Commissioner Meeting

Austin Bridge and Road – Zacha – Zoning

During Speech
00:57:37
Commissioner Jung: asked to extend time for all speakers by 5 minutes
Commissioner Schulster: Seconded
01:00:58
Commissioner Jung: had previously asked about noise issues

Q&A
1:11:59
Commissioner Blair: When you’re talking about batch plants, my ‘envisionment’ of a batch
plant is something entirely different than what you have explained. Can you help me
understand why this batch plant is so much different than the batch plants that we know of?
When it comes down, especially when it comes down when, let me, let me tailor that so it’s not
an all-day conversation. Let me tailor that, when it comes down to emissions, we cannot
determine which way the wind blows. And when you have how the, you have residents that are
not, that are the greater than the 500 feet, but still within a reasonable distance, how can you
assure us that this particular “good” batch plant cannot not negatively impact the residents that
are nearby?
Dallas Cothrum: I’ll try to give you an anecdote. Thank you, commissioner. I will try to give you
an anecdotal answer. If you want more science we can give you that, too. The biggest
difference is that the, you know, people are spending 7 and 8 million dollars principally for
facilities that capture those emissions. So, the baghouse is where really all that technology is
and so whereas probably in previous eras it was all mixed onsite and there were emissions and
we’re trying to capture all of those. So, the numbers I gave you, that’s what that technology is
allowing for. Your commissioners who visited that, maybe they in their comments can speak to
that. That it’s quiet, it’s a good neighbor-, this is designed, that they gotta go somewhere.
We’ve given more buffer here, but the amount, we’re just capturing all those emissions in the
machinery. That and that’s the batch plant we were at was 10 years old. This will be even
newer technology than that is. So, that’s the anecdotal answer that the exhibit I have up now
about prevailing winds, you know, only, so most of the prevailing winds are from the south to
north, so it’s not it’s out of Dallas if you will. It’s Garland. There’s 2 months a year where-, well 2
½, where it’s different, so if you’d like more science on that, it just comes down to the fact that
the equipment is better than it used to be because it has to be. I mean, you know you’ve got
federal, state, and city. I think it’d be good for more testimony.
Melissa Fitz: I’m with Westward Environmental… and we do environmental permitting for a
host of folks. But we took the project emissions for the potential plant that would be on this
site and the EPA has federal standards and the state has state standards that we must meet at
the property line. So, we’ve run the air dispersion modeling to demonstrate that those
potential emissions will be protective at and beyond the property line.
Commissioner Blair: So, can I follow? So, am I to hear you say, that the technology that this
batch plant is using, that will be employed today will keep the emissions within the property
line?
Melissa Fitz: Not necessarily within the property line, but if anything does leave the property
line, whether it’s airborne, then those emissions are an allowable levels that the federal
government has issued standards that have been demonstrated to be protective of the health,
our health and the environment and even our most sensitive members of the population like
the elderly and children, these standards are demonstrated to show protectiveness for those
folks. And the modeling, the preliminary modeling that we’ve done has showed that the
particulate emissions are a third and half of the standards.
01:16:22
Commissioner Stinson: Good afternoon. Of course, you’ve given us a lot of qualitative data. I’m
more of the quantitative mindset and personality. So perhaps some of the scientific or my
question will go towards more scientific information. You mentioned something about the
particulate emissions and you said that evidently the droplets or the perhaps the matter within
the air is did you say within 1/3 to 1/2 of what is...
Melissa Fitz: Standard. Of the Federal Standards
Commissioner Stinson: Ok, so that is what is recognized as being generally safe. Is that what
you’re saying?
Melissa Fitz: Yes. The standards that are set are for the protectiveness of the public and the
environment. Even buildings they’ve established standards to show protectiveness of those.
And so, our emissions that were calculated at maximum production for every hour of the day
have demonstrated to be much less than those standards allow.
Commissioner Stinson: Ok, will there be any type of screen or covering, something that has
fumes, smoke, whatever, I assume there’s some type of stack associated with this, or what?
Melissa Fitz: Yes, there are combustion emissions associated with the heating
Commissioner Stinson: Is there some type of screen that catches the particulate matter?
Melissa Fitz: Yes, all of those emissions are vented through a baghouse that has cloth filters in it
to capture those emissions and there are federal and state requirements for the effectiveness
of those baghouses as well.
Commissioner Stinson: Ok, then more so to the application, what future testings, regular
testings are you guys prepared to either pay for or state that will be just part of your business,
and hopefully that will include air, water, and soil samples
Dallas Cothrum: So, they’ll have to, we’ll, you know, they’ll do Dallas water utilities annual
testing, you saw that they received an award for existing facilities.
Commissioner Stinson: No, what will the applicant, that is the applicant willing to submit to, to
say that hey, regularly, monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, we’ll test the air, the water, and the soil
and of course you have evidence based data to show that whatever, whichever way the winds
are blowing that those neighborhoods that surround it (you gave us 1,200 feet), so those
neighborhoods that surround it are protected. That would mean their roofs.
Dallas Cothrum: So, the city would-
Commissioner Stinson: Just a minute
Dallas Cothrum: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead
Commissioner Stinson: That would mean their roofs, their air, if there’s any pools, any pits,
water bowls out there, that you guys are showing that you are well below state standards,
federal standards, EPA.
Dallas Cothrum: Well, ok, thank you. So, we that’s why, so first of all, so Dallas does-, the city
does not require us to do the air modeling. We did that because we know people wanted to
know, people like you. I’d also point out, that if we did do a temporary plant, like on the facility,
those are, they don’t have the same kind of backhouse, they’re smaller facilities, there’s not the
same kind of technology in place. So, we’re willing to make the investment to have the better
facility if, because it’s rail served. So, because of that, that’s how we get to 1/3 and 1/2, and cut
those particulate matters down. Notwithstanding, we also still don’t have the truck trips we’d
have. So, we’re happy to do and provide the city with an annual study. It’s not required, I mean
I haven’t been asked. I mean, I don’t think it’s a bad idea. There are other things that that is
provided for. I remember back when we were doing gas wells, that was a common, there would
be an annual test. So, I don’t, we don’t mind doing that, providing that.
Commissioner Stinson: Okay, then quickly, what would be your times of operation? Is this
24/7?
Dallas Cothrum: Not- Not-. Is this 24/7? Worst case, 6 am to 8 pm, but some of that is in the
morning is just one person getting there to get it heated up. I mean, and going, it takes 30/45
minutes for the, you know, the colder it is, the longer it takes to, you know that’s one shift.
There’s 2 shifts
Commissioner Stinson: Okay, so we’re also talking about the truck and the rail activity, but you
don’t have any control over that, right?
Dallas Cothrum: The rail activity is 24 hours. That- I mean we’re one rail trip a day, a week or
so, maybe two some weeks. That rail yard, if you’re out there, it’s going to continue to-. We’re
just one customer served out of that railyard. So, that’s a fairly busy railyard, it’s got 4 miles of
track off the main line.
01:22:05
Commissioner Shidid: In terms of the recycling, is there a capacity for that? Or is it...?
Dallas Cothrum: We intend to hit those numbers. We would provide that as part of our report
too, as how we’re doing on, you know, providing those recycle, you know the fly ash, the
concrete, you know we want to hit that number. It’s good for us.
Commissioner Shidid: In terms of the shingle recycling, is there a maximum amount that you
can do? Or is there a minimum? Or is that just, is it, it’s just wide open?
Dallas Cothrum: It depends on, it has to meet the mix, they, we try to, we can get that cheaper
than other things. It just has to meet the, recipe, if you will. So, I think that what we had said
when we went on the tour, about 15% of the materials that plus or minus depending on what
temperature or what the job spec is. But we would anticipate that that’s the number that we’d
be feeding in on all these jobs.
01:22:56
Commissioner Blair: When we, I want to go back to community involvement. And I noticed that
you had no community meetings. Would there be a consideration that you have a community-,
before this is approved or denied, that you have community involvement where a true
community involvement where the residents that are nearby get the opportunity to know
what’s going to come and what it’s going to look like and feel like and how it could impact their
neighborhood?
Dallas Cothrum: I’m willing. We tried and didn’t get any response. I mean we, the only, I mean
the only neighbors that have been interested thus far are the Dallas Park Department, who we
met with a number of times, because they’d like us to do a project. I mean, we’re open to doing
that. We send, you know this is 1,200 feet, it’s more than twice the distances we’d get
notification, and you know, I can’t speak to why people were interested or uninterested, I just
know that as a matter of course, we tried to do that on every zoning case because it, I know
people are going to ask. So, I know we did the calculation too on what percentage of those
homes are rented versus owned, in my experience, people that rent are you know, it’s hard to
get mail to the right people always. I just have the DCAD address.
01:25:44
Commissioner Jung: I do [have a motion] and it’s a rather lengthy one and I hope you’ll bear
with me and Ms. ______ I’ll give you a copy of this in writing. In the matter of Z190-115, I move
that we close the public hearing, follow staff recommendation for approval of the sub-area,
approval of an SUP for an industrial, outside, not potentially incompatible use limited to a
concrete batch plant, approval of an SUP for an industrial, outside, not potentially incompatible
use limited to an asphalt batch plant, subject to a site plan and conditions as briefed with the
following modifications:
1. Had a PD condition establishing some sub-area 1 as shown on an exhibit containing
metes and bounds as shown in the application
2. With respect to the definitions of concrete batch plants, asphalt batch plant, and
industrial outside not potentially incompatible use adopt chapter 51A definitions
3. That the SUP duration be for 4 years, with the option for 1 automatic renewal of an
addition of 4 years
4. Add a condition limiting the stockpile height to 20 feet
5. Add a condition requiring all ingress and egress drives and travel paths throughout the
site to be paved in accordance with city of Dallas paving and drainage engineering
requirements
6. To add a condition requiring the applicant or operator to provide the city with an annual
error mission compliance report
7. The approval be subject to revised site plans, first of all referencing PD5 instead of
PD298, secondly showing the location of the fence parallel to the entirety of the
Northwest Highway frontage allowing openings at the curb for gating and entry.
Additionally, along the eastern property line, and from the front fence to the southern
end of the parking lot.
8. Delineating each manufacturing use on the site plan
If I have a second, I have a comment
Commissioner Carpenter: Seconded
Commissioner Jung: When I first saw this case come through, I thought “Oh my, I’ve got a
concrete and asphalt batch plant in my district, what do I do now?” Fortunately, I was able to
tour a comparable site on Good Night Ln. I gather that some of you have also been able to
participate in that tour, and that was a real eye opener for me. Because this is not your father
or grandfather’s batch plant. This is a very large-scale operation, and it is run in a very
professional manner, including the latest, up-to-date air emission control equipment. The result
of which, this property has 1/4 of the particulate emissions of a burger king. So, when you
conjure up visions of the dusty batch plant with the column of smoke pouring out of it, that is
not where we are today with this applicant and this technology. The realtors always say
“location, location, location.” I think this is an ideal location for this facility. First of all, it is in
the middle of very, very, heavy zoning. This is governed by a PD that is governed by the 1951
zoning code, which is completely cumulative that allows almost anything and almost everything
and is in fact functioned as a railroad for about 60 years. It is at least a quarter of a mile from
the nearest single-family neighborhood, and is surrounded by properties of industrial or heavy
commercial character. It is also near where the proposed material, where the material is
proposed to be used, that is the LBJ reconstruction project and the I-30 reconstruction project.
And finally, very importantly, it is rail served. That has the advantage that there is no incoming
truck traffic supplying the aggregate material that is made into concrete and asphalt. That is all
accomplished by rail with a very major reduction in truck traffic as result. You do have the
outbound truck traffic. There’s no way to get around that, but that truck traffic is onto an
arterial thoroughfare and will go just a short distance down to a major interstate freeway and
will go on down to its destination. We’ve heard about the Casa View Area Plan. The Casa View
Area Plan is not your typical area plan that provides for prescriptive land use for each area
within the plan. Instead that plan paved new ground by focusing on areas of important interest,
focusing on, for example the Casa View Area Shopping Center, focusing on other aspects of the
community. And, it has no specific, prescriptive land use for this site. If you were to say, “what
does the plan say this site should be?” The answer is it doesn’t say anything in particular. We’ve
heard mention of the observation tower and of the proposed trail and those are both to the
south of this site, starting roughly where the residential starts. The tower, if ever built, will
overlook this site. But, it would overlook a rail site if this site were not here. In terms of land use
stability, this has been an industrial rail site for 65 years or so, as best as we know, it’s not going
away any time soon, and that brings me to my 4 and 4 recommendations. The applicant will not
be up and running for 14 months, so really the opening period would only be 2 years and 8
months and given the nature of the investment required for this site, it has been the practice of
this commission to give longer times to operations requiring large capital investments that
must be recouped. I think balancing what the staff says, what the applicant says, and the need
to re-evaluate the situation in the long run as land uses change, I think a 4-year initial period
with 1 automatic 4-year renewal is appropriate. If the site is still around 8 years from now, all of
the options will be open for the planning commission and council at that time. So, that is the
rationale for my motion and I hope for your support.
01:33:02
Commissioner Blair: being the commissioner of a district that has as many illegal batch plants
and batch plants operating in their district as one could ever not want, I am challenged with
even, when you say batch plant to me, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up my eyes cross
over and my toes turn into upside down, but not knowing your district as well as I know mine, I
will reluctantly follow your lead, because of my trust in you in order to approve this and I do
mean with great reluctance do I say that, and with great reverence do I feel this. Historically in
the city of Dallas batch plants have been very bad operators, no matter what they have
promised, no matter what they have said, they say one thing... I am the commissioner who
owns shingle mountain. And I am that commissioner who when you go down that quarter, and
when you go down I-20, there are batch plants, there are recycling plants that have made
promises and none of them have fulfilled those promises and I am the commissioner that has to
go back behind them and try to clean them up. Once you let them in, if you don’t have good
parameters, if you don’t have good operators, if you don’t have good checks and balances,
you’ll have another location where you’ll have the residents suing the city because of their
health issues that have been brought in by bad actors. But again, like I said in deference and
reverence to you, Commissioner Jung, I am going to support this effort.
01:45:05
Commissioner Housewright: Thank you Mr. Chair. I look forward to supporting the motion. I
am persuaded by Commissioner Jung and the applicant that to quote Commissioner Jung that
“it is not our father’s batch plant,” that this is a completely different type of facility that we
have here is a highly sustainable and highly environmentally advantageous approach to regional
transportation need. And I would just like to talk about that for a minute, District 10 has more
adjacency to LBJ East project than any district in the city, it is a desperately needed project.
Should we not approve this proposal, we will put 10s of thousands of trucks on the road in
addition to all the existing traffic we have, and the emissions associated with that, and the
mobility problems we have associated with that, so as District 10 commissioner, I feel it
important to support this and in closing, I would not that District 10 contributed the site for a
similar facility to reconstruct the High 5 in LBJ North, so we’ve had a skin in the game for a long
time, and so I look forward to this proposal passing and I look forward to a quick and
expeditious start to the LBJ East Project
01:46:37
Commissioner Murphy: Thank you Mr. Chair. I will be supporting the motion. I think batch
plants pose issues that need to be carefully considered, and I would like to compliment
Commissioner Jung as well as the applicant for their thoughtful homework and their thoughtful
presentation. I thought it was very well done. And also, Commissioner Carpenter for her due
diligence. And so, I’d-, I respect all opinions on both sides, but on balance I think this project is
worth-, is worthy of my support, as well as its limited time period. So, I think I’ll happily support
it.
01:47:19
Commissioner Shidid: Commissioner Jung, before we go a second round, quick comment. I will
also be supporting the motion for all the reasons articulated by my colleagues, so I will limit my
comments just to my visit. I did have a-, the chance to visit the site that is similar to what the
proposal is. And in fact, I went back on my own later and drove around the area a bit. I am
familiar with this area, I grew up playing soccer on the fields nearby. And I will concur with
Commissioner Jung that it was not what I was expecting, frankly. These are very well-run
operations. They’re clean. They’re quiet. And just the efficiency of it, was frankly just surprising.
And so, for all the meticulous reasons that were just-, were mentioned by Commissioner Jung, I
wholeheartedly support the application. Commissioner Jung?
01:48:12
Commissioner Jung: Commissioner Davis, I don’t have the depth. I’m sorry, Commissioner Blair.
I don’t have the depth of the experience that you’ve had with intense and environmentally
sensitive uses, but I have the same trepidation that you have, and I have experienced that
throughout the process of working this through and up to this morning, I was thinking, “Am I
really doing the right thing?” and I think I am, but I share your concerns and your feelings.
Commissioner Schulz, I hope that you’re right, I hope that eventually this area develops as the
Casa View plan anticipates. I think it very unlikely that that will come to fruition within the next
8 years, and if 8 years from now it looks like it’s on the horizon, we deny them a renewal. Not
we, our successors deny them a renewal. And finally, I was remiss in my opening remarks in not
thanking Commissioner Carpenter. She is the commission’s expert on batch plants, and I have
drawn heavily on that expertise and I thank her for it.
01:49:30
Commissioner Shidid: Any additional comments? Seeing none, I will take a recorded vote on
this matter.
01:50:00
Commissioner Shidid: Voting now, Commissioner Blair, Carpenter, Garcia, Hampton,
Housewright, Jackson, Johnson, Jung, MacGregor, Murphy, Schwope, Shidid, Stinson. In
opposition, Schultz. Motion passes. Commissioner Ruben has a conflict.