Item 4'k,xt ' Vl I.JV LI GilI LL i►l., L %,2L"0
MEMORANDUM
July 12, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, City Manager
SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting July
18, 2006
REPORTS
4A. Mayor's Report. Other than calendar announcements, no other report is planned at this time,
413. City Manner's Repo , I plan to take a few minutes to introduce Pilar Schank, Community
Relations Officer, and to say a few words about the D Magazine article,
4C. Financial Report. The quarterly financial report will be handed out at the meeting. Sharen
Jackson will provide a brief report at the meeting highlighting some of the key issues. In the
meantime, please feel free to contact Sharen with any questions.
CONSENT AGENDA
As has become our practice, provided as part of your packet are the power point presentations
prepared for the consent agenda items. These presentations include voice tags. By simply
clicking on the "audio" link on the agenda, the power point slides will pull up and you will be
able to watch a presentation on the item. Of course, we will continue to provide these
presentations during your meeting upon request. If you encounter any trouble with the
technology, contact Gary Gregg or Ben Thatcher.
5A. Approve the minutes for the June 15. 2006 and June 16. 2006. Cijy Council Retreats and the
June 20. 2006. regular Cily Council meeting. and the June 27, 2006 special Ci ty Council
meetiniz. The minutes have been included in your packet. Contact Lori Farwell with question.
5B, Excuse a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for an absence from a meetings.
Darrell Faglie was absent from the July 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2005
Page 2 of 25
5C, Authorize an interlocal agicement for services with the Carroll Independent School District and
5D. Authorize an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Ago&ement with the Cijy of Universit
Park. We are working to enter into as many cooperative purchasing agreements as we can in
order to make our purchasing process more efficient and to take advantage of competitive
pricing. These agreements will allow the City of Soutlilake to take advantage of purchasing
agreements of CISD and the City of University Park, The terra of each agreement is one year,
with automatic one -year renewals until termination by either party with 30 days notice,
Please contact Bob Price with questions about this item.
5E Authorize placement of Longhorn Stampede public art fixtures in city parks as part of -the
Southlake 50' Anniversary celebration. Council had requested we provide information about
the placement of longhorns /calves on park property, This item is the result of that request. The
proposed locations have been reviewed by the Park Board and are recommended for your
approval.
It is important to note that the identified locations represent the maximum placement options,
It is highly likely that many of the longhorns /calves will be placed on private property
throughout the community for the 50' anniversary celebration, and it is possible that the effort
will not result in 100% sponsorship. However, we have identified all potential locations for
your review. Note that these placements will be temporary (approximately one year) and that
the plan is to auction the longhorns and calves at the program's conclusion,
The staff memo describes the process or order in which the fixtures will be placed,
We have had questions about the permanent placement of these art fixtures. The Planning and
Community Services Departments are working together to identify a process through which
permanent placement requests can be processed. We anticipate that the requests to
permanently place the longhorns on private property will be processed in much the same way
as signs. If someone wants to donate a longhorn to the City of Southlake for placement in a
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 3 of 25
public area, this request would be processed through the Public Art Advisory Committee as a
donation.
Please contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item.
5F. Authorize the purchase of Longhorn and Calf statues from Cowpainters. LLC. Your approval
of this item ensures that we meet the requirements of our purchasing ordinance since the total
cost of the statues will exceed $25,000 (the limit of my spending authority in the ordinance),
however, it is important to note that there will be no financial impact to the City as project costs
will be offset by sponsorship funding. To date, more than $50,000 in sponsorship monies have
been received.
As described in the staff memo, no bidding is required for this purchase. Please contact Steve
Polasek with questions on this item.
5G. through 5J. 5G. Authorize the renewal of a facilities utilization agreement with Southlake
Baseball Association (SBA ): 5H. Authorize the renewal of a facilities utilization agreement
with Gra evine Southlake Soccer Association GSSA : 5I. Authorize a renewal of a facilities
utilization agreement with Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA): and 5J. Authorize the
renewal of a facilities utilization agreement with Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association
S{ CLA). Current agreements with local sports associations were approved for an initial 24
month term in July 2004, with the provision for renewal for two 12 -month periods. Staff is
recommending that you renew our current agreements with these local sports associations,
however, we are suggesting that the new term extend only through March 2007 since we are
working with the various associations to affect agreement changes prior to the Spring 2007
season,
It is our intent to work with the various associations to finalize modifications to the agreements
by January 2007. Once negotiations are completed, the agreements would then be presented to
the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board and City Council next spring. We plan to address
the following issues with the associations:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda .Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 4 of 25
— Potential changes in relation to the benchmark cities in the area
— Additional revenue opportunities
— User Fees
— Renewal Process
— Maintenance
— Tournaments, Camps, Special Events
— Scheduling
Please contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item.
SK_ Award of bid to TurnKey Environmental for asbestos abatement at Bob Jones Nature Center
You will recall that asbestos abatement is a required element of the project to convert the
Tucker house to a nature center building. Funding for this purpose was approved by City
Council as part of the mid -year budget amendment in the amount of $37,825. The cost for
abatement is $27,979.
Keep in mind that we will also need to have a third party review as a part of this process. The
scope of this review is included in the staff memo, and the cost is $7,550,
Parks Board recommended approval of this item at its last meeting.
Please contact Steve Polasek with questions.
5L. Authorize a commercial develo per's agicement with White's Chapel United Methodist Church
for White's Chapel United Methodist Church Addition waterline extension located on the east
side of South White Cha el Boulevard, south of East Southlake Boulevard. This is a simple
developer agreement covering the construction of approximately 1,160 linear feet of public
waterline. This is a standard developer's agreement with no unusual provisions.
Please contact Bob Price with questions on this item.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 5 of 25
5M. Authorize a standard form of agreement for professional services with Deltatek En ineerin for
the design of the exterior repainting of Pearson Pump Station Tank #I . the interior repainting of
Pearson Pump-Station Tank 92 and Qualily Assurance/Testing for the repainting of the Dove
and Bicentennial elevated storage tanks. This professional services agreement will provide for
the development of plans and specifications, quality assurance, inspection and testing for
painting the ground storage tanks, as well two elevated tanks. The memo from Bob Price
describes the particular scope for each of the tanks.
The total engineering fee for this project is $49,300.
Please contact Bob Price with questions on this item.
CONSENT ITEMS TABLED OR WITHDRAWN
The following consent items have been either tabled or withdrawn as indicated. At this tinge,
there is no other staff comment or review included in your packet.
5N. Resolution No. 06 -041, (ZA06- 099).. Specific Use Permit for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
at Avocado California Roll & Sushi. located at 2600 East Southlake Boulevard Suite 100.
Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood 47. THIS ITEM IS
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 2406.
50. ZA06 -102. Revised Site Plan for Bicentennial Park on property located on the north side of
West Southlake Boulevard enerall in between Shady Oaks Drive and North White Cha el
Boulevard. Current Zoning: CS Community Service District, SPIN Neighborhood 410 THIS
ITEM IS TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 2006.
5P, ZA06 -101. Revised Site Plan for Shops of Southlake on property located on the southeast
corner of East Southlake Boulevard and South Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: S -P -2
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 6 of 25
Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. THIS ITEM IS TABLED UNTIL
AUGUST 1, 2006.
5Q. ZA06 -018, Preliminary Plat for La Mirada Subdivision. f.k.a. Estates of Rau emont, being Lot
IR. Rou emont Addition. The propeLty is located at 1925 North Pey1onville Avenue. Current
Zoning: RE Single Family Residential Estate District. Proposed Zoning: R -PUD Residential
Planned Unit Development District. SPIN Neighborhood #11. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
5R, Ordinance No. 480 -499. 1" Reading. ZA06 -054. Zoning Change and Develop Plan for
p roposed The Gardens at Stratfort Parc. on propeLty escribed as Tract 3 A. H. Granberr
Survey. Abstract No. 581. The ro ert is located at 425 West Southlake Boulevard. Current
Zoning: C -2 Local Retail Commercial District. Requested Zoning: TZD Transition Zonin
District. SPIN Neighborhood 414. THIS ITEM IS TABLED TO THE AUGUST 1, 2006,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7A, Ordinance No. 895, 2 "d Reading. Amending Cha ter 19, "Utilities," Article II "Water."
Division 3. "Water Conservation." of the Southlake Cijy Code by adding Sections I9 -62,
"Lawn and Landscape Irrigation Restrictions." Section 19 -63. "Rain Sensing Devices and
Freeze Gauges." and Section 19-64. "Variances." PUBLIC HEARING
This ordinance is presented to you to comply with our contractual obligations with the City of
Fort Worth, putting into place water conservation requirements for both residential and non-
residential customers. The ordinance stipulates hours of outdoor watering during summer
months and details the necessity of using rain and freeze sensors. It also provides for a penalty
for non - compliance.
Contact Bob Price with questions on this item
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 7 of 25
7B. Ordinance No. 896. 2nd Reading, Deny the request of Atmos Energy Co oration for an annual
g_as reliability infrastructure program (GRIP) rate increase within the City of Southlake.
It has been our standard practice to interface with a consortium of cities when reviewing utility
rate cases, and the recommended course of action on this item is the result of our participation
with the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (ACSC).
This item has been prepared by the ACSC attorney for member cities to adopt, which denies
the Atmos surcharge request. The report prepared by Sharen Jackson explains the reasons
behind the steering committee's position on this matter. Essentially, the legal and technical
review of the filing have resulted in the recommendation to deny because the company's
proposal is deemed to be unjustified, unreasonable and unnecessary.
Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item.
7C. Ordinance 480 -480. 2 d Reading ZA05 -068. Zonin Chan e and Concept Plan for Southlake
Crossroads f.k.a. Carroll Crossroads on pro described as being a portion of Tract 4G.
O.W. Kni ht Survey. Abstract No. 899• located at the southwest comer of East Southlake
Boulevard and South Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Requested
Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #9e. PUBLIC HEARING
This site is located on the south side of E. Southlake Boulevard just west of the Prade air strip
and approximately 350 feet west of South Carroll Avenue. The plan proposes the development
of two retail buildings totaling approximately 27,100 square feet adjacent to Southlake
Boulevard and five retail /office buildings totaling approximately 49,500 square feet on the
southern half of the site adjacent to the future Zena Rucker Road,
Under the "S -P -2" zoning the applicant proposes the following (see Attachment C of the staff
report):
• C-2 local - retail commercial district uses and development regulations to exclude the
following uses:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 8 of 25
o bakeries; cleaners, laundries and/or laundromats; grocery stores and/or meat
markets; newsstands; tea -rooms and/or "take -out" food restaurants. Although
the documents submitted with this application still reflect this proposal, the
applicant amended this at the Planning and Zoning Commission only
eliminating laundries and/or laundromats, grocery stores and/or meat markets;
• Front Yard — not less than 30 foot along F,M. 1709, Not less than 20 foot for all other
streets;
• Floor Area — maximum area of 40,000 square feet per structure;
• Loading Spaces — no loading spaces shall be required for the development; and
• Architecture similar to renderings.
The following variances are being requested (see Attachment C):
• Public Street R.O.W. — minimum 60 foot required, 50 foot R.O.W. with 31 foot
pavement width proposed; and
• Drivewa Stackin — minimum 150 foot required, requesting as shown on concept plan
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5 -0) on February 9, subject to
the concept plan review summary 44 dated February 3 and subject to the following:
• noting that the permitted uses shall allow all C -2 uses with exception of laundromats,
grocery stores and meat markets;
• dry cleaners shall be limited to a maximum. of 2,500 square feet with no on -site cleaning
or pressing processes;
• all buildings adjacent to the street must have store fronts facing the street;
• the east driveway on Southlake Boulevard must be right- in/right -out; and
• approving requested regulations and variances except as noted.
The plan does not comply with the City's Iand use plan. This area has an underlying "Office
Commercial" designation with an optional T -I on the north and T -2 on the south portion. Any
approval of this request as currently proposed must include justification. A justification letter
has been provided by the applicant and is included as part of attachment `C'.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 9 of 25
Your packet contains color renderings of the concept and tree plans, as well as a site cross-
section showing grading intentions. It also includes color elevations.
Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item.
71). ZA05 -173. Prelimin Plat for Tracts 40 4D1. and 4EL O.W. Kni ht Serve , Abstract No.
899. The property is approximately 19.3 acres located approximately 340 feet west of the
southwest corner of South Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: AG
Agricultural District. Proposed Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN
Neighborhood #9e.
This is the preliminary plat for the aforementioned zoning case. The plat is, of course, subject
to your approval of the appropriate zoning change on each lot.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7E. ZA06 -060. Revised Site Plan for Lot 8. Block 1. Southlake Crossing Bank of America,
located at 2025 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: C -3 General Commercial District.
SPIN Neighborhood #16. PUBLIC HEARING
The purpose of this site plan is to redevelop the former Burger King restaurant site into a bank.
The existing building is to be removed and replaced with a new bank with drive -thru service.
The perimeter drive lanes and parking areas on the north and south will generally remain the
same.
The following variances are requested:
• Building articulation;
�► Width of bufferyard along the north and no interior bufferyard on the west and south
(existing condition);
Interior landscape islands width (existing condition);
• Type of lighting to match existing shopping center lighting (metal halide).
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 10 of 25
Approved (5 -0) by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to Revised Site Plan Review
No. 3, dated June 2, 2006;
• granting the variances for a 20' bufferyard with the applicant's agreement to install the
plantings for the required type "O" bufferyard;
• granting the variance for the bufferyards along the interior lot lines with the applicant's
agreement to plant some additional landscaping and to present that to the City Council;
• granting the variance for providing minimal landscape island widths and as part of that,
not granting the variance for the landscaping on the southeastern island; near the
northeast corner of the building;
• granting the variance for the lighting ordinance as amended;
• granting the variance in articulation; and
• Also, providing color renderings of elevations for Council's review,
Twelve notices were sent on this request, with no responses received.
Note that your packet contains new elevations to more closely conform with the Player's Circle
architecture. The revised renderings are shown as part of the staff report beginning on page 7
of Attachment C.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7F. Resolution No. 06 -034. (ZA06 -079 ). Specific Use Permit for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
at Russ Martin's Bar & Grill located at 621 Bast Southlake Boulevard, Suite A. Current
Zoning: R -PUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN Neighborhood #9e.
PUBLIC HEARING
Russ Martin is requesting approval of a specific use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages
at a new restaurant located at 621 E. Southlake Boulevard, Suite A. The applicant is sub-
leasing the space from Severine's Restaurant which is currently operating at this location. The
term of the sublease expires on October 31, 2010,
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 1 I of 25
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this item (5 -0), subject to the
term of the lease.
Ten notices were sent to surrounding property owners, but no responses were received.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7G. Resolution No. 06 -039. (ZA06 -085), Specific Use Permit for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
at Stampede Sports Arena located at 250 Players Circle. Current Zoning: C -3 General
Commercial District. SPIN Neijzhh orhood 916. PUBLIC HEARING
Stampede Sports Arena is requesting approval of a specific use permit for the sale of alcoholic
beverages at their sports arena located at 250 Players Circle in the Players Circle development.
The business requesting the permit for alcohol sales owns the property. There is no lease.
Rather than limiting it to the business, if the City Council wishes to place Iimitations on the
permit, a time limit is recommended.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (3 -2) specifically noting that the permit is for
this business only. Seventeen notices were sent to surrounding property owners, with no
responses received, however at least one resident was present at the meeting to voice her
concerns but no opposition was filed.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item..
71-1. Ordinance No. 480 -494. 2 °d Reading ZA06 -070. Zoning Change and Concept Plan for 2777
Rid ecrest Drive 1.5 Acres). Current Zoning: AG Agr icultural District. Requested Zoning: RE
Residential Estate District. SPIN Neighborhood #3. PUBLIC HEARING
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 12 of 25
The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning change and concept plan to "RE" Residential
Estate District. A concept plan is included for the purpose of showing the intent to combine
this 1.6 acre tract proposed for the zoning change with the adjoining 5,8 acre tract to the west
currently zoned "RE" Single Family Residential Estate District. This concept plan also shows
the intended configuration of the remaining one acre portion of this tract which is concurrently
proposed for a zoning change to "SF-IA." A plat revision establishing the boundaries of the
resulting two residential lots is being processed currently and will be presented with the second
reading of the zoning.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved this item (5 -0). Fifteen notices were sent,
with one response received in opposition.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7I. Ordinance No. 480 -495 2' Reading ZA06 -071. Zoning Change and Concept Plan for 2777
Rid ecrest Drive 1 Acre). Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: SF-
IA Sinale Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood 43. PUBLIC HEARING
This item is related to the previous item. The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning
change and concept plan to "SF -IA" Single Family Residential District. The purpose of this
request is to allow for removal of the existing home and reconstruction of a new home on one
acre of land.
A variance to the minimum street frontage requirement for residential properties is requested.
This property is served by an unimproved public road dedication. Although this dedication was
offered for public use it was never improved and accepted by the City, There are three other
existing residential lots using this access. If variance is granted, staff will require that the
minimum emergency access and fire protection standards of the City Fire Code be met.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (5 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review
Summary No. 1, dated May 12, 2006; granting the requested variance, requiring the minimum
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item. Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 13 of 25
emergency access and fire protection standards of the City Fire Code be met. Fifteen, notices
were sent, with one response received in opposition.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7J. ZA06 -072, flat Revision for Lots 4R1 and 4R2. J.W. Chivers No. 350 Addition. The property
is located at 2787 and 2777 Rid ecrest Drive. Current Zonin : AG Agricultural District and RE
Single Family Residential Estate District. Requested Zoning: RE Sin le Family Residential
Estate District and SF -IA Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #3.
Ginny Lane & Kerry Smith are requesting approval of a plat revision containing approximately
8 acres and proposing 2 single family residential lots. The land currently has one existing
residence on 5.8 acres and one residence on approximately 2.6 acres. The purpose of this plat is
to incorporate the 2.6 acres of unplatted land with the existing 5.8 acre lot, The plat shows the
creation of a 6,64 acre residential lot and an 1.0 acre residential lot.
A variance to the minimum street frontage requirement for residential properties is requested
for proposed Lot 4R2. This property is served by an unimproved public road dedication.
Although this dedication was offered for public use it was never improved and accepted by the
City, There are a .minimum of three additional residential lots using this access. If variance is
granted, staff will require that the minimum emergency access and fire protection standards of
the City Fire Code be met.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (5 -0) subject to flat Review Summary No. 1,
dated June 2, 2006; granting the requested variance.
Contact Dennis Ulough or Ken Baker with questions on this item.
7K. Ordinance No. 480 -493. 2" d Reading (ZA06 -047). Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Eldred
Addition located at 1206 West Continental Boulevard. Current Zoning: SF -20A Single Fan-lil
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 14 of 25
Residential District and AG Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: SF -30 Single Famil
Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #16. PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning change and concept plan for "SF-30" Single
Family Residential District zoning.
A sunnrnary of the proposal is as follows:
• Requested Zoning Change from "AG and "SF -20A" to "SF -30"
• Land Use Designation - Medium Density Residential
• Gross Land Area - 2.13 acres
• Net Land Area - 1,97 acres
• No, of Residential Lots - 2 lots
• Gross Density - 0.94 du/acre
• Net Density - 1.01 du/acre
• Average Lot Area - 0.99 acres.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (5 -0) this request, Fifteen notices were sent
on this request. No responses were received,
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7L. ZA06 -048. Plat Showing for Lots 6 an 7. Block 1. J. Thornhill No. 1505 Addition located at
1206 West Continental Boulevard. Current Zoning: SF -20A Single Famil Residential District
and AG Agricultural Distract. Proposed Zoning: SF -30 Single Family Residential District.
SPIN Neighborhood #16.
On behalf of Robert Bullock, Adams Engineering is requesting approval of a two lot plat
showing containing approximately 2.13 acres and proposing two- single family residential lots
on W. Continental Boulevard, The average lot sizes are 0,99 acres, or 42,949 square feet, with
the gross residential density being approximately 0.94 du/acre and the net residential density
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 15 of 25
being approximately 1.01 du/acre. The property currently exists as three un- platted tracts. No
variances are being requested.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved this item (5 -0) subject to Plat Review
Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006; as presented.
Please contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
7M, ZA06 -100. Revised Site Plan for Weirs Furniture. located at Wyndham Plaza Phase 111. on
roe described as Lot 7. Block 2. Gatewa Plaza Phase 2 located south of 24 -Hour Fitness,
on the east side of the 150 block of North Nolen Drive. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site
Plan District. SPIN Nei hborhood ##7. PUBLIC HEARING
The purpose of this request is to consider the outdoor storage area and screening for the store's
patio furniture section located at the southeast corner of the building.
Outdoor storage is permitted with approval of a site plan and installation of an articulated eight
foot masonry wall (Type I Screening Device).
The applicant is requesting approval of a six foot wrought iron fence with stone columns and
solid evergreen shrubs as shown on the attached alternate elevations shown on Sheet A2. The
applicant has also provided an elevation showing a six foot stone masonry wall should the
alternate plan be not approved. The applicant is proposing a mix of Burford Holly and Wax
Myrtle shrubs three feet on center with a minimum height of four feet at planting
The applicant is also requesting approval of the articulation as shown on the plan. The
maximum permitted wall length without an offset is 18 feet. The longest section of wall is
proposed at 37 feet.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 16 of 25
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (4 -0) subject to Site Plan Review Summary
No. 1, dated June 30, 2006; granting the requested variances; and, recommending the applicant
provide screening type and size to City Council,
Six notices were sent to surrounding property owners. No responses were received.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
FIRST READINGS _
8A. Ordinance No. 480 -491. I s ` Reading ZA06 -031 , Zoning Change and Conce t Plan for
Morrison Business Park, located at 2720 East State Highwqy Highway 114. Current Zoning: AG
Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN
Neighborhood #6.
The plan proposes the development of approximately 43,380 square feet for general office uses
with approximately 10,000 square feet of that square footage potentially used as a product
showroom for retail sales. The plan contains approximately 6.19 acres.
The uses and regulations proposed under the "S -P -2" zoning are as follows:
• "O -1" Office District uses and development regulations to include the following "C-3"
General Commercial District uses on Lot 7 only:
o Hardware, paint, wallpaper stores and other home improvement items and
activities
o Household and office furniture, furnishings and appliances
o Plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services. All storage of
materials must be indoors within this zoning district
Front Setback — Along the proposed street, not less than ten (10) feet
• Impervious Coverage — Max. overall not to exceed 65 %, individual lots may not exceed
85%
• Bufferyards — Bufferyards along interior lot lines shall not be required
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 17 of 25
• Buffe ards — The west portion of the front bufferyard may be encroached by the
common access drive
« P_ arking — one space per 300 square feet for Lot 7
The following variances are requested:
« Public Street R.OW. — Min. 60 feet required, 40 ft. R.O,W. is proposed
« Driveway Stacking — 75 feet required, requesting 13 feet and 12,5 feet
• Trash Receptacle — Required to be to the side or rear of the building, proposing
receptacle in the front yard of Lot 2
• Trash Receptacle — Required one per lot, proposing three total receptacles
« Interior Landscaping — Requesting interior Iandscape requirements to be equally
distributed throughout the development
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved (5 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review
Summary No. 3, dated May 12, 2006; granting the requested variances; restricting the C -3
General Commercial uses to plumbing fixture showroom and related furnishings only; and,
accepting the applicant's willingness to comply with the following:
• No loading dock
« Save trees per exhibit presented
• Show the design of the retaining wall
• Require boring to protect trees
« Show renderings and elevations adjacent to all residential areas
• Increase detaining pond capacity
« Lighting plan showing where and type
• 8' wood fencing with metal posts
« Landscaping plan for the east side
• Screen the dumpster area where visible
Six notices were sent on this request, with one response received from the Austin Oaks HOA,
stating concern about the development and expressing its desire for an eight foot masonry wall
along the common property boundary.
The proposal has been updated to address your comments from last Council meeting.
Additional architectural renderings establishing the design guidelines for the development have
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 18 of 25
been submitted, They have shown a six foot wrought iron fence along the north property
boundary, an eight foot wood, board -on- board, with metal post fence along the east boundary,
elevations for the retaining walls, trash enclosures and a landscape and lighting plan.
Please contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
8B. Ordinance No. 480 -497. I" Reading. ZA06 -040 , Zoning Change and Site Plan / Conce t
Plan for Lot 3. J.A. Freeman No. 529 Addition and a portion Tract 1132. J.A. Freeman
Survey. Abstract No. 529. The pro is located at 2171 East SouUake Boulevard. Current
Zoning: S -P -1 Detailed Site Plan District and B -1 Business Service Park District. Requested
Zoning: S -R-1 Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8.
The purpose of this request is to establish S -P -1 regulations (with C -3 General Commercial
District uses) for the property in order to develop an 18,234 square foot Ethan Allen furniture
store, and a 6,988 square foot retail building.
The applicant has requested two variances:
Driveway Stacking — 75 feet required, requesting ±53 feet
• Driveway pacing — Min. 250 ft required for right - in/right -our drives, requesting ±237 feet;
Min. 500 ft required for full- access drives, requesting f490 feet
The applicant is requesting relief from the staff recommendation to relocate the building and
drive lane to the south on Lot 2 in order to preserve the maximum number of the existing
quality trees. This recommendation reads:
"Adjust the pad site, drive lane, and parking along the north boundary such that the maximum
number of quality trees may be preserved. Curvature in the common access easement may
allow for compliance with the stacking depth requirement and can provide traffic calming for
the site."
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 19 of 25
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the rezoning request (5 -0) subject to review;
granting driveway stacking and spacing variances; excluding the following "C -3" uses: taverns,
clubs, golf driving range, and theatre; correcting the tree conservation analysis plan to show
proposed improvements for lot 2 and the offsite common access driveway; identifying which
trees will be saved and which will be removed; and, showing City Council an intention for
mitigating tree removal.
Six notices were sent to surrounding property owners, with no responses received.
If you have any questions about this zoning change, or concept/site plan, please contact Ken
Baker or Dennis Killough.
8C. Ordinance No. 480 -498, 1" Reading. (ZA06 -449). Zoning Change for Tracts 2C, 2C5, and 2C6.
William H. Martin Survey. Abstract No. 1068. The property is located at 1801. 1815, and 1829
Our Lane. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: SF-IA Single Famil
Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood ##12.
On behalf of the LaHoda Group, Adams Engineering is requesting approval of a zoning change
from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District.
This application was submitted prior to the amendment made to the zoning ordinance which
would require a concept plan with a change of zoning to the "SF -1 A" single family residential
district. Therefore, no concept plan is included. A preliminary plat proposing one residential
lot of 2,51 acres has been submitted concurrently and will be presented for consideration
concurrently with the second reading of the zoning change. A surnrnary of the proposal
follows:
• Requested Zoning Change from "AG" to "SF -IA"
• Land Use Designation - Low Density Residential
• Gross/Net Land Area - 2.51 acres
• No. of Residential Lots - 1 lots
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 20 of 25
• Gross/Net Density - 0.40 du/acre
• Average Lot Area - 2.51 acres.
It should be noted that this tract of land does not currently front on a public street maintained
by the City of Southlake. Our Lane is considered a private street and was created prior to
annexation into the City. Any new construction, platting or subdivision of this property will
require that the lot(s) front a street in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance No.
483, as amended. A variance to this requirement subject to meeting the minimum emergency
access and fire protection standards is requested.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved this item (5--0) as presented,
Eleven notices were sent to surrounding property owners with no responses received.
Please contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
8D. Ordinance No. 480 -500. 1 51 Reading. ZA06 -088). Zoning and Concept Plan for
p roposed Miron Grove Business Park. on ro ert described as Lot 4R. Block l Miron
Subdivision at 300 Miron Drive. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District.
Requested Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8.
On behalf of Southlae 1709 Joint Venture, Wilson & Stonaker are requesting approval of a
zoning change and concept plan from "S -P -2 " Generalized Site Plan District to "S -P -2"
Generalized Site Plan District with "0-1" Office District uses. The plan proposes the
development of approximately 44,045 square feet for general and medical office uses on
approximately 4.82 acres. No variances are being requested.
The uses and regulations proposed under the "S -P -2 " zoning are as follows:
e "O-l" Office District uses and development regulations
• Parking — The required number of parking spaces shall be 207 spaces, or equal to a 5%
reduction in the required number of parking spaces
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 21 of 25
• Carports — Carports shall be a permitted accessory use as shown on the concept plan. The
following modifications are proposed to the development regulations specific to carports:
o The roof design shall be a low pitch shed roof
o The maximum number of parking spaces under a carport shall be ten spaces
o A total number of eight carport structures shall be permitted
This plan is subject to City Council approval and execution of a common access easement
located along the north boundary of the City's water tower site extending to the west boundary
line adjacent to Harris Methodist Hospital property. This easement will connect to an easement
within the hospital property that will provide access to the traffic light at Central Drive and into
the Shops of Southlake property.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved this item (5 -0) subject to Concept Plan
Review Summary No. 2, and granting the requested variances.
Thirteen notices were sent to surrounding property owners, with one response received.
Earnest Taylor filed a letter in opposition to the development, citing potential negative impacts
to the property he owns to the north. He is specifically concerned about drainage, fencing and
vehicular traffic.
Contact Ken Baker or Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
8E, Ordinance No. 480 -481. 1 St Reading ZA05 -146 Zoning Change and Site Plan for Bicentennial
Plaza located at 410 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: C-2 Local Retail Commercial
District. Requested Zoning: S -P -1 Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Nei hborhood 410.
Our attorneys have communicated your concerns about the sign issues to Kirk Williams, Torn
Stephen's attorney for this project, and, based on those discussions, it is my view that we are at
an impasse. Having said that, I received a call earlier in the week from former Councilman
Greg Standerfer who told me that Mr. Stephen had contacted him about getting his help on this
matter. I provided Mr, Standerfer our view of the situation. We ultimately decided that I
Honorable Mayor and Members of Pity Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 22 of 25
would provide him with a list outlining our needs and requirements for the project and he
would work with Mr, Stephen to try to move the project forward.
In the meantime, the item is on the agenda and may be considered at your next meeting,
although it is possible the applicant will request to table the item.
The following information --- which has been provided to you in previous packets -- describes
the zoning request in detail.
Linder the proposed S -P -1 zoning, the prinnmy site plan proposes appro.xinnately 1.2,550 square
' feet of retail. floor space and construction of 20 off-site parking .spaces and a driveway - o)ithin
the adjacent Bicentennial Park property, An additional 24 off site parking spaces within the
park property are also shown for future construction. This plan is dependent upon approval of
a :separate access and parking agreement between the City and the property owner, The
proposal appeared before the Park Board and received a favorable reconunendation. The
following uses, regulations and variances are proposed under the S -P -1 zoning and site plan:
• There shall be a side yard setback of not less than ten feet along the east bounday;
• concrete tilt --wall with a stained finish as shown on the building elevations;
• Parking — 72 parking spaces required - requesting 10% reduction or 6.5 spaces;
• The following variances to the Driveway Ordinance Na, 634 are requested under the S-
P -1 site plane
o Driveway Spacing -- rninirnunn 250 feet required for right- inlright -out drives - 80
feet and 219. feet proposed; and
o Driveway Stacking — nnininzunn 50, feet required - 41 feet proposed
The Planning and Zoning Cornrnission reconnnended approval (6 -0) on Februay 23, subject to
the site plan review sunnnnay 93 dated Februay 17 noting that the S P -1 zoning and site plan
is preferred; approving the alternate C -2 zoning revised site plan; and granting the requested
variances.
Contact Dennis Killough with questions on this item.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 23 of 25
r RESOLUTIONS
9A, Resolution No. 06 -042. authorize the execution of the necessary agreements to permit
acceptance of credit cards as Dayment of taxes, fines. or fees as outlined in the ado ted fee
schedule, including but not limited to parks and recreation fees. utilily fees, permits and
inspection fees and librM fines and fees. We have received numerous requests to make
payments to the City of Southlake with credit cards. This resolution is the first step for being
able to do so,
It is important to note that the city is not allowed to pass on the transaction fees charged by the
credit card companies. As such, the city would have to absorb this cost as a part of offering
this payment option.
Please contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item..
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
1. FM 1938 Update. We continue to make progress on this project, albeit slow progress. We are
starting to have regular meetings with TxDOT on the technical aspects of the project, and are
continuing our dialogue with the North Central Texas Council of Governments about funding
issues. We understand that the environmental assessment has been forwarded to Austin for
review, which should be completed (we hope) by March 2007, Upon approval of the
environmental assessment, we will be ready to begin R.O.W. acquisition in earnest. Bob Price
has done an excellent,job of keeping things moving, and the addition. of Gordon Mayer as City
Engineer will be helpful as well, since he has a great deal of experience working with TxDOT.
Please let Bob know if you have any questions on this item.
2. Allied Waste Update. Mr. Jim Lattimore, North Texas District Manager for Allied Waste,
attended Tuesday evening's SPIN Standing Committee meeting to discuss solid waste
problems. He did a good job of describing what led to the problem and how the company is
working to address the issues. He acknowledged that the problems should be corrected within
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 24 of 25
a 30 -day timeframe. All in all, it was a very positive meeting. Bob Price and I have agreed
that we will hold a weekly conference call with Mr. Lattimore to discuss these issues until such
time as the problems are fully corrected. Please Iet me know if you have comments or
questions.
3. Lonesome Dove Historical Marker Dedication. The SouthIake Historical Society will conduct
a brief' ceremony and unveiling of the Dove Community historical marker at the northeast
corner of East Dove Road and Lonesome Dove Avenue at 5:00 p.m, on Sunday, July 30, 2006.
A program and reception will immediately follow at the Lonesome Dove Baptist Church (2380
Lonesome Dove Avenue). The program and reception will include a more elaborate discussion
of the history and description of the Lonesome Dove area. A guest speaker is anticipated and
historical items from Lonesome Dove Baptist Church will be on display. Invitations are in the
process of being sent and we hope that your schedules will allow you to attend.
4. Roanoke Post Office issue I want to give you an update on our actions in resolving the
undesirable postal delivery service that our residents with Roanoke zip codes have been
experiencing. We have presented our concerns to Congressman Burgess's office and have
scheduled a meeting for the Mayor and me to visit with representatives from his office on July
18th The meeting's goal is to better understand our options and how we might be able to
better work with our district postal office in correcting the problem. I will keep you informed
of the direction we receive from this meeting.
5, Consolidated Jail and Dispatch with City of Keller As you may have seen in the news media
recently, the City of Keller has discussed the prospects of a consolidated jail and dispatch
facility with the City of Southlake with their Council at a recent retreat, Keller has since
drafted a consolidation agreement. The agreement has been reviewed by our City Attorney's
office and they have made a number of suggestions. The Police and Fire Chief are meeting
with Jim BIagg on Friday morning July 14 to review those changes and finalize our
suggestions. These will then be sent to the City of Keller for its consideration. I would expect
we will have an agreement ready to present to the City Council in August. Currently the
agreement calls for a start date for the jail consolidation on October 1, 2006 and the dispatch
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
City Council Meeting July 18, 2006
Page 25 of 25
consolidation on April 1, 2007, Additionally, the technical staffs of both cities are meeting to
work out such processes as how we transfer data from the City of Keller system to ours,
procedures for booking Southlake residents into the Keller facility, how we route routine calls
from Keller to Southlake and visa versa, etc. Once the details of the agreement are agreed upon
by the two staffs we will be ready to proceed to Council approval.
6, Central Market Wall. On May 22 the city issued all required permits for the construction of
the acoustic wall located along the Shops of Southlake's (Central Market) southern boundary
line. However, once the wall construction began it was discovered that Verizon had mistakenly
located utility lines along the Shop of Southlake's (Central Market) south property line instead
of in the intended utility easement located along Oak Tree's northern property line. Today,
Verizon applied for an earth disturbance permit from the city to relocate these lines into the
Oak Tree easement. Once the utility relocation is complete, it is expected that construction of
the acoustic wall will begin. It is estimated that it will take Verizon approximately 30 days to
relocate the lines. The city will not issue a certificate of occupancy for any buildings until the
acoustic wall is constructed.
Attachments
• E -mail messages from Dallas Mayor Laura Miller w /attachments,
SKY
kaADirect Phone Numbers:
Baker, Ken, Director of Planning, 748 -8067
Blagg, Jinn, Assistant City Manager 748 -8601
Far well, Lori, City SeGl'etar'y, 748 -8016
Hugman, Kevin, Director of Human Resources, 748 -8193
Jackson, Sharen, Finance Director, 748 -8042
Last, Greg, Director of Economic Development, 748 -80.37
Polasek, Steve, Director Cornrnunity Services, 748 -8018
Price, Robert, Public Works Director, 748 -8097
Schanl; Pilar, Community Relations Officer, 748 -8005
Smith, Rick, Director of DPS, 748 -8108
Thatcher, Ben, Assistant to the City Manager, 748 -800.5
Yelverton, Shana, City Manager, 7488001
Page 1 of 3
r�'T3�>1
From: Shana Yelverton
Sent: Wednesday, July 12. 2006 4:20 PM
To: Kim Bush
Subject: FW: URGENT REQUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
Attachments: oledata.mso; Coal Plants Miller Letter (5).doc; Coal Plant White Paper (3).doc; image002Jpg
More on the mayor miller issue .
From: Lori Farwell
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Shana Yelverton
Subject: FW: URGENT RE=QUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
I just wanted to make sure you saw this, too -
From: Miller, Laura [mailto: ]aura .miller @dallascityhall.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:14 PM
Cc: Librio, Frank
Subject: URGENT REQUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
To: URGENT REQUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
From: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller
Re: Proposed new Texas coal plants
Last Friday, Mayor Robert Cluck of Arlington held a meeting with a group of Texas mayors at UT-
Arlington
The purpose of the meeting was to organize a new group called Texas Cities for Climate Protection,
with the Delp of a national group called ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability LISA, based in
California.
We received presentations on global warming, Best Practices for cities on various environmental issues,
and an issue overview from Richard Greene, Regional Director of the EPA.
One urgent issue we discussed is the current request by seven different electric utility companies to build
17 coal - burning power plants in Texas, As you know, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) is currently reviewing the utility companies' permit requests to build these plants.
The environmental consequence of building coal- burning plants has become a national issue, In Texas,
according to environmental groups engaged in the issue, the 17 additional coal plants would add 30,000
tons of nitrogen oxides, over 115 million tons of CO(2), and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury each
year.
I have begun calling all of you on this email list to ask you to bared together, as a group of concerned
Texas cities, to intervene on this case before the TCEQ. There is one opportunity to do thus, which will
occur in the next 90 days when the TCEQ opens up the permit process for a second round of public
comment. (The first round of public comment has already occurred, and while the City of Dallas
provided comments to TCEQ about its concerns, we did not formally intervene in the case)
Formal intervention means providing the TCEQ with thoughtful alternatives, expert testimony, and
7/12/2006
Page 2 of 3
sworn depositions of fact. This can be done, with the help of outside consultants who do this for a living,
at an estimated cost of $300,000 to $500,000..
It's important to stress here that WE ARE NOT ASKING THE STATE TO DENY THE PERMITS. We
know that the utility companies need to provide more electricity for people, and we know that they need
to build more power plants to do that. But there are companies outside Texas that are using more
modern, cleaner technologies than coal-burning to do it. And we would simply like to research this
thoroughly and present all the alternatives to the TCEQ for its consideration. (Coal gasification, for
example, is the cleanest technology available and could out emissions by 60 -90 percent, yet in a
December ruling the TCEQ said Texas utility companies do not have to consider this option.)
What I am asking in this email is for your city to agree to participate in a formal intervention as a group.
Our goal is to get 40 cities to act jointly as one intervener, with each city's participation level at $10,000
each to cover the cost.
Mayor Bill White of Houston has agreed to spearhead this effort.
The City of Dallas and the City of Houston will do the upfront legwork and organizational work,
including the hiring of the consultants on behalf of the group. We anticipate that each city would pay the
consultants directly, once we establish the total cost (an individual city's cost is capped at $10,000, but
if more money is needed, we would appeal to the state's 10 largest cities for additional help).
We would like to have the 40 cities (or more, which would bring down everyone's cost share)
committed by the end of ,Duly (at the latest) so that we can move quickly should the TCEQ open up
another comment period that would enable us to intervene. This is a complicated, sensitive topic, and we
need to prepare.
Attached is a short white paper summarizing the issue. It was prepared by the Dallas City Attorney's
Office. Many of you I reached by phone today said you had City Council meetings next week, or the
week after — please post an item for discussion on this topic, and get us an answer. Houston and Dallas
are committed and ready to proceed.
So far none of you has said no. We appreciate that_
Most of the proposed coal plants are in East Texas. With established wind patterns, those emissions are
headed straight for North Texas, especially the six counties around DFW. How can DFW, which is a
significant non-attainment area, possibly clean up the air when 17 new coal - burning power plants are on
the drawing board and the smoke headed our way?
But this is not simply a North Texas /East Texas problem. Our air is your air. And as we now know frorn
the significant climate changes we are seeing around the globe, we are all in this together. And our
constituents are worried.
At the worst, the TCEQ will approve the permits as submitted. But at least our voices would have been
heard during this process, and with any luck, we might just get some of these plants upgraded to a
cleaner technology. We will also be organized, statewide, for the first time on environmental issues —
and ready to speak with one voice in the next battle, no matter where it is in Texas.
Three facts to remember
* 17 of 124 coal -fired plants planned in the U,S. propose to use gasification (none in Texas)
• In Texas, power plants emit more pollution than chemical and refining plants combined,
. Texas power plants contribute a full 10 percent of the total mercury admissions in the U.S.
(Mercury is a toxic heavy metal which can cause neurological damage, particularly in developing
7/12/2006
Page 3 of
fetuses, infants, and children.)
Let's band together and let our constituents know we are concerned about their health and welfare.
Please email or call my Chief of Staff, Frank Librio, no later than .July 31 and let us know if you are
willing to,join this first effort of the Texas Citizens for Climate Protection.
frank .librio dallascityhall.com or call 214- 670 -0773
Thank you.
Laura Miller
Mayor
7/12/2006
To: URGENT REQUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
From: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller
Re: Proposed new Texas coal plants
Last Friday, Mayor Robert Cluck of Arlington held a meeting with a group of Texas
mayors at UT- Arlington
The purpose of the meeting was to organize a new group called Texas Cities for Climate
Protection, with the help of a national group called ICLEI — Local Governments for
Sustainability USA, based in California,
We received presentations on global warming, Best Practices for cities on various
environmental issues, and an issue overview from Richard Greene, Regional Director of
the EPA.
One urgent issue we discussed is the current request by seven different electric utility
companies to build 17 coal - burning power plants in Texas. As you know, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is currently reviewing the utility
companies' permit requests to build these plants.
The environmental consequence of building coal - burning plants has become a national
issue. In Texas, according to environmental groups engaged in the issue, the 17 additional
coal plants would add 30,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, over 115 million tons of CO(2),
and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury each year.
I have begun calling all of you on this email list to ask you to band together, as a group of
concerned Texas cities, to intervene on this case before the TCEQ, There is one
opportunity to do this, which will occur in the next 90 days when the TCEQ opens up the
permit process for a second round of public comment. (The first round of public
comment has already occurred, and while the City of Dallas provided comments to
TCEQ about its concerns, we did not formally intervene in the case.)
Formal intervention means providing the TCEQ with thoughtful alternatives, expert
testimony, and sworn depositions of fact. This can be done, with the help of outside
consultants who do this for a living, at an estimated cost of $300,000 to $500,000,
It's important to stress here that WE ARE NOT ASKING THE STATE TO DENY THE
PERMITS. We know that the utility companies need to provide more electricity for
people, and we know that they need to build more power plants to do that. But there are
companies outside Texas that are using; more modern, cleaner technologies than coal-
burning to do it. And we would simply like to research this thoroughly and present all the
alternatives to the TCEQ for its consideration. (Coal gasification, for example, is the
cleanest technology available and could cut emissions by 60 -90 percent, yet in a
December ruling the TCEQ said Texas utility companies do not have to consider this
option.)
What I am asking in this email is for your city to agree to participate in a formal
intervention as a group, Our goal is to get 40 cities to act jointly as one intervener, with
each city's participation level at $10,000 each to cover the cost.
Mayor Bill White of Houston has agreed to spearhead this effort.
The City of Dallas and the City of Houston will do the upfront legwork and
organizational work, including the hiring of the consultants on behalf of the group. We
anticipate that each city would pay the consultants directly, once we establish the total
cost (an individual city's cost is capped at $10,000, but if more money is needed, we
would appeal to the state's 10 largest cities for additional help),
We would like to have the 40 cities (or more, which would bring down everyone's cost
share) committed by the end of July (at the latest) so that we can move quickly should the
TCEQ open up another comment period that would enable us to intervene, This is a
complicated, sensitive topic, and we need to prepare.
Attached is a short white paper summarizing the issue. It was prepared by the Dallas City
Attorney's Office, Many of you 1 reached by phone today said you had City Council
meetings next week, or the week after — please post an item for discussion on this topic,
and get us an answer_ Houston and Dallas are committed and ready to proceed.
So far none of you has said no. We appreciate that.
Most of the proposed coal plants are in East Texas. With established wind patterns, those
emissions are headed straight for North Texas, especially the six counties around DFW.
How can DFW, which is a significant non - attainment area, possibly clean up the air when
17 new coal - burning power plants are on the drawing board and the smoke headed our
way?
But this is not simply a North Texas/East Texas problem. Our air is your air. And as we
now know from the significant climate changes we are seeing around the globe, we are
all in this together. And our constituents are worried.
At the worst, the TCEQ will approve the permits as submitted. But at least our voices
would have been heard during this process, and with any luck, we might get some of
these plants upgraded to a cleaner technology. We will also be organized, statewide, for
the first time on environmental issues --- and ready to speak with one voice in the next
battle, no matter where it is in Texas.
Three facts to remember:
• 17 of 124 coal -fired plants planned in the U.S. propose to use gasification (none
in Texas)
• In Texas, power plants emit more pollution than chemical and refining plants
combined,
• Texas power plants contribute a full 10 percent of the total mercury admissions in
the U.S. (Mercury is a toxic heavy metal which can cause neurological damage,
particularly in developing fetuses, infants, and children.)
Let's band together and let our constituents know we are concerned about their health and
welfare.
Please email or call my Chief of Staff, Frank Librio, no later than July 31 and let us know
if you are willing to,join this first effort of the Texas Citizens for Climate Protection.
frank. librio@a dallasciiyhall.com or call 214 - 670 -0773
Thank you.
Laura Miller
Mayor
Coal Plants Briefing:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reports that there are 17 coal
burning power plants awaiting approval.. Because these applications involve areas that
already are in clean air attainment or unclassified areas, the TCEQ will provide a second
comment period, during which cities can intervene as affected parties in the permitting
process. Cities will have a chance to intervene in most of these proceedings in August or
September at the earliest.
• There are two main issues with the permit applications:
o First, currently the applications are considered on an individual (versus a
cumulative basis) under the TCEQ's interpretation of its own rules. Without a
cumulative analysis, the TCEQ lacks the necessary information to assess the true
impact of the plants on cities throughout Texas. Intervenors in the permitting
process could attempt to convince the TCEQ to adopt standards that recognize
the cumulative effect of multiple plants on air quality.
o Second, the standard for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is not clear.
The BACT standard is what the applicant must satisfy to get the permit. Many
groups and interested persons would like to have coal gasification considered as
the BACT, however, the TCEQ has declined to require this technology for
purposes of the BACT standard. While coal gasification may be cleaner, many
of the applicants argue that it is not proven in their type of operations. Even if
they are correct (and they may be), there may be other available technologies that
these coal burning power plants could employ. However, because these
technologies are often specific to the type of operation itself and the type of coal
used in the particular plant, these are difficult to determine without an extensive
evaluation by an expert in the coal plant process. Intervening cities could seek to
have the TCEQ require the applicants to make those evaluations.
The cost of intervention can vary. It is necessary for a potential affected party to
establish itself as such, If the affected party status is contested by the permit applicant,
the potential affected party would likely have to refute the "affect" of the permit on their
area using experts and modeling. This would likely cost $15,000 to 520,000. It is likely
that some of the modeling could be used in contesting multiple permits in geographically
similar regions, If the hearings become contentious, it is likely that intervention will cost
approximately $300,000 to $500,000.
In addition to intervening in the permitting process, there is also the State Implementation
Flan (SIP) process that can be used for addressing cities' clean air concerns. Specifically,
in the Dallas -Fort Worth area, the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee is working
on developing the SIP for this region and involvement at the meetings and throughout the
SIP development process is another way to voice the concerns of cities throughout Texas.
These efforts are parallel to but independent of the permitting process. The DFW area
has been unable to develop an effective plan to meet the new EPA 8-hour ozone standard
by the 2010 deadline. These new plants could make it even more difficult to develop a
workable plan.
From: Librio, Frank (mailto: frank .librio @daliascityhall.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:59 PM
To: Librio, Frank
Subject: From: Mayor Miller
Message from Dallas Mayor Laura Miller: "Please read the attached newspaper articles — more reason to get
involved in the group effort to find alternatives to the TXU coal plants. I will be on vacation for the next two weeks
— please keep in contact with Frank Librio regarding your participation in this effort."
Frank J. Librio
Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
1500 Marilla, Suite 5EN
Dallas, TX 75201
214 - 670 -4054
Fax: 2
Email: frank.librio @dallascityhall,com
7/12/2006
1 •VII com
Political winds favor coal, not N. Texas air
State hastening permits for plants, relaxing oversight for pollution
11:56 PM CDT on Monday, July 10, 2006
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS 1 The Dallas Morning Nees
As Texas power companies lead the nation's biggest shift to burning cheaper coal instead
of cleaner natural gas, holes have opened in the system intended to protect Texans from
dirty air.
Sixteen new coal - burning units — all upwind of the already-smoggy Dallas -Fort Worth
area during the summer — are either permitted or awaiting approval by state regulator's
working under Gov. Rick Perry's order to put the permits on the fast track.
Final rulings on the permits are months away. Already, however, state officials have
made decisions that are likely to allow more pollution from coal, the dirtiest fuel for
generating power.
They have also decided, at least for now, not to include the new coal plants in a federally
ordered clean -air plan to protect urban North Texas' 5,9 million people.
Critics say that means the new coal plants are probably headed to state approval with
high -level political support but minimal public oversight.
"I think it should be considered criminal," said state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, the
only legislator who attended a public meeting on smog that the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, the state environmental agency, held last month in Irving,
"I have watched this agency and its predecessors for 25 years, and I have yet to see it
work for the people instead of the polluters," said Mr. Burnam, a five -term representative
who's one of the House's few liberal members and a longtime supporter of tougher
envirom - nental protection.
The environmental commission didn't respond directly to Mr. Burnam's statement.
Spokeswoman Lisa Wheeler said the agency will give an update on its efforts Thursday
in testimony before the state Senate Natural Resources Committee. The public hearing is
set for 10 a.m, in Room 6ES of Dallas City Hall.
Also Online
Air quality An uncertain future (.pdf)
It's apparent, though, that the biggest expansion of coal plants in Texas history is moving
faster than the state's air quality rules, its still - unwritten smog plan or even public
awareness can catch up.
With that in mind, environmental groups urged the governor to declare a moratorium on
new power plant permits. When they launched that campaign in January, seven new coal -
burning units were proposed upwind of Dallas -Fort Worth. Since then, the number has
more than doubled.
Instead of applying the brakes, Mr. ferry has kept the new permits on a fast track under
an Oct. 31 executive order that cuts the public review period for the permits from about a
year to six months.
Easing off
Four policy decisions by the state environmental agency, whose commissioners are Perry
appointees, have reduced pressure on power companies to cut emissions. Some are new,
while others reflect long- standing practice:
• Power companies will not be required to prove that pollution from each new coal plant
would not make the Dallas -Fort Worth area's smog worse. Federal Iaw requires such
proof, but Texas rules do not. One commission member has questioned whether the
Texas rules are legal.
• State officials won't calculate total emissions from the new plants before deciding how
much each may emit. Instead, they will treat each as if it were the only one being built.
That prevents the state from using permits to control the coal boom's cumulative effect on
North Texas smog.
• The state will not make power companies consider new technology that might slash
emissions of smog - causing pollution and global - warming gases. That decision was based
on a controversial policy memo from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that
environmental groups have blasted as illegal and are suing to stop.
The state has decided, at least for now, that new and existing power plants outside the
nine- county Dallas -Fort Worth area will not have to reduce their pollution as part of a
new plan to clean up the urban area's smog. The environmental commission's own staff
has said a strictly local smog plan won't work because they can't identify enough local
emissions to cut.
Even before the proposed new plants, urban North Texas' air had too much ozone — a
chemical that gives smog its lung - scarring, eye - burning duality -- for children, asthmatics
and the sick or elderly to breathe safely, especially during the summer,
16 units planned
In the past two years, six energy companies have filed permit applications for 16 new
coal - burning units. Nearly all are in Texas' eastern half, home to big deposits of Texas
lignite, the dirtiest - burning coal. Many of the new units would burn cleaner coal from
Wyoming.
Dallas -based TXU, already the state's biggest electricity generator, had proposed three
new coal units when it announced eight more on April 20, for a total of 11 new units —
more than any other utility. TXU says 'it's a good deal for customers and shareholders
because burning coal is relatively cheap — dragging down overall Texas electricity prices
-- and produces big profits.
In the first quarter of 2006, TXU earned $576 million, in part because of those strong
margins.
All but two of the 16 new units from all the companies would be upwind of Dallas -Fort
Worth during the summer smog season, boosting worries about pollution.
However, TXU also voluntarily promised to cut its overall pollution from coal by 20
percent, even after adding its new plants. The company hasn't specified how it would do
that. According to an analysis by The Dallas Morning News, about one -third of the
reduction is already mandated by a new federal clean -air rule starting in 2009.
Other companies with coal plans haven't made that pledge,
The coal boom in general, and TXU's $10 billion strategy in particular, has high -level
support. Mr, Perry carne to Dallas to stand beside TXU executives when they announced
their new plants.
That appearance by the governor didn't translate as a direct order to approve the permits,
said one state regulator, but it was clear that the coal plants were a high priority.
"The governor's office is not calling every day asking, 'Where are the permits?'" said
Erik Hendrickson, who heads the team reviewing the permits at the environmental
commission. "You don't have to tell seasoned staff that this is important."
TXU also has heard encouraging words from Richard Greene, regional administrator for
the EPA. At a June 23 seminar organized by the Press Club of Dallas, Mr. Greene praised
TXU's emissions pledge.
"That's a pretty compelling case of industry saying, 'We understand,' " Mr. Greene said at
the seminar on North Texas transportation and clean air. "We will hold them to that
standard. If all pans out as expected, they'll get their permits."
There's no direct link between the emissions pledge and the permits, since the cuts are a
voluntary move by TXU. A review of the company's permit applications shows, and state
officials confirm, that the applications don't mention the 20 percent cut and don't have to
in order to win approval.
The state, not the EPA, decides whether to grant the permits. All the federal agency can
do is to object if it finds a problem.
TXU welcomed Mr. Greene's praise. "We are very proud of that 20 percent
commitment," spokeswoman Kimberly Morgan said. "We're drawing a line in the sand
for other companies in Texas,"
One prominent Texas environmental organizer said the EPA shouldn't prejudge a permit
fight.
"It's sounding to me like the deal's already done," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, head of the
Texas office of Public Citizen.
No smog studies needed
To understand how the Texas environmental commission might handle the new coal plant
permits, it's helpful to see how it's handled other recent ones.
The state has forced some lower emissions than a company requested, Other decisions,
however, benefited power companies and blocked their opponents.
In the case of New Jersey -based LS Power's Sandy Creek plant near Waco, the
commission decided that it would not require power companies to assess a new plant's
potential effect on a nearby smoggy area — in this instance, Dallas -Port Worth,
Lawyers for plant opponents said the state ignored the federal Clean Air Act. The act
requires a demonstration, backed by scientific evidence, that a new plant won't cause or
worsen an urban clean-air violation.
The state - federal discrepancy bothered Larry Soward, one of two Perry appointees now
on the commission. The third seat is vacant.
Mr, Soward agreed at a May 17 commission meeting that Texas rules don't require the
smog study. But he said he was worried that the state wasn't following federal law,
"I don't think that our rules require the demonstration that the Clean Air Act says is
supposed to be done," he said. "To me, the Clean Air Act is clear that it says that each
new source has to do this demonstration and that our rules don't require that."
Still, Mr. Soward voted with commission Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett White to grant
LS Power's permit since the company followed state rules.
The commission's executive director, Glenn. Shankle, told people at the public meeting in
Irving that the agency would apply to the other new coal plants now awaiting permits the
same standard that bothered Mr. Soward. They won't be required to demonstrate that their
pollution wouldn't harm Dallas -Fort Worth's air.
Despite the lack of a requirement, TXU did such a smog study anyway to defend the
permits for its proposed two -unit Oak Grove coal plant in Robertson County. TXLI says it
doesn't plan to do similar smog studies for its other pending permits.
A consultant for TXU testified in a hearing that the Oak Grove plant wouldn't affect
Dallas -Fort Worth's air quality. But Dr. David Allen, a leading air pollution expert at the
University of Texas at Austin, testified that it would.
TXU's consultant, Environ Corp., is also the environmental commission's consultant on
regional smog studies. Environmentalists say the dual role is a conflict of interest.
Environ spokesman Dave Souter said there was no conflict. He said Environ's work for
public and private clients in Texas depends on its scientific integrity,
Individual assessment
Although the coal boom represents the biggest package of major new permits in Texas in
more than a decade, the environmental commission doesn't plan to assess its total effect
on Dallas -Fort Worth before it issues permits for the individual plants.
Instead, it is evaluating each permit on its own, as if it were the only one up for approval.
The agency is sticking to that position despite pointed questions from members of the
public,
"I'm not telling you that we've closed the door" to a more comprehensive approach, Mr.
Shankle told North Texas residents at the meeting in Irving_ But for now, he said, "they
are being handled as individual units."
Critics say that defies reason. The state could easily add up all the pollution the
companies are requesting, they say, to get a worst -case scenario,
"It's not about achieving clean air," said Mr, Burnam, the Fort Worth legislator. "The
whole permitting process is about allowing pollution in the air for economic gain."
The LS Power case also showed that the environmental commission was unwilling to
force new technology into the giant Texas power market.
Environmentalists wanted the state to make LS Power consider using a new technology,
integrated gasification combined cycle, at its new plant near Waco.
[utilities say the technology is unproven. If it works, however, it would yield much lower
emissions and would open the door to keeping greenhouse gas emissions out of the
atmosphere.
The state environmental commission ruled in December that it wouldn't make LS Power
— or, by extension, any other utility — consider the new technology for new plants. The
commission cited a Dec. 13 letter from an EPA official to a coal industry consultant that
said the federal agency would not require gasification studies in coal plants' permits.
Since states can go beyond the EPA's requirements, Texas could have decided on its own
to require plants to study the newer pollution control for Texas permits.
Meanwhile, national and Midwestern environmental groups call the EPA position an
illegal regulatory decision made with no public notice. They're suing to overturn it.
The smog control plan
The last backstop for cleaning up coal is the new Dallas -Fort Worth smog plan that's in
the works.
It's a more comprehensive approach than individual permitting, since it can result in
orders for whole industries to cut emissions, It also involves regionwide controls, since
pollution drifts in from other areas.
For the new North Texas smog plan, however, the state is examining only sources within
the Dallas -Fort Worth area for possible emissions cuts.
The agency says that's the best policy because local vehicles are a big part of the
problem. It's also true that a local emissions cut does more good than a distant one.
"First we have to challenge the nine - county [Dallas -Fort Worth] area," Mr. Shankle said
at the public meeting in Irving. "I think that's only practical."
But state studies show that distant power plant emissions are adding to Dallas -Fort
Worth's smog and that strictly local measures won't be enough.
So far, the state's studies don't account for the new plants. That means the new plants'
total effect on North Texas smog is unknown.
Environmental groups think that's a recipe for failure, "When do these emissions get
included ?" said Ramon Alvarez, staff scientist in the Austin office of Environmental
Defense.
State drafts on many of the new plants' permits might be out in September. Under Mr.
Ferry's fast -track order, that could set final commission votes on them as early as March.
— a month before the commission could vote on the new smog plan.
Staff writer Elizabeth Souder contributed to this report.
E -mail rloftisgdallasnews.com
Online at:
htt : / /www.datlasnews .corn /sharedcontenttdws/ news /localnews /stories /071106dn rocoal.19eOB4
a.htrnl
Dallas, Houston mayors gear up to fight
coal plants
Dallas Business Journal - 5:05 PM CDT Tuesday
by Margaret Allen
Staff Writer
In a move pitting Texas cities against utility companies, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and
Houston Mayor Bill White have teamed up to urge mayors of other big cities to fight dirty
technology proposed for 17 new coal -fired power plants in the state.
The plants are being fast - tracked through the state's pollution review process with the special
blessing of Gov. Rick Perry. That process can typically tape more than a year, but TXU
Corp. aims to have 11 of its new coal-fired generating units operating within four years.
Miller sent a memo to 45 -50 mayors of large Texas cities at the end of last week asking for
$xo,000 from each city to help hire a law firm to intervene before the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality. Houston's White has agreed to spearhead the effort, the letter
states. It also says Houston and Dallas will handle organizational work and hiring of
consultants.
Coal coming
Across Texas, seven power companies have applied to the TCEQ to build an unprecedented
17 new coal -fired power plants in Texas over the next few years. TXU is proposing 11 new
generating units, all at existing power plant sites.
Many of the proposed power plants are near North Texas, including several around Waco in
Central Texas and in Fannin County, northeast of Dallas. The largest is a 1,720 megawatt
coal -fired power plant proposed by Dallas -based TXU Corp, in Robertson County, about 120
miles southeast of Dallas.
Emissions from those plants could further foul North Texas air, but whether they would add
significant amounts of pollutants here is under debate. TXU has argued that the plants won't
have a significant impact on North Texas air quality.
Emission concerns
Local political leaders fear the plants could add tons of pollution annually to North Texas,
which already is losing a long - running battle to meet federal clean air standards.
In her letter, Miller cites figures that the new plants each year would spew: 3o,000 tons of
smog - producing nitrogen oxide, or NOx; more than 115 million tons of carbon dioxide, or
CO2, which contributes to global warming; and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury.
Miller said she'd like to have at least 40 cities participate in order to raise the estimated legal
and research costs of $300,000 to $500,000.
"Formal intervention means providing the TCEQ with thoughtful alternatives, expert
testimony and sworn depositions of fact. This can be done, with the help of outside
consultants who do this for a living," wrote Miller.
The goal isn't to have the permits denied, said Miller. Instead, the hope is to force the utility
companies to use modern, clean technology, some of which could cut emissions by 60% to
go %, she said.
Frank Librio, Miller's chief of staff, said Miller garnered early support for the idea at a
statewide global - warming summit last week hosted by Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck, a
leading regional advocate of stemming global warming.
"Mayor Miller believes that there are alternatives out there that are better for the
environment," said Librio.
TXU spokeswoman Kimberly Morgan said TXU plans to add new, needed electric generation
while reducing key air emissions at the same time. "So far, at least i o city councils, chambers
of commerce and other groups have issued resolutions of support for our plan to provide
reliable supplies of electricity to power the growth of Texas, and we think more will join
them," Morgan said.
Public advocacy groups, including the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and Public
Citizen, since January have been pressuring TXU to use cleaner technology. The groups have
charged publicly on numerous occasions that Perry approved fast - tracking the permits as a
favor to the utilities, in particular TXU, which have contributed to his political campaign. A
Perry spokeswoman has denied that, citing a need for additional power supply in the state.
For its part, TXU has resisted the pressure to use different technology, arguing that it's
already planning to use the cleanest alternatives available.
Miller said she'd like to have commitments from the cities by July 31. Public comment before
TCEQ will occur in the next go days, she noted.
Early support
Arlington Mayor Cluck praised the initiative, saying the idea to address global warming was
well - received at his summit.
"Global warming will have devastating effects," he said. "This is not a liberal or conservative,
or Democrat or Republican issue. This is a quality of life issue"
Frisco Mayor Mike Simpson says he's also behind the propsal.
"I sent an e -mail back saying we would be in support of the effort," said Simpson.
Librio says that Fort Worth and Coppell also are on board.
mallen @bizjournals.cam J 214.7o6 -7xx9
To: URGENT REQUEST TO TEXAS MAYORS
From: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller
Re: Proposed new Texas coal plants
Last Friday, Mayor Robert Cluck of Arlington held a meeting with a group of Texas
mayors at UT- Arlington
The purpose of the meeting was to organize a new group called Texas Cities for Climate
Protection, with the help of a national group called ICLEI — Local Governments for
Sustainability USA, based in California.
We received presentations on global warming, Best Practices for cities on various
environmental issues, and an issue overview from Richard Greene, Regional Director of
the EPA.
One urgent issue we discussed is the current request by seven different electric utility
companies to build 17 coal - burning power plants in Texas. As you know, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is currently reviewing the utility
companies' permit requests to build these plants.
The environmental consequence of building coal - burning plants has become a national
issue. In Texas, according to environmental groups engaged in the issue, the 17 additional
coal plants would add 30,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, over 115 million tons of CO(2),
and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury each year.
I have begun calling all of you on this email list to ask you to band together, as a group of
concerned Texas cities, to intervene on this case before the TCEQ. There is one
opportunity to do this, which will occur in the next 90 days when the TCEQ opens up the
permit process for a second round of public comment. (The first round of public
comment has already occurred, and while the City of Dallas provided comments to
TCEQ about its concerns, we did not formally intervene in the case.)
Formal intervention means providing the TCEQ with thoughtful alternatives, expert
testimony, and sworn depositions of fact. This can be done, with the help of outside
consultants who do this for a living, at an estimated cost of $300,000 to $500,000.
It's important to stress here that WE ARE NOT ASKING THE STATE TO DENY THE
PERMITS. We know that the utility companies need to provide more electricity for
people, and we know that they need to build more power plants to do that. But there are
companies outside Texas that are using more modern, cleaner technologies than coal -
burning to do it. And we would simply like to research this thoroughly and present all the
alternatives to the TCEQ for its consideration. (Coal gasification, for example, is the
cleanest technology available and could cut emissions by 60 -90 percent, yet in a
December ruling the TCEQ said Texas utility companies do not have to consider this
option.)
What I am asking in this email is for your city to agree to participate in a formal
intervention as a group. Our goal is to get 40 cities to act,jointly as one intervener, with
each city's participation level at $10,000 each to cover the cost.
Mayor Bill White of'Houston has agreed to spearhead this effort.
The City of Dallas and the City of Houston will do the upfront legwork and
organizational work, including the hiring of the consultants on behalf of the group, We
anticipate that each city would pay the consultants directly, once we establish the total
cost (an individual city's cost is capped at $10,000, but if more money is needed, we
would appeal to the state's 10 largest cities for additional help).
We would like to have the 40 cities (or more, which would bring down everyone's cost
share) committed by the end of July (at the latest) so that we can move quickly should the
TCEQ open up another comment period that would enable us to intervene. This is a
complicated, sensitive topic, and we need to prepare,
Attached is a short white paper summarizing the issue. It was prepared by the Dallas City
Attorney's Office. Many of you I reached by phone today said you had City Council
meetings next week, or the week after -- please post an item for discussion on this topic,
and get us an answer. Houston and Dallas are committed and ready to proceed,
So far none of you has said no. We appreciate that.
Most of the proposed coal plants are in East Texas. With established wind patterns, those
emissions are headed straight for North Texas, especially the six counties around DFW.
How can DFW, which is a significant non - attainment area, possibly clean up the air when
17 new coal - burning power plants are on the drawing board and the smoke headed our
way?
But this is not simply a North Texas/East Texas problem. Our air is your air. And as we
now know from the significant climate changes we are seeing around the globe, we are
all in this together, And our constituents are worried,
At the worst, the TCEQ will approve the permits as submitted. But at least our voices
would have been heard during this process, and with any luck, we might,just get some of
these plants upgraded to a cleaner technology, We will also be organized, statewide, for
the first time on environmental issues — and ready to speak with one voice in the next
battle, no matter where it is in Texas.
Three facts to remember:
17 of 124 coal -fired plants planned in the U.S. propose to use gasification (none
in Texas)
In Texas, power plants emit more pollution than chemical and refining plants
combined.
Texas power plants contribute a fall 10 percent of the total mercury admissions in
the US. (Mercury is a toxic heavy metal which can cause neurological damage,
particularly in developing Fetuses, infants, and children.)
Let's band together and let our constituents know we are concerned about their health and
welfare.
Please email or call racy Chief of Staff, Frank Librio, no later than July 31 and let us know
if you are willing to join this first effort of the Texas Citizens for Climate Protection,
frank. libriora7.dallascit hall.com or call 214- 570 -0773
Thank you.
Laura Miller
Mayor
Coal Plants Briefing:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reports that there are 17 coal
burning power plants awaiting approval,. Because these applications involve areas that
already are in clean air attainment or unclassified areas, the TCEQ will provide a second
comment period, during which cities can intervene as affected parties in the permitting
process. Cities will have a chance to intervene in most of these proceedings in August or
September at the earliest,
• There are two main issues with the permit applications:
o First, currently the applications are considered on an individual (versus a
cumulative basis) under the TCEQ's interpretation of its own rules. Without a
cumulative analysis, the TCEQ lacks the necessary information to assess the true
impact of the plants on cities throughout Texas. Intervenors in the permitting
process could attempt to convince the TCEQ to adopt standards that recognize
the cumulative effect of multiple plants on air quality.
Second, the standard for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is not clear.
The BACT standard is what the applicant must satisfy to get the permit. Marry
groups and interested persons would like to have coal gasification considered as
the BACT, however, the TCEQ has declined to require this technology for
purposes of the BACT standard. While coal gasification may be cleaner, many
of the applicants argue that it is not proven in their type of operations. Even if
they are correct (and they may be), there may be other available technologies that
these coal burning power plants could employ. However, because these
technologies are often specific to the type of operation itself and the type of coal
used in the particular plant, these are difficult to determine without an extensive
evaluation by an expert in the coal plant process.. Intervening cities could seek to
have the TCEQ require the applicants to make those evaluations.
The cost of intervention can vary. It is necessary for a potential affected party to
establish itself as such, If the affected party status is contested by the permit applicant,
the potential affected party would likely have to refute the "affect" of the permit on their
area using experts and modeling. This would likely cost $15,000 to $20,000. It is likely
that some of the modeling could be used in contesting multiple permits in geographically
similar regions. If the hearings become contentious, it is likely that intervention will cost
approximately $300,000 to $500,000.
In addition to intervening in the permitting process, there is also the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) process that can be used for addressing cities' clean air concerns. Specifically,
in the Dallas -Fort Worth area, the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee is working
on developing the SIP for this region and involvement at the meetings and throughout the
SIP development process is another way to voice the concerns of cities throughout Texas.
These efforts are parallel to but independent of the permitting process. The DFW area
has been unable to develop an effective plan to meet the new EPA 8 -hour ozone standard
by the 2010 deadline. These new plants could make it even more difficult to develop a
workable plan,