Travis County Commissioners Court
May 6, 2008
Item 18
18 is to consider -- by the way, we thank you for your patience this morning. Normally we had three or four people on the citizen's communication and we had quite a few more today and under our policy you have three minutes if you come during citizen's communication and it's sort of unpredictable I guess is what I知 saying. 18 is do consider and take appropriate action on the following. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. A plat for recording b. In precinct three: c. Reserve at westhill d. Phase i, a e. Resubdivision of lot f. B2 remainder, g. Northwest hills h. Ranch five total lots; i. Reserve at westhill j. Phase two, final plat, total of 13 lots.
>> hi, anna boling. Two weeks ago we heard this item at Commissioner's court and there was discussion about the tree ordinance. Permits, density and public notification. Since that time a question has been raised regarding drainage coming off of the site and I do have the city engineer that reviewed the drainage here with us today, and so she can address that in a public form.
>> okay. If we could get her name, we would be happy to get her comments.
>> washington protection development review.
>> can we have that name again?
>> jennifer grudy.
>> if you speak into that microphone and turn it towards through. Thank you.
>> as the plans stand right now, all the drainage is going to be drained to the back of the lots in the drainage channel that is going to be collected into an area inlet and directed to an off site water quality pond. And it will be discharged on to their own property. There is not any plans to discharge any water on to decay ranch road. That was a concern of the citizens, there would be additional drainage on to that road.
>> we think that remedy is sufficient in this case?
>> yes, sir.
>> any additional questions or concerns?
>> yes, sir, we have a number of them.
>> okay.
>> my name is jim sipowitz. I知 one of the residents of northwest hills ranch subdivision. I live on the other end of the subdivision. I知 speaking kind of impromptu today on behalf of our subdivision. The person who is supposed to be our spokesperson was out of town and I was trust into this role to forget me if I知 not on top of all of these matters. We take objection to the analysis being presented here that anything will be draining toward the back of the lot in this. I致e got some visuals and we've got a little clip of video to show the impact of how run-off runs off of this specific area down into resident's yards. One of the questions that I have is, what basis do you have for saying that there is no impact, because there has been absolutely, to our visible, and we've all walked this lot to see it, there has been no drainage improvement on that property what so ever. There are five farms already set for foundation pouring. In order to be able to create the drainage they claim that they have in there, they would have to grade the entire back of the lot and take off between four and six feet of the topsoil in order to be able to get it to drain to the back of the lot. It's physically impossible. I don't believe anybody has actually walked that property and seen it. And so we are here as citizens of this, asking for you guys not to approve this, and to go out there. I would invite to you come out there this afternoon or whenever you can to see exactly what has been done. If you looking at the lot, and I walked it last night, there is natural grass growing along the full length of the back of the lot. The drainage on the lot clearly runs from the back of the lot toward the street. The structure of the property is that there is basically a crest right at the third property. If you look at the property length wise along how the five pieces are being set, there is a crest on one side of the crest, water will flow towards city of Austin off toward, away from dec decey ranch, but if you look at the third lot moving westward, it is clear towards the ranch and nothing has been erected in terms 6 any kind of drainage. There has been no improvement to the land at all. I致e got some visual aids to proyou as well if you would like me to do that.
>> when would we be able to expect to see that, in fact, not only the design is for the drainage to be to the back of the lot, but the actually construction of the project was consistent with the design.
>> currently, they do not have a subdivision construction permit with the city of Austin. They cannot do any drainage improvements on that lot until the permit is approved and the permit cannot be approved until the platt is approved.
>> at some point during the construction, after the construction permit is issued --
>> correct.
>> somebody would go out and look and determine that in fact, construction is consistent with the design and drainage is towards the back of the lot? That's the question, right?
>> well, it's even more than that. It is physically impossible to change the grade of that because they've already set forms up for all of the foundations. They have actually started construction, even though they don't have a permit to do it. In order for them to properly grade that they will have to eliminate all of the current construction and grade it they've done nothing to it. They've set forms for five foundations but there is no improvement what so ever for drainage in anyway on the property already so I can't understand how they will grade after they pour these forms. I can't see how.
>> I can't answer to what they will have to do with the form, all I know is they are, by the plans they submitted to the city of Austin, they're required to drain all those properties away from the roadway, into a drainage channel.
>> what if, at the time inspection is made, the plans have not been carried out accordingly, what would happen?
>> there will be an inspector on site to ensure the plans are constructed as they were approved, and they will have to make any changes that, right the city or the inspector deems necessary to make sure that the plans are in compliance.
>> and to make sure it drains to the back of the lot and not on the street.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> chris white with waterloo development. I want to add a few comments. Previously discussed here is the issue of permits. As this point, we disagree with what the city said. There is drainage plans in process that we can't do the work on unless the platts are records, approved, recorded, the plans get approved and we start the work. Anything that needs to be done with respect to the lots, if the builder, they will need to take their forms down and fix it. We have plans that we have to abide by once those are approved, we can't get the subdivision approved without performing all the work in the plans. In turn, we don't get accepted by the city, certificate of man sees can't bish -- certificates of occupancies can't be issues and they can't move in. Our engineer that designed the plan is here as well if there is any questions with him.
>> this is consistent with the way that you-all have looked at this and have given okay. It would be in compliance with the recognition that this would take place, this manner. This stage has to happen in order for the applicant to move forward, but once this stage is okayed, then you have the safeguards in place before something can continue, correct?
>> yes, Commissioner. If I知 understanding your question correctly. After the platt is approved, there is -- on a platt that has infrastructure, street infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, there is at least two rounds of hammers, if you will, that we would have. One would have to do with the permits for building the streets and drainage, and signing off on those construction plans and issuing those permits. And then the second one would really be the building of the homes. The cities, in those permits. The cities has additional hammers in things like cos and things of that nature because of electricitity, so that is very consistent with what I know to be the process.
>> I guess my question is, let's say that at what point during the construction does the inspector on the premises determine whether, in fact, the con suggested drainage is consistent -- constructed drainage is consistent with the design and would be toward the back of the lot?
>> if I remember correctly the only improvements on this particular platt am situation grading, there is -- application is grading, there is no street improvements. So they would be out there the entire time of construction.
>> they are saying some foundation work is being done.
>> but that is not through the subdivision construction plans, that is a building permit issue.
>> I believe, and my engineer can correct me if I知 wrong, drainage is one of the first issues addressed during the construction process or the land development process. Initially, you go out and make your basic street cuts, if any, make pond and work on drainage improvements up front and have to have that to a certain point in order to dive into the rest of it in order as quickly as possible to remove any off-site issues that may be created. So early on, we will be in there working on the drainage channel at the back of the lots, working on our pond downstream and capturing things as quickly as possible.
>> what we typically -- meaning the inspector, take a look at the drainage construction early in the construction process, and determine whether, in fact, drainage is toward the back or the front?
>> correct, yes, that would happen.
>> and so if the inspector concludes that in fact, drainage is not towards the back, what would he or she do?
>> she would issue some sort of a change order with the contractor to ensure that the plans are complied with. That it drains to the back of the lot.
>> so we would have drainage to the back of the lot one way or another before the project is completed.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the city is the enforcing entity on this, and you-all are saying in fact that is what you'll do.
>> yes, sir.
>> what do we do in terms of construction? Just wish them well?
>> what do you mean, construction in the city etj?
>> drainage towards the back. Do we have any role?
>> no, we would be looking to -- our engineer is actually coordinated with miss grody and we would be looking to be sure that when there is two jurisdictions there is full-purpose city and etj that both pieces are looked at holistically so we know that the drainage is being reviewed and where it is going to go. So we would look at that and, you know, we would be interested too if something came up in inspection that needed to be modifieded, depending on which jurisdiction it was, we would definitely be interested too.
>> our leverage, make sure I understand this, is if we go out and find that, in fact, trainage is not toward the back as designed and promised, then our leverage is not issuing the occupancy permit?
>> correct.
>> which means in spite of the fact the homes have been built, you cannot occupy them until the drainage issue has been addressed?
>> correct.
>> our problem is there is no way to remediate unless the construction is torn down again so at that point the construction goes on and they halt the occupancy, the permission for occupancy. There is still no way to remediate the problem.
>> they won't be able to sell the homes.
>> correct, but still, we will have the physical run off. One of the big problems we have is that we are at the corner of where city infrastructure is and county infrastructure s. Half of the lot drains into city sewer, half of it drains on to the street. There is no plan that we know of for the city to go in and provide storm sewer drainage for the west side of the property, so no matter what they do, unless they drain not only to the back of the lot but also from the west to the east end of the lot, there is no way that it can be done without drainage on to ranch road and the properties adjacent to it, it is impossible because there is nowhere for it to go but across the street and into the neighbor's yard.
>> the plans during the construction process addresses that problem. We take everything back to the east, decay is our boundary to the east, we take everything to the east and drainage pond.
>> they are saying you can't go out there now and see that.
>> what you can see is the construction has already begun. Okay, number one. Number two, what you can also see is there is a physical crest of a hill halfway up the property that will have to be completely eliminated and graded to a downhill slope in order to drain water away from decay ranch road that would be across the entire length of the rear end of that property.
>> or a diversion channel. You wouldn't have to grade the whole -- I知 not an engineer --
>> all the way across the back of the property in that way, and because of the way the property tilts and the way it sits they would have to dig down into the property and create a channel in order for it not to be able to go on to decay ranch road. I would be very interested in seeing any kind of plan that can physically divert the water, because from what we see and from everything we can tell, a, there has gone effort to do it, and b, there would be an enormous expense and a huge impact on the land to be able to grade it in that direction. Huge, huge.
>> if I may, again, the reason you haven't seen anything is we have not been permitted to do any of the improvements.
>> I understand but the construction has already begun.
>> as I believe you are aware that was due to an inadvertent building permit issue that has been addressed. We are required, if these plans get approved in the form they are which has been testified to that we will address the drainage problem by grading, we're required to do that. If the builder has to go out and scrape the pads they started, they will have to do that. We have to address the issue or my subdivision doesn't get accepted, I don't get contractors paid, houses don't get sold, certificates of occupancy, there are a number of mechanisms to ensure that this is properly done.
>> I guess all we would ask as citizens, and I don't know the legal procedure for how all these things work, but once this is platted and set for construction, and they get in there and do it, there will be no way to offset any of the impacts that it will have on the people on the ranch side of this.
>> so do you just tell these people to go away? Is this what you do?
>> no.
>> how do you move this thing forward when you have got two departments that's saying that there are safeguards to make sure that this gets done properly, if it doesn't, then --
>> I would ask to see their work. We have asked and we have not been provide any information about that, about where the math comes up for for any of this. We don't believe anyone has actually physically walked the property.
>> do you all have an engineer? Snoops which don't.
>> I know you don't -- snoops we don't.
>> I know you don't, we don't expect to you hire an engineer, that is not the design here this can only move forward if it is done adequately and properly. I know you don't think it can. I don't know that it can but I i am awilling to accept the city of Austin's sign off. I have worked with our department and asked is there any reason why we should not be doing this and if there is, sell me and we won't do it. There is nobody up here that wants to do something -- this will be an impasse. When craig called me and said we want to delay this, I said craig, we have been going through this. This did not take place just last week. But we've got to move forward if we think that we have sign-off from our department and the city of Austin, and if there is an infraction during the time, now maybe, I知 sure I can go out there and go wow this thing looks like it is coming down here and how do you make this thing work. Ii'm saying what my eyes tell me and what the engineers say, this is how it has to be done and if it doesn't get down the city of Austin and our office say you can't move. There is water run off now by virtue of the lay of the land. Anna, is it still the opinion of our tnr that this meets and that you are in agreement that this is something that you're continued to sign off on.
>> to double check the drainage situation, I talked to miss grody yesterday because she is the engineer that reviewed the drainage and I wanted to be sure that even given the concerns we had heard about water draining on to dk ranch road, to answer your question, I needed to know if she shoot by her recommend -- if she stood by her recommendation and she did and she has. I still would attest that it appears to meet our requirements and we would recommend approval.
>> you want to walk us through what you just gave us, make sure we understand the importance.
>> we have, this is just some physical back up for what we're talking about. If you will refer to the large images of the land. Number one, the view looking from dk ranch road up --
>> do you have another copy?
>> sorry.
>> what we're looking at in number one is um Texas plume toward johan. This looks up to the crest of the hill and I don't know the elevation rising, four and six feet, from the corner stop sign up crest of the hill. Between the crest of the hill and the bottom of the street there is no city storm drainage what so ever, none. There is drainage going into it after the other side of the hill. And we are not really arguing with that aspect of the development, but on this side of the hill, by virtue of the way that the land slopes down, all water is, unless you just, I mean, unless you have huge trenches to carry water or some kind of storm diversion type of infrastructure in there, it is going to run along the land. Okay. The side, or the width, if you look on the back -- okay, if you look on number four, you can see where there have already been forms set and, you know, we're not arguing with that here, but you can see that back behind that that line of trees right there is on the other side of the property. There is a very narrow area to where it could be graded at this point without removing construction. Now, we have just heard mr. Blackburn say if need be they will go in and remove every bit of construction that's in there, but our concern is that no matter what do you, because of the fact there is no city storm sewer there, unless you erect something or unless you grade the land downward from where they are, there is no way for there not to be run off on to dk ranch road. Our question really is what is the basis for the city of Austin's recommendation. Have they been out there to look at it? Have they looked at the actual physical properties of this? Or are they relying on information that has been provided to them? We would ask that they go and actually physically look at the property to determine whether or not it is even feasible not to have run off on this property.
>> are you asking the city to do something about -- let's say that these people weren't building, are you asking the city of Austin we want you to come down because the natural top fee out here is water -- topo ography out here, there is water naturally running downhill. Or is this because they are building and you want them to take care of the natural water that runs down there.
>> it is not just water, it is fertilizer on the yards, oil that drains off the driveway.
>> what you're asking then is either come out and level this piece of ground, which we know that that is not what people want because part of the problem with this thing is trees and -- I understand that, that is how this thing got started or it came to us. From an engineering standpoint, if there -- I can see from the crest or from wherever the houses are going to be placed and, let's say behind the houses, you've got to take and deal with that water so that you are not increasing the flow, that is effectively what the city says you cannot increase. That's the major point of concern that the city of Austin generally gets into.
>> the land development code requires to you not have any increase at any point on the property.
>> and with the construction of these homes, is it your opinion that that will not increase?
>> it will actually decrease. It will take some run off that was normally going to dk ranch road and directing it into the drainage channel along the back of the property and into the proposed water quality pond.
>> and is that -- are you an engineer?
>> yes, sir.
>> so that is your engineer opinion?
>> yes, sir.
>> as well. Well that's the reason we, I was willing to say okay let's hold up on this thing until we can get with the city's engineer and she needs to tell us that that is something that they are continuing to sign off on. You see where we are with this thing. We have engineers sitting here say this is something we know can be done, they are going to be forced to do this and there is not going to be additional flow off of this track on, you know torque dk ranch road. I mean, I realize people want to shake their heads and they don't agree, but if we're in disagreement over the fact that we don't want the thing to happen, then that is where we are in a bind. I mean, it's not -- I don't care about whether it happens or not. What I care about is the right thing being done here. And the right thing to be done here is to force somebody to do whatever they've got to do from an engineering standpoint, which is the reason you have the government allen at this timeties saying this is what we do and you have engineers to sign off and say you are not going to go any further until you do this, which is effectively what the city of Austin is saying.
>> we're curious whether the city's engineer has actually seen the property. Have you been on the property?
>> I have not been on the property but I have viewed several aerial photographs and all submitted records are public for viewing. You are welcome to give me a call and --
>> we actually have given you a number of calls.
>> I致e called several times and left messages and I have not heard back. The plans I have are public record. I have them with me, after the meeting be you are welcome to look at them. They are public record.
>> it is my understanding that the procedure at county and the city that we take the engineering submittal at face value because it has been stamped by certified engineers. Because, from an efficiency standpoint we couldn't have the city and county staff sufficient to eyeball every single project for which an engineering report is required. Now, that said, one of the reasons we have a series of checks and balances after receiving an engineer's report is that if an engineer messes it up, either intentionally or unintentionally, we can prevent the property from being used in the way it was proposed because there was a mess-up. So, frankly, I think the question of whether the city has physically gone out to view the location is not really, is not really relevant, given the procedure that is set up in case the certified engineer's plan doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Either inadvertently or for some nefarious reason. I correct about that, as far as the city and county procedures? Do we take them at face value if they are a certified, licensed engineer.
>> we also reviewed the engineering plans and they are, I know --
>> right.
>> I知 assuming the same thing is true on the city side as the county. Just because an engineer comes up and submitted a field set of plans we don't say cart blanch here is your permit, you are good to. Go we review that, there is comments, it goes back and forth until we are comfortable that set of plans accomplishes the requirements of the regulations and I知 very sure the city does the him.
>> good correction, not that we take it at face value but we take the four corners of the document, we don't go beyond it to a field visit unless there are extenuating circumstances.
>> let's say that there has been goof ups, not designed, but they do occur, and not criticizing the professionalism of any engineer, whether they are county or private engineers, wherever they may come from. We rely on their expertise assertified engineers to ensure what they say is really going to happen. But let's say that there are instances where it does not happen according to what the engineers have said. And the decrease in this particular case as far as run off or drainage is concerned, the decrease of water and things like that is something that engineers can take and deal with and the design of what is taking place will be a decrease in the water flow, according to what I知 hearing. But let's say it doesn't work. What recourse at that time does the citizen examples that have come here stating their case have to correct the measure, if at any stage of this process we find out that the engineers have basically, it didn't work. What type of legal recourse do the citizens have to make sure that the problem is corrected and who would bear the burden to make it correct for all the things promised to the community. How does that work?
>> I would say this subdivision is posting fiscal or probably at this point has probably posted fiscal for the streets and drainage component, that it is largely being discussed today. But certainly it's going to have to work and it will have to work and designed before, you know, streets are accepted, before fiscal is released. And we would have our, you know, the city would have their inspectors reviewing it throughout, but then I would imagine just as with the county, before they would accept the street, they would have to have a punch list and be sure all the streets and drainage work per planned.
>> and that is common practice with us, but I wanted to make sure that the persons that are listening to this understand that there is leverages that can be pulled when things are not done correctly as stated as they would be. And of course, you pointed out what the county can do. Because these streets do come before us to be accepted as part of the, of our management system and part of the streets that we have to accept that we maintain overall the streets within the subdivision. So those are some leverages that we have, and I wanted to make sure everyone understood that. It is just not a cut and dry deal that I知 hearing hereby there there is no responsibility left on the persons coming here with these particular proposals and the engineers involved. There is a process so I want to make sure everyone understand that thank you.
>> one of the things I would just like to address with what, with what anna said, was it has to work. And our question is, what is our -- and you tried to address this, what is our recourse if it does not.
>> exactly.
>> and I did not really understand the response. The response that I understood was it has to work.
>> I think I値l reiterate, I think what she said is we are essentially holding a big wad of money assurance against the homebuilder in case it doesn't work. We take their money, don't accept the platt, don't give them a certificate of occupancy, and whatever hammers are out there combined.
>> there is quite a few.
>> let me ask a question then, because they've already financed construction, although, albeit without a permit and that is really not the discussion here. In the area that we're concerned with because it hands to be part of our subdivision, the five lots that have already had construction begun are only a small part of the eventual develop. That will be done further down the road, which we have no bearing on because it is not part of our subdivision. But the question we have though is will they be laying out in grading that entire subdivision before they start any construction on any of these houses? Because what really concerns us is that we see forms already set looking like they're ready to be poured the minute that these plans are approved. And the fact if that happens, then there will be aspects of it, perhaps a small corner of it that doesn't work, if, you know, if our fears are realized.
>> if it doesn't work, what I知 hearing and correct me if this interpretation is wrong, but what I知 hearing is if the engineering that has been proposed to address the drainage issue doesn't work, then all of their investments in the property will not be returned to them because they won't be able to sell their homes. So ergo, it is the probability of them doing it, not accomplishing this drainage requirement is very low because why would someone blow money down a rat hole and not be able to sell the home.
>> agreed, I totally understand that, but gain really does not address what the remediation would be were it to go forward and then -- but I do, I understand that we can't really continue that because it is a circular argument.
>> and also that goes t what you're private legal recourse might be if there was some damage to the adjacent property which I don't think our county attorneys could address that because it wasn't be the county's recourse, it would be private legal recourse if there was some drainage issue exacerbated on adjacent property. I would assume there is some sort of legal resource there as well but it is not counties, it is individuals.
>> right.
>> why don't we get you on this mike right here if we can. Have you a question? Also, view 7, 8, 9 and 10 if you walk us through. Hold on, not yet. Yes, sir thank you, your honor. I知 one of the buyers actually of lot number five. The east shore, the discussion on whether these lots can be sold or not, all 17 lots to my knowledge have been sold. So there is actually families out there waiting for these houses to be built. And yes, you are correct, I think obtaining mortgages and so on and so forth would be an issue if any one of the plans, including drainage, was not built up to the spec. The question I have is that I have actually spent quite a bit of time going through the proceedings of the previous two meetings that you had in this room. Here I am, listening to a discussion on if the engineer did his job correctly, and I imagine that's why they're paid some fees to be coming up with these plans. I imagine we have the city and the Travis County involved such that they make sure that things get built up to spec. So the question I have is that what makes us believe that the drainage plans that may or may not have been seen by people inside this room today outside the engineer who is a registered professional engineer, as I understand it, what makes us believe that they are not going to work. And, by the way, I teach engineering classes at the university of Texas and today I知 representing just myself as a buyer, any engineering problem that I saw has more than one solution. You may perceive you will slant it one way or another way, and I have not seen the drainage plans, however I have no reason to doubt that the existing plans are not correct. If they are not correct, what is the recourse is the got put on the table, the recourse is we have, as I understand it, course in this country, you can actually sue the engineer and they would lose their license. So they are bound to do their job correctly, as I understand it thank you.
>> according to the engineer in our conversation here before, I did understand her to say that those plans and everything were basically public record and they will be made available to anybody who want to look at them. You are an engineer, I would suspect you would probably want to -- if it was me and I was buying something out there, I would want to seat plans also.
>> I have been out at that property several times there was a claim made that these forms are set and they're not going to get taken down. In my particular case, the builder was actually concerned about drainage. They are making modifications, they are incurring additional costs to address these drainage issues. This is why I say that I have no reason to believe they're going to do a shabby job and you are going to have drainage problems. Can I not speak for them, I知 not the builder, I知 not the engineer, I assume no responsibility, but what I知 saying is I have no reason to doubt they're not going to do it correctly.
>> but it is a plausible question for them to ask what happens in the estent doesn't because there are examples throughout this county that we thought we had done a job and there would not be an issue and it is a legitimate question to ask. You were fiscal posted and our out to this thing is if for some reason there was not something that was adequately done, you have the resources because nobody wants to go, you know, and get things tied up in court and that is the than builders have to post fiscal so that you can take care of an issue if it is an issue. We understand that nobody up here wants you all to have any sort of an issue with water. We already got an issue with water by the natural lay of the land out there, and if there is not going to be more, and as a matter of fact, you know, in jennifer's statement, there is actually going to be less, we still have to make sure we get it done right. The fiscal is what we have this in place to do, and that is what we need to get done.
>> assistant county attorney has comments.
>> as I understand, there are really two questions being asked. One is have the engineers for the city and the county correctly assessed whether or not this engineering drainage plan is appropriate. That is a completely separate issue from the second question I understood have you today have asked which is what happens if they don't follow the plan when they finish the construction. It has been explained that one of the requirements of our regulations are that they post security in the form of a bond, which we, the county, or the city can draw down that bond is supposed to be in amounts sufficient to complete the street and drainage plans in accordance with the plans approved by our engineers. If for some reason it's not, for example the example you posed, they've already built houses there and you would have to tear the houses down to do drainage, I don't know if that is the reality in this situation but if it were and the bond is insufficient, the statute that provides for the streets and drainage allows to you sue the developer and the county to sue the developer and obtain an injunk from the court to require the developtory comply with the plans. So the first step is we have money the city and you county can take and simply complete the project ourselves. If that is not sufficient, we have the option of filing suit and getting an injunction to have the developer threat correctly in accordance with the plans that are approved. So I can't think, and I actually 25 years ago lobbied to get the injunction portion added to the institute, I can't think what other legal remedy we could have that would be more sufficient than that. If you have a question about whether the plans are appropriately approved, that is a question you probably need to take to your own engineer or looking at the plans yourself and see. That is an engineering question. But the legal question, we have the legal tools should we elect to use them to force the plans that were approved to be completed as they were approved. Those tools are in place.
>> thank you.
>> you had question, earlier.
>> I live at is1080 dk ranch road. I don't know anything about the zoning process but I know we live in Texas and sometimes we go a long time without rain. What if they finish the building and people move in and then we find out there is issues. What would happen then? What would we -- as a homeowner, caddy corntory this property, who would I -- caddy corner to this property, who would I contact to say hey, I have a whole lot more water than I used to.
>> depending on if the water is coming from a county or city road, you would contact from the departments.
>> it wouldn't come from a city road because I知 in the county.
>> right.
>> contact anna that is the first thing
>> [laughter]
>> the answer to that is contact your own attorney and have them you as to your rights in that case. You might have legal rights but our legal right is to enforce the plans that are approved fan we enforce those plans and it is constructing in accordance with the plans and then it turns out those plans are inadequate we will have discharged our legal rights. That is probably why you need to consult with your own engineer to see whether or not you think the city and county engineers have appropriately evaluated the plans. But your question as to what the remedy is, we have the legal tools available to force any developer to complete the project the way the design was approved by the engineers.
>> and if I heard what was just said correctly, after the occupancy permits have been granted, then that recourse is basically discharged and then it would be up to us to pursue it further?
>> what I知 telling you is I can tell you what legal rights and responsibilities of the county are.
>> right and that is what I was asking.
>> I can't not ethically tell you what your legal rights are, you need to consult your own attorney.
>> in terms of the county responsibility, once the occupancy permit has been issued, then it becomes our issue and the county is no longer involved because they've issued the permits?
>> it may or not be that the county involved, that is something you would need to consult with your own attorney about, whether have you recourse with the county for inappropriately approving the plan, for example. I cannot ethically give you advice. I can tell you what the county does and the county has the right to force the project to be built according to the plans.
>> the idea is that you're asking if we've approved the plans but the plans end up being inadequate and everything goes through and somebody moved into the place and you are having problems it is now in your lap because we didn't doe what we were supposed to do.
>> correct.
>> I hear that and respect that but there certainly has been circumstances where that has occurred in the state of Texass, but from what we've heard today though, we would have to have a failure of three engineers, the project engineer, the city engineer, and the county engineer. Now, while that's possible, I would venture to say it is not probable. And that any failure in a system that included three separate entities with engineers, there is a bunch of checks and balances between now and the time those houses get built. That should pick up any problem before any duty of the county discharged.
>> fair enough.
>> and additionally, there is a political reality here too. If the government allen at this timety fails to do its work as the representatives of the community, the community votes the representatives out. So you've got a number of safeguards here and I think they are all working, and if they don't work we should see red flags far before the scenario you just painted would play out.
>> and I appreciate, and that put it is very clearly that two of your explanations of this address most of the issue and questions that I have as a member of this community. The one thing that I would ask is, because, I mean, I致e been a resident there for eight years. We've talked about many people than came up earlier, none of us were approached about this, the signage that was -- the public discussion signage faced away from where we lived, we were completely unaware. I think if you took a poll of everyone in our subdivision who have, if not, if nothing else private deed restriction ties to this property, we were not given any information about this happening until we saw the construction happening and the scraping of the trees and all that and you might understand that would set us really atweak on how this process works.
>> it would me if I were a neighbor.
>> we don't have any information about the drainage, about neigh is proposed. We've seen nothing. We've asked for information and to my knowledge, I can't speak for anyone else, but to my knowledge and I致e tried to stay on top of what is going on with this we have growth see any of those plans and at part of the community that this is being built in to have been solicited or involved in anyway, and so what I would ask is, is there anyway for us to be more meaningfully involved in this.
>> how far are you from the project?
>> I知 on the other end of the subdivision. Maybe a quarter mile.
>> how far?
>> a quarter mile. She is directly across the street.
>> I知 across the street.
>> were you aware of this particular --
>> no. No.
>> okay. And this has been brought up several times, whether it is in, whatever form, and that is a portion that the county had required. We put seenage up required for notification concerns. In my mind, in my opinion, there is definitely inconsistency in notification of things that are coming into neighborhoods, whatever it may be. We do what we're required to do, but we are in some sometimes a disagreement or not in tune with the government allen at this timeties, the city -- governmental entities. So this has been brought up on many occasions. We have looked at this and try to address some notifications. We changed some policy on notifications as far as the county is concerned and we are stylebook working ton -- we arel working on it because it is a challenge. Somewhere along the line, we have to do a better job in notifying people what's going on at least where they can get started in early. You don't feel like you have been slamdunked in this process. So I am still working hard and this whole court, in my opinion is still working hard in trying to come up with the proper way for notification where we can look at the thing early on, you are you can look at it early on and hopefully have a lot of questions out before this type of setting takes place.
>> and I did not mean to bring up the issue of notification as being an issue here because that has been addressed previously. More to my point what we're asking for is there anyway for us, as citizens of the subdivision in which some of this construction is being done, to be in anyway notified of what the plans are going forward, what it is going to mean to our community, what it means in terms of any kind of impact, because we've not been involved and we feel like this has been thrown on us. We would like to understand the drainage plans, obviously, I致e not seen them because --
>> but notification leads into that subject matter. That is exactly what the point of saying the plans, all the other thing, the drainage, all those other things you've mentioned here today, notification leads into that kind of subject matter so that's what -- the court has really been struggling with and it is a challenge for all of us and there is room for improvement.
>> and our strug sell what do we do -- struggle is what do do we going forward to try to resolve this relationship so we don't feel a need to constantly be, you know, bull dogging the builder. Okay, I would love for there not to be any acrimony involved in this, but unfortunately, things have been done to the point that have brought the citizens of the subdivision to the point we feel a very adversary relationship with the builder and there is no reagrees of that what so ever and we feel like we've been ignored. What I知 asking for is probably not something the court can mandate but we would like dialogue and more than just curt discussions about what we are going to do with your property. That is what we would like. And I just want to say, you know, as a homeowner I知 going to protect what is mine and property values and the quality of life we have, that is what I知 doing here today. I appreciate your time listening to us and your explanations to everything and we don't want to be back here continuing to go through process but unfortunately, I worry there are many things that still haven't been resolve with the relationship between the people of the community and the builder. Though they may not be addressed here, we don't feel like it is being a lot done to include us in any aspect of the process. And that is probably my final comment.
>> final brief comments? Any?
>> I値l just say as far as communication when we finish today, I would be happy to give you my business card. There has been a sign on the property for six months with a phone number. I致e handed out business cards, I致e posted my name or web site, e-mail address, phone numbers on the message board for the neighborhood, con contacted the neighborhood association, I致e done everything I could short of addressing everyone individualsly in a letter and maybe I should have done that. I apologize for that I want you bull dogging that, if you see something out there if this gets approved, I want you to call me and tell me. I知 not in this business to fin project and then leave town. I hope to be in this business for a long time and in order to do that, I致e got to work with the community. I think I致e tried to. I知 proud of the way I致e tried, I believe I致e done a good effort, but if you see something, I want you calling me, knock on my door, let me know if you have a problem with anything.
>> final comments from city or county staff? If we could get you on this phone right here, will you let her use that microphone.
>> I知 also a resident of this neighborhood and I might bring it to your attention if you've notified or spoken to or e-mailed anyone, you are talking to the people in the wrong subdivision. We are in northwest hills ranch and you have notified none of us. We have our own yahoo group, you have never posted knowing that group. You have notified the wrong neighborhood. You have notified the neighborhood coming up next, 13 or 12 lots being not these five lots.
>> okay.
>> then I may have made a mistake. I based it off the city's web site information on the neighborhood associations that surround the property, that is who I contacted.
>> he is willing to give you his card so if you need to communicate after today -- okay. Is there a motion?
>> yes. I move approval of 18 ab and c.
>> second.
>> discussion? We did get briefing last time and unfortunately, we have been advised by staff that our county policies have been met. And my understanding is that by law, we have no choice by to approve.
>> and chris, I mean, whatever --
>> approve the notification, I think the signage and stuff we have on the property is one of the processes the county is getting involved, that sign and stuff like. That of course there may be some short falls before the property notification as this young lady did bring to our attention this is a challenge, it is a serious challenge?
>>
>> : and chris with that motion, I really need for you to work with this neighborhood.
>> I understand.
>> I mean, obviously, you know, we're very aware. I know there are people that don't like it, and that's --
>> you are always going to fight that.
>> that is government. I mean, we've all learned it up here, but we are not your adversary. If you have an issue that you think is not being dealt with, I mean, I think you can probably call any of our offices and let us make a phone call and say you've got to get this done because nobody want as train wreck here. Nobody wants that to happen. So, I mean, please do that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Unanimous court. All in favor.
>> thank you for your time.
>> thank you all.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 8:51 PM