The staff report is incomplete, incorrect, and contains substandard work. For example, the site plan has no street or other labels required for identification and typical of a site plan. That is the fault of the proponent. The Staff's lack of experience accepting the materials is City malfeasance.

The safety report is full of anomalies. As reported in a detailed comment, the safety report uses references for small, transportable gas containers, not large stationary ones. In fact the document it self states that it is intended for rail and road transport and is of limited applicability to large stationary tanks.

The thoroughly examined 20-foot LIN rupture in Australia was under provided as testimony by me. As noted in my analysis, the regulations between the US and Australia are essentially the same and yet the tank failed anyway. If it were a 38-ft LAR tank, it 500M blast zone would increase, the tank mass would increase, and the heavier than oxygen argon would spread widely.

The drafted ordinance contains factual errors and assertions substituted for facts. I cannot be voted on.