Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 10
Number 10, consider and take appropriate action on the construction of plotting habitable structures on Lake Travis.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
steve manila again, and I have several members of my staff here to help me answer any questions you may have.
a few weeks ago we presented to the court a proposed resolution asking for prohibition on placing floating habitable structures in Lake Travis.
we had come to you seeking for that -- seeking that approval at that time, the developer came forward and had asked for an opportunity to show staff, you know, how he's going to plan on developing this and answering some of the concerns we had come up with.
and we did meet with the developer and he did make a nice presentation.
we -- we still have some serious issues with this type of development in this type of a location.
the biggest thing being just how much the lake can fluctuate and the size of this development placed in that environment.
we're talking 120 -- up to 120 homes linked together by a system of a dock and possibly with each home having its own boat slip.
and it goes beyond just the issue of not having access to dry land.
it's just the concept of placing that type of a development in that type of an environment.
not to mention concerns that if you do have a situation where you have to adjust the height, and, of course, that doesn't happen when it's great weather, it's at 3:00 in the morning in a driving rainstorm, how do you get something essentially the size of an aircraft carrier raised and lowered uniformly.
you would have to man it pretty well or somehow automate it.
and we're talking, you know, the lake can come up dozens of feet in a very short time.
so we're still thinking that this is -- this type of development at this particular location is probably -- there's overlap in regulatory authority between us and lcra and possibly any other e.t.j.
authority out there.
so from our end, we would recommend that you support the prohibition.
lcra can come up and speak to you about their position on it.
there are representatives from emergency service community also here that would like to express their position and, of course, the neighborhood and the developer.
but where we stand is we would like to recommend that you support the prohibition.
>> any questions for mr. Manila or county staff?
would lcra like to come forth at this time, give any comments?
>> sir, we're here mainly as a resource if you have any questions.
>> let us get your name on the record.
>> jim richardson with the lower colorado river authority.
>> our media people will tell us we need you on the mic, mr. Richardson.
>> just to note your presence.
>> unlike lcra we're a lot more formal down here at the county.
>> we're not wired for sound as well.
>> plus, our media are very strict.
>> we did not have a prepared presentation for the Commissioners court today.
we are here as a resource, if you have any questions you would like to ask of us, we would be happy to answer that.
for the record my name is jim richardson with the lower colorado river authority.
>> , sir is this.
>> vick ramirez, an attorney with lcra.
>> I would like to ask them if they could just to explain to you their position on regulatory authority for this type of development within their property.
if they could do that for us, that would be good.
>> we do have the authority to regulate the water surface of the highland lakes.
we have done research looking across the nation and other parts of the world where they have floating habitable structures and our research has shown where they do have floating habitable structures that state -- if they are regulated in some places like the west coast have regulations in place.
in portland, seattle, vancouver, washington, they are typically regulated at a county or municipal level.
and so if there were a proposal put forward to regulate floating habitable structures on the highland lakes, it would be something that we would be working in conjunction with the county to develop those regulations.
>> are any of those places you cite, are any of those inland bodies or all coastal?
>> to my knowledge they are all coastal.
we have not found areas where they are located on a flood control reservoir such as Lake Travis or a water supply reservoir such as Lake Travis.
typically they are on the coastal areas.
>> what's the importance of that, I guess?
>> the water quality aspect is a little bit more of a concern when it's a public water supply reservoir.
also, with Lake Travis fluctuating as much as 50 feet in a 24-hour period, we have different conditions to present public safety issues that you don't typically see on the coastal areas where they exist now.
>> any other questions for our lcra reps?
>> in the other places that you mentioned about having the authority to regulate floating habitable structures, did -- was there a presence of combined joint effort between an example like a lcra and someone else even though it hasn't happened here, per se, but has there been a combined effort other than the regulatory authority and the county or something like that, any other -- as you've done your research?
>> there have been examples where were there cooperative efforts between multiple jurisdictions, but typically it's been at a local level, the county or municipality.
>> if the two of you would remain for a couple of minutes just in case there are questions that would surface.
any representatives here from the applicant?
if so, now is the time for you to come forth because after you we will hear from residents.
so if the applicant or applicant representatives are here, please come forth at this time and give us your point of view.
did we invite the applicant, mr. Manila?
>> I don't know that we formally did that.
he knew we were coming back to court and as far as I know he's aware of it but I can't guarantee that.
>> well, is the applicant here?
>> he was in court last time when we said we would have it back.
>> okay.
then we know some residents have come down on this item.
>> [laughter] this is your opportunity.
we will need those two chairs, by the way.
if we could get five residents to come forth at this time.
as one finishes, in whatever order you choose, as one completes his or her statement, if we could get somebody else to come forth, we can move through this efficiently.
Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> could we see a show of hands so we could get a count for the collect just in case all people don't give testimony?
>> how many are here in support of the prohibition.
>> I do that because we have in the past had so many folks that some individuals don't end up testifying and it would be nice for the record to reflect.
>> if you could hold up your hands a minute.
>> I'm going to do a rough count.
>> [counting] roughly 35.
give or take.
>> now, if you will give us your name as your turn comes, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> okay, yeah, I'm margo
>> [inaudible] and I'm a resident on Lake Travis.
I'm on the sandy creek arm.
and I have a presentation for you.
>> media, we may need a little more volume on that mic.
we will need to get your name again.
>> sure, margo mermelstein.
I'm going the talk about the safety issues of having floating habitable structures on Lake Travis.
and first I just want to say thank you for allowing all of us to speak.
we really appreciate it.
Lake Travis and central Texas is in flash flood alley.
this is the most flash flood prone area of the u.s.
Texas holds six of the 12 world records for the most rain in the least amount of time.
it leads the nation in flood-related deaths.
two times the next nearest state.
it leads the nation in flood-related damages, also sharing this distinction with florida and louisiana.
some 20 million of Texas' 171 million acres are flood prone.
we have 8 million structures in flood plains and 3 million of those do not have insurance.
we're among the top four states for repeat flood losses.
from 1986 to 2000 we experienced 4,722 flash flood.
can you hear me okay?
okay.
seven years out of the last ten we were number 1 or number 2 in flash flood deaths.
more warnings for flash floods are issued for the san antonio, Austin area than anywhere else in the u.s.
this is just a look at some of the floods that have occurred in recent history all the way back to 1935.
and a number of of the deaths.
2010, we probably remember, 2222 washed out, there was one death.
2009 we had a flash flood event on Lake Travis and we're going the talk about that and the effect that it had.
you can see 31 deaths from 1998.
there were 13 deaths on the memorial day flood.
now, the 2009 flood event, this is a map showing you where there's a flood gauge at the top and then there was an event that occurred right here where it says pontoon boat and mangled docks, that occurred from water that came down the sandy creek arm due to about 10-inch that's occurred in a short period of time number of leelander.
I'm also going to talk about the float house which is further down the sandy creek.
what happened was in about 30 minutes you went from zero to 194 cubic feet per second on the big sandy creek, then you dropped back down.
another 30 minutes you went from about 113 up to 326 cubic feet per second.
a huge amount of water for that area of the creek.
and I have a video to show you.
you can see these three docks are swirling around, they are pulling anchors.
each anchor is 2,000 pounds apiece.
usually they have two anchors on the lake side, two more anchors on the shore side, and they've ripped them apart.
pretty quick here you are going to see a pontoon boat.
nobody is in it because this is during a flood, come streaming down the creek.
it's going to hit the dock with the green roof, which is over to the right-hand side, you see a bird feeder to the right, there's a green roof, and it gets lodged under the dock, under the dock, the ton tune boat.
when it hits that dock, it's going to fell the tree.
tree is probably 8-inch diameter.
yanks it up out of the ground.
the other docks continue to go down the lake.
it's an incredible amount of force of water that takes place.
let's see if I can get this to stop.
and we will go back to the slide show.
let's see if I can get you back here.
this is what happens to steel docks after there being exposed to a flash flood event like this with projectiles were coming down.
I can only imagine what would happen to people if they were on there when it occurs.
this is the flood house.
I noted out the map.
it's also on sandy creek.
this is a comment off the website.
the owner said he used to wake up in a cold sweat thinking what would happen if he lost anchor, but this thing is bulletproof.
but in '09 I spoke to the owner's wife and she said yes, it did break loose and it floated down almost cafe blue, which is further down creek.
it was hit by another boat and a dock further upstream.
fema has done research on floating houses.
this is the national fema department.
a group called winston flowing homes was trying to get concepts approved for national flood insurance protection for not only coastal areas but lakes and all over the country.
they spent from from 93 to 2005 arguing about it, but fema remains steadfastly against it.
as a matter of fact, the national director james lee witt on June 19, '96, released a analysis and here's a summary of it.
it's impossible to test -- what they wanted them to do was test.
he says it's impossible to test for all the conditions that can occur simultaneously with a flood event including the torsional forces from wind action, water surface turbidity or wave action, the soaking damage and changing weight dynamics from the structure which results in pitch and load.
the hydro dynamic flood loads that could easily exceed certain velocities that they may have already tested for.
water borne debris impact loads from multi directions.
the need for human intervention and maintenance.
many people will choose to continue to occupy floating homes during flood conditions even in face of a mandatory evacuation placing occupants and ensuing emergency personnel in danger.
cannot be equivalent to permanent elevation.
permanent elevation.
if you go to fema today and look for floating homes, you don't see anything about floating homes.
you see they recommend permanent elevation.
we already have code wherein along these lines at the 723 is where you are supposed to build up on piers for Lake Travis.
there's an increased probability of failure inherent in all floating home concepts and also within the same letter, the national flood insurance program of fema call on local governments to minimize risk of death and injury to building occupants and the public.
this technology is not consistent with these tenets.
I see a lot of this wiggling between the lines, let's call it a boat, let's call it a house, let's place it above the 691, let's put it on the water.
multiple -- as has been mentioned multiple jurisdictions.
we need to keep our head above the different definitions.
trying to put floating habitable structures on a flood control lake in the flash flood capital of the world.
so let's not kid ourselves.
this is not seattle.
this is not portland.
we should not approve floating habitable structures on our lake.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
that was excellent and I would like a copy of that.
>> [applause]
>> any questions for miss normalstein?
thank you very much.
if we could go from my left -- your left all around.
yes, sir.
>> we're actually in order.
we just sat in the order.
can we start --
>> that's fine with me.
>> if we could follow the judge's rule as one speaker finishes somebody else would like to come forth if you would like to speak, I'm happy.
yes, sir, on the end.
>> good morning.
dave evans, head of the fire wise committee for the camanche trail association.
that community sits on a cliff site directly above the proposed development.
I've served as the community association president twice.
I've lived in the community in my current residence for approximately 25 years and have seen a number of times where Lake Travis has gone up and down significantly over the course of a single day let alone a weekend.
I'm here to talk about, you heard miss normalstein talk about floods and water elevations.
I'm here to talk about fire issues.
and I want to bring to your attention the very specific and very real danger of uncontrolled fire on the hillside.
these are steep canyon hill sides.
they are covered with cedar and so on.
in this particular location, there is no direct fire road access.
so if a fire were to break out on any of the these homes, literally the only course of action that the residents have is either wait for a ferry, and if you saw lake Austin marina burn, it's burned three times since I've lived here, it happens in a matter of minutes.
so imagine evacuating 100 to 2 hunt homes in a matter of minutes with a ferry.
there are other alternative is to swim across the cove.
if they attempting to on to the land side, the proposed development directly abuts the bccp which is high fenced both on the side that ajones our neighborhood on the top and on the bottom that adjoins this development.
those residents would run literally in a high fence and be trapped if a fire was build you go up the hillside.
obviously a fire won't stop at a fence and continue up the hillside.
if it continues up the hillside as it did 20 years ago, there's a big burn section on hippie hollow, fortunately missing our neighborhood.
where this development sits, if it comes up the hillside, it's going to come right into the panorama drive and mountain trail areas and the intersection between mostly sunny trail trail and panorama drive and approximately 50 families will be trapped on the hill with a wildfire coming at them with literally no escape other than down the cliffs.
we are extremely concerned about that.
the development presents a very real hazard.
all engineering considerations aside, if a fire breaks out, it is an extremely difficult fire to fight.
we're talking about very stimulus plan steep hillsides, between 400 and 500 feet of elevation change.
this is not something a fire boat can pull up at the bottom and reach the top of the hill.
if there's no access from the top and there's no access from the bottom, the fire is left to work its way up the hillside.
this is our major concern n the past two of the largest parks in the Austin-Travis County park system are hippie hollow and windy point.
in both cases the city and county have worked with the comanche trail association to implement significant safety measures including banning of all camping and open fires in both parks specifically toed vice of both our neighborhood, the Texas forest service and so on.
the Texas forest service featured our neighborhood in an example this is the classic fire danger neighborhood and they have literally used our neighborhood as example of that.
those two park systems have limited the use of their parks to along the shores and so on, have banned camping and have banned open fires for that reason.
we face much greater danger coming at us from other side in the face of this development.
to be succinct, we, number 1, sincerely appreciate the consideration and thought put into this to the number of people that have come forward and fought through this issue.
there is no -- there is literally no road to the hillside, nor the opportunity to create one.
we're left with -- chawng
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] if that catches on fire, that size of a structure, the wind is going to carry the embers and everything and ignite the hillside.
just like what mr. Evans said.
we have one road into our house and the same road back out.
so there's -- there's very short window to escape and we already have natural, if you remember the oasis burned down not too many years ago from a natural event.
so we don't need to be adding manmade risks to increase the risk of fire to our home sites.
I leave you with two other thoughts.
when you talk about the coastal areas, I also grew up in alaska, spent a lot of time in seattle.
one of the big distinctions in the coastal, because of the heavy marine transportation of barges and everything, they have huge fire boats that can service all of those kind of structures, you know, out in the water or docks and things like that.
there's no such thing on Lake Travis.
and the costs of that would be prohibitive for the lcra or the county to have such fire boats to service a few, you know, condominiums on the water.
so ...
you should think about that.
the other thing is would you approve an on-land development that had 180 apartments or patio homes where there's no road access for fire trucks to get out there and put the fire out?
you wouldn't.
why would you approve such a thing in this situation, once again I'm representing myself and my wife and we support the total permanent ban on such structures, thank you.
>> can I ask a question of mr. Evans?
the concern about these types of developments seems to fall into three categories.
one is safety, one is water quality, then a third, very much related to the other two is the cost of services to mitigate for those two issues.
from an esd perspective, do we have any kind of ballpark figure to the public costs to protect the neighbors and protect the structure and the neighbors to the structure in case of a fire?
>> I don't.
I'm not qualified to answer that question.
but I do believe mr. Manila or representatives from the esd, they have looked at this.
and I mean if it's appropriate for me to speak about this, in our preliminary meeting, they were very concerned about exactly that issue.
so they can probably shed additional light on that.
>> mr. Manila?
>> danny was here a few minutes ago and I asked him about where the esds would land on this issue, not only of the cost, but also the -- just how they would go about responding to emergency situation.
one of the things mr. Shiply did say in his presentation to us at t.n.r.
is that he would put a sprinkler system inside the structures.
that -- allayed quite a bit of the fear of the emergency service providers because they do have a concern with being accident to get access -- being able to get access to these structures if a fire were to break out.
and the other component of it is, though, that each one of these structures is a part of a larger dock system and those dock systems can also be -- be provided with a water supply.
that doesn't cover all of the issues and concerns that they have.
one of the things that we asked them, well, what if someone has a heart attack.
3:00 in the morning, again, stormy conditions, how do you get out to this person.
and I don't think I've ever heard emergency service provider say they can't get to a place to respond to an emergency.
it's a matter of time to them.
it will take a lot of time for them to get out to that structure to collect that person and get them back.
and to do something like that, by boat, particularly if someone has a really debilitating injury, it's going to be tough, but the fire issue, he kind of assuaged their fears with putting a sprinkler system in.
at this particular location, where these guys are describing this very steep hill.
I live out in that area of Lake Travis, I know people out there the 4th of July or new year's, popping off fireworks, they think that I'm over a lake, no big deal.
it takes one, wind catch it.
downtown it happened to burn off the hula hut roof.
someone was out there doing something they shouldn't have been --
>> fireworks, barbecue pits, blah, blah.
>> so anyway that's what I recollect of our conversation with them on that issue.
>> steve, there's one other aspect of the cost of services component that I'm breaking it down in my head, water quality, emergency service -- emergency safety and cost of services.
which you are uniquely qualified on.
aside from the cost of services with regard to emergency services, it seems that for instance in the mitigation with regard to sprinklers, there's a regulatory cost in both permitting and inspection associated with permitting.
>> right.
one of the problems that we have is we have no regulations for this type of development.
we would have to create new regulations.
then how do we go about inspecting and following through to see if things are being done in compliance with those regulations.
>> do we currently have staffing for those sorts of inspections?
>> no, we don't.
then getting out to the facility to do whatever inspection, how we deal -- one of the things that I wasn't sure just how to address it is if this were to come to the county, we did have regulations and they say well we're going to place this facility here in this particular location, when the lake level drops to a certain point, these folks who have these types of developments are compelled to haul their facility out into deeper water, lcra will tell you that.
so now you have this -- this thing out in the middle of deeper water that doesn't have the same sort of anchoring system that it does back in it's supposedly permanent quarters.
I was concerned okay we have this thing out here, not quite as stoutly built, anchor system, now what happens if a storm comes through?
and a hurricane blows through and in the summer it's not uncalled, not unknown.
so there are issues about that, too, how do we regulate, what do we call it when it's not in its permanent location, not out over open water.
a slew of issues that would have to be worked through.
>> thank you.
now, if I could -- am I to understand that we only have two more speakers today?
if not, we have four chairs available.
we have two right here who are next.
this is not the time to be shy.
this is the time to be efficient.
and so -- now we hear you loud and clear and so normally at about this time I ask for something new and different.
we did get email concerning wastewater issues.
and so if somebody wants to touch on that, that would be fine.
in the red top, yes, ma'am.
>> hello.
my name is diane crumbly dee.
I do not live in the area that is being proposed for this development.
I live down the lake.
I live at 1525 chimpmonk road.
first I have a written thing that I want to read but I'm saying right now these gentlemen have brought up some issues that we were worried about in our area and now I'm really worried about it because we have a marina that is going in in front of us.
with two 10,000-gallon fuel storage tanks behind our house, with one road coming in and out and this council I mean this Commissioners court gave approvement for a development permit for that.
I want to say that I am opposed to item 10 on today's agenda about floating habitable structures on Lake Travis.
first my mother is a property owner on Lake Travis and has been since 1966.
she has paid taxes and has been a good citizen for all of these years.
our rights as a citizen of the united states has been violated over and over since we were brought into a lawsuit by a corporate developer trying to put a marina in front of our house.
our deed has been ignored and our deed is and has been in place since 1944.
now, only it has been made impossible to swim in front of our house due to the fact that they are planning on putting in 249 boat slips, a six stall fueling station and non-permitted illegally drilled holes that are two foot by eight foot deep unmarked under the water.
on mother's day, my grandchildren came out to go swimming and I couldn't let them go to the lake because I didn't know where the holes were because they are not marked.
now with the possibility of a floating habitat, in front of all of the deeded waterfront properties on Lake Travis is appalling.
I don't know where they put it in front of our house with all that's going in in front of us but it will affect all of the neighbors that are on Lake Travis.
first, this is a drinking water reservoir.
second, the deeds that have been written 65 years ago mean nothing.
and in our area alone, we have had possibly 10 lawsuits filed and possibly more coming.
our courts will be overloaded due to the fact that the judges are misled with the truth and the truth is ignored and our rights as citizens have been violated for the benefit of corporate developers that -- that have bought encumbered land.
to allow more violations of our rights to occur would be a travesty.
my question is, what about our rights?
we as landowners seem to have none.
I have been going to the courts since 2005 for us and for neighbors and slowly due to this -- to the information being given to the judges, and not wanting to listen, we are slowly having our deeded rights eroded away.
this is unamerican and totally a travesty.
we as citizens should be worried because this is not just about us and the graveyard point area.
it is about our rights as citizens of the united states.
it affects all of us, not just the ones that are willing to fight the good fight.
one of the main things to consider in this action, if accepted, would be that there is no way to enforce or inspect these structures once they are in place.
there would be no authority that could inspect for any reason the structure unless it would be the game warden.
it is against the fourth amendment of the constitution of the united states and article 6 of the bill of rights.
you could not enter to inspect for anything without a search warrant.
no one has the authority.
so in closing, I diane crumbly dee, want to say that common sense should come into play, this should be opposed to the greatest magnitude and stop the sale of under water land and the lawsuits that are here and are -- will be coming.
hopefully, it will be the waters of Lake Travis still belong to the citizens of Texas and not to the dollar or the developers trying to make a buck.
I do not want to hear that our hands are tied and that there is nothing that we could do.
if you are against something, then vote no.
and at this time, I want to thank Commissioner Davis for voting no to the development permit.
at graveyard point.
thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Dee.
>> [ applause ]
>> my role is to bat cleanup.
if they don't have any other issues I will bring up new ones at the end.
>> you are passing at this time.
>> I'm passing at this time.
>> my name is rod shatner, I'm a resident of -- out at Jonestown, I have a waterfront lot there.
I have serious concern about the waste disposal system.
I have jointly spearheaded a project being proposed by the same developer in Jonestown and after two meetings before the Jonestown city council and one in front of the p and z, the developer withdrew.
his final proposal before withdrawing was to have a person roust families possibly in the dead of night, once that was done he would run around and manually disconnect the sewer lines.
absurd.
let me points out as a floatable home goes down with the water level, more sewer line is needed.
in just the last couple of years, that would be as much as 50 feet.
in the events of a flash flood, how do you get all of that line you on of the water before it's torn loose?
way too much risk.
how about 120 sewer lines in the water?
I might add these lines are never fully purged so there's always the probability of spillage in even the most optimum conditions.
how many folks here have had septic problems?
I have as well as neighbors of mine and these are all underground.
not in the water.
how do you evacuate a sewer line that's 50 feet long with 1.6 gallons of water per plush?
you can't.
per flush.
you can't.
anchor box and cabling is another property the size of the anchor box holding these homes in place weighs in excess of 2500 pounds.
let's assume there was 50 feet of water under these docks and homes.
I contacted triple a docks and inquired how much cable there would be from the winch to the anchor.
would you believe at least, at least 250 feet.
nearly a football field in length.
that means multiple lines would cross each other causing wear and breakage.
at two stories these condos will sway back and forth in the wind.
it causes the cables to saw back and forth.
with this year's wind and at two stories I would feel like I was on a cruise most of the time.
lastly, I have to question the sanity of this engineering pie in the sky project.
evidently the developers do not watch the weather channel or they would know mother nature can and does play havoc with bullet proof endangered projects and design.
in 2009 water release went from 0 to 226 cubic feet per second, assuming a six foot wall of water, weighs 450 pounds or 224-tons, a tsunami.
that equates to -- I'm sorry, we have seen results of this right here on Lake Travis in 2009.
let me expand on just for a moment.
a model d 4 g caterpillar tractor is about 8 by 7 by 8 feet wide.
that equates to about 512 cubic feet in size, weighs 17,000 pounds.
an equal amount of water is nearly twice as heavy at 32,000 pounds.
using zero to 326 cubic feet per second, water, which occurred in just 45 minutes in the 2009 flood I converted volume to weight.
it calculates to 20,352,000 pounds or 10-tons per second or 73 million-tons of water per hour.
sounds like our national debt.
do we really believe this or similar projects can be engineered for an event of this magnitude?
and which occurred just two years ago right lower on this end of Lake Travis?
I hope not.
we're being asked to buy into something that is purely conceptual and deemed by fema to be unsafe.
why are we trying to override fema, who has already done the study and found any type of floatable structure unsafe?
are you willing to risk the lives of those who you love and cherish so a developer can pocket millions of dollars?
you all have children and grandchildren.
is this child worth a death in this project?
that's my grandchild.
I urge you to vote no and similar projects to be perfectly clear permanently prohibit floating habitable structures.
>> thank you.
>> [ applause ]
>> thank you, judge, my name is Ron greening.
I live out on comanche trail and have since 1985.
I've lived over in volente two years prior to that.
I am here today representing the dirt club of comanche trail.
some areas have garden clubs.
we're more basic.
>> [laughter] so it's the dirt club.
a very active organization in the comanche trail area.
I was an electrical engineer before becoming a lawyer, which I practice law now.
and I want to reiterate the wastewater disposal problems are substantial.
the -- the floating homes would have to be moved at some time to other anchors.
and other arrangements for the wastewater.
which is not going to be gravity fed.
it's going to have to be under pressure pumped.
and so a failure in the system is going to be dramatic.
and dramatic in the pollution of Lake Travis, of lake Austin, and town lake.
because the wastewater must be under pressure in order to get rid of it.
it's got to go from the floating docks or floating condos down under the lake or down the lake bed, and back up the other side.
and so -- then it's got to be moveable.
moved around.
and the sprinkler system, the only way that it would be viable would be to have a very large gravity fed system, a very large tank, up on top of the hill.
because otherwise the sprinkler system is worthless.
it's got to be driven by water pressure and where's the water pressure going to come from?
in the events of a -- of a power failure, generators fail, these fancy engineering solutions are interesting, but they are just fancy dreams. You can look in today's paper.
to see a great analogy of the nuclear power project.
which if anything are over engineered.
and yet today the united states manufacturer, g.e., is admitting that some of the safety items that they've touted for almost 20 years really don't work.
they were proven to be defective in the japanese tsunami and the terrible failures there in the -- in the -- in the loss of life and property that has resulted.
we don't want that to happen in our neighborhood.
and also then I'm a taxpayer.
I pay enormous taxes which are growing each year.
I guess you all are going to grow them this year.
I certainly don't want to pay additional taxes for additional fire protection for these condos.
that's where it's going to come from.
our little esd is going to have to foot the bill plus we're going to have to foot the bill for the sheriff's department, to be able to properly police the area and also foot the bill for the e.m.s.
and I don't know whether the developer is going to buy a boat or you're going to buy an ambulance boat.
but I figure that I'm going to wind up paying for it.
and I don't like it one bit.
so that's why I would like for you all to reject this application and do everything within your power to oppose such development.
>> thank you, mr. Green.
>> thank you
>> [ applause ]
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, Commissioners, my name is lance
>> [indiscernible], I live in Jonestown.
I'm opposed the events basically on three areas.
one you have certainly heard from engineering, pretty well beat to death.
the thing to keep in mind is that engineers can only design to what they know.
there is nothing known on this.
this is conceptual.
history has proven that the best designs of engineers have not worked on Lake Travis.
there's no reason to assume this will be engineered any differently, so we're actually asking them to design something that they don't have the expertise to do.
the second thing that has been mentioned is access in case of emergencies.
Travis County sheriff's department works very hard on the lake.
if there were any emergency, whether it be heart attack, fire, or anything else that required intervention, it would be up to the sheriff's department via their boats to be able to do this.
there is no land access.
I doubt very seriously we're going to find the sheriff's department's boats out on Lake Travis in the middle of rising water rescuing people off of these condos.
they do a good job.
I don't believe that's their role in life.
the third one which hits all of us and was just mentioned, there is a cost associated with doing this type of a project.
there are no ordinances for Travis County.
there are no regulations for esd, there are no municipal ordinances, those all have to be written, studied, put out to commissions, reviewed and we're talking a considerable amount of money to do that.
money that is not in the Travis County budget to do that.
for those four or three reasons, I urge you to oppose this development and the floating habitable structures.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is gary
>> [indiscernible] and it's just coincidental there's someone else in the room today by the same last name.
there have been many hearings recently at which arguments were set forth both for and against floating habitable structures.
those in support have been developers and their colleagues who have a financial stake in the proposed floating structures.
no engineering proof has been provided by developers to show that the proposed structures can withstand extreme forces that occur on the highland lakes.
oppositions are primary citizens who have voiced concerns regarding threats to public safety, potential loss of life and limb and impairment and destruction of emergency services, damage to property, et cetera.
citizens base their concerns on a long history of flood events that occur on these lakes year after year.
these events continue to astound brilliant engineers when flood waters drag, crush, topple and swallow structures that were purportedly engineered to withstand a flood.
Travis County and the highland lakes have astrandingly high incidence of annual flood events which is the very reason chapter 64 of the Travis County code ordinance was written, embodied within this law are sound provisions that prevent, prohibit and discourage residential and commercial development within hazardous floodplains.
while this law may not be perfect, it's a good law with intent to protect property, health, safety, life, and reduce possibilities of disruption of commerce and governmental services.
chapter 64, specifically states in paragraph 64.121, all improvements shall be designed or modified to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure in the presence of flood waters.
all improvements shall be constructed with materials and equipment resistant to flood damage.
the code states that these provisions apply to all structures, including manufactured homes.
64.122 states that all additions, new construction, substantial improvements and the associated utilities of any residential structure should have its lowest floor elevated above the base flood elevation.
while the proposed structures are floating structures, they are structures nevertheless.
at no point in time would the lowest floor be above the base flood elevation.
even if waters on Lake Travis were flowing over the mansfield dam spill way, the floating structures would still remain in the floodplain.
again, chapter 64 statements that the structures should resist floatation and lateral movement.
not promote floatation and lateral movement.
my wife and I own three properties on Lake Travis that have almost as much land under the water as above the floodplain.
is there anyone else in this room that owns water on Lake Travis?
do you have any land under the water?
it is unconscionable to imagine what it would be like on the lake if all property owners who have land under the water were permitted bylaw to float habitable structures in the floodplain.
I oppose the development of floating habitable structures because they are unsafe and like any other structure cited in chapter 64 should not be allowed in the floodplain.
judge and Commissioners please uphold, strengthen and enforce the provisions of this law.
>> thank you very much.
>> [ applause ]
>> here's how it looks to me.
here's how it looks to me.
let me voice this and see if you agree.
the applicant is not here.
county staff is recommending against this project.
the citizens who have come today have all testified against it.
we haven't heard anyone voice a sentiment in favor.
and so in my view, rather than have your say, let's see if we can let you have your way.
I would hear a motion.
>> [ applause ]
>> judge.
>> discussion on the motion, how that?
>> I move that we approve the resolution that supports the prohibition of any floating habitability structures as defined in the resolution.
>> second.
>> second.
>> court discussion on the motion, if any.
>> yes, judge.
thank you, Commissioner Huber for that motion.
what I wanted to I think also lay out was to maybe have staff to respond to some of the septic services that we do render here from Travis County.
because we did hear from folks who had engineering concepts on wastewater dealing with septics and things of that nature.
of course we actually deal with the septic systems here in Travis County.
I was wondering if staff assessed any costs, any type of -- of I guess prohibition as far as maybe looking at concepts that was brought to us today as far as the engineering driven phase of what the septic tank would -- if they fail or -- all of these other kind of things, because we have to deal with -- with failed septic tanks, we have to deal with a whole lot of things.
but septic is one thing that we deal with as far as wastewater, especially when -- if the wastewater is polluting water source.
so it's -- something that we heard about it, but we didn't elaborate on it I think enough as far as -- as far as this concern.
so I just maybe wanted staff to just maybe briefly say something about the wastewater end of it, because we've heard a lot of
>> [indiscernible] flooding, fire hazards, safety condition, ambers if it gets into the hill portion of the structures out there, that -- being engulfed in fire.
of course property damages, things like that.
we've heard from that.
but I didn't get enough on the wastewater end as far as septic.
I would like staff to maybe make a brief comment on that before we take this vote because I think it's also inclusive as far as I think the way this court is going to vote.
so maybe can we have something.
>> okay.
we did talk at length with the developer a few weeks ago when he made his presentation to t.n.r.
about water and wastewater service.
he's not proposing septic on site wastewater systems. He was planning on collecting the sewage from the individual homes, taking it to shore, and then that would be pumped to a I guess a package plant of sorts.
we have the same concerns that many of the folks here have expressed in what do you do when you have to move this facility out into deep water or if you have severe rain event and you're going up and down, how is all of the lines, the water, wastewater, electrical for that matter, how is that going to function?
so it is a serious concern that would have to be worked out with the developer if this were to ever go forward and it's one that I don't see an easy answer to as an engineer.
>> I wanted to make sure we highlighted that because we deal with wastewater, septics all of these other things.
so I just wanted to get your comments on it.
>> okay.
>> that's another reason why I'm going to support the motion that was made.
because of all of the negatives that have been brought forth in this particular issue.
thank you.
>> judge, recognized me before he left as next.
he's back.
I just first wanted to say thank you to all of you who came up and made testimony today.
your testimony has been thorough and fact supported and that's really helpful to have that laid out by the residents as well as county staff.
secondly, I want to clarify something that in may be some confusion out there.
I want to make it really clear at least for purposes of the agenda items. I put it on here, we're not talking about navigable house boats.
house boats that are built for navigation and people may live on them from time to time.
but we are talking here strictly about habitable structures that are permanently anchored.
they may be floatable and moveable but they are permanently anchored.
secondly, I wanted to say that what we're proposing today is to basically support a resolution prohibiting these habitable structures that aren't designed for navigation purposes.
primarily.
and in doing so, my belief and direction on this is that the best place to -- to deal with all of these problems that have been, or potential problems, that have been raised today, would be for lcra to prohibit blanket on the highland lakes these floating habitable structures.
the reason that it's best done there is because we've already seen instance tenses where we have a handful of them on the highland lakes, we are already running into the challenging if you drop it down to the local level.
we have some authority but we may not have all of the authority as the county to do what needs to be done from a regulatory standpoint.
also, if it gets bumped down to the local level for regulation, you get into overlapping jurisdictions and the complications of coordination of the regulations.
so it's really better in my opinion that we encourage lcra.
they have a moratorium on this right now.
I believe they are -- that's through October and they are planning to make a determination on how they will deal with these.
so I would like to -- to just say that I believe it's irresponsible if these --
>> motion.
>> I'm just making comments on the motion.
the other thing that was highlighted that is critical to this prohibition is that it's not -- this is not about one project that people may not like.
there is one that triggered the consideration of this.
but we have underwater properties owned by a multitude of people on the highland lakes.
the challenge of dealing with floatable habitable structures on all of the highland lakes is a precedent that I just think would be irresponsible to go there at this point given all of the potential problems that we know could happen.
so I believe we have a motion.
>> Commissioner Gomez?
I just simply wanted to say thanks for coming down and letting us know where you are on this issue.
also the 30, 35 people who emailed, emailed me as well during the week and I'm sure they contacted other members of the court.
I told them that I would acknowledge receipt of their emails.
and so thanks very much for your participation.
>> all in favor of the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much for your input.
>> [ applause ] item no.
22.
oops, 23.
23 instead.
looks like 22 we'll reach this afternoon.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
