance. No, he was not out there assessing the land in terms of what if a parking lot was built here or anything like that is correct he's looking for the critical environmental features.

>> so that will eventually come into play with the site plan.

>> basically. You know, based on those setbacks, those are areas that can't be developed. They have to be left in their natural state if they are within a certain distance of the critical environmental feature.

>> so I guess not knowing also, you know, you need to identify those critical environmental issues where you can't develop. I think not knowing what's coming, there may have been something else maybe critical that wasn't indicated. I guess maybe there's a checklist that they make available that this is critical and this is not critical, but in the event of an above ground storage tank that is subject to -- and a lot of other things, spillage and a lot of other things that is subject to interfere with those so-called qualified environmental features, they may be disrupted with those type of situations. So I think maybe there's still some influence there one way or the other that would not get a true picture of the sensitivity, wetlands and other things out there.

>> Commissioner, those critical features are shown in red on the plat.

>> I saw those. Those are showing, those are dedicated as not buildable on the plat.

>> any other questions of the city of Austin representatives? Any other questions? Thank you all very much. You are more than welcome to stay. Tceq, your turn. Then we've got the fire marshal's office. Let's have you come forth at this time too. And I know the residents are getting antsy about giving testimony today. I guess my question for the tceq, and maybe fire marshal, is if you are looking at fuel storage tanks such as this, is it safer to have them underground or is this type safer above ground or does it matter?

>> judge Biscoe, I'm with the tceq.

>> welcome.

>> thank you for coming on this request.

>> Commissioner Davis, thank you very much. Commissioners. In response to your question, I don't have any information that indicates that well built above ground storage tanks are less safe than underground. Now, obviously since the underground tank is underground, it does appear to be safer, but I will defer to the fire marshal's office for any technical information on that.

>> what does your agency do regarding fuel storage tanks?

>> okay, we regulate underground and above ground storage tanks under title 30, Texas administrative code, chapter 334. I assume you are asking about the above ground tanks in this case; is that right, judge?

>> yes.

>> for above ground storage tanks there's subchapter f that applies with regard to our regulations. Unlike underground storage tanks, we don't have any technical requirements in subchapter f. We require installation notification, 30 days in advance, filed with us. We require that the tanks be registered within 30 days of fuel being put into them. We require that any releases from the tanks, spills, overfills, tank ruptures if that were ever to happen, be reported to us within 24 hours and addressed with regard to cleanup under our underground storage tank rules, subchapter d. Of chapter 334. But we don't have specific technical requirements that apply. We don't have technical requirements with regard to safety in either area, either underground or above ground because we're environmental. We regulate the possibility of the tanks leaking or spills getting into ground water or surface water. But with regard to proximity to structures that could be damaged, the petroleum storage tank rules which include subchapter f don't have anything. Now, we do have additional requirements under our air rules under permit by rule, which have setback requirements. Also the fire marshal in this case, I would assume that would be the Travis County fire marshal, my understanding is that the county has adopted the international fire code, which also has some safety requirements and setback requirements, but those are not part of agency rierltsz. -- requirements. I've kind of rambled on. Do you want me to continue or do you have questions to direct me?

>> I have a quick question on that. So you're saying that tceq does not have buffer requirements for even gas stations?

>> not in our petroleum storage tank rules. The only rule we have refers to for underground tanks, how close you can get to a foundation when you are digging to put tanks in so you don't undermine a foundation. We have no setback requirements for above ground tanks, but our air rule does have one that I believe is 500 feet from any residence or habitable structure or recreational area.

>> so even in regard to a stream bed, there's no setback requirement for an above ground or underground fuel tank?

>> there is not. There is not. We stress that a number of things be done to prevent releases, and in the case of above ground storage tanks, we have our reporting requirements that say within 24 hours of any release, it has to be reported to us if it's not cleaned up, and if the release exceeds 25 gallons, it's got to be reported anyway or if it puts a sheen on nearby surface water. If a release or spill happens, it has to be reported to us and then the cleanup requirements are exactly the same as for underground tanks.

>> but it must be reported by the applicant or the owner.

>> by the owner, operator, that's correct.

>> I'm having some flashbacks, I guess, because I can remember very distinctly in my mind the gasoline storage tank farm down at springdale and airport. What I remember is this, that there was a lot of incidents that happened down there that were not reported to at that time the Texas air control board and also the Texas water commission. Now, this is kind of fearful with something like this so close to proximity to schools and things like that, a whole lot of issues that may come about and so that's kind of scary. In other words, they police themselves. So this is kind of scary. But can you tell me exactly -- this part of the subchapter l under section -- oh, I guess it's 334.126 which refers to installation and also notification, what does that notification question, what does that actually entail?

>> it just means that at least 30 days before they set the tanks, they have to notify us that they are going to do so. And part of that is that the installation notification is -- warns us in case we want to send inspectors out to take a look at this, the installation, at any time. The other part of it is that that installation notification is something that generates a response later which will give them their temporary authorization to get fuel. Without that they can't put any fuel in. Now, that installation notification is good for 180 days once it's filed. And they also have to notify our regional office, which would be region 11 here in Austin, 24 to 72 hours in advance by telephone or by sending somebody to drop in the door that they are going to set tanks. But that's all it covers is letting us know so that we are on notice that they are ready to set them, and if we want to take a look at what they are doing, we can go do it.

>> does anything prevent tceq from developing a provision regarding buffers for petroleum products?

>> yes, and as a matter of fact under chapter 26 of the Texas water code, section 26.3441, we are prevented by law from having any requirement with regard to above ground storage tanks that is stricter than what the e.p.a. Has. And right now the e.p.a. Only has title 40, code of federal regulations, part 112. And that is to prevent pollution of navigable streams. That particular section requires that a spill prevention control and counter measures plan be filed and followed. That plan has to be engineered, and when it also requires secondary containment to 110% of the size of the largest tank. Typically in the past, a group of tanks like this would be surrounded by a levee with a impervious layer inside, might be bentonite or geo synthetic membrane to give you some protection if it's raining and the tank fails. That secondary containment requirement also includes containment for any delivery trucks that come into the facility. Now, the double wall tanks that the applicant is referring to may meet the secondary containment requirements for the tanks, for the delivery truck requirement, I would have to defer to e.p.a. Because I am not as familiar with 40 cfr as our own rules.

>> but 40 cfr only applies to contamination of navigable streams so would it even apply?

>> it does, because that -- excuse me for interrupting. It does apply because that is written so loosely that no matter where an above ground storage tank is, eventually some part of what it spills or releases will make its way to the navigable waters of the united states so there's really no question on that.

>> but in any case, the Texas legislature has confined us to a floor that's defined by the e.p.a.

>> yes.

>> even though --

>> yes. And in this case, the e.p.a. Requirement for the secondary containment makes a requirement on the part of tceq unnecessary. If the site were on the edwards underground aquifer because it's a limestone carst aquifer, we have a requirement that's a little more string entd than the e.p.a. Does with regard to secondary containment. Unfortunately this does not lie on the edwards.

>> in addition to the requirement to

>> [inaudible] does tceq inspect for leaks and spills?

>> tceq does inspect at random. Forgiven sites, tceq inspects any time there is a complaint or concern on the part of the public that's called into our central or regional offices. Tceq can inspect if there is a concern on the part of the county. Our random inspections, though, we have 29 inspectors statewide. We have 20,500 facilities. We don't get around to them very often, to be completely honest.

>> how many statewide? How many facilities statewide?

>> about 20,500 underground and/or above ground facilities. Statewide. With an average of about two and a half tanks per facility, but that doesn't matter, it's just the number of sites and the number of inspectors. We do random inspections, but we can't be there very often. Now, with regard to as Commissioner Davis brought up, the old spill situation that wasn't noted for a long time, process has improved and there is another chapter that applies and it's chapter 350, Texas risk reduction program. Any release reported after September 1, 2003, and cleaned up after that point not only comes under chapter 334, but in addition to chapter 334, it also has to meet assessment and cleanup requirements addressed in chapter 350 under the Texas risk reduction program. Which has somewhat more stringent requirements. It's still risk based, but it ensures that -- it helps provide insurance that the east Austin tank farm incident will not be repeated. It doesn't guarantee, no, but it does help. And also with regard to the old tank farm, I believe those were vertical cylindrical tanks where the entire base is sitting on the ground and you can't see under it. Is that correct?

>> uh-huh.

>> the tanks that I'm told are being put in here -- excuse me, the tanks that I understand are being installed here are going to be horizontal tanks that are completely above the ground on a cradle. Is that correct, to your understanding?

>> yes.

>> that's correct to my understanding, and we have the owner right there to say -- would the cement ground be elevated off ground, right?

>> with tanks that are set in that manner, horizontally above the ground. It's a whole lot easier to see when something comes out of one. But with a tank that's vertical and cylindrical with the entire base hidden, very difficult to see if there is release unless you drill holes and check or unless the fuel actually starts popping out of the ground.

>> any other questions? Thank you very much. You aim to stay a while longer, aren't you?

>> I'm sorry?

>> you are able to stay a while longer.

>> yes, sir.

>> we may have other tceq questions.

>> also if you have questions with me today is tony from our air emissions division if you have questions about emissions.

>> emissions is something the neighborhood did bring up.

>> do you have a question for tony? Get in the hot seat, mr. Tony.

>> I'm tony inescu, with the air permits division in the tceq.

>> welcome.

>> and before I got here, I didn't have an opportunity to find out if they've applied for any air authorizations so I really don't have a lot of information about what they've applied for, if any. What I do know from what little I know of this -- the description of the facility is that they would most probably qualify for what we call a permit by rule authorization. These areni some very simpleni authorizations for facilities that we consider very low risk in terms of air emissions. And I'll qualify that in that if they are not pumping or loading more than 20,000 gallons per day on a 30-day average, or if -- and if their tanks are no closer than 500 feet to the nearest residential building or recreational area or any other structure that's not owned by them, they would in all probability qualify for at least two permits by rule. Now, in the case that they didn't qualify for these -- for authorization under these permits by rule, then they would have to come in for a case by case new source review, minor new source review permit where they would apply and we would do a more intensive

>> [inaudible] of their application.

>> have they notified you as just the criterion you have laid out, has the applicant got involved with you as far as those type of permits?

>> I work in the -- in one section which doesn't even do -- I don't work with the permits by rules, so if they have applied, I wasn't aware, and again, I didn't -- when I was notified to come down here, I didn't have time to even find out the name of the company.

>> I understand.

>> unfortunately I'm not prepared to answer the status of their application today.

>> you are not hinting that you didn't volunteer?

>> I was asked and raised by hand.

>> that would be good to know.

>> yeah, the applicant probably knows better than I do.

>> the applicant can probably respond better.

>> generally speaking on air quality, are there -- we've spoken to buffer zones as far as air quality. How are those -- what buffers does tceq require regarding petroleum storage?

>> with regard to the pbrs, permits by rule, 500 feet, and that's because we don't look -- you know, pbr is developed as a cookie cutter approach. In other words, for small facilities where we're not going to do a detailed review, we've said 500 feet tore these size tanks and for the serls that they will have -- materials they will have in them for the amount of activity is a reasonable distance that will provide a sufficient buffer in terms of air quality. In other words, the air contaminants that will come out of these tax because they will vent when they need to vent, and that occurs when you fill them, they will vent. During the day -- again, they are double wall tanks so they are probably not going to be venting as much as other tanks that are single wall tanks because the sun will heat a tank and cause it to vent as it heats up. But given that they are double wall tanks, it probably won't be -- there won't be as many emissions from that type of mechanism. But when they are filled, they will vent. And 500 feet is probably sufficient, and that was judged to be sufficient distance to provide adequate protection. Because as this material, whether it's diesel fumes or gasoline fumes comes out, it's going to disperse upwards and the wind is going to carry it so it will be well dispersed as it gets to any area beyond 500 feet.

>> and you mentioned to some house or anything like that, according to some testimony, adjacent property, scenic point where the property line is adjacent to scenic point neighborhood of johnny morris there, but however the residents, well, they were notified as far as some of the 300-foot -- according to what the city has said, they notified those folks within 300-foot radius from that particular site. So these folks within that 500-foot deal that you are referring to --

>> right. And that's -- that's what I was saying is, again, I don't know the status of whether they really could qualify for a pbr. If they are closer than 500 feet, they wouldn't be able to get a pbr and we would have to do a more technical review.

>> again, the street right across the street as far as the property line is concerned, this is where gus garcia's school is, it's 180 feet or a little less. Right now. And kids, children are going to be -- they are out playing a and stuff -- in other words, they are still part of the school.

>> the buffer zone that goes from the -- is the radius from the storage tank point, not from the property line point though.

>> it would have to be from the closest storage tank, what we call the worst case storage tank. They have to be at least 500 feet from that school or any other structure that they don't own.

>> in regard to the 500-foot -- the general 500-foot buffer, that's in consideration of venting -- I assume it's not in consideration, you know, if the thing blows up.

>> no.

>> it's for venting and regular anticipated use.

>> right. Normal operation. And let me -- if they do not qualify for a permit by rule, then they would have to come in and undergo a more detailed technical review of an application for new source review permit. Which would involve us modeling taking a computer model and modeling the emissions that would come out of the tanks, the worst case scenarios, and evaluating what those impacts would be on the school or the nearest properties or residences.

>> which is less than 500 feet.

>> right.

>> so it appears that there are some other things that need to be

>> [inaudible], if I'm hearing the testimony correctly.

>> but you would regulate, you meaning tceq, you would regulate storage tanks like this on this property.

>> yes.

>> and if there are six tanks, are we talking about six permits or one permit that covers all six?

>> it would be one permit that would cover all six and cover all the activities, that means the fueling of the trucks and the loading and --

>> but no matter what the distance is for the air quality, they have to get some kind of permit from tceq.

>> right.

>> okay.

>> in regard to the air quality, are these provisions that you are speaking of equally applicable to your regular garden variety gas station or are these separate provisions?

>> these would be separate provisions. Gas stations are covered under another permit by rule. If they get a new source review permit, these would be -- I would say a lot more stringent in terms of the requirements. There would be a lot more special provisions or conditions for their operation.

>> okay. Thank you. From the fire marshal's office, anything we need to hear that we haven't heard already?

>> no, sir. Richard bishop, state fire marshal.

>> thank you for coming.

>> I defer also to your county fire marshal. They have adopted the international national fire code in Travis County. The state fire marshal and Travis County have tech on installation of above ground tanks and how these are going to be used. Those requirements are going to ensure that those tanks are installed correctly and operated in a manner that will assist in preventing an incident similar to what you saw in the video earlier today.

>> so in terms of installation, once they are installed but before use, you are or the Travis County fire marshal would be called out?

>> I would defer that to Travis County. They are the authority having jurisdiction.

>> Travis County?

>> before we go to Travis County, the question was asked earlier about

>> [inaudible], in other words, as far as safety features, above ground storage tanks versus tanks that are underground. And I think the tceq, antoine, said he would defer that to you. Could you basically give us a depiction of above ground storage tanks versus underground? As far as safety and stuff like that.

>> above ground storage tanks are required0l to have several safety features including az3 specific method that they are constructed, emergency vents to prevent overpressurization, prevent a rupture in case of a fire. They are required to have spill containment so if there is any overflow or leak that it would be contained on that -- at that location. All of those features, multiple features contribute to the safety of the above ground tank. An underground tank has some safety requirement dealing with detecting leaks and venting of vapors, but they are not required to be -- to have emergency vents installed because they are typically located underground where they would not be exposed to a fire.

>> what about emissions?

>> emissions are a function of the environmental as far as the requirements on capturing those emissions or recycling them back into the tank so I would have to defer to the environmental people on that.

>> chief beachham, how are you doing?

>> how are you all, ray beachham, Travis County fire marshal's office. We are in receipt of preliminary site plan and we've been promised architecturals in the next few days. Mr. Lee is working on that for our office. I would like for him to speak to that.

>> we received these site plans and asked us to review it basically to see if it was going to be approved. And our response to them was that there was sufficient area on this piece of property to have storage tanks. The submission we received in our office for review does not at this time include how many tanks or the volumes of those tanks. But through e-mail and phone correspondence, letters with the engineer, I believe

>> [inaudible], we have told him those things that we will need and they have agreed to provide them. And again, I'm sure you are aware of this, but Travis County fire marshal's office only issues one permit. We don't issue a site permit separate from our building permit. It's all together and it takes into consideration the fire safety as suspects, access and things like that. So we are waiting at this time a full submission of architectural and the refined site plans which will include the numbers of tanks, the volume and the exact locations of tanks and how they will be protected.

>> and if I may, we won't be able to speak to table of distances until we have that submittal. We would need to know -- we could speak generically, but until we know what we're dealing with, we couldn't make that answer.

>> in fairness, this is the site plan before us today. I don't want this -- that statement to be misconstrued that the applicant is somehow derelict in not providing it.

>> we've just started inul proc.

>> does Travis County inspect these fuel storage tanks annually or after receipt of a complaint or when?

>> at the current time, I've only been with Travis County a couple years, but we answer all complaints and we expect to inspect target hazards, areas that would be -- would present a danger to the public or areas that would present a large dollar loss or a large life loss, we would expect to inspect those more often than we would the smaller hazards in the county.

>> so if we concluded that we needed to inspect this more than usual, we could?

>> yes, sir.

>> we believe we are authored to do that.

>> yes, sir, through our process we would have the architecturals and doions and we would issue -- go through a final. After that point we could do an annual inspection or we can work off complaints. We can take that different directions. But yes, sir, we could do more than that. Like marshal lee was saying, once we finish the final it's pretty much looking for complaints or requests at that point.

>> the same is true of environmental inspection, am I correct about that? I guess that's a question for mr. Kuhl. Sorry. That the same would be true in regard to the fire marshal being able to go out and inspect if they received a higher hazard that we would also have authority perhaps under the water code to do additional environmental inspections?

>> that's correct.

>> well, in the assessment of the water, and I guess it's pretty important, we determined that they have actually ended up -- and

>> [inaudible] prevent it, from causing significant pollution or pollution to some degree to the water in that protected area.

>> [inaudible] of course the tributary and that wetland portion is a part of that deal. If that's done, what authority do we have as far as Travis County to deal with that setting as far as water quality is concerned? I'm kind of concerned about that. So can somebody answer that question?

>> what we can do, Commissioner, john kuhl, environmental officer, is go through a process. We do already have compliance process that's been approved by the Commissioners court. The one thing that we might want to do is bring that back to you because the way that it is structured right now is a graduated enforcement type of compliance based approach. In other words, we would give a notice of violation. They would have a certain amount of time to cure that violation. And we would respond again and see if they had in fact done that. If not, we would give a second letter, and I think it's basically kind of a three strikes you are out approach with -- involving the county attorney's office and getting specific performance on compliance after, you know, a set amount of notices and time to cure. In the cases of more dangerous hazardous pollutants and so forth, that may be a policy consideration the court wants to bring back and consider for immediate compliance approaches and/or fines.

>> anything further? Thank you all very much. Don't go far. Aisd, anything different? For our patient residents, we'll turn to them next and have them come forth several at a time. If you have a time crunch today, if we could give you an opportunity to come first. That may be helpful. Yes, sir.

>> judge Biscoe, paul turner, the office of facilities there at aisd. And Commissioner Davis invited us to come to the public meeting and we have copies of the statement that we provided if you would like a copy of that. We, of course, are primarily focused on the well-being and safety of students and in particular the garcia and jordan elementary schools. We raised four issues, traffic, air quality, preservation of water quality and student safety concerns. We received a responsive action from sun coast. We met with the general manager, mr. Childers. I also had further conversation with him. He has described the strategy on traffic to exit to the right and go between the facility and 290 instead of traveling down johnny morris to the south. Sun coast has talked about the above ground tanks in order to be able to inspect more quickly a double wall tank and electronic monitoring system, 110% concrete containment tank to catch any spillage and that kind of thing. I guess the area that we had still the question about and kind of the worst case scenario in the event of an explosion or something like that, we had asked about the possibility of enhancing the vegetative barrier or buffer that would exist between the school. As mr. Davis said, there's not a long distance between the location or the property and the school entrance, but the school actually sits about 2500 feet from where this facility would be or about 800 yards. So we were concerned about a couple of things, what would happen in that kind of events, and, you know, the sun coast staff was responsive to that in terms of working with us on this vegetative barrier. I guess we still have the concern in the district about student safety, and that's really what gave rise to our saying in the presentation that, first of all, that we wanted to acknowledge sun coast's efforts to address the concerns that we had, and that we thought that they had made significant efforts, but, you know, given the potential safety issues that we would prefer if given a free choice the relocation of the facility to avoid any possibility of adverse health or safety impacts for students. And if that was not possible for whatever reason, then we would expect to be able to work very closely with Travis County, the city and sun coast and any other entity that we needed to in order to ensure that we had a safe situation for the students.

>> and let me say this to you, mr. Turner, paul, I really appreciate you and your staff and also ms. Bradley who also -- cheryl bradley, she is not here today.

>> ms. Bradley had a work conflict and I did speak to her earlier, and she sent her regards, but she said that she was not going to be able to make it this afternoon.

>> okay. But if you don't mind, that statement that you had presented and went over with us in that public meeting, I'd like to make sure you give a copy to the clerk, to the county clerk there. The court clerk. And also -- so preferably relocation would be your top priority, but if relocation is not possible, then all the other things that work through to mitigate the situation.

>> yes, sir. We will initiate whatever contact we need to initiate to ensure that if we believe that there is any kind of risk involved, and we did have the risk managesser for the district meet with mr. Childers along with the transportation director and a person from my office who is in the planning office, and, you know, again, I can't find fault with any of the efforts that sun coast has made to be responsive, but in the end the bottom line is we have to protect students safety and that's what we're going to do.

>> do you know whether you have any schools located within 400, 500 feet of a filling station?

>> yes, sir, we have several. In some cases the school was there before the filling station was, and I couldn't give you a complete inventory of that, but we absolutely have a number of schools that are located in some cases right across the street. Down on congress at fullmore, there's a service station right across the street from that.

>> is it above ground?

>> those are all underground tanks, as in the case of most service stations.

>> I think it's a point you can't treat it like a filling station because it's really not, it's above ground fuel tanks.

>> is there a school policy that basically prescribes that new ones be located a certain distance from a filling station?

>> no, sir.

>> it is a good idea there concerning student safety. Any other questions? Thank you for your participation and patience. Now for residents who have come to address the court today, if you would come forward at this time. And ms. Bolin, if we could get you to move to the end so we'll have five seats available and if you give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments. Somebody be bold enough to be first.

>> I will. My name is barbara scott. I am now the president of the calling card neighborhood association. And I'm here to express my displeasure at having to fight a tank farm that is going into our neighborhood. Sun coast addressed the truck issue of their 20 trucks, but what they failed to say today is about the 30 to 50 trucks that they told us that would be from non-sun coast truckers that would be going into that facility. So you are looking at anywhere from 70 to 80 trucks daily that will be in that area. We have a large immigrant population in our area and so there's a lot of foot traffic in that area. The students that will be going to garcia will be from that immediate area so there will not be any transportation provided for those students. There are no sidewalks out there at this time. We've been talking to aisd about trying to get some sidewalks. Our students should not have to fight 18-wheeler trucks to get an education. There's a lot of traffic along loyola now and what sun coast failed to tell you again today is that their trucks are already going down loyola on a regular basis. We see them all the time. They can tell their trucks not to turn left, but they cannot tell the other 30 to 50 trucks that will be using that facility not to turn left. They don't have any control over those drivers. They failed to answer any of our safety questions that we asked. I also wrote Commissioner Davis a letter that he put into the records and I'm going to read for you. It states that the colony park neighborhood association would like to go on record as opposing the linae subdivision. The proposed development is to be used to store lumbarry cantses and fuels, will be close to jordan middle school and gus garcia school as well as the colony park neighborhood. The storage of these types of materials has posed health issues for Austin residents in the past and will no doubt cause health issues in the future. Truck traffic will increase and cause safety issues for students walking to gus garcia middle school as well as safety issues for homeowners in this residential area. We must also take into consideration the flammable liquids that these trucks will be transporting. Our members are also -- have also expressed concern for the devaluation of their property due to a tank farm being located as close as the development will be in proximity to our homes. Now, let me stop there. I'm from the deep south. You can dress a pig up in a tutu and put ballet shoes on him, he's just a dressed up pig. It's a tank farm. They will be storing fuel and lubricants there, gasoline, flammable materials. Sun coast representatives did not present us with answers to our health and safety issues, and in some instances seemed incredulous that we should have such concerns. We are also dismayed that we were not notified earlier in this process which would have allowed our association to express its opposition which demonstrates to us a blatant disregard for our neighborhood and its residents. We respectfully request that this development not be allowed in our neighborhood. The other thing that I need to say is that when the city of Austin sends notification to the neighborhoods, it does not matter whether it's a development that's going in in west Austin or east Austin or northeast Austin, all the neighborhood associations get that development. If it had been worded that a tank farm was going in, we would have been where we should have been. At that time it was not. We have been bombarded with I think it's four service stations that are going to be on the con corner of decker lake and loyola. We all go to service stations, but we don't want to live at a service station, and that's basically what this company is asking us to do is to live with a tank farm, and we are opposed to it. Thank you.

>> any questions? Thank you very much.

>> [inaudible].

>> the city testified earlier that they did notify somebody in the colony park --

>> they did. That's what I said. You get that notification. All neighborhood associations get the same notification whether it's west Austin or east Austin or northeast Austin. The way that that was worded, and I specifically remember is that it said fuel storage. We assumed that it was going to be another service station, just like the same information that we got for the four service stations that are going up on the corner.

>> that's the same point I brought up earlier.

>> it did not say tank form. To us it's a tank form.

>> I just want to make sure we're on the same page on that.

>> we are on the same page with that.

>> thank you.

>> we'll go back around this way, get you next, ma'am. As one speaker finishes, if we could have somebody else from the audience to come forth and take that seat, that way we can move efficiently. Okay?

>> my name is

>> [inaudible] and I just wanted to say that my main focus is on the health and the children that is around in this area. I live in this area. I don't want a tank farm in my area. And I just feel that when we ask for environmental studies on the areas that they already have set up tank farms in the state of Texas, it was we don't have to do that because of the type of fuel that we have. I think any fuel should have environmental study on it to see whether or not it's harmful to the people that's living in the area. And the children's immune systems are already down so when you have different vapors in the air. That just makes them sicker. And breast cancer, birth defects, all those are associated with fuel. Why would they move the tanks from over on springdale, and it had to be an environmental problem that they were having that was not reported a lot of time. I just feel that they are moving it to a different section, but it's still the same thing. And that's my concern with the children and the health of my fellow neighborhood, people that I live in and the children. I would like to see most of them grow up, and they can't guarantee me that this type of farm or this type of fuel is not going to hurt the children or the property around there. They cannot guarantee me that. And that's all I need to say. Thank you.

>> my name is steve ryanhart and my concern is where this facility is supposedly going up, there's not much of a -- I don't think there's much of a buffer season separating

>> [inaudible] hill drive and where this place is on johnny morris road. We have a railroad track that run right behind our place. A lot of times the trains roll through once, twice, three times a day. You know, my thing is we don't know -- we haven't really been told these tanks -- yeah, we know they were double walled, concrete, but you are saying it's only going to be put three inches above the ground on these concrete slabs and these trains are rolling through at all hours of the day or night. To me that would effect the things that are in place here. Not only that, but our property value, you know, is at question here. I just got my tax appraisal. It went down from like 92 92 something to 83 something. I don't have the exact figures so you can't tell you, but I know it's gone down. As a neighborhood, we're trying to clean up east Austin. We're trying to clean up our side of town. We've had some other issues going on there. That's another thing within itself. But as far as, you know, this facility going on here, they are saying there's six tanks when there's actually ten. My wife and I have looked on the internet and we've seen things about jet fuel going on there. They are denying there's even jet fuel in this place. I mean it's there. It's all there. Anybody in the room can go on the internet and see it on the sun coast website. As far as that goes, I think it's way too close to a neighborhood at all to be having it, you know, a facility of this magnitude set up right there, even though there is, you know, a facility a mile and a half up the road, glendale farms, it's putting out 2 million gallons -- or stores 2 million gallons; you know what I mean? Like last week we were talking to the ceo, I guess, of sun coast, or the main manager there, and, you know, we were saying why would you want to put a facility there if there's already a tank farm there. He said I don't want to put a neighborhood where there is already a tank farm. That's basically what this is. 100,000-gallon tanks. So I think that, you know, we not only neighborhood association but citizens alike, there's a bad neighbor moving in and they got a plan to do something, I think we have the right to picket and petition it to get them out of our neighborhood. That's all I've got to say about that. I just don't think that's a good thing for our area.

>> questions?

>> thank you.

>> thank you. Yes.

>> I'm willene cookings and I represent the lbj neighborhood associates and I have at least five questions, complaints or concerns. The first one is soil. And the reason why I chose that number one is because I would hate to have my house leveled all the way around. And it costs as much to do that. I did hear someone speak about the shifting of the soil, it is true, it does that, and I still have problems even yet. And up there on the 183 highway there, every year to six months they have to repair a little place in the road there right across from jack in the box, a little further up, because of that road sinks. It actually sinks. And that would be another add-on problem if you have a lot of trucks going by there. It

>> [inaudible] without the add-on trucks coming through there. Okay, for the neighborhood, loyola lane is a traffic congestion problem. With all the traffic going there as is without adding anything else there. The traffic backs up all the way down to the -- from the 183 light up -- down to the bridge. When I say the bridge, that boggy creek bridge down there by

>> [inaudible] about two blocks long further down. And it takes those people almost until 9:00 to get to work or whenever they are going. And you not only have the big truckers come in, you are not only going to have traffic congestion problems, you are also going to have the pollution, the smell of the area from the oil in their -- and that sort of thing, along with the health problems causing that. And we don't have the proper -- we was real proud when they built that road and we complained about the turn to come in from 183 to loyola lane. It needs to be a little bit longer. It's not long enough. And even if you go from my house up towards the decker lake, I would say, it's hard to get across there because you don't have the proper turning facility to go across over there. You have to kind of just pick your time to go. And with those big truckers there, a lots of them coming, the traffic is already heavy, it's going to make it really bad for us neighborhood people. And all the things that has been said it fits in with all these problems that we don't need this company coming in. So that's all I have to say.

>> thank you.

>> questions?

>> thank you very much.

>> yes, sir.

>> [inaudible].

>> hello, my name is dennis mcclintock, president of the scenic point homeowners searks, which is -- association, which is the adjacent subdivision to the sun coast proposed project there. A couple more questions, comments. I talked with neighbors there in the scenic point and also own concerns and interests. Several people mentioned to me that's a no truck zone on johnny morris road that runs from there down to loyola. I don't know if anyone can tell me is that so and is there such a thing as a no ented in cases liked it this? We have lots of trucks going up and down so I assume -- can it be, can something like that be done? There was also mention earlier from sun coast about this 150-foot buffer zone which was brought up last week. I wonder if somebody could clarify that. Are they talking about the 150-foot from the pond or across the entire property line from johnny morris road going through the back of scenic point subdivision. I can't see the plat that's up there right now.

>> can somebody clarify? That microphone on the end will snap off. We'll need you to grab that for us.

>> judge, Commissioners, lynn alderson. In response to your question, the 150-foot setback as we see is in green on this area. And so what we were discussing is that immediately adjacent to the neighborhood would be the 150-foot buffer. Along the rear back here, that buffer has already been established per requirements from the city of Austin and from Travis County. Does that answer your question?

>> yeah, that's good to see that they changed that. Is there any chance they could increase that maybe up to 250 feet or 300 feet up to where the entrance is there? Because all the trees and such are up in there.

>> I'm not able to do that right now, but there's --.

>> thank you. And then my main concern, interest, question here is there were several comments about a 500-foot setback from the tanks to the nearest home or property line. My understanding is right now that it's 400, 412 feet from that tank to that property line in breezy hill there. And if so, does that mean this would have to change or this could not be approved right now? What would the status be?

>> tceq representative brought that point up, judge. I guess as far as some of the rules about permits. And I guess --

>> he seemed to be saying structure to structure, not structure to property line. So if you measure that distance and it's less than 500 feet, he seemed to be saying that you were not complying with the tceq rule.

>> we need to find out where the closest structure is and see if it's within the radius of that 500-foot. And that's a question that we don't have an answer to right now because I really -- I don't know if the applicant, I guess the applicant should have a chance to say something on that as far as making sure that that rule about permit that tceq brought up is -- has that permit actually been satisfied as far as what the gentleman is bringing up here before today. And I guess I need to talk with the applicant.

>> may I make another comment? I believe it's 403 feet from the nearest tank to the property line at breezy hill. So I can already answer that because I know that property pretty well. It would be under 500 feet from the tank to the home.

>> thank you.

>> that's all I have at this time. Thank you.

>> thank you. Mr. Franklin.

>> richard franklin, president of the

>> [inaudible] and democrats and several of my members are actually in this area and have raised concerns. One, and I think is curious, we've been talking about the environmental impact that we actually looked at this before and the gentleman who spoke last week said I wasn't aware as I walked the property that they were going to be tank -- there were going to be tanks out higher. And I'm just wondering if we had looked at the same scenario, had they looked in another part of town say in the greenbelt off mopac, would they have said before we do this, what's going to be here. I think somebody really needs to investigate this a little further. The same scenario with the air quality standards I talked about last week. We don't need to wait 15 careers to find out we're going to have kids with respiratory illnesses, breast cancer and everything else, especially when these kids are out here playing on the parks. We don't know which way the wind blows, how many contaminants in the area. There's real concerns as far as that's concerned, especially if they are allowed to expand this process. Right now they said there's nothing in the works, nothing planned for them to do an expansion. That's not to say they are not going to expand in the future. If they do, is that also going to contribute to more contaminants being this the area, leaching into the water if something were to happen. We haven't talked about the worst case scenario, in which case if there is something released into the watershed, what is the worst case is a their I don't remember foe the environmental impact and I think that really needs looked at.

>> richard, those particular same concerns you are bringing up now are brought up to the applicant, is cun coast representative before, and so I expect -- and as I told him, I think it's his responsibility to provide that necessary information to get those studies done. And I mean all of them. The hazardous -- you know, mitigation plan, evacuation plan, health, risk factors, traffic impact analysis, all of those particular studies, in my opinion, has to be resolved. Again, I would like to thank you for attending the meeting the other night on the 18th. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I requested that earlier and that information --

>> and I think you also have historical data of where they are in other areas of Texas, what has come about, do we have any historical data we can go back and look at. Has there been environmental or socioconversation about what's happened in the area. Once they are in there, have they been there 10, 15 years, what happens after the fact. Are there any cancer rate studies, birth defect studies we can look at to see if this is going to have a real impact in this area. I'm concerned about a few other things. Again, if we're talking about future development, is there possibility we could resell the property or sell some of their property off to someone else since they have the zoning out there now. Someone else could go out and do some other things and we go through the same scenario. Then we look at further along the lines, if you are putting these type of things in, is this going to do -- impact the further economic development for someone who wants to put in other commercial ventures into the area. Which there's a lot of commercial going in out there, a lot of buildings going into the area. We know the city is expanding rapidly. How is this going to affect that scenario as we plan in the future. Realistically we need to do a lot more study of this process before we allow somebody to put this in. Not to say it can't be done or shouldn't be, I think we need a lot more answers to the questions.

>> questions? Thank you.

>> this particular property doesn't have any zoning on it at all. That's part of the problem that it doesn't have zoning. The city doesn't zone it and Travis County doesn't have the authority.

>> I heard the city say -- that was the last question. They don't have the authority to stop wleatsz going on because it's not in the city, but they have the authority to allow the permitting. So the reality is who has control of the issue if they don't have the control of the issue. And I don't believe the people at the city -- at city council level are actually aware of what's going on here because of the misinformation or the on mission of information that's been given to them as worded. Go back to city council on that.

>> I've gotten in touch with councilwoman cole in this regard so she is aware.

>> if you are here on this item and wish to testify, please come forward. We've got two more speakers here. Please come forward at this time. Otherwise we're closing this item after these two speakers. We've got three other items we need to take care of before we close today. Last chance.

>> good afternoon. My name is sara jackson and I'm secretary for the colony park neighborhood association. I'm here opposing the tank farm. I've lived in the area since '78, and we fight constantly on everything that's negativity in our area. And we're always trying to get things that are positive. And as I mentioned in the meeting on the 18th of July, that we're in the process of now -- they are going to build a 250-unit apartment and we're addressing that area of the traffic and with all the trucks that's going to be through there, we just are having all sorts of problems. And one of the things that I'm concerned about is the children. And I'm now raising a niece that will be going to that school eventually. She is four years old and I'm looking for her safety. And so it's just a lot of concerns that things that we were concerned about in colony park. We usually just have a few of us that usually try to get out there and try to make sure everything is taken care of in our area, and right now we just want things that are positive. And as they said earlier, the property value there is just going down and down. And this is going to make it go down further. And if you ever wanted to sell your home, probably won't be able to sell it for anything after a period of time. If they start putting in things like that out there. We would like to see something positive for us, housing and things that are going to be -- it's going to build the neighborhood up, not bring the neighborhood down. And so I'm just here, I just am on record that I'm opposing that and I'm hoping that you all will take this into consideration and you all will look at this very carefully. Thank you.

>> questions for ms. Jackson? Thank you.

>> I'm alfreda loving, colony park neighborhood association. I have a couple of concerns. The first one that really got to me was 29 inspectors with 20,500 of these areas. Now, if we put this tank farm, call it whatever you want, in this area, we've got four schools. All these children in this area. No sidewalks at all on johnny morris road. Children playing during the summer. That's the part that worries me. And I don't care what you say about these trucks, emissions are going to come out. From the fuel. When you are loading in the gasoline, you are going to get these emissions. This is going to affect our area. And it's not just the children. We have senior citizens too. And we need to consider all of these things. My main concern is the safety issue. The air quality, the water. It's going to change. I don't care what you say, it's going to change. Thank you very much.

>> thank you.

>> thank you, ms. Loving.

>> someone raised a hand back there.

>> I'd like to address the Commissioners not about this issue, if I might.

>> we legally cannot do that. Not if it's not on this issue or another issue on the agenda.

>> all right. That's fine.

>> we have citizens communication next Tuesday, though, at 9:15. Anything in the world, you got three, four minutes to chat with us.

>> I don't even need that much. I'm just trying to get -- on parking next door.

>> the law does not allow us to deal with that issue.

>> sir?

>> the law does not allow to deal with that issue.

>> today.

>> what time?

>> 9:15.

>> I'd like to talk about parking.

>> now, by the way, I will not be able to talk with you during that same thing, but we can listen to you and hear information. But give us a phone call. We may be able to address that issue by phone.

>> that's fine, what's your name?

>> my name is Ron Davis.

>> [laughter] my number is 854-9555.

>> [inaudible].

>> it's getting late in the day.

>> what's your phone number?

>> 854-9555.

>> thank you, sir. And you are Commissioner briscoe.

>> I am. I'm sam.

>> they already get us confused enough. Judge, with hearing all the testimony --.

>> [inaudible].

>> [laughter]

>> with all the testimony that we've heard today, I'd like to make a motion to this effect on this particular item. And my motion is to oppose this particular development project, and I'd like to do that based on all the concerns that have been brought up. I'd like to oppose it, but not only oppose it, I've already personally done this, submitted a letter to captain laney and asking her to also relocate this facility not adjacent to schools and neighborhoods. If she can find some other place to relocate, and I think aisd and everybody else is saying basically the same thing. I'm going to submit this letter to the clerk. I've already mailed this particular letter off. It's already out certified registered mail and I hope she takes this under consideration. To show opposition to this particular project, development at this particular site. So I move that we do not support it.

>> [inaudible].

>> I'd like to sit down and chat with the applicant myself. I do think you should land on the -- for me, land on the buffer. Land on the future expansion issue. And land on whether or not you can put these underground. And I can have it back on in one week or two and be ready for whatever action the court wants to take.

>> the other thing, judge, was the issue of having inspections or asking for inspections on an annual basis. If that's something that can be done.

>> so my motion died for lack of a second? Or you want to bring it back and I just withdraw the --

>> I think a courtesy is two weeks --

>> courtesy overrules. We have a rule here, discomfort with any person on this Commissioners court, we grant them a time whereby they can hear, investigate it and put it back on the agenda, but that's out of courtesy so I'll have to withdraw my motion at this time. But that was the motion I was intended to make, to oppose this.

>> two weeks.

>> two weeks makes more sense than anything else.

>> that way we'll make sure we take action.

>> I'm going to submit this to the clerk. I've already made this letter. To ask to reconsider and relocate.

>> we appreciate you all coming down.

>> thank you.

>> and one way or another, if it's on the agenda two weeks from now, we take action on it. It's better to put it on earlier or in the afternoon?

>> early.

>> early is like 9:30, probably 10:00. 10:00 a.m.? 10:00 a.m. Be fine with you all?

>> again, I would like to show everyone for showing up. They came down here and they were here to lend their testimony to this particular issue. I really appreciate that.

>> they were here and very patient. And I must say that the representatives from the city, tceq, they all had information that I did not know until they gave it to us so that's good.

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you all.

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.

Last Modified: Wednesday, July 25, 2007, 18:30 AM

July 24, 2007 Item 9

July 24, 2007
Item 9