[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
EVERYONE, I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED HERE.
AGAIN, THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME.
I THINK MY, MY ADRENALINE IS DOWN FROM, I TH THAT I 35 RUSH
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE BUILDING AND SENATORS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR OCTOBER 26, 26, 20 22, AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE TIME IS 6 48.
I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.
AND, UM, AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO CALL, ROLL AND ASK FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, THAT ARE, UH, MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU ARE HERE.
UM, A QUICK REMINDER, IF YOU ARE PROMOTING IN, UM, AND WE HAVE, UH, UH, SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE, ARE CALLING IN.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR CAMERAS ON SO AS, UH, SO WE CAN MAINTAIN QUORUM.
BUT, UH, IF YOU ARE PROMOTING IN, YOU CAN MUTE YOURSELF IF YOU WISH.
SO, UM, SO I KNOW, UH, SIDE'S NOT HERE, SO SHE'S ABSENT.
UH, I'M PRESENT AT FERRERA WARDY THOMPSON.
BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.
DO WE AND, AND DO WE HAVE, WHO DO WE HAVE? NO, WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FOUR OF THE SIX CASES ON THE POSTED AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER FOUR CASES FROM FOUR SEPARATE PROPERTIES.
THE CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE.
ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DEC, QUORUM AND CIVILITY, SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.
THE COMMISSION'S COORDINATOR, MELANIE ALLEY, WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY.
MELANIE, WILL YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? THANK YOU.
AUSTIN CODE STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM.
IF YOU ARE, OR IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.
THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESS THIS.
FIRST, YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MAY ASK THE WITNESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.
AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.
YOU WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
WHEN THE TIMER INDICATES THAT YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, YOU MUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE AND CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WILL OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER THIS EVENING, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
AFTER YOU AND THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.
AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.
BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT, AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU.
A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING, UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED WITNESSES TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
[00:05:01]
PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTE DIGGING IN, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.YES, ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT TESTIMONY.
AND INCLUDING THOSE REMOTE IN.
DO YOU, DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.
IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
MELANIE, BEFORE, DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER THE, THE MINUTES, APPROVE
[1. Approve the minutes of the Building and Standards Commission regular meeting on September 28, 2022.]
THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022 REGULAR MEETING.COPIES OF THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE IN THE GOOGLE DRAFT FOLDER.
AND READERS SHOULD YOU NEED TO REVIEW THEM, I, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 'EM.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
DOES THIS HAVE TO BE AN ORAL VOTE OR CAN WE JUST RAISE OUR HANDS? ORAL WOULD BE BETTER SINCE WE HAVE PEOPLE OFF.
SO I'LL CALL YOUR NAME AND PLEASE SAY I IF YOU APPROVE THE MINUTES, UM, I APPROVE THEM.
DAD, I, CAN YOU MUTE YOURSELF AND I OKAY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
WITH THE MINUTES APPROVED, UM, MELANIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN CALLING OUR CASES? YES.
AND CHAIR, BEFORE WE BEGIN CALLING THE STA THE CASES, I WANTED TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, 4 0 3 AND 4 0 5 HACKBERRY LANE, HAVE BOTH BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT.
[2. Case Number: CL 2022-152966]
SO I'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.IN THE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING FIVE 18 SUNNY LANE.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CL 20 22 1 5 2 9 66.
THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN ONE OF THE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH WAS CITED BY THE AUSTIN CODE DEPARTMENT FOR AN UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL ON THE PROPERTY IN THE READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
YOU'LL FIND STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.
EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER, THE COMPLAINANT CASE HISTORY, COPIES OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF HEARING AND POSTINGS, AND AN EMAIL BETWEEN DSD AND AUSTIN.
CODE REGARDING PERMITTING EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOS AND A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
AND LASTLY, AUSTIN CODE'S RECOMMENDATION.
AUSTIN CODE INSPECTOR EDMUND SUE IS HERE TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS THAT LED UP TO THE APPEAL.
INSPECTOR SUE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS EDON SUE AUSTIN, CO DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICT INVESTIGATORS ON AUGUST 22ND, 2022, CITY OF AUSTIN RECEIVE A COMPLAINT REGARDING WORK WITHOUT PERMIT IN THE REAR RETAINING WALL.
AND, UH, FIVE ONE A SUNNY LANE IS A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEXT BY THE EAST RIVERSIDE STREET.
UM, AND THE CASE INVOLVED MULTI MUL MULTIPLE CITY ENTITIES IN THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS, AND AUSTIN CO DEPARTMENTS.
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEWER, UH, INSPECTOR
[00:10:01]
WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THE REAR RETAINING WALL, UH, NEEDING A BUILDING PERMIT.DUE TO MULTI-LAYERED TERRANCE, UH, THE SURCHARGE OF THE FLOW WILL OCCUR IN THE REAR, UH, LANDSCAPE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE AND DISHES.
AND ANOTHER REASON FOR THE OWNER TO RE, UH, TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT IS THE REAR RETAINING WALL WAS, UH, ENCROACHING TO A CITY EASEMENTS.
UH, ACCORDING TO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION SYSTEM, UH, DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A STONE WATER DRAINAGE PIPE THAT RUNS ACROSS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE LATEST NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT OUT TO THE OWNER AND AGENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2022.
AS, UH, UH, OCTOBER 19TH, 2022, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE CO VIOLATION STILL EXISTS ON THE PROPERTIES, AND WE WILL BE, UH, PRESENTING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE IN EXHIBIT, UH, TWO A THROUGH TWO GS.
UH, LET ME GET TO THE PICTURE.
SO FROM THE PICTURE OF TWO A'S, UH, IT SHOWS THE, THE FRONT, THE PROPERTY WITH THE ADDRESS BY ONE AND THE PICTURE TWO, IT WAS A MEASUREMENTS OF THE RETAINING WALL ON SITE, UH, WHICH IS, UH, MEASURE LISTENING FOUR FEET, UH, OF THE INITIAL RETAINING WALL.
AND THE PICTURE TWO C IT SHOWS, UH, FROM THE, UH, OVERVIEW LANDSCAPING LOOKING DOWN OF THE, UH, REAR, REAR YARD LANDSCAPE.
AND PICTURE TWO D IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE, THE REAR YARD LANDSCAPE, BUT FROM SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN PICTURE TWO E IS THE FINAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION EDITIONS OF THE RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTIES.
CAN WE GET THE, THE PHOTOS TO KIND OF SYNC UP WITH THE TESTIMONY, I THINK? SURE.
THE LAST ONE WAS TWO E THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING.
SO THIS PICTURE TWO B IS THE, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH SHOWS, UH, LET'S SEE, LESS THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
AND IN CITY ORDINANCE, UH, THERE, THERE'S A PHRASE SAYING THAT IF IT'S LESS THAN FOUR FEET, UH, RETAINING WALL DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT.
BUT THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY, UM, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
UM, WHICH BECAUSE THE OWNER HAVE, UH, ADD MULTIPLE ADDITION TO THE PROPERTIES, YOU ACTUALLY CHANGE THE, THE WHOLE SURCHARGE OF THE RARE YARD LANDSCAPING.
UM, ON TOP OF THAT, UM, THROUGH THE EXPLANATION, I, I SHOWED THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A STONE DRAINAGE PIPE EASEMENT GOING THROUGH THE PROPERTIES, AND ANY KIND OF STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT IN THE EASEMENT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A, A BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, AND IN THE PROCESS, THEY'LL OBTAIN, UH, A EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, UH, BEFORE THEY CAN BUILD ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROCESS.
AND IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET, UH, AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT, UM, IN THE CITY.
AND THIS PICTURE IN TWO C IS, UH, FROM THE OVERVIEW, UH, FROM THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING DOWNWARDS, UM, TO THE EAST, UH, RIVERSIDE, UH, SHOWING THE, THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTIES.
AND THEN PICTURE TWO D IS ON THE SIDE OF PROPERTY ALSO LOOKING DOWNWARDS TO SHOW HOW STEEP OF THE LANDSCAPE.
AND THEN, UM, ORIGINALLY ACCORDING TO THE OWNER, UM, THERE'S, UH, VEGETATION TREES ON THERE, AND THEN HE REMOVE THOSE TREES AND HE'S AFRAID OF, UH, CAUSING MUD SLIDE TO THE RIVERSIDE STREET.
AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT HE'S TRYING TO BUILD RETAINING WALLS.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE GOING TO THE PICTURE AT TO E UM, TWO E IS THE FINAL PRODUCT OF THE, THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.
UM, THERE'S MULTI LAYERS OF RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK.
IT'S, UH, MUCH BIGGER THAN, UH, WHAT ORIGINALLY, UH, WE WERE WHEN WE WERE ON SITE.
[00:15:01]
F IS, UH, JUST SHOWING THAT, UH, IN OCTOBER 19 RECENTLY, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS STILL IN VIOLATION, IS STILL EXISTING ON THE PROPERTIES.AND, UH, IN PICTURE TWO G IS THE CITY ORDINANCE, UM, THAT GIVE US, UM, THAT WE GOT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UM, SHOWING THAT EVEN THOUGH, UH, INITIALLY THE RETAINING WALL IS LISTING FOUR FEET, HE ORIGINALLY MAY NOT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
BUT, UH, DUE TO THE CHANGE OF SURCHARGE, UM, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY DO REQUIRE HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT.
AND DUE TO ALL THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED, UM, CITY OF AUSTIN COKE DEPARTMENT, WE RECOMMEND THE OWNER TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THIS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO G, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS CODES.
RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE AND DENY THE OWNER'S APPEAL.
AND, UM, THIS IS WHERE WE MOVE TO ACCEPT THIS IN THE RECORD, CORRECT? YES.
GO AHEAD AND ADMIT THE STAFF EXHIBITS.
SO I'D LIKE TO ADMIT STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO G, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, UM, UH, INTO THE RECORD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANNA SPEAK NOW, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SOME, UH, REPRESENTATIVES FROM DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ONLINE.
UH, YEAH, WE CAN HEAR THE CITY SIDE FIRST, AND THEN I KNOW WE HAVE, UH, UM, WE HAVE AN APPELLANT OWNER REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK AFTERWARDS.
SO, UM, WHOEVER'S ON FROM THE CITY, PLEASE, UH, I GUESS IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND UNMUTE YOURSELF.
UH, YEAH, SCOTT COCHRAN, UH, RESIDENTIAL DIVISION MANAGER, UH, FOR DSD.
UH, I DON'T REALLY HAVE TOO MUCH MORE TO ADD OTHER THAN, UM, UH, WHAT, UH, I'M SORRY, I MISSED THE CODE OFFICER'S NAME BEFORE THAT, THAT WAS, THAT HAD ALL THOSE EXHIBITS.
UM, BUT YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF REITERATE, UM, IN A, IN A 2021 IRC UNDER, UH, CODE SECTION, UH, R 1 0 5 0.2, WHICH IS, UH, COVERS WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT.
AND NOT TO REPEAT WHAT HE WAS SAYING, BUT HE DID SHOW, UH, I THINK UNDER TWO E, UM, OH, NO, I'M SORRY, THAT WAS THE PICTURES OF THE SHELVING.
BUT, UM, UNDER, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE RETAINING WALL, RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE NOT OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING, UH, IN THE TOP OF THE WALL, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.
SO THERE AGAIN, IT'S, IT REFERENCES SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE IN ONE SECOND TO PULL UP, SORRY, I GOT THROWN INTO THIS LAST SECOND, SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SLIDES AND WHATNOT TO SHOW YOU.
BUT, UM, IN OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, 2021 IRC AND INTERNATIONAL, UH, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, UM, YOU CAN FIND UNDER NUMBER THREE, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE.
SO UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE OR LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD AREA, UH, RETAINING WALL THAT IS NOT OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, MEASURE FROM BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING TO THE TOP OF THE WALL, AND NOT ARGUING THAT THE WALL IS SHORTER THAN FOUR FEET BASED OFF THE MEASUREMENTS, BUT IT IS SUPPORTING A SUBSTANTIAL SURCHARGE ON THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS.
UM, THAT IS WHY, UH, OUR FINDINGS AS WELL SUPPORT, UH, THE, THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY DO NEED TO, UH, PULL A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THESE RETAINING WALLS.
DO, DO, UM, THE, THE QUOTE YOU READ FROM THE CITY ORDINANCES, DO WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING TO ACCEPT IN THE RECORD? YES.
IT'S TWO G IN THE SECOND EXHIBIT TWO.
SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED.
[00:20:01]
DEPUTY WHEELING OFFICIAL.UM, AND I, I AGREE WITH OFFICER SUE AND, AND SCOTT'S, UH, EVALUATION, UH, I SAW THAT THE MEASUREMENT WAS AT 41 INCHES.
THE MEASUREMENT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE FOOTER, UH, WHICH IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO SOIL GRADE ON THE BOTTOM LEVEL.
SO I, I'D HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE FOOTER WAS, UH, WHICH MAY PUT IT CLOSE TO FOUR FEET, WHICH WOULD CROWD THE BUILDING PERMIT IN ADDITION TO THE SURCHARGES THAT WAS ADDED BY THE ADDITIONAL SOIL.
SO I KNOW WE HAVE, UM, AN APPELLATE TO, UM, WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
AND, UH, IT SAYS HERE, THEY, THEY MAY BE HERE IN PERSON, MR. MURRA.
ROBBIE, DID I SAY THAT? CORRECT? YES.
YOU CAN SIT AT THE TABLE, UNDER THE SCREEN, PLEASE, SIR.
AND, UM, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
TYPICALLY, AS THE COURTESY, WE'LL GIVE YOU THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE CITY JUST TOOK.
SO I THINK THAT'S, I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR, WHERE OUR TIMEKEEPER IS.
THAT'S PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY, I DON'T KNOW, EIGHT MINUTES.
MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FIVE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT TOOK, BUT, UM, NO.
JUST PULL THE, PULL THE MIC CLOSER TO YOUR, TO YOURSELF.
WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, MELANIE, WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT UP MY PRESENTATION WHILE, UH, WHILE SHE'S PUTTING THIS UP? I CAN START.
I OWNED THE PROPERTY AT FIVE 18 SUNNY LANE WITH MY WIFE, WHO DOESN'T KNOW I'M HERE.
UH, UH, AND, UH, I'VE APPEALED, UH, THIS COMPLAINT, UH, AND I HAVE, UH, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY IS NOW CONCERNED ABOUT THE SURCHARGE, AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
UH, NUMBER ONE IS, UM, I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
INDEED, I WAS THE PERSON WHO CALLED THE CITY OF AUSTIN, COULD YOU PLEASE BE TO CHART NUMBER TWO? THIS IS A HISTORY.
AND I WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WOULD NEVER GET A CALL BACK, WAITED WEEKS.
AND, UH, THE DETAILS ARE THERE AND, UH, WE'RE JUST NEVER HEAR BACK.
FINALLY, UH, INSPECTORS CARBO, UH, YARBOROUGH, SORRY, SHOWED UP.
UH, INSPECTOR SUE SHOWED UP ON THE 19TH AND INSPECTOR YARBOROUGH ON THE 22ND.
HAVING SEEN THAT THE CITY HAS NOT RE BEEN RESPONDING AND EVEN TOLD ME TO JUST WAIT 20 MINUTES, I'LL BE THERE AND NEVER SHOWING UP AND CALLING BACK.
HE RECOGNIZED THAT I'VE BEEN DOING MY BEST TO GET CITI TO RESPOND, AND THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.
SO HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO STAY ON THE PROPERTY AND CALL AROUND TO GET SOMEBODY TO RESPOND.
SO NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT MY WORK.
I CALLED THE CITY, AND I HAVE THE SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER HERE ON THE CHART.
AND, UM, IT IS, UH, MY DESIRE TO BE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY, UH, EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE.
THAT'S WHY I CONTACTED THE CITY.
PEOPLE DO NOT, THEY TRY TO HIDE THEIR STUFF.
UM, AFTER, UH, MR. SUE AND I EXCHANGED EMAILS, AND HE INDICATED THAT I NEED A PERMIT FOR WALLS OVER FOUR FEET.
AND I INDICATED TO MR. SUE AND, UH, UH, ALSO TO MR. YARBOROUGH THAT THE WALLS ARE UNDER FOUR FEET AND I WALLS S AND THEN, UH, CAN YOU PLEASE GO TO CHART NUMBER THREE? THIS IS A COPY OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE EXEMPTION REGULATION VERBATIM, THAT I HAVE COPIED.
UH, AND, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN HERE, IT SPECIFIES THAT IT MUST NOT SUPPORT THE SURCHARGE, AND THE HEIGHT MUST BE IN UNDER FOUR FEET.
SO, UH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
BASED ON THIS, UH, I, UH, PROCEEDED BUILDING THE WALL.
NOW, IF YOU COULD GO, PLEASE TO
[00:25:01]
CHART 12.IS THAT 12? THAT'S, UH, 12 IS A BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURE, NO.
SO THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT SHOWS WHAT THE, UH, BAG BACK OF THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE I STARTED THE SECOND AND THE THIRD WALLS, UH, THE DE UH, AND IT WAS THE CITY, THE, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT I FINISHED WITH.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO PAGE 14.
LET ME MAKE SURE I CAN SYNC UP WITH YOU.
PAGE 14 SHOWS WHERE, UH, WHEN I CALLED THE CITY, THE REASON, UH, THE REASON I CALLED THE CITY WAS THAT I, I IDENTIFIED A STORM PIPE THAT HAD A 90 DEGREE TURN AS I SHOW IN THE BURIED STORM DRAINAGE PIPE.
WHEN WE WERE DIGGING THE GROUND, I HAD THE CONTRACTORS FULLY STOP.
I CALLED THE CITY NUMEROUS TIMES TO COME AND EXAMINE IT TO SEE WHETHER IT'S THEIRS OR NOT.
THIS IS A STORM PIPE, SO IT'S NOT VISIBLE ON TOP.
THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
BUT I CALLED, EVEN HAVING STOOD ME UP SAYING, I'LL BE THERE IN 20 MINUTES, AND NEVER SHOWING UP AND CALLING BACK MY TAX MONEY AT WORK.
UH, EVENTUALLY THEY SHOWED UP ON AUGUST.
ON 22ND, LOOK AT IT, YOU, UH, UH, TOLD ME, THEY SAID, IT IS AN EASEMENT.
IT IS THEIR PIPE, AND IT TAKES A 90 DEGREE TURN DEEP INTO THE GROUND.
AND CONSEQUENTLY, UH, THE PATCH THAT THEY HAD APPLIED YEARS AGO HASN'T HELD, AND IT'S A SMALL TRACK.
SO I STOPPED THE PROJECT UNTIL THEY FINISHED BUILDING IT, AND I REMOVED THE WALLS.
I HAVE REMOVED THOSE TWO WALLS THAT WERE ON TOP OF THE EASEMENT.
THE THIRD WALL AT THE BOTTOM, I HAVE KEPT TO PROTECT THE, UH, RIVERSIDE DRIVE FROM FLOODING.
AND, UH, THE GRAVEL, THE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE THIRD WALL IS PAST WHERE THE PIPE TAKES A NINE 80 DEGREE TURN INTO THE GROUND.
AND IT IS CLOSE TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE WHERE THERE IS A FIVE FOOT WALL.
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT EXERTING ANY PRESSURE.
IF YOU COULD GO PLEASE TO PAGE 15, THESE ARE MY MEASUREMENTS WITH PICTURES AND, UH, UH, OF THE WIDTHS OF THE WALLS.
THE TOP ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY, UH, IT'S, UH, 15 FEET.
COULD YOU GO TO PAGE SIX, PLEASE? SIX OR, OR SIX? SIX.
SO, UH, I, UH, I'M A SIMPLE GUY, AND WHEN I HEAR WORDS THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I LOOK HIM UP.
SO WHEN THEY SAY SURCHARGE, I SAY, OKAY, LET ME UNDERSTAND WHAT SURCHARGE IS.
I DIG SCIENTIFIC RECORDS, AND I SHOW IN HERE THAT EVEN CALIFORNIA, AN EARTHQUAKE PRONE STATE SUBJECT TO FLOODING, ABIDES BY A 40, 45 DEGREE ANGLE FOR THE SUR SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE, THAT IS THE MAXIMUM.
IF YOU SEE ON TOP, THE YELLOW AREA IS THE MAXIMUM AREA THAT IS CONSIDERED A SURFACE, UH, SURCHARGE, SURFACE INFLUENCE.
THIS IS A SET OF CALIFORNIA, NOT, UH, AND THIS IS THEIR CODE, NOT MINE.
ARE YOU ON THE, ARE YOU ON PAGE? UH, SEVEN.
SO, UH, THIS IS ABOUT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE.
ACCORDING TO, UH, UH, THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS, UH, MEANS FOR CITY OF AUSTIN, FOUR FEET ON TOP.
IF YOU GO TO PAGE FIVE, SIX, PLEASE, I'M SORRY, 5, 7, 7.
SO, UH, BEING AN ENGINEER, I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS OPPOSED TO HEARSAY.
[00:30:01]
IS THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE DEFINED INTERNATIONALLY BY NUMEROUS COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, THAT DEFINES WHAT A SURCHARGE IS.AND BASED ON THAT, THEY DEFINE A 45 DEGREE ANGLE FOR THE SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE.
NOW, IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ON PAGE EIGHT, I'LL SHOW YOU, THAT MEANS FOUR FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL TO THE BACK.
NOW, BEING A SIMPLE GUY, BUT WANTING TO BE LOUD, BARRING AND BEING AN ENGINEER, I DESIGNED THIS AS FOLLOWERS.
THE AREA THAT IS HASHED WITH VERTICAL GREEN LINES INDICATE THE MARGIN, IN ADDITION TO THE LEGAL, LEGALLY BINDING, INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SURCHARGE AREA OF INFLUENCE.
SO WHEN I BUILT THIS, I ALLOWED NOT ONLY NO SURCHARGE ON TOP OF IT, I ADDED AN AREA BEYOND THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVEN MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION, UH, DEVIATION AND MARGINS OF ERROR ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.
THERE IS, SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING, BASED ON THE WORLD'S RECOGNIZED CIVIL ENGINEERING RULES AND VALIDATED INTERNATIONALLY, INCLUDING CITY OF CAL, CITY OF CALIFORNIA, THIS INDICATES AND PROVES THERE IS NO SURCHARGE ON THE WALLS.
NOW, I, UH, I HAVE SAID, AND I ALWAYS WANT TO BE, UH, COMPLIANT FOR ME, JUST TO INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MINUTE.
UH, JAMES, HOW ARE WE ON TIME? OKAY, SO MAY I CONTINUE? YES.
YOU'VE GOT ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE MINUTES.
MY, MY WATCH IS NOT, UH, WORKING.
UH, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS WHEN THEY SAY SURCHARGE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ENGLISH AND IN AN ENGINEERING GUIDELINE, NOT BASED ON HEARSAY.
IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS RECOGNIZED BY NUMEROUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE, THEN WE CAN HAVE A MEETING ABOUT IT.
HOWEVER, I HAVE PROVEN IN HERE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.
THE AREAS THAT ARE IN THE YELLOW WILL INDICATE WHAT IS SURCHARGE WOULD PR, UH, WOULD, UH, BE PLACED THERE.
AND A SURCHARGE AS DEFINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
AS STATED ON PAGE SEVEN, IT SHOWS THAT THIS IS LIKE A, UM, PAGE, UM, UH, UH, UH, PAGE FIVE.
IT COULD BE A DRIVEWAY, IT COULD BE A STRUCTURE, IT COULD BE A FENCE ABOVE THE GRADE LEVEL.
THAT IS THE AREA IN THE YELLOW.
THERE IS NO SUCH STRUCTURE ABOVE THE GRADE LEVEL ANYWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY.
IN FACT, THE AREAS OF VERTICAL LINES INDICATE THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN TO PREVENT AN ADDITIONAL WALL THAT IS FAR AWAY FROM IT TO EVEN HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE SURCHARGE UNDER, UH, UNDER, UH, UH, LAW, UH, WALLS BELOW IT.
CONSEQUENTLY, AND I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ALL THESE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS.
CONSEQUENTLY, IF YOU COULD PUT, UH, PLEASE PAGE, I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
AT THAT PAGE NINE, I CAN SEE I HAVE, OKAY, SO I HAVE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY NO QUESTIONS ASKED, AND I'M WILLING TO STAND BY AND HAVE ANY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TO QUESTION THAT, THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.
SO THE QUESTION OF SURCHARGE IS NO AND VOID.
THE WALLS ARE UNDER FOUR FEET TALL.
I HAVE DRAWN THEM TO DIMENSION.
IF YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS CHARGE, THE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE, UH, UH, IN THE PICTURES.
THOSE ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WALLS PROVING THERE IS NO SURCHARGE ACCORDING TO LAW AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.
IF YOU COULD GO PLEASE TO THE CONCLUSION PAGE.
YOU, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 30 SECONDS.
THE CONCLUSION SHOWS I WOULD LOVE TO ABIDE BY ALL THE CITY CODES.
I HAVE DONE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CITY, UH, SAYS,
[00:35:01]
AND ALL THE WATER ARE UNDER FOUR FEET.AND IN MY OPINION, THEY CAN EXEMPT THIS.
I HAVE TOLD THE CITY THAT I WILL GLADLY ADDRESS ANY EASEMENT PORTIONS THAT I MAY NOT HAVE REMOVED.
I, I WILL ASK YOU GUYS TO ELIMINATE THEIR, UH, RULING THAT THE, UH, LAWS ARE ILLEGAL.
ONLY THE EASEMENT I CAN ADDRESS.
ALL RIGHT, AND WE'RE OUT OF TIME.
UM, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU STAY THERE CAUSE I SUSPECT WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. UH, YES, REBA, DR.
SO HOW DO YOU, HOW DO I SAY YOUR NAME? YES.
UM, MELANIE, DO WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE, UH, WE NEED TO ADMIT THE YES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S, THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS? OKAY.
WELL, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS EXHIBITS FOR THE RECORD.
DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? NO.
SO, UM, AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS IN CASE ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND BE RECOGNIZED.
YES, MR. BENING? NO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CODE OFFICER.
IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE ANYWHERE THAT DEFINES SURCHARGE? UH, WHICH IS IN THE ORDINANCE? CAUSE UH, WHEN WE GOT THIS, UH, INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT FOR OPINIONS.
CUZ UH, US CALL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WE RECOMMEND, WE RECOGNIZE, UH, CERTAIN SOMETHING IS NOT USUAL.
SO WE ASK THEM ABOUT WHAT OUR FINDING IS, AND THEN THIS IS BASED UPON THEIR INFORMATION, THEY GIVE IT TO US.
IS THERE ANY DEFINED PORTION OF THAT CODE THAT WAS REFERENCED THAT YOU PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A DEFINITION? IS THERE ANY ACCESSIBLE DEFINITION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE THAT A CITIZEN COULD FIND FOR WHAT SURCHARGE MEANS IN THE, UH, CODE THAT YOU CITED IN THE, IN THE, UH, EXHIBIT IT IS, UH, POPPING FORMATIONS WITHIN THE CITY ORDINANCE.
SO THE, UM, CITIZENS THAT CAN SEARCH WHERE, SO IN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU PROVIDE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE IS A DEFINITION THAT THE CITY PROVIDES OF WHAT SURCHARGES, BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE EXHIBITS? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE I SEE THE DEFINITION.
WE ONLY GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SEARCH DEPARTMENT.
IT JUST SEEMS TO, THAT THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WILL HINGE ON WHAT SURCHARGE IS OR IS NOT.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY IF THERE ISN'T A CITY DEFINITION, BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT THEN WE MAY HAVE TO GO ON ANOTHER DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE OR WHATEVER THE ACCEPTED GENERAL DEFINITION OF SURCHARGES DOES THAT.
WELL UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
THAT PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT ENGINEER.
OF THE, IS IF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE IS STILL ON, ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THAT? UH, YES.
THIS IS TODD WILCO, A DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WE DID SPEAK TO OUR MANAGING ENGINEER, ALLEN LOU, AND HE SAID THERE, BASED ON HIS INFORMAL CALCULATIONS, THERE MAY BE SOME SURCHARGE PRESENT, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS OF THE WALL AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.
SO HE COULDN'T GET THE 45 DEGREE MEASUREMENTS.
SO BETWEEN HIM AND THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THEY DISCUSSED IT AND THAT'S WHERE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THAT PERMITS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS JOB.
I'M SORRY, TODD, I I, MAYBE I'M NOT ASKING THE QUESTION CLEARLY, BUT ARE YOU THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION IN THIS PRO, IN THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO OF THE, OF HOW IT WAS BUILT.
I'M ASKING THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE.
IS THERE LIKE A CITY OF AUSTIN DEFINITION OR IS THE GENERALLY PROVIDED ONE OR THE ONE THAT HE PROVIDED ACCURATE? THE, THE GENERALLY PROVIDED ONE WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WE USE AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. GREEN, UH, ASK CODE, WHAT IS THE IMPACT, UH, TO REQUIRING A PERMIT? UH, DOES THIS REQUIRE REWORK? DOES THIS REQUIRE, I'M SURE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS WITH THE PERMIT, BUT, UH, WHAT, WHAT IS THE UM, IT'S THE REAL IMPACT HERE AND A LOT OF TIMES, UM, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER CAN BUILD CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY COME OUT.
AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT THE OWNER IS ENGINEER, BUT THE WORKER WHO BUILT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THEY ARE NOT ENGINEERS.
UM, SO DID THEY FOLLOW EVERYTHING PER THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN? UM, OR DID
[00:40:01]
THEY ACTUALLY BUILD EXACTLY, UH, THE SAME THING THAT THEY DRAW, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL THEY'RE USING.AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIATION THAT WOULD HAPPENS, UH, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
SO THE REASON A LOT OF TIME WHEN WE ASK, UH, OWNER TO ACTUALLY OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT, FIRST OF ALL, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO SHOW THE CITY WHAT ARE DOING.
AND THEN THE CITY WILL CHECK IN THE CITY RECORD TO SEE ANYTHING, UH, WITHIN THE AREA, SUCH AS EASTMAN'S PRESENCE OR, UH, SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, GAS LINE, THE PROCESS OR ANY CONDO DOORS IN THE PROCESS.
SO WHEN ANY TIME A CONSTRUCTION, UM, EVEN HAPPENS, THEY DO NOT DAMAGE OTHER THINGS OR CAUSE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. AND THAT'S THE REASON TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, IN THIS SITUATION.
NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL WORK WITHOUT PERMIT.
ACCORDING TO THE CITY ORDINANCE, UH, IT IS ACTUALLY ALSO INVOLVED WITH THE EASEMENT IN THE PROCESS AS WELL.
UH, WHICH FOR SOME REASON THE OWNER DID NOT REALIZE THERE'S A EASTMAN REQUIREMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CITY, UH, EVEN THOUGH HE DID CALL THE, THE CITY ACCORDING TO EASTMAN PROBLEMS. UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE ARE ASKING HIM TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT.
AND WE HAVE PROVIDED MULTIPLE CONTACT, UH, FROM WATERSHED PROTECTIONS AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, SO THEY CAN BETTER ASSIST HIM OBTAINING A PERMIT.
AND ACTUALLY, UH, THE PERMIT PROCESS ALSO IS ON THE, UH, CITY WEBSITE.
UM, IF HE'S UNABLE TO DO IT, THERE'S ALWAYS, UH, UM, PROBABLY PROBABLY FINDING SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, THEY CAN PROBABLY HELP HIM, UH, TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.
SO I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.
SO IF HE, WE, WE HOLD THE, THE FINDINGS IN THE, THE RECOMMENDATION, WHAT'S THE, UH, IMPACT OF REQUIRING A PERMIT? DOES THAT MEAN THE WALLS HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN? THE DIRT TAKEN OUT? UM, THE, WHATEVER IS USED FOR THE, THE SURCHARGE DISCHARGE, UH, THE MATERIALS ARE REEVALUATED.
SO WHAT, WHAT THE PERMIT IS MAINLY IS, WELL, IT DOES HELP THE CITY TO KEEP A RECORD OF WHAT THE OWNER BUILT ON SITE, UH, AT THIS POINT, IF THE OWNER IS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN THAT ACTUALLY ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR TO CHECK ON SITE TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER'S BEEN BUILT IS CORRECT AND THEN WITHOUT ANY DANGER CUZ UH, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK, WHICH IS NEXT BY REALLY BUSY STREET, ALL THE EAST RIVERSIDE.
SO ANY FAULTY CONSTRUCTION THAT HAPPENS CAN CAUSE LANDSLIDE, MUST LIE, UH, OR ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO THE STREET THAT CAN CAUSE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
SO, SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASON THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE WHATEVER THE CONSTRUCTION THE OWNER BUILT IS, YOU KNOW, SAFE.
AND THAT'S THE ULTIMATE, UH, GOAL.
BUT JUST SO HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS IS ALSO GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE EASTMANS.
UM, IF THE OWNER, UH, CHOOSE NOT TO OBTAIN THE, THE PERMIT, THE CITY WILL HAVE TO UNFORTUNATELY ASK FOR THEM TO EITHER, UH, PUT BACK THE VEGETATION, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, AND REMOVE THE STRUCTURE OR I GUESS THE OP PENALTY INVOLVING THE PROCESS.
SO CAN I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, UH, FROM THE, THE CITY'S DSD DEPARTMENT, WHAT WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT IF THE OWNER GOT THE PERMIT, UH, PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTATION SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST SAW TONIGHT? UM, WHAT WOULD YOUR APPROACH BE TO VALIDATING THAT DESIGN? AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION OF THIS TODD WILCOX.
UM, BASICALLY THOSE DRAWINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
UH, THE, THE, THE ENGINEER THAT DREW THE DRAWINGS WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS ANY EXPECTED LOAD SURCHARGE OR, OR NOT.
UM, AND, AND THOSE DRAWINGS FROM WHAT I SAW, COULD BE USED FOR EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ATTA TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.
UH, THERE THERE'D BE A FEE FOR THE REVIEW IS BASICALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TO WHAT HE'S DONE NOW IS JUST THE FEES FOR THE REVIEW AND THE PERMIT.
UM, HE'S GOT, IT APPEARED THAT HE HAD EVERYTHING INTACT THAT HE WOULD NEED ALREADY TO APPEAL THIS NOTICE THAT HE WOULD'VE NEEDED TO GET THE PERMIT.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE BALLPARK COST ON THOSE PERMITS IF YOU KNOW? UM, I'M, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING.
UH, I'M THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION MANAGER.
HE MAY BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH PERMITTING COSTS, UM, AS, AS RELATION TO THE, TO THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.
IS ANYBODY HERE WITH THE CITY HAVE ANY IDEA?
[00:45:02]
UH, YES SIR.UM, A PERMIT WILL NOT HELP AND I, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE COST AND I'M WILLING TO DONATE WHATEVER THE COST IS TO ANY CHARITY OF YOUR GUYS, UH, DESIRE, IF THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A SURCHARGE, EVEN IF I PULL A MILLION PERMITS, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS NO SURCHARGE.
I HAVE PROVEN IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DEBT.
AND I HAVE SAID IT NUMEROUS TIMES IN WRITING THAT FOR THE EASEMENT THAT I HAVE SHOWN IN HERE, THAT I HAVE REMOVED ALL THE WALLS, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THAT EASEMENT ON THE STORM PIPE THAT IS BURIED, I WILL VOLUNTARILY FOR THE PERMIT ONLY FOR THAT EASEMENT, NOTHING FOR THE REST OF THE WALLS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE NO SURCHARGE.
I GUESS MAYBE FOR THE CODE OFFICER, UM, OR MAYBE FOR TODD, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SURCHARGE IS, UH, THAT IT SUPPORTS A SURCHARGE THAT THE CODE STATES, CUZ I, THAT IS THE HINGE OF THIS ISSUE AND THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY HAD SHOWED NOTHING OF THE SURCHARGE? CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, THAT THERE'S ANY DEBATE THAT THE WALL IS LESS THAN FOUR FEET.
THERE'S TWO LEGS TO THE ARGUMENT, FOUR FEET AND SURCHARGE.
SO FOUR FEET'S NOT IN DEBATE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT THE SURCHARGE.
AND THIS, I DON'T, AM I, I'M, MAYBE I'M MISSING, I DON'T, COMING INTO THIS MEETING, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SURCHARGE WAS, SO I COULD BE MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT I'VE SEEN NOTHING PROVIDED FROM THE CITY SHOWING THAT THE SURCHARGE, THAT IT DOES SUPPORT SURCHARGE ACCORDING TO THE CODE PER YES.
AND IT, THIS, THIS IS TODD AND, UH, PER, PER THE DIAGRAM THAT THE, UM, APPELLANT GAVE US, IT SAID 3.98 FEET IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IS THE HEIGHT.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS ARE AND, AND OUR, OUR MANAGING ENGINEER WASN'T ABLE TO GET ANY EXACT MEASUREMENTS FROM IT.
SO THE FOUR FEET INCLUDES THE FOOTING, WHICH FROM THE TAPE MEASURE VIEW AND, AND OFFICER SUE'S PRESENTATION, IT SAID, I THINK 41 INCHES, WHICH WOULD BE SEVEN, SEVEN INCHES SHORT OF THE FOUR FEET.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THE FOOTING WENT DOWN.
SO IT MAY VERY WELL BE APPROACHING FOUR FEET OR MORE WITH, WITH THE FOOTING.
AND THEN WITHOUT THOSE EXACT MEASUREMENTS, UH, WE WOULDN'T, OUR ENGINEER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CALCULATE AND, AND, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A SURCHARGE OR NOT.
TODD MAY, EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD BE, I'M SORRY.
CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION REALLY QUICK? SURE.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT, IF ANYTHING YOU SUSPECT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH? IT COULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO REQUESTING A PERMIT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES FALL OUTSIDE OF THE WORK THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT.
BUT THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO ON IS THAT YOU SUSPECT THAT IT MAY BE WRONG.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON TO EXEMPT ANY WORK FROM A PERMIT BECAUSE ANY, THE FOOTING COULD BE EXTRA DEEP ON ANY RETAINING WELL BUILT AND YOU COULD NEVER KNOW.
IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS ODD TO ME, MR. SEALEY, I I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
UM, AND THE REASON FOR THE EXEMPTION IS WALLS THAT ARE DRAMATICALLY LESS THAN FOUR FEET, THAT ARE EASY TO DETERMINE THAT THEY'RE LESS THAN FOUR FEET WITH WOULD FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.
SO IF IT WAS A TWO FOOT WALL, WE, WE KNOW MORE THAN LIKELY THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A TWO FOOT FOUR A FOOTING TO SUPPORT A TWO FOOT WALL, PARTICULARLY ON A, ON A 30 DEGREE OR WHATEVER DOWN SLOPE THAT IS IN THE RIVERSIDE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FOOTING IS TO HOLD UP THAT 41 INCH WALL.
AND WE NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEASURE IT.
HE NEVER PROVIDED PLANS OR REQUESTED THE PERMIT, SO WE COULD SEE THAT UP FRONT.
SO THE, THE REBUTTAL OF THAT WAS TO ASK HIM FOR A BUILDING PERMIT SO HE COULD PROVIDE THOSE PLANS AND PROVIDE US THOSE MEASUREMENTS AND WE COULD SEE IT TO ENSURE THAT IT, IT MET THE CITY CODE.
YEAH, I WAS CURIOUS WHY MR. MS. ROBBIE WAS TALKING ABOUT THESE INTERNATIONAL, UM, ACCEPTED CIVIL ENGINEERING PRACTICES.
AND IT OCCURRED TO ME, WELL, WHERE DOES THE CITY OF AUSTIN FIT IN ALL THIS? AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS AT ALL.
AND IT REALLY, THIS CASE SURELY SHOULDN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP BECAUSE HE'S NOW SHOWN US THAT HE DOESN'T, HE DOESN'T NEED A PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S THE SURCHARGE DEFINITION.
YEAH, I DO HAVE A LONG QUESTION AND I THINK IT'S, UH, I THINK, I GUESS A LITTLE BIT DIRECTED TO MR. WILCOCK.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME FROM WHAT WE'VE LISTENED TO THAT, UM, THE ISSUE'S BEEN BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE PERMIT IS THE DRAWINGS CAN BE LOOKED AT, AND CERTAINLY WE SAW THERE'S AMPLE DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS.
AND I GUESS THE SECOND PART IS THAT PART OF THE CITY PROCESS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE AN INSPECTION, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE
[00:50:01]
THAT THINGS ARE ACTUALLY BUILT THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DRAWN.RIGHT? IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT, UM, IN THE CITY PROCESS FOR SOMETHING TO SIMPLY BE DRAWN TO CODE.
IT ALSO HAS TO BE BUILT TO CODE, AND THERE HAS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION, WHICH IS TYPICALLY DONE THROUGH THE INSPECTION PROCESS.
AND MR. LEE DIDN'T QUITE USE THE WORD INSPECTION, BUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE, HE'S TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THE RIGHT MATERIALS.
I THINK MY INTERPRETATION, AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INSPECTION PROCESS, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROCESS.
SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MR. WILCOX IS, UM, IS THERE A PROCESS WITHIN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE SOMETHING HAS BEEN BUILT WHERE THERE'S, UM, IF THE APPELLANT GETS A LETTER FROM A, UH, TEXAS REGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OR CIVIL ENGINEER, WHICHEVER ONE, UH, THE CITY CONSIDERS APPLIES IN THIS CASE, UH, A TESTING THAT THEY HAVE, THIS WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT PARTY.
THIS WOULD NOT BE THE APPELLANT'S OWN, UM, WORD THAT THEY HAVE INSPECTED THE CONSTRUCTION AND, UH, AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL, UH, OPINION AS A TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEER OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.
THEY BELIEVE IT MEETS THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, NON-BIASED THIRD PARTY, WE ACCEPT THAT IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AS, UM, AS THE, AS THE TRUTH.
UM, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR INCLUDING THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE ONLINE? YES.
SO THIS ISN'T REALLY A QUESTION SO MUCH, IT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE CITY IS ASKING MR. YARE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BY SUBMITTING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO SHOW THAT HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY NEED A PERMIT.
AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN TONIGHT, MR. YARI HAS PRESENTED A LOT OF EVIDENCE, VERY COMPELLING.
THE CITY HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE.
UM, ADMITTEDLY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THEM, IT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, THAT DOES LOOK LIKE A STEEP SLOPE.
THAT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, BUT THE MEASUREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHOW A 42 INCH TALL RETAINING WALL, THE PRO THE, UM, THE ITEM OF THE SURCHARGE WAS NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL BY THE CITY.
UH, WE'VE NOW ALL LEARNED QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT A SURCHARGE ACTUALLY IS, IS THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.
AND, UM, I'M JUST NOT SEEING THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES THE NEED TO GO AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
MY OPINION THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
YEAH, MR. BENIGNA, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS, UH, VICE CHAIR FOR I AGREE.
UH, I'M SURE A THIRD PARTY COULD, COULD PROVIDE, SHED SOME LIGHT INTO THE, UH, QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED, BUT I'D SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY THE WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT SECTION QUOTED BY THE CITY AND THEIR CODE CARVES OUT THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC SCENARIO THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT TO BE DONE.
AND IF THEY DESIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK TO ALWAYS BE INSPECTED BY AN ENGINEER, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT.
AND I THINK I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER P FRYBERGER THAT EVERYTHING WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT IS THAT THIS MAN WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MAKE SURE HE WAS FOLLOW THE RULES BY CALLING CITY CODE, UM, AND NOW IN SOME SENSE IS BEING PUNISHED FOR IT AND HAS PROVIDED AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT NONE OF THAT, UM, APPLIES TO HIM IN THIS SCENARIO BECAUSE IT'S UNDER FOUR FEET AND THERE'S NO SURCHARGE ISSUE.
SO, UM, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE QUESTION PERIOD AND I, AND TO CALL A VOTE.
DO ANY OF OUR ONLINE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? TIM? LIZ? YEAH.
UM, CAN I BE RIGHT HERE? ME? I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
CAN YOU SHARE YOUR VOLUME UP, TIM? I I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP BEAR WITH ME THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN CALLED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD HAVE A VOTE ON THAT.
DO WE HAVE THAT SECONDED? YEAH, HE SECONDED.
SO, UM, I'LL CALL A VOTE, SEE IF WE, SO, UM, UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION THOUGH? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE MOTION JUST TO CLOSE THE, I I MOTION TO CLOSE THE PERIOD OF QUESTION? YEAH.
AND WHERE DO YOU SECOND IT? OKAY.
[00:55:03]
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT OPEN, BUT WORDY.MR. GREEN, I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS? THIS IS LAUREN COREY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
I'M SORRY, I, I BELIEVE WE'RE IN THE PERIOD OF QUESTION AND SO I WAS MOVING TO CLOSE THE PERIOD QUESTION.
SO, SO WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? YES.
UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO, TO CLARIFY FOR COMMISSIONER GREEN, UM, THAT YOU CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS OF THE, UM, OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS CLOSED.
UM, BUT IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VOTE ON OKAY.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU NEED TO MAKE A, A MOTION FOR THAT.
I, I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC SET.
SORRY, I CALLED IT THE QUOTE HERE.
YES, FOR THE, THE PUBLIC PORTION.
SO, UM, SO DO WE TAKE A VOTE? IS THAT RIGHT? ON THE CLOSING? OH, SINCE HE CLARIFIED THE MOTION, WHERE ARE YOU GONNA STILL SECOND IT? YEAH.
AS LONG AS YOU, YOU'VE JUST MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I WAS JUST CLARIFYING SINCE IT'S NOT THE STANDARD LANGUAGE WE USE, BUT RIGHT.
SO WE COULD JUST LAST QUESTIONS.
UM, IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO CLOSING THE SESSION NOW WITH THIS CLARIFICATION? NO, TIM, LIZ.
SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC SESSION.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY? I GOT A QUESTION FOR CODE.
YOU HAVE, THERE'S A REFERENCE HERE TO AN INTERNATIONAL BUILDING STANDARD.
UM, IS, DOES THAT CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE? DOES ANY, ANY OF OUR WITNESSES HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN THAT FROM THE CITY THIS TIME ABOUT COX? AGAIN, UH, NEITHER, NEITHER THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL NOR THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE DEFINE SURCHARGE.
IT, IT'S, THE COMMONLY USED DEFINITION IS, IS THAT WHAT BE USED IN THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.
UM, WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'VE ALL HAD AN EDUCATION TODAY, LIKE WE'VE GONE TO AN ENGINEERING CLASS ON, UH, SURCHARGE AND RETAINING WALLS.
UM, AND, UH, THIS IS OUR, THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF A THORNY ONE, I SUPPOSE ON THE ONE, UH, ONE HAND I WANT TO COMMEND MR. YARIBA BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLETE REBUTTAL I'VE EVER SEEN IN TERMS OF YOUR, YOUR DRAWINGS, UM, PERSONAL OPINION.
YOU, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PULL A PERMIT FOR LESS EFFORT AND TO PREPARE THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, YOU DID, UM, YOU MEANT WELL BY GOING TO THE CITY AND, UH, IT'S ALMOST A CASE OF, UM, NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.
UM, BUT THAT DOES HAPPEN SOMETIMES YOU, YOU PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF SOME OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, WHICH DIFFER FROM WHAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, AS APPARENTLY PERHAPS ASKING YOU TO DO.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY OUR ROLE AS A COMMITTEE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TASKED WITH IS TO INTERPRET THINGS AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, APPLIES THE RULES, RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY WHAT AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD IS OR WHETHER, UM, WE AGREE WITH THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES.
UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'VE SEEN, UM, THAT EVEN IF WE KNOW THAT THERE'S, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME OF HOW THIS WAS BUILT, AND THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE EASEMENT, WHICH IS NOT, UH, UM, DISPUTED, RIGHT? THAT STILL SOMEHOW NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
I KNOW I'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ACCURATE ACTUALLY.
THE, UM, SURCHARGE THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS DIFFERING FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION.
I THINK WE MAY BE USING DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, BUT I, I THINK MR. WILCOX SAID THAT THERE'S JUST A COMMON DEFINITION, AND I THINK MAYBE THE ENGINEERS, IT'S LIKE SAYING TWO PLUS TWO IS FOUR.
CAN YOU DEFINE THAT? IT'S LIKE, NO, IT'S JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT MR. WILCOX WAS SAYING, AND THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THE DEFINITION THAT THE DEFENDANT USED OR THE APPELLANT USED IN HIS CASE WAS, UM, UH, OPPOSED BY THE CITY.
AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY THAT HIS CALCULATIONS WOULD BE WRONG.
I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THEY SHOWED THAT THE SURCHARGE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD THEIR OWN MEASUREMENTS AND THE SURCHARGE WOULD BE WAY OFF, BUT
[01:00:01]
IT, THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR, THEIR TESTIMONY AND THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO THAT.SO I, I'M SORRY, I JUST DIDN'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, A, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN THE SENSE THAT CITY CODE IS WHAT MATTERS HERE, NOT SOME INTERNATIONAL STANDARD.
UM, BUT THE CITY DOES NOT DEFINE SURCHARGE AND IT'S JUST A COMMON DEFINITION.
UM, SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN DISPUTE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE HOMEOWNER'S TESTIMONY WAS SPECIFIC AND VERY, VERY ACCURATE.
TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY'S TESTIMONY WAS, UH, SPECULATIVE AND NOT REALLY.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN, OR, UH, AN ORDINANCE THAT MIGHT VERY WELL NEED TO BE REDRAWN FOR THE CODE TO BE SPECIFIC.
CAUSE EVERY SO OFTEN WE GET A HOMEOWNER WHO KNOWS THEIR BUSINESS.
I THINK YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET A WORD IN AND, AND I I'VE MISSED YOU, SO I APOLOGIZE.
UM, THE CITY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE SURCHARGE IS.
I CALLED TO MR. ON MR. OH, SORRY.
MRAD, HE'S ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ONLINE AND, AND OH, I THINK YOU'RE MUTED.
WE CAN WHAT'S GETTING READY? WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
UM, DO WE HAVE A DIAL IN NUMBER OR THE MUTE SYMBOL SEEMS TO BE ON FOR YOU? YOU'RE MUTED ON YOUR END.
IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA.
WELL, WHILE TIM GETS THE, THE AUDIO, UH, RESOLVED, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION FROM ANOTHER COMMISSIONER? MR. SEIG? LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY.
I JUST WANNA CALL FOR THE VOTE AND TIM, GO AHEAD AND BLOW THAT ONE AWAY FOR TIM BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE.
TIM, WE STILL CAN HEAR YOU? YES.
UM, UH, CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER FOR EVERYONE, UM, THAT, UH, ANYONE SPEAKING SHOULD WAIT FOR, TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR, UM, BEFORE THEY, BEFORE THEY BEGIN SPEAKING.
UM, IN THE MEANTIME, MR. THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? YES.
TO, FOR HIM TO CALL IN AND ALL, UH, AND WE HAVE THE END OF OUR MEETING.
WE'VE GOT, UH, UH, TWO HOURS THAT I, UH, SEVEN MINUTES.
I DON'T THINK WE'LL WAIT THE FULL TWO HOURS, BUT SEVEN MINUTES.
TIM, ARE YOU MAKING, ARE YOU DIALING IN? CAN YOU NOD? OKAY.
YEAH, I THINK WE'LL WAIT A MINUTE OR TWO.
AND IF WE GO, DO YOU HAVE ME, YOU HAVE ME NOW? YOU, ME NOW? YES.
UM, I AM SORRY EVERYBODY, I'M BATTLING A TECH ISSUE BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME NEW EQUIPMENT AND I'M UNDER THE WEATHER, SO I'M FIRING ON TWO CYLINDERS HERE.
UM, I JUST HAVE A QUICK COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, FOR, UH, FOR CODE, UM, BEFORE WE, OR HAVE WE VOTED? WE HAVEN'T ALREADY VOTED.
WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET, SO WE WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.
[01:05:01]
TIM, GO AHEAD.UM, SO I, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, UH, UM, UH, IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT WE INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE IN OUR ORDINANCES? AND I THINK YOU'RE POSING A QUESTION.
UM, YES, WE DO INCORPORATE THE, WE HAVE ADOPTED THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL AND BUILDING CODE, AND WE DO HAVE LOCALS, BUT, UM, THE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT AMONG THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED.
SO TECHNICALLY, OH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, GO AHEAD.
UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR EXAMPLE, UH, I THINK IT'S IN, UH, SO OUR CHAPTER 25 12, THE TECHNICAL CODES IN OUR, IN OUR, IF SOMEBODY WERE LOOKING IN THOSE CODES, IT WOULD REFER THEM TO THE 2021 ADDITIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, DEPENDING ON WHICH AND WHICH THEY WERE CONSULTING.
SO IF IT IS THE CASE THAT, UH, A RETAINING, UH, THAT THE, THE INTERNATIONAL, UH, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY CODE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, EXCUSE ME, WERE TO PROVIDE A SURCHARGE RANGE FOR A RETAINING WALL IN ONE OF ITS CHAPTERS WITH SPECIFICATIONS, THEN, UM, AND THE OPINION OF THE, TO THE ATTORNEY, SINCE THAT'S WHO FIELDED THE FIRST QUESTION, UM, WOULD THAT PUT A BUILDER ON VALID NOTICE AS TO THE, AS TO THE, AS TO THE ACCEPTABLE IMPACT LOAD OF WHICH I BELIEVE SURCHARGES IS, IS A SUB A SUB CLASS, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, AS A MATTER AS A MATTER OF LAW, COULD SOMEONE CLAIM, COULD A, COULD AN AGREED OWNER CLAIM THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE NOTICE OF THE SURCHARGE RANGE? IF IN OUR ORDINANCES, UH, THEY ARE REFERRED TO EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE? AND, UM, UH, AS THIS FOLLOW UP QUESTION, YES, IF NOT, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THAT WOULD NOT PASS LEGAL MUSTER, UH, CAN CAN YOU CITE A, A, A A CASE THAT WOULD, WOULD SO INDICATE THANK YOU.
TIM, I THINK YOU POSED A QUESTION.
UM, MS. CURRY, DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD? YES.
YOU RECOGNIZED, UH, COMMISSIONER SOAD? UM, UH, YES, THEY WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF, UM, WHAT IS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CODES.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT IS IN THOSE CODES.
UM, THE, UH, DSD MIGHT BE BETTER ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND MS. CURRY, JUST THAT TERM ATTRIBUTED WITH KNOWLEDGE, UM, FOR US NON-LEGAL PROFESSIONALS PUTS THE ONE SENTENCE DEFINITION OF THAT.
UM, SO, SO AS COMMISSIONER DO, SAID, MENTIONED, WE INCORPORATE BY A REFERENCE, UM, SO IN THE CITY CODE, WE HAVE FORMALLY ADOPTED A SPECIFIC VERSION OF THESE INTERNATIONAL CODES.
AND, UM, SO WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO ADHERE WITH OUR CITY ORDINANCES, YOU, UM, BY REFERENCE, UH, YOU HAVE TO ALSO ADHERE TO THOSE INTERNATIONAL CODES UNLESS WE'VE MADE A SPECIFIC LOCAL AMENDMENT, WHICH I STATED WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY LOCAL AMENDMENTS, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO THE SURCHARGE ISSUE.
SO THOSE INTERNATIONAL CODES, UH, TYPICALLY THEY INCLUDE REFERENCES TO DOZENS AND DOZENS, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.
AND, AND, AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS INTERNA OTHER STANDARDS BY REFERENCE, THEY'RE ALL WRAPPED UP IN THE SAME.
UM, WELL AT THIS POINT, UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WELL, IT'S, UH, WE, IF HE ASKS, I'LL HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
SO I THINK WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION.
UM, AND SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS OUR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE SHEET IN FRONT OF ME, ALTHOUGH I'M SORRY THAT WAS A LITTLE GLIB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT JUST ON THE ISSUE OF THE SURCHARGE.
I, I FEEL, JUST TO CLARIFY, I BELIEVE, UM, THE CITY HAS TESTIFIED AGAIN THAT THERE IS
[01:10:01]
NO CONFLICT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE AND THE COMMON DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE.SO I, I THINK THE DEFINITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON SURCHARGE ARE IMMATERIAL TO THE CASE AT HAND.
AND THE PRACTICAL, UH, IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACTUAL BUILT MATERIAL IS THE ISSUE WITH WHICH THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY MATERIAL THAT IS IN VIOLATION, UH, IS MY OPINION.
SO THAT WHEN I ASKED MR. WILCOX ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF SURCHARGE, HE CONFIRMED THAT THERE'S JUST A SINGLE COMMON DEFINITION THAT'S NOT IN DEBATE.
SORRY, I THOUGHT MAYBE LIZ DOES HAVE HER HAND UP.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, YOU RECOGNIZED? YES.
THIS IS, THIS IS A FRUSTRATING AND KIND OF CONFUSING CASE AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE POSTED FOR US, AND USUALLY AT THE END, THE RECOMMENDATION IS PRETTY CLEAR OF WHAT STAFF IS ASKING FOR HERE, AND I DON'T SEE IN THERE, UM, AND IT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THIS PROPERTY OWNER REACHED OUT, TRIED TO GET IN CONTACT, TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS CORRECT AND WASN'T GETTING RESPONSE.
UM, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE CODE OFFICER THAT WENT OUT DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT, UM, BACKGROUND TO INSPECT IT AND TELL HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE DID NEED TO GET A PERMIT.
BUT, UH, LOOK, JUST LOOKING AT THIS RECOMMENDATION AT THE END, USUALLY IT SAYS, ADMIT THE EXHIBITS, THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THEN HERE'S THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T SEE THAT ON THAT LAST SHEET, IT JUST SAID, SAYS CODES RECOMMENDATION.
SO I'M NOT EVEN CLEAR WHAT THE CODE OFFICER IS RECOMMENDING BE DONE IN THIS CASE.
I FOUND THE WHOLE PRESENTATION BE KIND OF CONFUSING.
UM, SO COULD, COULD THE OP CODE OFFICER, PLEASE CLARIFY FOR US WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WANT US TO CONSIDER? COULD I SAY SOMETHING? VICE, VICE CHAIR, COULD I SPEAK? YES, GO AHEAD, MS. THOMPSON.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS IS A, AN APPEAL.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE USUALLY A STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN VOTE, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL IS, UM, WHETHER YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OR NOT.
SO THERE'S NOT A FULL RECOMMENDATION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
IT'S JUST A, YOU'RE JUST VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU ACCEPT THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL, OR YOU ARE DENYING IT.
SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NOT A, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION IS BRIEF.
I THINK, I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION.
IS THIS ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SURCHARGE, OR IS THIS A SURCHARGE DISCUSSION? AGAIN, NO MORE SURCHARGE, I PROMISE.
COMMISSIONER BENING, NOW I, ON THE OTHER HALF WILL HAVE MANY SURCHARGE QUESTIONS, SO YOU CAN SPEND SOME TIME ON THEM.
SO, SO YOU'VE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND GRANT THE APPEAL.
DOES ANYONE SECOND THAT? I SECOND THAT? ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO, UM, I'M OPPOSED, MR. THOMPSON.
I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO, THIS IS JUST A, THIS IS, GO AHEAD.
UM, UH, CHAIR, JUST A POINT OF ORDER.
SO TO GRANT THE APPEAL, UH, WOULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT THE FILE MEAN THAT THE VIOLATION HAS NOT, THAT A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE HAS NOT OCCURRED.
AND TO DENY THE APPEAL MEANS THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESSES.
SO TO DENY MEANS THAT, SAY THAT AGAIN.
SO, SO TO GRANT THE APPEAL MEANS THAT A VIOLATION DOES NOT EXIST, BUT THE INNOVA, THE NOV WOULD EFFECTIVELY GO AWAY.
TO, UH, DENY THE APPEAL, UH, WOULD BE TO SAY THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION AND IT WOULD THEN MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESSES.
UH, MR. BENIGNA, DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR, I, I STATED, AND I WILL
[01:15:01]
RESTATE THAT I MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON THE APPEAL AND GRANT THE APPEAL.SO WE HAVE MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL, AND I'LL SECOND THAT.
SO WE'LL TAKE A VOTE, HAVE A MOTION.
WAIT, CAN I USUALLY AFTER THE SECOND, THERE'S A CHANCE FOR DISCUSSION.
I JUST HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO THERE WAS, THERE WERE TWO ISSUES.
THERE WAS THE ISSUE OF THE SURCHARGE THING, LIKE WERE THE WALLS BUILT, RIGHT? AND THEN THERE WAS THE ISSUE OF THE EASEMENT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I THINK THAT THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER SAID THAT HE HAD REMOVED THE, THE PORTION OF IT THAT WAS IN THE EASEMENT.
YOU'VE BEEN A BRIEF ANSWER, PLEASE, JUST ON THAT ONE QUESTION.
THE TWO WALLS THAT WERE ON TOP OF THE SHALLOWER PIPE, I HAVE REMOVED ENTIRELY.
I PROVIDED PICTURES ALSO TO THIS CITY BEFORE IT CAME HERE.
THE THIRD WALL THAT PREVENT THAT IS PASSED WHERE THE PIPE IS, THE PIPE GOES VERTICALLY DOWN.
I KEPT THAT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE, UH, UM, RIVERSIDE DRIVE WILL BE IN DANGER OF GRAVEL.
I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO REMOVE THAT.
UM, MS. MILLER, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? YES.
SO WERE YOU, WERE YOU MAKING A, PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT THAT, THAT DEALT WITH THE EASEMENT? I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT IT SEEMED LIKE THE EASEMENT ISSUE HAD BEEN, WAS NOT IN VIOLATION ANYMORE.
SO IT'S REALLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF SURCHARGE.
AND SOMEONE ELSE COULD CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT GETTING THAT RIGHT.
WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'LL SPEAK REAL QUICK.
DIVISION MANAGER, RUBBER MOORE.
THIS IS STRICTLY ABOUT THE WALL.
IS IT NEED A PERMIT OR DOES IT NOT? THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO CALL A BOAT UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY.
SO, UM, WHERE'S MY LIST? HERE WE GO.
SO I'M FIRST, SO I DENY THE APPEAL.
MR. THOMPSON FAVOR? I'M IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S APPEAL.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER GREEN IN DENY THE APPEAL, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER BENIGNO IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER TOAD WRITING DOWN A PIECE OF PAPER? YES.
WRITE IT DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
THAT WAS, UH, A DENY COMMISSIONER, UH, FRAY BERGER, I'M IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER SEIG, I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING OF THE APPEAL.
UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL.
SO, UM, I LOST TRACK, BUT I BELIEVE THE SIX TO THREE, I BELIEVE.
SO WHAT WAS MR. TOAD'S VOTE TO DENY THE APPEAL.
OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, SIX AND THREE.
SO, UM, THE MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL, UH, CARRIES, AND THAT I BELIEVE CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
WHO, UH, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR EVIDENCE, MS. ALLIE? YES.
DO YOU WANT TO MOVE TO ONTO THE NEXT ITEM? YES.
[3. Case Number OL 2020-041835]
NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING THE RENTAL REGISTRATION SUSPENSION OF A REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8,900 NORTH IH 35 SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHBOUND, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ORBIT APARTMENTS.THE CASE NUMBER IS O L 20 20 41.
EXHIBITS FOR THIS CASE CAN BE FOUND IN THE BRIGHT BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE FILE FOLDER.
IN YOUR READERS, YOU'LL FIND STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.
EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER, AUSTIN CODE'S SUSPENSION LETTER, THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, A STRUCTURE MAP OF THE PROPERTY NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO AUSTIN CODE'S DECISION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
AND LAST AUSTIN CODE'S RECOMMENDATION, I MEAN TO, I'M
[01:20:01]
SORRY, DECISION TO, UH, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO AUSTIN CODE'S DECISION TO, UM, SUSPEND THE PROPERTY.AND LASTLY, AUSTIN CODE'S RECOMMENDATION.
AUSTIN CODE SUPERVISOR JAMES ADAMS IS HERE TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS THAT LED UP TO THE SUSPENSION SUPERVISOR ADAMS, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF YOUR TIME TO SPEAK WITH YOU IN REGARDS TO THESE RELEVANT MATTERS.
I AM HERE TODAY IN REFERENCE TO AN APPEAL HEARING FOR 8,900 NORTH ICE 35, THE, UH, ORBITS APARTMENTS, AS MELANIE IS STATED, RIGHT, THE ORBITS APARTMENTS.
AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY IS IT'S A MATTER OF ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLETE REPAIRS.
UM, AS YOU WILL NOTICE IN THE TESTIMONY THAT I WILL PROVIDE WILL STATE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE OWNER IN APRIL OF 2019.
WE PERFORMED A PERIODIC INSPECTION AT THE PROPERTY LOCATION ON THE, UH, AUGUST THE 20TH IS WHEN WE BASICALLY STARTED TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT THE B THE PROPERTY BEING IN THE STATE IN WHICH IT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THAT RESPECTIVE, UM, PERIODIC INSPECTION, THE PROPERTY OWNER STATES THAT IN THEIR REFERENCE FOR AN APPEAL IS THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME, AND AS THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE ON FILE WILL SHOW AND DEPICT IS THAT ADEQUATE TIME WAS PROVIDED, BUT STILL, THE REPAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE.
THERE STILL REMAINS SEVERAL CODE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE'RE STILL HAVING TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS THERE AND FOLLOW UP WITH REGARDS TO GETTING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
UM, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHICH YOU EXHIBIT WE WANT TO PRESENT FIRST NOTES.
LET'S START WITH, UM, CAN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EXHIBITS? THANK YOU.
THE FRONT, THE FIRST PHOTO THAT YOU WILL SEE SHOWS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COURSE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 8,900 NORTH I 35 SERVICE ROAD SOUTHBOUND.
THIS SLIDE SIMPLY STATES THE CRITERIA THAT THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM OPERATES UNDER.
TWO OR MORE SEPARATE NOTICES OF VIOLATION ARE ISSUED FOR THE SAME PROPERTY WITH THE CONSECUTIVE 24 MONTH PERIOD.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FAILS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME REQUIRED BY THE CODE OFFICIAL.
THE FIVE RULE, FIVE OR MORE SEPARATE NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED ON SEPARATE DAYS FOR THE PROPERTY WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE VIOLATION WAS CORRECTED OR NOT.
AND TWO, TWO OR MORE CITATIONS ARE ISSUED FOR THE PROPERTY WITHIN 24 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS.
THIS GOES INTO THE CRITERIA FOR AS TO WHY, WHY WE HAVE TO ISSUE A RENTAL REGISTRATION SUSPENSION.
UH, THE CODE OFFICIAL MAY SUSPEND RENTAL REGISTRATION FOR RENTAL PROPERTY IF THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES, ONE, THE PROPERTY IS DECLARED SUB SUBSTANDARD BY SUBSTANDARD OR DANGEROUS BY THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION, BSC, THE CODE OFFICIAL OR A CODE COURT OF CONTEMPT CONTEMPT JUDGMENT, JU JURISDICTION COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO THE REGISTRANT ATE FAILS TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THREE, THE REGISTRANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND FOUR, THE MENT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH OTHER CITY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
THE ATE FAILS TO PAY ITS ANNUAL FEE REGISTRATION FEE.
FINAL SLIDE, PLEASE SHOWS OF COURSE, OUR RECOMMENDATION, THE STAFF ASKS THAT THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO, WHICH INCLUDES A STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING, THE FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS THE CODE'S RECOMMENDATION.
I, I'M TRYING TO TAKE YOUR PART.
I, MELANIE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT, UH, I GUESS ANY TESTIMONY I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO LEND IS THE MERE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN OVER TWO YEARS AND STILL THOSE RESPECTIVE CODE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO GET REPAIRED BY THE COMMISSION HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED YET.
AND OUR, OUR MAIN, MAIN VOTE OF CONTENTION IS WITH REGARDS TO FOUR DASH 14 DASH 50.
IT, IT, TIME IS SUBJECTIVE IN SOME ISSUES, AND WE CAN UNDERSTAND WITH REGARDS TO COVID 19 AND SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES, SUPPLY LINE SUPPLY, UH, CHAIN ISSUES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
[01:25:01]
BUT THERE HAS TO COME A TIME IN WHICH THESE REPAIRS MUST GET DONE.AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS RESPECTIVE TIME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR MY TESTIMONY.
AND, UM, MS. ALLIE, AT THIS POINT, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT, UM, EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO, INCLUDING STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INTO, UM, OUR RECORD.
AND WE HAVE, UM, NOW I HAVE TWO APPELLATE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, AND I SEE THREE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE.
SO I HAVE, SO, UM, IS, SO WHO IS THAT? WE ONLY HAVE TWO SPEAKERS.
I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. KELLER, MR. KELLER, JOHN KELLER.
SO, SO WE HAVE TWO, AND, BUT WE, AND MR. HARPIN IS MY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY WHO'S JUST RUNNING THE CLOCK FOR ME SO THAT I DON'T RUN OUT OF TIME.
IS, IS THAT THAT FINE? WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE, TWO SIGNED UP.
UM, HE'S NOT GOING TO SPEAK, WERE YOU? BUT HE'S STILL MS. CURING.
I, UM, UH, CHAIR IF, UH, IF YOU WOULD PREFER THAT HE NOT SIT AT THE TABLE? HE CAN, HE CAN MOVE TO THE SIDE.
UM, BUT AS LONG AS HE'S NOT SPEAKING OKAY.
UM, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SIGN A SHEET TO SIT AT THE TABLE.
SO, UM, YEAH, SO YOU'RE NOT SIGNED,
SO IN THAT, I'M NOT SURE WE SWORE YOU IN, BUT YES.
JUST THERE'S A POINT OF ORDER
UM, SO AGAIN, UH, AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, UH, TYPICALLY, UM, WE AFFORD YOU BY, THEY AFFORD YOU THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AS THE CITY USED.
UH, JAMES, UM, HE STEPPED OUT.
I, I, I, THAT WAS A PRETTY BRIEF CITY PRESENTATION, SO I DON'T THINK THE CITY USED MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
UM, BUT JUST IN TERMS OF PACING YOURSELF, JUST, UM, YEAH, TIME MAY ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
WILL I HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND MR. KELLER AS WELL? NO, YOUR, YOUR COMBINED TIME WILL BE EQUIVALENT.
WILL BE, WILL BE FIVE MINUTES, UNLESS THE CITY TOOK MORE TIME.
AND THEN WE USUALLY PROVIDE YOU.
JUST, UM, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TIMEKEEPER, WE'LL GIVE YOU SIX MINUTES, BUT USE THAT.
I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. JOHN KELLER.
AND, UH, WE ARE HERE ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO SUSPEND OUR CLIENT OUT OF THE, UH, THE PROGRAM.
AND SO ONE OF THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP WAS TIMING.
THAT'S THE KEY ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPENSION IN THIS CASE WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY IN AN UNREASONABLE TIMEFRAME TO ALLOW OUR CLIENT TO MAKE THE NEEDED REPAIRS TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS.
UH, AND THERE'S REASONS FOR THAT.
AND THERE'S A SLIDE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR POWERPOINT, I BELIEVE IT'S THE SECOND SLIDE, IF YOU COULD PUT THAT UP.
UM, AND THE TIME ISSUE RELATES TO THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE, UM, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE WE BE, UH, EVEN AFTER WE BECAME THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I THINK THE FIRST NOTICE WAS IN MAY OF 2021.
UM, WE BELIEVE THERE WAS INTERFERENCE ON THE PROPERTY BY SOME OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE, WHICH CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION FOR CONTRACTORS REPAIR PEOPLE.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, 4.1450, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ON SLIDE FOUR, THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT WHEN WE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF INTENT, THAT WAS RECEIVED ON OR AROUND, UM, AUGUST 2ND, I BELIEVE.
AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE CODE PROVIDES THAT THE INTENT COULD SPECIFY A REASONABLE TIME FOR COMPLIANCE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE WERE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS.
THERE WAS A PLANNING MEETING THAT WAS HELD AFTER THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITH OUR CONTRACTORS, OUR ENGINEERS, UH, OUR, OUR PERMITTING EXPERTS AND OUR CLIENT WITH THE CITY AND THE CODE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
AND THEY DECIDED THAT THE REVIEWERS WERE GOING TO NEED OUR ARCHITECT TO PRESENT, ALMOST
[01:30:01]
LIKE SITE PLANS TO BE DRAWN TO CURE MANY OF THE VIOLATIONS.AND THAT WAS NOT A PROCESS THAT COULD TAKE 30 DAYS.
THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE PROBABLY UPWARDS OF SIX MONTHS.
AND SO TO GIVE US 30 DAYS TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS, WE REALIZED THERE WAS FRUSTRATION ON THIS PROCESS.
IN THE PROJECT, WE GOT INVOLVED AND MET WITH, UH, THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS OURSELVES REPRESENTING OUR CLIENT.
WE SENT A LETTER REQUESTING A BIT MORE TIME FOR A SHORT EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS, AND THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE IT.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR US TO GET THE JOB DONE.
AND AT THAT TIME, YES, THERE WERE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CURE ALL OF THEM WITHIN 30 DAYS.
AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAD MET WITH CODE COMPLIANCE AND US, AND WAS STATING THAT AT THAT PLANNING MEETING, THESE SORT OF PLANS FOR PERMITS ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE NECESSARILY TO BE PERMITTED, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE ISSUED AND DRAWN ON PLANS THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD REVIEW AND THEN GRANT A PERMIT.
AND THAT DIDN'T ALLOW TIME FOR COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
SO IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE IT WITH THIRD 30 DAYS.
WHAT YOU ALL ARE GONNA WANNA KNOW TONIGHT IS WHAT KIND OF PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING AND WHETHER WE STUCK BY OUR WORD, BECAUSE WE BASICALLY GAVE THE WORD THAT WE WOULD COMPLETE MANY VIOLATIONS.
HE'S MOVED TO AUSTIN AND LEFT HIS FAMILY IN UTAH.
HE'S LIVING ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
AND AS OF THE END OF THIS WEEK, I BELIEVE WE WILL ONLY HAVE 48 VIOLATIONS ON A PROPERTY THAT HAD OVER 400.
AND THAT IS ONLY US WAITING ON PERMITS FOR WORK THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, BUT IS GETTING PERMITTED.
NOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH MARI SOUL, WHO WE LIKE VERY MUCH, AND SHE'S ESTABLISHED A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR CLIENT, MR. KELLER, NOW, AND THEY HAVE KNOCKED OUT, AND YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR, YOUR EVIDENCE PACKET, IF YOU'LL, UH, FLIP THROUGH THAT, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE THE REPAIR PROGRESS CHART.
AND WE'VE GONE FROM 445 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO RIGHT NOW, ABOUT 48.
AND THAT'S JUST WORK THAT'S BEING DONE.
IT'S DONE, BUT IT'S BEING PERMITTED.
UM, I'M THE OWNER OF THE ORBIT APARTMENTS, ALONG WITH MY BROTHER NATE, AND MY FATHER IVAN.
WE'RE A FAMILY INVESTMENT GROUP, UM, OUT OF UTAH.
AND, UM, LIKE RACI MENTIONED, I HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE, WELL, LET ME JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
WE BOUGHT THESE PROPERTIES IN APRIL OF 2019.
SUPER EXCITED TO OWN PROPERTY IN AUSTIN.
UM, HOWEVER, WE HIT SOME CHALLENGES.
THESE PROPERTIES ARE, YOU KNOW, WERE A LITTLE BIT HARDER THAN WE ANTICIPATED, UH, LIVING IN UTAH.
WE HAD TO FIND SOME, UM, THIRD PARTY HELP IN MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE FIRST MANAGEMENT GROUP.
THEY DIDN'T QUITE LIVE UP TO THEIR, THEIR PROMISES.
WE FOUND ANOTHER GROUP AFTER LOTS OF DILIGENT, UM, SEARCHING.
AND AGAIN, THEY DIDN'T QUITE, UM, GET THE JOB DONE.
AND SO WE, WE REALIZED, YOU KNOW, THE OLD ADAGE, IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, TO GET THE JOB DONE RIGHT, YOU GOTTA DO IT YOURSELF.
SO, UM, WE TOOK OVER MANAGEMENT OURSELVES.
AND, UM, LIKE RACING MENTIONED, I, I PACKED UP MY CAR AND I MOVED TO AUSTIN ACTUALLY LIVING ON SITE IN ONE OF OUR VACANT APARTMENTS.
AND, UM, THE FIRST THING THAT I DID WHEN I GOT THERE WAS I ASKED, UM, OUR COCO COMPLIANCE OFFICER, MARI SOLE, IF SHE'D BE WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND MEET WITH ME.
AND, UH, SHE WAS GRACE GRACIOUS, AND SHE MET WITH ME.
AND THE FIRST THING I SAID IS, I, I JUST APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE CONFUSION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF MISSED CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN HAVING FROM PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF US.
AND WE, WE GOT OFF TO A GREAT START.
AND, UM, IT WAS VERY INTIMIDATING.
WHEN I LOOKED AT OUR CO CODE VIOLATION LIST WHEN I FIRST, UM, GOT THERE, THERE WAS BETWEEN BOTH PROPERTIES, I, I OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AS WELL CALLED STARBUST.
THERE WERE ABOUT A THOUSAND VIOLATIONS.
THE LIST JUST KEPT SCROLLING AND SCROLLING AND IT WAS VERY INTIMIDATING.
BUT, UM, WE WERE ABLE TO DEVISE A PLAN AND I COMMITTED TO MARI SOUL THAT WE WERE GONNA GET EVERY ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS, UM, ACCOMPLISHED AND, AND CLOSED OUT AS FAST AS WE COULD.
AND, UM, WE GOT THE RIGHT CONTRACTORS ON THE JOB, AND WE KIND OF DIVIDED ALL THESE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS AND CATEGORIES, AND WE ASSIGNED DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
AND IN, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THE LIST FROM ABOUT A THOUSAND BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES DOWN TO, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT A MINUTE.
LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE BY SAYING THAT, UM, AT THIS POINT, WITH THE SUSPENSION IN PLACE, UM, IT'S, IT'S CRIPPLING OUR ABILITY TO OPERATE THE PROPERTY.
UM, EVERY SINGLE DAY, EVERY SINGLE WEEK, EVERY MONTH, PEOPLE ARE MOVING OUT AND WE'RE UNABLE TO FILL THOSE VACANT UNITS WITH PING RESIDENTS WITHOUT MONEY COMING IN.
MONEY IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF A PROPERTY.
WE CAN'T MAKE CODE VIOLATION REPAIRS, WE CAN'T
[01:35:01]
PAY OUR STAFF.WE CAN'T, UH, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, WE NEED THE MONEY IN ORDER TO OPERATE.
IT'S CRIPPLING OUR ABILITY TO OPERATE.
ALSO, THE LOAN ON OUR PROPERTY IS ENDING IN DECEMBER, AND WE HAVE TO GET NEW FINANCING, AND THIS SUSPENSION IS GONNA PREVENT US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, I ALSO WANNA MENTION THAT, THAT, UM, OUR OP PROPERTIES OFFER VERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE A HUNDRED VACANT APARTMENTS THAT WE CANNOT LEASE, AND WE COULD, WE COULD HELP A HUNDRED FAMILIES MOVE INTO OUR APARTMENTS RIGHT AWAY IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO LEASE, IF WE COULD GET THE SUSPENSION LIFTED.
UM, SO I'M PLEADING WITH YOU TO PLEASE, UM, PLEASE OFFER THAT TO US SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
WE'RE THIS CLOSE AND, AND YOUR TIME IS UP.
NO, WELL, I JUST, JUST, LET ME JUST MAKE THE POINT.
I'M, WE'RE ON THE ONE YARD LINE.
WE'RE SO CLOSE TO GETTING THESE VIOLATIONS COMPLETED ON MONDAY.
IN FIVE DAYS, WE WILL HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF OUR VIOLATIONS COMPLETED EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT REQUIRE PERMIT, AND THAT'S IN THE CITY'S HANDS.
AND 48 OF THE 64 ARE DONE, AND WE JUST NEED THE CITY TO GIVE US THE PERMITS, AND WE HAVE CONTRACTORS LINED UP AND WE'LL HAVE THE WORK DONE INSTANTLY.
SO ANYWAY, WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
QUESTIONS, UH, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY OR FOR THE, UH, APPELLANTS COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED BACK ON? YES.
SO ON MONDAY WE WILL HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE VIOLATIONS COMPLETE EXCEPT FOR THE VIOLATIONS THAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR.
AND ONCE WE GET THE PERMIT, WE CAN PROBABLY HAVE THE, THE QUESTION IS, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR US TO GET THE PERMITS? AND THAT, THAT I CAN'T ANSWER.
ONCE WE GET THE PERMITS IN HAND, WE'LL GET THAT, WE CAN GET THAT WORK DONE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE PERMITS.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S GONNA TAKE.
AND THAT'S IN THE CITY'S HANDS.
WE'VE DONE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THAT DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT.
IT WAS, IT WAS A HERCULEAN EFFORT.
LET ME TELL YOU, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS.
UM, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN.
AND LITERALLY, I FEEL LIKE AT THIS POINT, OUR PROPERTY IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST COMPLIANT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A, A SUSPENSION IS, IS CRIPPLING US.
NO, WE, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT, MAKE THAT POINT THERE.
BUT YEAH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE CAN GET THE WORK DONE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GONNA GET THE PERMITS, SO THANK YOU.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, AND YOU MAY HAVE PROVIDED IT, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.
DID, DO YOU, UM, DID YOU PROVIDE US WITH LIKE WHEN ALL ITEMS THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED, LIKE WHEN THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED, IS THAT INCLUDED IN OUR READER? THAT IS WHEN YOU'VE SUBMITTED THEM, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ANSWERING YOU EXACTLY ON POINT, BUT WE DO HAVE SPREADSHEETS IN OUR PACKET THAT SHOW THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BASICALLY BEEN CURED NOW, AND THE REMAINING ONES AS TO THE SUBMISSION OF PERMIT DATES, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE WONDERING? YES.
CAUSE YOU HAVE OUTSTANDING PERMITS.
AND I'M WONDERING, UH, DO YOU HAVE THE DATES WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN OUR PACKET AS TO THE DATES WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS PER SE.
AND DO YOU HAVE BEEN TO HAVE LIKE A SCHEDULED FROM THE ARCHITECT OR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY ESTIMATE THE WORK WILL BE COMPLETED IN, IN THE PACKAGE? UM, I, NOT IN THE PACKAGE ABOUT THE ESTIMATE FROM THE CONTRACTOR.
UM, WE HAD PROVIDED EVIDENCE WHEN WE HAD ASKED FOR A BIT MORE TIME, OTHER THAN THE 30 DAYS, WE HAD PROVIDED THE CITY WITH A LETTER AND A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE 30 DAYS.
AND AT THAT TIME, WE PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT OUR, OUR, OUR RETAINED ARCHITECT WHO WAS DRAWING THE PLANS AND WHO WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY ALONG WITH MERCURY PERMITTING.
AND I KEPT ASKING THE ARCHITECT, I NEED YOU TO GIVE ME AN OUTSIDE TIMELINE.
THIS WAS THREE MONTHS AGO, ABOUT TWO AND A HALF TO THREE MONTHS AGO.
AND AT THAT TIME, HE SAID SIX MONTHS TO GET EVERYTHING DRAWN THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PERMITTED.
NOW WHAT'S HAPPENED, WHICH IS INTERESTING, IS THAT A LOT OF THE WORK HE ANTICIPATED, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KNOCK OUT WITH MARI, SO IN THE CITY ALREADY.
SO WE HAVE 48 ITEMS WHERE WORK'S ACTUALLY BEEN COMPLETED, BUT WE'RE JUST WAITING SORT OF FOR THE STAMP OF APPROVAL PERMIT.
NO, WE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE, UH, I WAS JUST ASKING WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD HELP US SEE HOW FAR IN THE PROCESS THEY ARE, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE SET.
[01:40:01]
YES.UM, YES, ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SUPERVISOR ADAMS. OF THE REMAINING VIOLATIONS, ARE THEY SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OR ARE THEY M SEE YOU NODDING.
IS THAT YES, YES, THEY ARE, MA'AM.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY COULD ALL BE TIED TO ONE BUILDING.
UM, AND I GUESS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, AND THIS MIGHT BE MORE FOR DIVISION MANAGER MORE OR PERHAPS HER SUPERVISOR, ADAMS, ON THE RUO FUNDER PROGRAM.
SO THE RENTAL SUSPENSION IS TIED TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IS THERE ANY LEEWAY IN THAT, IN THAT R O P PROGRAM TO JUST TIE THE RENTAL SUSPENSION TO SPECIFIC BUILDINGS SO THAT PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY COULD BE RELEASED? UH, DIVISION MANAGER, UM, MOORE, OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR? WORD, LIKE I, I'M GONNA DEFER THAT ANSWER TO YOU, SIR.
UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UH, DANIEL WARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH AUSTIN CODE.
UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION REGARDING THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE AN AVENUE TO APPLY A SUSPENSION ONLY TO A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S ALL SUSPENDED OR NOT AT ALL SUSPENDED.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND I'D CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
UM, BUT, UM, I'M HEARING SOME VERY COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR WHY IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
UM, HAVE YOU, UH, WALKED THE PROPERTY RECENTLY? CAN YOU VALIDATE THAT IN EXCESS OF 80 TO 90% OF THE VIOLATIONS ARE LOOKED TO BE ADDRESSED OR GETTING ADDRESSED? I MUST, UM, LOVE, UM, GRACIOUSLY AND, UH, IN A GRATEFUL MANNER, AGREE WITH, UM, ATTORNEY HAD DIED.
I THINK IN HER APPEAL LETTER, SHE STATED THAT THEY WERE THE GROUP THAT WERE GONNA COME IN AND GET THE JOB DONE.
AND AS MY DIVISION MANAGER AND AS MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND ALSO OF COURSE, MARISOL, BECAUSE SHE'S OUT AT THAT LOCATION ANYWHERE FROM THREE TO FOUR DAYS OUT THE WEEK, UM, SHE HAS A VERY HIGH CASELOAD, AND THAT'S A PROPERTY SHE'S COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THEY GET INTO COMPLIANCE.
UM, SHE'S, I WALKED IT DURING THE HEAT OF THE, UH, A HUNDRED DEGREE TEMPERATURES THAT WE HAD AND TOOK SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OUT THERE.
AND THEY'RE DOING, THEY WERE DOING WORK AT THAT TIME.
UH, ISSUES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE PERMITS, OF COURSE, BUT THEY WERE DEFINITELY DOING THEIR WORK.
SO THERE IS A COMMITMENT TO GETTING A LOT OF THE VIOLATIONS, UM, OF COURSE INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST IS PERMANENTLY JUST TIME.
YEAH, I, THE REASON I ASK IS I WAS, UH, I TESTIFIED PROBABLY A COUPLE DOZEN TIMES FOR THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM EIGHT YEAR, NINE YEARS AGO, AND THERE WAS A BIG PROBLEM IN THIS DISTRICT WHERE THE ONE I REPRESENT IN THIS, UH, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX IS IN DISTRICT FOUR.
UM, BUT WE ALSO WANT, WE WANT TO RE REHABILITATE, UH, PROPERTIES SO THERE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, MR. DOD, IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER, UH, DATED SEPTEMBER 16TH, YOU STATE THAT YOU'D LIKE AT LEAST 120 DAYS TO GIVE THE OWNER AND THE TEAM OKAY.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, COMMISSIONER BENDING NOW, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, IN THE, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CODE.
UH, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE APP, UM, I'M SORRY, IN THE APPELLANT EXHIBITS THAT THEY PROVIDED, THEY CLAIM THAT THE NORMAL TIMEFRAME TO BE PLACED, UH, INTO THIS PROGRAM IS TWO YEARS.
UM, AND THAT THEY ARE UNDER THAT BY A FEW MONTHS, THREE MONTHS OR SO, MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS.
IS THAT ACCURATE? CAN YOU TESTIFY? IS THERE A STANDARD PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU WOULD MOVE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT THIS TYPE OF PUNISHMENT INTO A PROPERTY? OR IS IT JUST, UM, A JUDGMENT CALL PER SE? I'LL DEFER THAT ONE TO ASSISTED DIRECTOR WORD ON THIS ONE.
SO, UH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, NOWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE OR IN OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES IS THERE A MINIMUM TIME REQUIRED BEFORE WE ENACT THE SUSPENSION, UH, WITH THE ORDINANCE.
ALLOWS US TO DO IS ENACT OF SUSPENSION OR PROVIDE A NOTICE WITH A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME PRIOR TO INSTITUTING A SUSPENSION, WHICH IS WHAT
[01:45:01]
WE DID IN THIS CASE.UM, WE ISSUED A NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND ON AUGUST 2ND OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN WE FORMALLY SUSPENDED THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 6TH OF THIS YEAR.
SO OUR, OUR, OUR NOTICE OF INTENT PROVIDED 30 DAYS RIGHT.
UH, PRIOR TO THE SUSPENSION, BUT THE NOTICES OR THE, THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN THE SUSPENSION RIGHT, OCCURRED EVEN IF WE GO WITH THE LATER DATE OF THE N NOV IN MAY OF 2021.
THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS MUELLER ORSTAD, DO EITHER ONE OF YOU, COMMISSIONER MUELLER, YOU RECOGNIZED? YEAH, I THINK THAT PARTLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT TIMELINE.
SO THE VIOLATIONS, IT, IT ENTERED THE PROGRAM IN MAY OF 2021, AND A LOT OF THE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
I STILL HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD, UM, DEFINITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN THE PERMITS WERE PULLED FOR THE, THE WORK THAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING.
AND I'D, I'D LIKE TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF HOW SERIOUS THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE, CUZ THIS IS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE WITH WHATEVER THESE VIOLATIONS ARE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.
UM, THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THE PERMITS ON THE, THE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT ARE REMAINING IS, IS INVOLVED BECAUSE IT, IT REQUIRES DRAWINGS, ENGINEERING AND THEN THE SUBMITTING PROCESS.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY LIKE ALL THE DETAILS OF, OF WHEN THEY'RE SUBMITTED AND, AND ALL OF THAT.
I KNOW WE'RE WORKING WITH AN EXPEDITOR TO GET THAT TO GO THROUGH AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATES, BUT INITIALLY WE WERE TOLD IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS AND WE'RE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WHAT, TWO MONTHS INTO THAT PROCESS NOW? I BELIEVE.
SO WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS.
SO ARE, ARE, HAVE YOU SUBMITTED THE PERMITS FOR THIS WORK OR NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CLEAR ON, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'VE GOT TO THAT POINT JUST YET.
THEY'RE STILL FINALIZING THE ENGINEERING REPORTS, SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, SO THERE'S STILL WORK WORK, THEY'RE STILL WORKING IT, THEY'RE STILL FINISHING THE ENGINEERING AS FAR AS I, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
SO DOES THAT MEAN, SO THERE'S SOME VIOLATIONS, THE THE PERMITTING PROCESS HASN'T EVEN BEGUN.
IT'S THE WORK'S BEEN COMPLETED, BUT THE, BUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS, UH, IT, IT REQUIRES THE DRAWINGS, THE ENGINE, LIKE THE, THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE VERY INVOLVED AND THEN THE ENGINEERING REPORT, AND IT'S JUST, IT JUST TAKES, APPARENTLY IT TAKES THREE MONTHS TO GET THAT, THAT FINISH AND WE'RE TWO MONTHS INTO THAT.
SO NO, NO, I, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO THERE'S, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO PERMITTING AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN THE REVIEW AND WE'RE JUST AWAITING KIND OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT REVIEW.
BUT THERE'S OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE THE, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT YET.
UM, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MUELLER POSED A QUESTION, AND I THINK IT WAS, UM, FOR MR. UH, ADAMS AND IT, THE, THE QUESTION, AND, AND, AND LIZ, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT, BUT, UM, I HAVE TO DO WITH GETTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE VIOLATIONS.
ARE, ARE ANY OF THESE VIOLATIONS, FIRE HAZARDS, RISK TO LIFE, RISK OF CATASTROPHIC FAILURE? OR ARE THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, BROKEN ASOT WHERE YOU CAN SEE DAYLIGHT NEEDS TO BE FIXED? WELL, AS I'VE WALKED THE PROPERTY, UM, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY QUOTE UNQUOTE WHAT YOU CONSIDER BE ESOTERIC OR BEAUTY ITEMS OF THAT NATURE, BUT IT'S, UM, IT'S COMPELLING.
IT'S HARD TO, HARD TO REALLY DETERMINE LIKE IF IT'S A LIFE, HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUE, IF IT'S A BIG OR LARGE SCALE, BECAUSE I THINK THEY ALSO HAVE TO DO SOME DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THE STRUCTURE WITH REGARDS TO BALCONIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND ALSO SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL CONCERNS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, LIKE I, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T MAYBE JUST LOOK AT SOMETHING AND SAY, OKAY, THAT WE CAN LET THAT GO.
AND AS A GENTLEMAN, THE FORMER COMMISSIONER, PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER ALSO MENTIONED THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SOME ISSUES AND ALSO DEFER TO MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BECAUSE HE HAS SOME ALSO PREPP TO ADD TO THE SUBJECT TO, UH, JUST TO EXPAND ON, UH, MR. ADAMS TESTIMONY, UM, TO SPEAK TO THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NOTICES OF I OR OR INDIVIDUAL VIOLATIONS, WE NEED TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL CASES.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION THOUGH, THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF 2021, AND WE SECURED AT LEAST FIVE REPAIR ORDERS ON THIS PROPERTY THAT TO DATE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
AND SO THAT AT A MINIMUM WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS AT
[01:50:01]
THE PROPERTY.COMMISSIONER THOMPSON ARE THE, UH, ONES THAT ARE STILL TO BE REPAIRED, ARE ANY OF THEM OCCUPIED? YES.
WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A HARD ONE BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S QUITE A BIG, THAT'S A QUITE A BIG COMPLEX IS, UH, YOU'VE GOT OVER 400 UNITS AT THAT PROPERTY.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I I, I, I, I, IT'D BE HARD FOR ME TO PUT A NUMBER ON PERCENTAGE ON THAT ONE.
SO, UM, I, I GUESS I WOULD JUST OPINE THAT IF THESE ARE, IF THE ONES THAT NEED TO BE FIXED OR ARE OCCUPIED, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO JUSTIFY RENTING SOME OTHERS.
I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M SAYING IT BACKWARDS.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY? MR. I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A COMMENT THAT THERE ARE, THERE ARE JUST A HANDFUL OF ITEMS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETED, UM, LIKE I WAS MENTIONING BEFORE.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE ONE, YOU KNOW, THE UNITS THAT ARE BEING OCCUPIED, THE, THESE ITEMS THAT ARE LEFT ARE, ARE VERY, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, WOOD THAT NEEDS BASICALLY THE RULE THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED THAT'S MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET REQUIRES A PERMIT.
AND SO THESE ITEMS ARE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WOOD THAT'S ROTTED OUT.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS, IT'S JUST UNSIGHTLY.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S NOT STRUCTURALLY, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOUND AND IT'S MOSTLY COSMETIC.
UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS A KIND OF, SO TRYING TO ASCERTAIN HERE, SO YOU'RE SAYING MOST THINGS ARE OF SOUND, MOSTLY COSMETIC.
MR. ADAMS, WE HEARD YOU SAY THERE'S UM, THERE'S SOME STRUCTURAL CONCERNS, RIGHT? SO, UM, SO SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE STRUCTURAL CONCERNS THAT THE CITY HAS CITED.
JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WEIGHT BEARING STRUCTURES, YOU REALLY, I MEAN, IT MAY LOOK ONE WAY, BUT UNTIL YOU CAN TRULY, UNTIL YOU CAN TRULY DOCUMENT AND MAKE FOR SURE YOU THINGS OF THAT NATURE, UM, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN MAKE, WE CAN SAY THERE THAT THEY MAY LOOK SOUND, BUT WE DON'T, WE, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
AND DO YOU, DO YOU THANK YOU AND MR. CARD YOU DISPUTE? ARE YOU DISPUTING THAT? WELL, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ADAMS. I'M JUST WONDERING WHEN HE LAST CAME TO VISIT THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE MOST OF THIS WORK, THIS 90% OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS.
AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHEN HE'S LAST BEEN THERE.
UM, IT'S, WE, WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.
SO I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY, LIKE I SAY, WE'RE ON THE ONE YARD LINE, LIKE WE'RE SO CLOSE.
NO, NO, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT POINT ACROSS.
AND WE HAVEN'T CLOSED THE SECTION, SO YOU WERE ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION TO THE CITY.
SO I THINK YOU POSED A QUESTION, MR. ADAMS, I WAS OUT THERE, UM, I WAS OUT THERE A MONTH AGO IN SEPTEMBER, AND, UM, AT THAT TIME, I THINK, UM, ANY WORK THAT WAS BEING DONE WITH REGARDS TO BALCONYS HAD CEASED BECAUSE I KNOW THOUGH NO PERMITS WERE BEEN PULLED FOR THAT.
SO I DID NOTICE THAT THERE WERE SOME, OF COURSE, WOOD AND EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THE FRONT PART OF THE SUMMER, THE STRUCTURES, AND I TALKED TO MARISOL ABOUT THAT, AND MARISOL SAID, YES, THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING THE BALCONIES BECAUSE NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR THAT RESPECTIVE WORK.
AND UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE AS FAR AS IF WE COULD TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIME, I KNOW WITH YOUR PREVIOUS TWO CONTRACTORS BEFORE THE FOLKS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE PROPERTY NOW, IF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE INITIAL STEP THAT BEEN MADE, WE MAY NOT EVEN BE HERE TONIGHT.
THANK YOU MR. ADAMS. THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONER BENIGNO, UH, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR INSPECTOR ADAMS REGARDING THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENCE.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE VIOLATIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, IT SEEMS A BIT ODD THAT THE, THE PUNISHMENT, SO, AND SO FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE TO PREVENT MORE PEOPLE FROM MOVING IN ON, ON THE GUARD THE GROUNDS OF SAFETY ISSUES.
BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NO ONE WHO'S CURRENTLY RESIDING THERE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MOVE OUT, IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT'S, IT'S SAFE ENOUGH FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE TO OCCUPY.
I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT ONE TO, I'M JUST, I'M GENUINELY CURIOUS HOW THAT WORKS.
SO WITH THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED, UM, THE SUSPENSION WHEN ENACTED PROHIBITS THE PROPERTY ORDER FROM RENTING VACANT UNITS TO NEW TENANTS.
UM, IT DOES NOT REMOVE EXISTING TENANTS FROM EXISTING UNITS.
UM, THAT ACTION IS SOMETHING THAT'S ON THAT IS LEFT TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS
[01:55:01]
COMMISSION THROUGH A ORDER TO VACATE.THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION.
I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS CONDITIONS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, MERIT THE REMOVAL OF TENANTS IN A, A DANGEROUS SITUATION IN THAT, RIGHT, YEAH, IN THAT SITUATION, WE WOULD BRING A CASE TO THIS COMMISSION ASKING FOR AN ORDER TO VACANT.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE DID IN THIS CASE.
AND, AND JUST TO THE FOLLOW UP, UH, MISS HADDAD, AND YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, PROBABLY MISSED IT.
UM, HOW MANY UNITS ARE VACANT THAT YOU CANNOT CURRENTLY LEASE? I BELIEVE IT'S OVER A HUNDRED IS CORRECT, ABOUT ABOUT A HUNDRED.
AND HOW MANY ARE LEASED? UH, ABOUT, WELL, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 226.
THERE'S 336 COVERS AT THE COMPLEX.
SO, SO, AND LET ME JUST MAKE, MAKE THE POINT THAT THE VACANT UNITS ARE PERFECTLY SAFE TO MOVE INTO.
UM, JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
OKAY, SO ABOUT A HUNDRED, THAT'S NOT, I HAD MISUNDERSTOOD.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A TOTAL COMPLEX A HUNDRED.
YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 200 THAT ARE RENTED.
UH, MR. FRANCIS, WERE YOU YES.
YOU RECOGNIZED, I JUST GOT A QUICK QUESTION.
ONE OF YOU GUYS JUST SAID THIS THOUGH.
THEY CAME BACK, THEY WERE HERE IN 21.
THERE WERE FIVE ITEMS TO ATTEND TO, AND NONE OF THOSE FIVE HAVE BEEN ATTENDED TO, AND IT'S BEEN A YEAR, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? CORRECT.
THERE WERE FIVE ORDERS SECURED AT THIS PROPERTY BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2021.
AND TO DATE, THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETELY COMPLIED WITH.
NOW I DON'T WANT TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
UM, BUT TYPICALLY WHEN WE REQUEST REPAIR ORDERS, UH, WE REQUEST THAT THE REPAIRS ARE MADE AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS ARE SECURED AND FINALED.
AND SO IN A LOT OF THESE CASES, THAT'S PROBABLY THE HANGUP.
IS IT THE PERMITS AND NOT MY QUESTION THEN, FOR, FOR YOU GUYS, OF THOSE FIVE OR THOSE, IS, ARE THOSE IN THE, THE ONES THAT ARE STILL NEEDING TO BE PERMITTED? I MEAN, HERE WE ARE A YEAR LATER AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHICH FIVE YOU'RE REFERRING TO, TO BILL TO ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE AS OF MONDAY, WHATEVER THEY WERE THE LAST TIME YOU WERE BEFORE US, UM, WHATEVER THOSE ITEMS WERE THAT WERE YOU GUYS DISCUSSED WHEN YOU WERE HERE WITH US A YEAR AGO, DO YOU RECALL WHAT THOSE ITEMS WERE? I DON'T RECALL WHAT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY, BUT THAT'S ALRIGHT.
I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THAT'S OKAY.
UH, WOULD, WOULD ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC? I, I SECOND.
SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING.
UH, MR. GREEN, IT LOOKED LIKE MAYBE YOU WERE ABOUT TO ASK A QUESTION.
I'VE HEARD WHAT I NEED TO HEAR TO FOR THIS COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, UH, COMMISSIONER TOAD OR MUELLER? NO.
DOES ARE, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
J I MEANT TO ASK THIS EARLIER BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION TO THE FIRST CASE WHERE THE, UM, RECOMMENDED ORDER IS NOT FULLY CLARIFIED IN THEIR EXHIBIT.
AND I, UM, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW IT'S ABOUT THE SUSPENSION, UM, BUT I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY TEXT WE COULD REFERENCE, ESPECIALLY IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO AMEND.
THAT'S JUST A GENERAL QUESTION.
SO, UH, YOU WILL AGAIN BE VOTING UP AND DOWN GRANT OR, OR DENIED GRANT OR DENY THE APPEAL.
I, I DIDN'T REALIZE, SO THIS IS NOT EXTENSION THE MORE TIME GOTCHA.
THIS IS EITHER WE GRANT AN APPEAL OR WE DENY THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER FRYBERG? YES, I DO HAVE ONE MORE, MORE QUESTION ACTUALLY, AND THIS IS PROBABLY FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WORD.
UM, THE QUESTION IS, SO IF, IF AS A COMMISSION WE WERE TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND THE SUSPENSION IS THEN REMOVED, ARE THERE OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS WHICH WOULD LIKELY TRIGGER ANOTHER SUSPENSION IN THE NEAR FUTURE? UH, BY MY ACCOUNT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, THERE ARE 32 ACTIVE CODE VIOLATION CASES AT THE PROPERTY.
UM, WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE BELIEVE THEY WOULD SUPPORT A SUSPENSION THAT THE ROPE OR ITSELF DOES NOT ACTUALLY SPECIFY WHAT TYPE OF VIOLATION HAS TO OCCUR.
UM, BUT GROUNDS OR SUSPENSION CAN BE THAT, UH, THAT ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE BUILDING OF STANDARDS COMMISSION OR THAT NOTICES OF VIOLATION NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH TIMELY OR CITIES PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
UM, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE, UH, THE CASES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS SUSPENSION TO SEE IF IT WOULD WARRANT ANOTHER ONE IN THE FUTURE.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION? WELL, THIS ONE'S TOUGH BECAUSE PROGRESS IS OBVIOUSLY MADE AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, RIGHT? WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
[02:00:01]
TO BRING HOUSING ONTO THE MARKET THAT'S SAFE AND FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN.AND I THINK THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.
IT'S SOMEWHAT NEBULOUS WHAT'S IN THAT MIX, RIGHT? A YEAR AGO, THINGS WERE STILL HAVEN'T BEEN DONE, SOME THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE.
THERE'S SO MANY, I CAN'T LOOK THROUGH THAT SHEET.
I JUST, SORRY, MY EYES CAN'T, CAN'T LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS. SO THAT'S SOMEWHAT UNCLEAR TO ME, NOT JUST TO YOU.
I, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
I THINK I'M REALLY LOST ON THAT.
THERE'S SOME LACK OF CLARITY KIND OF, UM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? IT'S HARD TO, UM, ASCERTAIN LIKE THE SERIOUSNESS OF, UM, OF, UM, AN URGENCY MAYBE OF SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS.
I THINK, UM, UH, PERHAPS IF WE HAD MORE CLARITY FROM THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE ON THE PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, DID THINGS GET SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR PERMIT JUST TWO DAYS AGO BEFORE THIS MEETING? OR HAVE THEY BEEN IN THERE FOR SIX WEEKS? SIX MONTHS, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO, UH, THE FACT THAT THERE'S FIVE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, UNRESOLVED FOR OVER A YEAR, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF COUNTERS SOME OF THE, THE, THE, THE, THE LENIENCY, RIGHT? OR, OR, OR, OR CHARITY THAT ONE MIGHT FEEL.
UM, BUT THIS IS, UH, I GUESS IT'S A STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN
SO, UM, I THINK TRADITIONALLY AS CHAIR, I CAN'T MAKE MOTIONS OR IS IT POSSIBLE TO AMEND ONE OF THE, IF WE SAY WE WANT TO GRANT THE APPEAL, AND THEN CAN WE AMEND THAT AND ADD PENDING, UM, THE PERMITS THAT WILL BE APPROVED AND GIVE 30 DAYS TO GET THAT DONE? FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO, UM, YOU CAN'T CONDITION, UH, YOU CAN'T CONDITION THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL ON SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR AT AN UNDETERMINED FUTURE TIME.
COMMISSIONER, UH, MUELLER? YES, I, I JUST WANNA, UM, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, BUT FIRST I JUST WANNA SAY IN, IN INTRODUCING IT, IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR SINCE WE, YOU KNOW, SINCE THESE FIVE ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THE CASE, I THINK THEY SAID FIRST CAME OR, OR FIRST WENT IN THE PROGRAM IN MAY OF 2021.
AND I'M GLAD THEY'RE MAKING PROGRESS.
AND IF AS THEY'RE DESCRIBING THEY'VE GOT ALL THESE THINGS DONE AND THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE PERMIT, THEN THAT'S GOOD.
AS SOON AS THEY GET THOSE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION.
BUT THIS IS REALLY THE MOST POWERFUL TOOL WE HAVE IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM.
AND WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, IT, YOU KNOW, I'D BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SYMPATHETIC IF WE HAD, IF THEY WERE GIVING US INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WAS OUTSTANDING AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW DANGEROUS IT WAS OR WASN'T.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
BUT WE DO KNOW HOW LONG THESE, THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE SERIOUS ENOUGH AND, UH, YOU KNOW, DELAYED ENOUGH TO GET THEM BOTH IN THE REPEATER FENDER PROGRAM AND THEN GET THEM ESCALATED TO COME TO US, WHICH REALLY ONLY HAPPENS AFTER NOT MUCH PROGRESS IS BEING MADE.
SO I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION HERE.
AND MY MOTION WOULD BE TO UPHOLD THE STAFF'S DECISION.
AND I, I COMMEND THE OWNERS FOR THE PROGRESS THEY'VE MADE, AND I HOPE THEY CONTINUE TO MAKE SPEEDY PROGRESS, AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE, THE SUSPENSION.
BUT MY MOTION WOULD BE TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION.
SO, SO COMMISSIONER MUELLER, UH, SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, BY THAT YOU MEAN TO DENY THE APPEAL, CORRECT? THAT WAS, YES.
SO YOUR MOTION IS TO DENY THE APPEAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A, MAY I MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE CONTINUE TO VOTE? IS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO, I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER BIN INNO DISCUSSION.
YEAH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MUELLER.
I THINK I, AND YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS OR, OR MEANT THIS, BUT I THINK THERE'S A, A SLIGHT CLARIFICATION WARRANTED THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE FROM MAY OF 2021.
THE, THE PRO PROGRAM ADMITTANCE, OR THE SUSPENSION WAS FROM AUGUST.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY WERE ENTERED INTO THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, BUT I BELIEVE THE VIOLATIONS WERE FIRST MADE.
THEY WERE FIRST MADE AWARE OF THE VIOLATIONS IN MAY OF 2021.
I THINK THAT STILL, STILL IS LOTS OF TIME.
I'M NOT NEGATING YOUR POINT AT ALL, BUT THE ENTRANCE INTO THE, AND THE SUSPENSION WAS SEPTEMBER, THE SUSPENSION WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO, IF I HEARD RIGHT.
I THINK IT WAS SEPTEMBER 6TH WAS WHAT I WROTE DOWN.
SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE, SO IT'S LIKE SIX WEEKS AT THIS POINT.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE, I GUESS THE CLARIFICATION, THE, I THINK THAT THAT DOESN'T
[02:05:01]
CHANGE THE, THE, THE MOTION AND THE SECOND.UM, SO, UM, FOR THE DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION, IF NOT, I'M GONNA CALL A VOTE YES.
SO, UM, SO LET'S JUST SAY WE VOTE TO DENY THE APPEAL.
DO THEY HAVE TO, DO THEY COME BACK AND SAY IN 30 DAYS AND SAY, TIME TO LIFT IT NOW? OR DO WE HAVE, IS THERE, UH, I, I DON'T, I'M SORRY.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DENY THE APPEAL? WE DENY THE APPEAL.
WELL THEN THE SUSPENSION STAYS IN PLACE UNTIL WHEN WELL, UNTIL THEY RESOLVE ALL THESE ISSUES.
I MEAN, SO IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US AGAIN.
UH, MR. MOORE OR NO, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, NO.
SO IF YOU WERE, IF YOU DENY THE APPEAL, THE SUSPENSION WOULD STAY IN PLACE.
UH, THE SUSPENSION STAYS IN PLACE UNTIL ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS REFERENCED IN THE SUSPENSION LETTER OR CURED THAT IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ACTION FROM THIS COMMISSION.
SO, UM, WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, WE HAVE A SECOND.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE.
IT, IT'S, IT'S, UM, THE, THE TERMINOLOGY IS I VOTE TO, UM, GRANT THE APPEAL OR DENY THE APPEAL.
SO THEY WERE REQUESTING AN, UH, AN APPEAL.
I WROTE, I, I, UH, VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER GREEN, I VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER MUELLER, I VOTE TO DENY THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THE MOTION COMMISSIONER, UH, BENIGNO.
COMMISSIONER STILL STUD? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME JAR? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
SO I VOTE TO VOTE TO DENY THE APPEAL.
UM, COMMISSIONER F FRYBERGER, I VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER SELIG, I VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
AND, UH, MYSELF, I DENY THE APPEAL.
SO THAT'S, UH, ANOTHER SIX THREE.
SO, UM, THE APPEAL IS GRANTED, UH, ANY MS ALL, ANY FURTHER ACTION ON THIS ITEM AT THIS POINT FROM US? IT, I HAVE A QUESTION.
CAN WE GET A, A REPORT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THREE MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE ON IT? IS THAT POSSIBLE? I'M, I'M SURE IT'S POSSIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN TAKE ANY ACTION.
CURIOUS, CURIOSITY? NO, I'M CURIOUS HOW GOOD THEY ARE ON THEIR WORK.
I WOULD LOVE TO COME HERE AND SHOW YOU.
I'LL HAVE IT DONE AS FAST AS I CAN.
WE'LL SEE HOW GOOD YOU ARE IN WORD.
SHARE THAT'S NOT REALLY, UH, SOMETHING THAT, YEAH, THAT'S NOT REALLY, WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION OTHER THAN TO VOTE ON THE APPEAL, SO, YEAH, SO, UM, I GUESS IT'S NOT LEGAL.
MAY I SUGGEST IF, IF ONE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS WOULD LIKE TO BE IN TOUCH WITH US, WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE AT SOME POINT AND AS JUST A GOOD CONTINUED GOODWILL IN GOOD FAITH.
UM, YEAH, I THINK ALL THAT IS KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THIS PURVIEW.
SO YOUR APPEAL'S BEEN GRANTED.
I GUESS IF ANYONE WANTS TO GO VISIT OR, OR FOLLOW UP, THEN THAT CAN HAPPEN KIND OF OUTSIDE OF OUR ROLE HERE, BUT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MR. ADAMS. UM, ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO MS. HALLIE, INTRODUCE OUR NEXT ITEM, OUR NEXT
[4. Case Number: CL 2017-000722]
ITEM.ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS C 20 17 0 0 0 7 2 2 AND IS A RETURNING CASE REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1810 CLIFFORD AVENUE.
EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE NAVY BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD AT THE JANUARY 25TH, 2017 BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING.
A BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR REPAIR WITHIN 60 DAYS WITH THE PENALTY OF $350 PER WEEK TO BEGIN TO ACCRUE ON THE 61ST DAY.
IF REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETE, NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE TO DATE.
AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE ACCRUED CIVIL PENALTIES TOTAL $101,650 INCLUDING AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE DUE TO THE CONTINUING DETERIORATION OF THIS STRUCTURE.
IT IS A BLIGHT TO THE COMMUNITY AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES DEMOLITION.
IN YOUR READERS, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO J, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED, AND EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH CONTAINS UPDATED COMPLAINTS IN CASE HISTORIES.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
[02:10:01]
DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF HEARING AND POSTINGS, A COPY OF THE EXISTING BSC ORDER, TRV 2 0 1 7 0 2 3 7 45, AND A PENALTY STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF CODES, PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J.AND LASTLY, CODES RECOMMENDED ORDER.
AUSTIN CODE INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I'M AN INVESTIGATOR WITH THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM OF THE AUSTIN CODE DEPARTMENT.
THIS CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO LEGAL AFTER A BSC REPAIR ORDER WAS ISSUED AT THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION IN JANUARY OF 2017.
THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT SINCE THE BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED.
THIS PROPERTY HAS EXPERIENCED SERIOUS NEGLECT THAT HAS LED TO THE STRUCTURE NEEDING TO BE DEMOLISHED INSTEAD OF REPAIRED.
THIS PROPERTY IS LESS THAN A MILE FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
THE STRUCTURE IS UNSAFE AND UNSOUND.
THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE LAST BSC HAS PASSED AWAY.
THIS PROPERTY IS SECURED AND BEING MOWED MAINTAINED.
I WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS MARKED FOR A THROUGH FOUR J FOUR A.
THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE STRUCTURE IS BOARDED IN SEC.
NEXT PHOTO FOUR B SHOWS A CLOSER VIEW OF THE ROTTEN AND MISSING ROOF DECKING ON THE FRONT PORCH.
FOUR C SHOWS THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE ROOF IS STARTING TO SLOPE IN FROM THE FRONT PORCH AREA.
FOUR D SHOWS THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FOUNDATION IS SINKING NEAR THE MIDDLE OF THE STRUCTURE FOUR E.
THIS SHOWS A FURTHER AWAY VIEW ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN BETTER SEE THE SLOPING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STRUCTURE.
FOUR F SHOWS A CLOSER VIEW OF THE ROTTEN FASCIA BOARDS IN THE DECKING.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE A LOT MORE OF THE SLOPING ISSUE FROM THE FOUNDATION SINKING AND THE ROOF SLOPING INWARDS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STRUCTURE, YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHERE THE SIDING IS BUCKING DUE TO THE MOVING OF THE STRUCTURE.
A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE SIDING POPPING OFF THE STRUCTURE DUE TO THE COLLAPSING OF THE ROOF AND THE FOUNDATION SINKING FOUR H THROUGH FOUR J FOUR H.
THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PICTURE BACK IN 2017 WHEN IT'S BROUGHT TO BSC AND YOU CAN TELL THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ROOF LINE FROM NOW TO BEFORE IN 2017.
NEXT PHOTO, UM, SHOWS A BETTER PICTURE OF THE FRONT PORCH WHERE THERE WAS NO ROTTEN FACIAL BOARD, NO ROTTEN SIDING, AND HAD NO SLOPING ISSUES.
NEXT PHOTO FOR J JUST SHOWS A BETTER VIEW OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE FOUNDATION IS NOT SINKING IN THE MIDDLE.
THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD A REPAIR ORDER FOR SIX YEARS WITHOUT ANY WORK BEING DONE.
SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN, I WILL WATCH DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE TO RESOLVE THIS CASE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND, AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J.
STAFF ALSO ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE.
FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COMMISSION'S CURRENT BUILDING AND STANDARD COMMISSION ORDER TRV 2 0 1 7 0 2 3 7 45 WAS NOT APPEALED IN THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED, HAS LAPSED FINDING A FACT.
THE COMMISSION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $350 PER WEEK IN ITS 200 2017 ORDER TRV TO THE 2 0 1 7 0 2 3 7 4 5.
PENALTIES HAVE ACCRUED IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,650 TO DATE AND ARE STILL ACCRUING AS OF THE DATE THE COMMISSION ISSUED THE ORDER.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT PAID THIS CIVIL PENALTY.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY THE 2017 ORDER BY ONE, REDUCING THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT ACCRUED IN ITS 2017 ORDER TRV 2017 0 2 3 7 5 IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,650 TO 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO DATE, OR $25,412 AND 50 CENTS.
TWO, THE OWNER ORDER THE OWNER TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS, LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RIGGED, AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS
[02:15:01]
FROM AUSTIN CODE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE THREE ON THE 46TH DAY.IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.
AND B, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES OCCURRED INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS.
INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL BAUM FULL.
SO, UM, I WILL MOVE THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT THE, UM, I'M LOOKING FOR THE EXHIBITS HERE.
UM, EXHIBIT THREE, INCLUDING STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THE OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J.
UH, WE ACCEPT THAT INTO THE RECORD.
ADDITIONALLY, WE, UM, THE, THE FINDINGS OF FACT THOSE ARE NOT FOR THE RECORD, RIGHT? THAT'S JUST AND EXHIBIT THREE, DID YOU SAY? YEAH, HE SAID THREE.
I SAID EXHIBIT THREE AND, UH, THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
WHEN WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
SO WE HAVE MS. LAURA ROTH AND WE HAVE MR. MICHAEL, UH, WATSON.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE, SO WERE THERE A THIRD SPEAKER OR WILL YOU JUST BE HELPING THEM WITH THE TIMEKEEPING, SIR? UM,
SO WE HAVE TO, YOU WERE BOTH SWORN IN, RIGHT? I BELIEVE YOU WERE EARLIER.
UM, SO AGAIN, AS I STATED AT THE BEGINNING, UM, WE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE, TYPICALLY AS IT COURTES TO WE PROVIDE YOU THE EQUIVALENT TIME AS A CITY TOOK TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE, WE TOOK TIME ON THAT, BUT IT WAS FAIRLY BRIEF.
SO, BUT YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND, UM, IT'S JAMES HERE.
JAMES, CAN YOU, WHEN WE GET DOWN TO 60 SECONDS, WILL YOU PLEASE, UH, PLEASE PROVIDE NOTICE THAT THERE'S A MINUTE LEFT? YES.
SO THAT THEY, UH, WE CAN GET TO THE CONCLUSIONS.
SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR, FOR BEING HERE AND UM, WITH THAT I'LL INSTRUCT A TIME START AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR CASE OR ASK QUESTIONS OR, OKAY.
I JUST WANNA, UH, TELL EVERYONE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, I HAVE NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE, SO THIS WAS AN EXPERIENCE TO SEE CITY, GOVERNMENT AND, AND CITIZENS WORKING TOGETHER.
SO I THINK WHAT YOU GUYS DO HERE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP THIS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE CAUSE I THINK THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLISTIC, UH, FOR SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE HANDLED ALREADY.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE ALL TIRED AND HUNGRY, SO I JUST ASK THAT Y'ALL HANG IN THERE A FEW MORE MINUTES, UH, WHILE WE WRAP THIS UP.
BUT, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EVERYONE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY A MULTITUDE OF PEOPLE IN WHICH, UM, UH, LET'S SEE, 1, 2, 3, 4 OF THEM HAVE DIED THREE IN, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
AND SO THE REASON WHY THERE'S BEEN A DIFFICULTY IN TAKING CARE OF THIS PROPERTY HAS TO DO WITH PROBATE.
UH, AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY A, A UNIFIED PERSON TO BE IN CHARGE OF THIS.
UM, I'M HERE TECHNICALLY REPRESENTING MR. WALTER WATSON.
UM, HE IS IN HIS LATE SEVENTIES AND HE IS ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, WHO HAS A LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY.
UH, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT THIS EVENING DUE TO HIS HEALTH.
UM, BUT UH, I AM SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, HE HIRED ME INITIALLY TO FILE A PROBATE ACTION TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE SO THAT THIS PROPERTY CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF.
UH, WE FILED A PROBATE ACTION, UH, THIS YEAR.
UH, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHEN WE FILED IT.
I BELIEVE IT WAS, I BELIEVE IT WAS BACK IN APRIL.
AND, UH, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR DEATHS, WE'VE HAD TO SERVE QUITE A FEW, UH, HEIRS.
MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO DIED HAD THREE TO FOUR CHILDREN AS WELL.
UH, AND SO THIS IS A VERY LENGTHY ACTION.
UM, MOST OF THE SERVICE HAS TAKEN PLACE, BUT, UM, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SERVICE, WE HAVE A UNIFIED FRONT WITH THE FAMILY.
UH, SO WE EXPECT THAT WE'RE GONNA MOVE PRETTY QUICK FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE CODE, UH, OFFICER, IS THAT WE ARE STILL ABLE TO
[02:20:01]
COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REDUCTION OF FEES.
UH, THERE'S OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FEES THAT HAVE ACCRUED SINCE 2017.
THESE PARTIES WERE UNREPRESENTED.
UM, MANY, I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF ANY OF THEM ALL GOT NOTICE ON THE 2017 ORDER CUZ THERE'S JUST SO MANY PEOPLE WITH LEGAL INTEREST INVOLVED.
BUT, UM, I KNOW THAT MR. WATSON WOULD JUST ASK, UM, BECAUSE WE WANNA OPERATE UNDER THE, THE GUIDELINES OF, OF THE, UH, THE ORDER.
UH, EITHER WE CAN FIX THE ISSUES BY AGREEMENT OR WE CAN HAVE THE PROPERTY DEMOLISHED, AND IF NOT, THEN WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WOULD BE THE, THE INCURRENCE OF THOSE ADDITIONAL FEES.
BUT WHAT I'M ASKING FOR THE, FOR EVERYONE TO CONSIDER HERE TODAY IS, UH, DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THIS BEING A FAMILY PROPERTY, UM, THAT HAS BEEN OWNED GENERATIONALLY, I'M ASKING IF THERE COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN THOSE, IN THOSE INTERESTS, UH, OR THOSE, UH, PENALTY FEES THAT HAVE ACCRUED.
UM, AND I I WOULD ASK FOR A 10%, UH, DOWN TO, UH, A REDUCTION TO 10% OF THE CURRENT COST IF THE, IF THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THAT, UM, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE, THE MANY PEOPLE THAT THIS PROPERTY WILL BE DIVIDED BETWEEN.
UM, I I DO, UM, I DO HOPE THAT YOU'LL, YOU'LL CONSIDER THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING HERE TODAY.
DID YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING, MICHAEL? UH, NOT IN PARTICULAR.
I THINK YOU'VE COVERED EVERYTHING.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FEES REDUCED AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO STILL DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY AND REPAIR IT.
AND FOR AS I KNOW, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THE THREE 50 A WEEK AND CERTAINLY NOT A RECURRING THREE 50 WOULD, THAT WOULD BE 101,000, $101,650 NOW ACCRUED.
SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE FEE BEING REDUCED AND STILL HAVING TIME TO RENOVATE OR DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ASK AND LIKE TO DO.
UH, WELL THANK, THANK YOU BOTH.
UM, SO, UM, I JUST WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION.
SO CERTAINLY THE REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN THE CIVIL PENALTY, IT'S, IT'S A CLEAR REQUEST.
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BOTH SAID THAT YOU ARE UNSURE ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO, IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, PROCEED WITH DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY YOURSELVES OR SEEK TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY.
SO ONE CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS, UM, I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU CHOOSE TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, UM, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHIN THIS 45 DAY WINDOW.
BUT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD GET THE PERMITS AND DOCUMENTATION AND WORK DONE TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY WITHIN 45 DAYS.
THAT'S WHAT MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THE CITY HAS DESIGNED THIS TO FAIL.
YOU KNOW, THAT IT CAN'T BE FIXED, BUT YOU'VE HAD, BUT YOU'VE HAD MORE TIME.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST TO CLOCK DOESNT START TODAY.
YOU WERE RIGHT NOTICE IN 2017, SO YOU'VE HAD FIVE YEARS TO, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU HAD PROBATE PROBLEMS, BUT, BUT THERE HAS BEEN TIME TO MAKE THOSE.
BUT WE GOT IN A CATCH 22 WITH THESE PERMITS.
CAUSE WHEN WE FIRST TRIED TO START REPAIRING THIS HOUSE IN 2015, WE WENT FOR PERMITS AND THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAID THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GET ATLANTA DETERMINATION AND TO FOLLOW ANY CODE INSPECTION VIOLATIONS IF THERE WEREN'T.
SO WE GOT A, UH, THE LAND OF DETERMINATION, WE DID THE SURVEY, WE TURNED IT INTO THE CITY AND TOLD 'EM ABOUT OUR PLANS.
THEN WE GOT A CODE VIOLATION TO FIX THE WINDOWS.
SO WE FIXED THE WINDOWS THEN THAT WAS A HOLE AND A, A FOUNDATION AT THE BACK, THE VIOLATION.
WE ASKED, WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CODE DEPARTMENTS ASK, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? SO WE FIXED THE HOLE.
SO WE FIXED THE WINDOWS, WE FIXED THE HOLE, WE BOARDED IT UP, WE FENCED IT, WE PUT A NO TRESPASSING SIGN ON IT.
BUT SO WE WERE STILL IN A CATCH 22 OF TRYING TO GET ANY PERMITS FOR AS GETTING ANY PERMITS TO REPAIR OR DO ANYTHING.
AND UH, AND AND LIKE I SAID, I WASN'T AWARE, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE 3 54, NOT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THAT VIOLATION WAS, BUT EVERYTHING THEY HAD ASKED US TO DO TO THAT HOUSE WE'VE DONE AND WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO REPAIR IT.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
WE STILL WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO REPAIR IT AND WHATEVER WE CAN DO IN 45 DAYS, WE'LL DO THAT.
BUT ANYBODY KNOWS IT'S GONNA TAKE MORE TIME TO FIX THAT, WHAT YOU SAW ON THAT SCREEN IN 45 DAYS.
SO IF CODE IS WORKING WITH US, WE WILL, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE YOUR REQUEST IS, AND I DON'T, IT'S PROBABLY FOR MORE TIME
[02:25:01]
TOO.I MEAN I'M DEFINITELY FOR MORE TIME CUZ EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT CANNOT BE DONE IN 45 DAYS.
UM, COMMISSIONER, BE NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, CODE OFFICER, UM, UH, PRESLEY, UM, WHAT CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT WENT INTO DECIDING TO REDUCE THE FEES OR THE, THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT DUE, UH, TO THE 25%? I WILL DIRECT THAT TO MR. ROBERT MOORE.
HELLO, UH, CODE DIVISION MANAGER, ROBERT MOORE.
UM, SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND YOU KNOW, WE WANT OUR ORDERS TO HAVE INTEGRITY, RIGHT? AND WHEN WE SEE PENALTIES GETTING, REACHING THEM OUT, THAT'S JUST NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE MUCH IN A SENSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THAT DOWN CUZ THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF PENALTIES ON FOR WHAT THE, THE PROBLEM WAS OR WHAT THE ISSUE WAS.
SO, UH, THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT BY 25%.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT IF WHETHER THEY WANT REPAIR IT OR DEMOLISH IT, EITHER WAY THEY GO, UH, HOWEVER MUCH MONEY THEY SPEND, UH, DOING THAT CAN BE OFFSET SINCE THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
SO WERE YOU CLEAR ON THAT, THAT POINT? CAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IF YOU, IF YOU, WHETHER YOU DEMOLISH IT OR YOU CHOOSE TO FIX IT, IF YOU KEEP RECORDS OF YOUR EXPENSES, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK, TO OFFSET PART OF YOUR PENALTY WITH THOSE EXPENSES OR, OR ALL OR ALL RIGHT.
SO LIKE IF YOU SPEND, IF THE PENALTY IS 25,000 AND IT COSTS YOU MORE THAN THAT TO FIX IT OR DEMOLISH IT, WHATEVER, DO YOU, DOES THAT CLEAR? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE CITY LEGAL HERE.
ANY QUESTION YOU HAVE ON HOW THAT WORKS, THIS IS THE BEST, THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT ANSWERED.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVEN'T, YEAH, AND I THINK I, SO I, INSPECTOR PRESLEY RIGHT, THAT HE LOOKS, LOOKS LIKE YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
HE COVERED EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRYBERGER.
UM, ACTUALLY THIS WAS A QUESTION FOR A DIVISION MANAGER MORE TOO.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THE PAST WHEN THE CITY HAS CONSIDERED REDUCING A SUBSTANTIAL FINE AMOUNT, UM, IT ALWAYS TENDS TO GO WITH A DEMOLITION ORDER BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF THAT GUARANTEE THAT OKAY, WE REALIZE THIS, THESE FINES HAVE CUT, KIND OF GOTTEN OUTTA CONTROL AND NOTHING IS HAPPENING.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM, WE'RE GOING TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.
ALL OF THOSE VIOLATIONS WILL GO AWAY AND IT'S KIND OF A RECOGNITION FOR THAT WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THOSE FINES.
DOES THAT SEEM LIKE A FAIR ASSESSMENT? UH, I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVEN'T KEPT TRACK OF IT LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
UM, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, I MEAN WE'VE BROUGHT BACK CASES BEFORE TO HAVE PENALTIES COMPLETELY WIPED CUZ THEY WERE OLD AND THEY'VE BEEN LANGUISHED AND AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT, UH, AS FAR AS THIS, IT'S KIND OF SOMETHING NEW WE'RE TRYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO JUST, YOU KNOW, CUZ THERE IS STATE LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE EXCESSIVE PENALTIES, RIGHT? AND SO, YOU KNOW, GETTING UP INTO THAT ECHELON, WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO COLLECT 500,000 OR A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF PENALTIES.
SO WHY EVEN GET THERE IF WE CAN TRY TO BRING IT BACK DOWN TO A REASONABLE AMOUNT THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY COLLECT ON.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MAKE MONEY OR ANYTHING, WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO COVER EXPENSES THAT THE TIME THAT THE CITY AND TAXPAYERS HAVE SPENT.
BUT, BUT AS FAR AS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN ALL, LIKE TRYING TO SELL IT FOR A DEMO, IS THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
UM, I GUESS THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
I GUESS WE'RE NOT OKAY, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A DEMO, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO REDUCE THE PENALTIES BECAUSE OF THAT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DOES THAT ANSWER THAT, THAT DOES MAKE SENSE.
AND IT ALSO, ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, YOU'RE NOT SAYING YES, WE WOULD CONSIDER REDUCING THESE FINES BECAUSE A DEMO GUARANTEES ALL THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE GOING TO GO AWAY.
RIGHT? BUT THAT'S NOT, OH, YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT WHETHER IT'S IN ORDER TO REPAIR OR I HAVE TO DEMOLISH, YOU CAN UPHOLD THE PENALTIES, YOU CAN REDUCE 'EM, YOU CAN MAKE 'EM MORE, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER, BUT WE'RE JUST, THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION.
JUST, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE LEEWAY WE HAVE IN MODIFYING THE ORDERS, CAN, UM, CAN WE ATTACH, I'M GONNA USE THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY.
THE, THE CIVIL PENALTY, RIGHT? CAN THAT BE TIED TO THE, WHAT HAPPENS ON THE 46 DAY SORT OF THING? UH, CAN YOU CLARIFY? WELL, CAN YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, THE PENALTY IS X AND IF THESE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN BY THE 46 DAY, YOUR PENALTY GOES UP TO THIS OTHER NUMBER.
UM, MS UH, YOU COULD, UH, DEFINITELY ASSESS AN ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTY IF, UM, THE, UH, IF THE ORDER
[02:30:01]
IS NOT COMPLIED WITH ON THE 46TH DAY, ARE YOU? YEAH, KAREN, I GUESS I'M NOT, I GUESS I'M JUST THINKING NOT JUST FOR THIS CASE, JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, CARROT AND STICK.LIKE IF WE REDUCE THE CIVIL PENALTY OR IF THIS IS COMPLIED WITH, YOU GET A REDUCTION.
BUT IF THIS IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE 46TH DAY, SOME OF THAT LEEWAY GOES AWAY AND YOUR PENALTY GOES BACK UP.
SO, SO IS YOUR, UH, IS YOUR QUESTION, CAN YOU CONDITION THE PENALTY FORGIVENESS ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER? WELL, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS YOU COULD STRUCTURE IT, RIGHT? YOU COULD SAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IS REDUCED, SAY TO 5%, BUT IF ON THE 46 DAY BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN OR YOU CAN PUT A PERCENTAGE IN OR WHATEVER.
I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN GET THAT NUMBER BACK UP.
SO THE WAY THAT THIS IS STRUCTURED NOW, UM, IF YOU WERE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE CIVIL PENALTY TO 25% OF THE TOTAL OWED TO DATE.
AND THEN ON THE 46 DAY, IF COMPLIANCE IS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, YOU COULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTY THAT WOULD BEGIN ACCRUING.
UH, AND, AND I I WILL DEFER TO STAFF ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO ASSESS A NEW PENALTY THAN TO UM OKAY, CHANGE THE AMOUNT AND THEN CHANGE IT BACK.
UM, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO, UM, EITHER ADD AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OR JUST TO CONDITION THE FORGIVENESS ON COMPLIANCE.
AND ONE OTHER THING WE'VE DONE ALSO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, UH, LIKE WHEN, WHEN THE PROPERTY'S INTO COMPLIANCE AND WE HAVE X AMOUNT OF PENALTY AND Y'ALL DO A PENALTY FORGIVENESS, THEY, THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY THAT OR IT GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT.
AND IF I RECALL, SHE ASKED YOU FOR A 90% REDUCTION, RIGHT? SO IT'D BE THERE TO 10,000.
SHE WANTED US TO REDUCE TO 10%.
UM, FOLLOW COMMISSIONERS, STORMY MICAH COMMENT, COMMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IMPORTANT TO, UH, THESE FOLKS IS THAT, UM, I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE AND UH, A LOT OF HOUSES ARE SELLING AND SOMETIMES THE HOUSES THEY DEMOLISH SELL FOR MORE THAN THE ONES THEY DON'T.
AND THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT FIGURE INTO SOMETHING WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER THANK YOU.
UM, AND I, I, IF I COULD CLARIFY, UM, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED AND I HAVE TO GET, UH, AN ORDER FOR ONE PERSON TO MAKE A DECISION ON, ON THE ACTUAL CONSEQUENCE OF ALL OF THESE THINGS.
SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I, IF IT IS POSSIBLE IN, IN THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER IT.
I DO, I WOULD ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THOSE MOVING PARTS ARE PRETTY COMPLICATED THAT I DON'T HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OVER, PARTICULARLY THE DOCKET WITH THE COURT.
AND HOPEFULLY WE MAKE AN AGREEMENT.
EVERYONE SEEMS WILLING TO, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE ORDER WILL HELP, UM, GET EVERYONE IN LINE, UH, IN DOING THAT.
BUT AT THE SAME TOKEN, UM, I, IF THERE IS AN EARNEST DESIRE TO DO REPAIR WORK, CUZ UH, THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTIONS, A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED ARE, ARE IN THEIR SEVENTIES, UH, AND EIGHTIES AND, UM, IT, IT IS VERY, THE PROPERTY'S VERY CLOSE AND IMPORTANT TO THEM.
AND SO THEY'RE HAVING TO DO A LOT OF, UM, SHIFTING IN THEIR MINDS, UH, ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND REALITY CHECK WHAT, WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHAT'S REALISTIC.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER IT, I DO THINK SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO DO THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
AND I'M GONNA ACTUALLY MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS AND JUST MOVE TO OUR OWN DISCUSSION.
SO, UM, BOY, I HATE PROBATE CASES.
YOU KNOW, THEY ARE, THEY'RE JUST GUT WRENCHING, UM, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE JUST MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE TIME INVOLVED.
AND IT'S SO EASY FOR THE PROJECTS TO JUST FALL OUT OF WAY OUTTA COMPLIANCE CUZ NOBODY, NOBODY KNOWS WHO OWNS IT OR IS TAKING RISK, YOU KNOW, CAN, CAN FULLY MAKE DECISIONS AND SO MANY THINGS.
UM, AND THEN WE GOTTA BALANCE, I MEAN THE FAMILY AND WHAT THE FAMILY WANTS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SORT IT OUT.
BUT THEN THERE'S THE, THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? THERE'S THIS PROPERTY THAT'S, THAT'S A DANGER, UM, THAT'S A NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT DOES AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS VALUES
[02:35:01]
AS WELL.UM, SO YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT THESE KIND OF COMPETING, RIGHT, COMPETING INTERESTS.
UM, SO, UM, WE'VE GOT A PRETTY CLEAR, UH, RECOMMENDED ORDER FROM THE CITY.
WE'VE GOT A PRETTY CLEAR REQUEST FROM THE, UH, FROM, UH, THE APPELLANT, RIGHT? IN TERMS OF CAN WE GO DOWN TO 10%? CAN WE CONSIDER PROVIDING THEM MORE TIME TO, UM, TO COMPLY? THEY'RE UNDECIDED WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE, WHETHER THEY WANNA DEMOLISH OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO FIX IT.
AND, AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR ME TO MAKE UP MY MIND.
I THINK IF, IF I HAD HEARD LIKE, WE'RE GONNA DEMOLISH IT, WE JUST WANNA DO IT OURSELVES, CAN WE REDUCE IT? IT WOULD BE EASIER CUZ THEN I COULD ENVISION THAT HAPPENING.
BUT THE FACT THAT THE DESIGN PROCESS HASN'T HAPPENED, THERE'S NO, THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, THE PERMITTING, ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT SIX MONTHS AND EVEN KNOW RIGHT.
A YEAR FOR ALL THIS CAN GET DONE.
UM, SO THAT, IT JUST MAKES IT HARDER.
ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY SETTING THE STAGE IS AS KIND OF AS I CURRENTLY SEE THINGS.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, MUELLER STUFFED ANYBODY? YES.
STUFFED RIGHT FIRST? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
UM, YEAH, JUST MAKE A BRIEF AND REMARK FURTHER TO WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING.
I, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO ADD ON TO THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE WILL OBSERVED MY, UH, SERVICE ON THIS COMMISSION THOUGH THAT I'M, UM, SORT OF DISINCLINED TO, UH, EXCEPT, UH, THE, UH, THE LAW OF DELAY WITH THE PERMITTING AS A SORT OF, AS A SORT OF, UH, PANACEA, UH, GET OUTTA JAIL FREE CARD, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT.
I'M, I'M, I'M JUST SORT OF SUSPICIOUS OF THAT ARGUMENT.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SEEM AS THOUGH SORT OF THING THAT SHOULD WEIGH TOO HEAVILY, UM, IN, IN OUR DISPOSITION OF OUR CHARGE.
UH, AND, AND, UH, SO HAVE SOME EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
I GIVE IT, I GIVE IT RELATIVELY LITTLE VAGUE, UH, WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE PLEAD, PERMITTING, DELAY.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE AN OBSERVATION.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M, I'M CONVINCED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS CASE, I'M STILL MULLING IT.
BUT JUST, UH, AN OBSERVATION IS THAT SORT OF AN EXCEPTION TO MY GENERAL DISIN INCLINATION, UM, ON PERMITTING IS, IS A PROBATE CASE, UH, FOR PRECISELY THE REASON THAT WHEN, UM, THE PROPERTY IS, IS, IS SUBJECT TO THE PROBATE COURT, UH, THE JURISDICTION, UH, THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY GET ANYTHING OFF THE GROUND PERMITTING, UH, AT LEAST, AT LEAST IT'S, IT'S, IT'S CONSIDERABLY MORE DIFFICULT.
THERE'S ANOTHER LAYER OF, OF, OF PROCESS, UM, THAT THAT HAS TO BE, THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
SO, UH, I JUST, I, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED IT, I JUST WANTED TO TO SECOND THAT AND, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION AS WE, AS WE BEGIN TALKING ABOUT THIS.
UH, AND I'LL YIELD, THANK YOU.
AND JUST, UH, MS. CURRY, UH, JUST, UH, IN TERMS OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT LEEWAY WE HAVE AS WE CONTEMPLATE EITHER, UH, ACCEPTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR MODIFYING IT, UM, IN TERMS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR COMPLIANCE, IF I REMEMBER, THAT CAN BE DECREASED TO A MAXIMUM OF, IS IT 90, 90 DAYS? 90 IS THE MAXIMUM.
UM, COMMISSIONER BENIGNO, UM, YES, I HAVE A CREDIT CARD AND THANK YOU MS. KA.
I GUESS JUST FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UM, AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, MAYBE Y'ALL KNOW, HAVING SERVED LONGER THAN I DO, UM, DOES ANYONE KNOW KIND OF AN ESTIMATE? I KNOW I'M SURE IT VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH THE CITY CHARGES FOR DEMOLITION FEES IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WE GET TWO BIDS.
BUT I DON'T, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SQUARE FOOTAGE PER YEAH.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ON THAT, ON THE COST.
DO YOU THINK IT'S CLOSER TO 10,000 OR 25,000? OH, TO DO THAT HOUSE? MM-HMM.
I MEAN THAT'S JUST MY, MY PERSONAL, NOT EVEN SPEAKING FOR THE SECOND, JUST MY, WHAT I WOULD THINK.
BUT YES, IT WOULD ACTUALLY ALL DEPEND ON ASBESTOS AND LEAD REMOVAL IF THERE'S POSITIVE OR THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT UPS THE COST.
JUST THE LEAD AND ASBESTOS REMOVAL, UH, ALONE IS LIKE THREE TO $4,000.
BUT, UH, ALSO JUST FOR TIME, UH, JUST TO, SO Y'ALL ARE AWARE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL DID 45 DAYS OR 90 DAYS OR WHATEVER, LIKE THE 91ST DAY WE'RE NOT OUT THERE RIGHTS MEAN IT'S LIKE FOUR TO SIX MONTHS.
SO, UM, AFTER, AFTER THAT, SO, UM,
[02:40:02]
SO I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE MAYBE THREE LEADING CONTENDERS FOR WHAT WE DO.WE CAN JUST, OH YES, I'M SORRY.
HEY, I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE, LOVE TO SAY SOMETHING CHAIR, IF I COULD GO AHEAD.
UM, MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS ALONG SIMILAR LINES IS COMMISSIONER BENOS COMMENT THAT DEMOLITION OR REPAIRS WILL PROBABLY EXCEED THAT 25% OF THE EXISTING FINES.
YEAH, I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED.
SO IN MY MIND, REDUCING IT TO 10% VERSUS THE 25% ISN'T GONNA MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE PROBABLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, ANOTHER THOUGHT, AGAIN, WE ARE KIND OF CAPPED AT 90 DAYS WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US FOR ANY ORDER.
UM, SO MY THINKING WAS ACTUALLY ALONG THE LINES OF LEAVING IT AS A, AS A REPAIR, REDUCING THE FINES TO WHATEVER THE COMMISSION THINKS IS REASONABLE, EXTENDING THE TIME TO 90 DAYS, BUT THEN RESTARTING THE FINES AT PROBABLY A LOWER AMOUNT AFTER, ON THE 91ST DAY JUST TO INCENTIVIZE THE ERRORS TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, A DEMOLITION.
IF THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT, WE'LL CLEAR ALL THE VIOLATIONS.
UH, IF THEY DO MOVE AHEAD WITH REPAIRS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME.
THAT'S WHY I'M THINKING A REDUCED WEEKLY FINE AMOUNT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
I LIKE THREE 50 THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD, SO I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT.
IT IS ALMOST THREE FACTORS THERE.
SO ONE FACTOR, THREE NUMBERS TO FILL IN.
SO LET'S SAY THAT'S 90, ANOTHER IS CIVIL PENALTY.
WE HAVE A REQUEST, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO GO BELOW THAT REQUEST.
SO THAT LEADS ONE THING FOR US TO DECIDE.
WHAT IS THAT? UH, PENALTY PER WEEK ON THE 91ST DAY.
THAT ENOUGH TO BE INCENTIVIZING BUT NOT OVERLY EXCESSIVE.
I DON'T THINK I CAN RECOGNIZE YOU INSPECTOR PRESSLEY, BUT SOMEONE ELSE PROBABLY COULD.
INSPECTOR PRESSLEY JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
UM, IF THE DEMO PER, IF THE DEMO IS, IS APPROVED, THEY CAN STILL DO A REPAIR ON IT WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME GIVEN, RIGHT.
AND THEN IF IT IS ISSUED A DEMO, THEY DO NOT GET ANY FINES ASSESSED TO THAT PROPERTY.
I'M SORRY, WALK ME THROUGH THAT AGAIN.
SO
CUZ AS MY BOSS WAS SAYING, MY SUPERVISOR WAS SAYING IT DOES TAKE US FOUR TO SIX MONTHS TO GET THAT WORK THROUGH THAT TO DO THE DEMO PROCESS SO THEY CAN DO THE REPAIR IF THERE IS A DEMO ORDER ON THAT PROPERTY AND IF THERE'S A DEMO ORDER ON THAT PROPERTY, THEY DO NOT ASSESS WEEKLY FINES AFTER 90 DAYS IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL GIVE THEM.
IT'S A DEMO ORDER IS NO FINES.
BUT YEAH, A DEMO ORDER HAS NO FINES.
JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU CAN DO THAT, YOU CAN DO FINES WITH A DEMO ORDER.
WE JUST DON'T EVER RECOMMEND IT.
WE TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM IT CUZ WE'RE NOT, IT JUST, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE CAN, JUST BECAUSE WE GET A DEMO ORDER DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DEMOLISH THIS STRUCTURE.
AND, AND IT MIGHT TAKE US A WHILE AND I, AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THESE FINES TO GET THE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, AND THEN WE'RE LIKE, OH, OKAY, WE'LL JUST DEMO THIS NOW.
THAT'S THE THINKING BEHIND THAT.
SO WE TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM DEMOS AND FINES.
SO AS AN ALTERNATE, WE COULD JUST TAKE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED ORDER AND REDUCE THE, THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT TO 10% AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT TO 90 DAYS AND JUST LET EVERYTHING ELSE STAND.
THE CHAIR OF MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS REPAIRS COULD NOT BE MADE IN FOUR TO SIX MONTHS.
THE, THE CITY COULD EASILY BE OUT THERE BEFORE THE REPAIRS COULD BE MADE.
AND MY THINKING IS, I MEAN WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD SEVERAL PEOPLE TESTIFY EARLIER THIS EVENING THAT IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET PERMITS THIS PROJECT.
BUT, UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS PROBATE WILL GET SORTED AND HOW OKAY.
PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE TO THAT THOUGH.
BUT WHEN 2017 AND LOOKING THROUGH THESE PICTURES, YOU KNOW, WHICH WAY IT'S GOING AND WITH THE LEAD AND ASBESTOS AND ALL THOSE ISSUES, AND NOW IT'S CLEARLY THE BACKBONE IS BROKEN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IMPLODING AND SO WHETHER THAT REPAIR MIGHT NOT EVEN BE AN OPTION BECAUSE IT MAY BE SO FAR, I'M SPECULATING JUST KNOWING WHAT I KNOW STRUCTURALLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING INTERNAL TO TELL US, BUT SUBJECTIVELY VIEWING FROM THE OUTSIDE, WE MAY BE PAST THAT TIPPING POINT EVEN AT THE BEST OF INTENTIONS.
[02:45:01]
THAT MIGHT NOT, MIGHT NOT BE AN OPTION.SPECULATING AND JUST, BUT JUST GOING A VISUAL CUES AND RIGHT WHERE WE KNOW IT'S HAPPENING HERE, NO STATEMENT OF OPINION FROM AN ENGINEER OR A CONTRACTOR.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN SOLID SAYING YEAH, THIS CAN BE RESOLVED.
UM, AND NEXT TIME FOR X DOLLARS.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING TOO IS IF THERE IS A PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THE, THE CITY WOULD NOT MOVE AHEAD WITH A DEMOLITION ORDER, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
WE WOULD KNOW THAT, WOULDN'T WE GUYS, RIGHT, RIGHT.
THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD CHECK FOR ANY, SOMEBODY'S PULLED A PERMIT TO ACTIVE APPLICATIONS BEFORE ACTUALLY DEMO.
SO EVEN IF IT'S JUST STARTED THE PROCESS FOR REPAIR, SO THAT DOESN'T CLOSE THE DOOR ON REPAIRS.
SO YOUR MOTION WAS WE DON'T QUITE HAVE, WE'RE ALMOST THAT MOTION CRAFT ONE NOW.
THE ONLY THE ONLY HANG UP HERE IS I, I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE TO EXTEND IT.
I'M NOT TERRIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FINES BEING REDUCED TO 25% VERSUS 10% AND I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO TO BE CALLOUS, IT'S JUST I THINK THAT THOSE FINES ARE GOING TO BE NEGLIGIBLE COMPARED TO ANY EXPENSE THAT GOES INTO, UM, WELL, I GUESS IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THE CITY MOVES AHEAD WITH DEMOLITION.
UM, IT COULD RESPOND TO THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND, BUT I DID SEE YOUR HAND, I DO UNDERSTAND THERE IS A CONCERN THERE.
SO, UM, YEAH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
I I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ADD ONTO THAT, THAT, UM, I THINK THE ORDER WOULD BE HELPFUL HONESTLY TO HELP PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS, BUT IF THERE, UH, IN MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THAT WAS THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ADDITIONAL PAROLE IF IT, IF IT DIDN'T REACH THAT TIME AND IF, IF THERE IS A PERMIT.
I JUST THINK THAT THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD THINGS FOR US.
UH, AND PART OF WHAT'S DIFFICULT WITH THIS IS THAT I'M DEALING WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE.
UM, AND SO I, AND I ONLY AM REPRESENTING ONE PERSON AT THIS TIME THAT I CAN SPEAK FOR.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT A REDUCTION WOULD ALSO BE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE THERE MAY BE AN OPTION FOR, CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY WILL ACCEPT OFFSETS IF SOMEONE ELSE MAKES THEM AFTER PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO IF, IF SOME, IF WE END UP SELLING THE PROPERTY WITH THE LIEN FOR THE, THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE OWED, I THINK THAT CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN THEN TAKE THEIR COST IN DEMOLISHING OR WHATEVER ENDS UP HAPPENING AND THEN ASK FOR AN OFFSET TO THOSE FEES.
SO, UM, I THINK, AND TRADITIONALLY I THINK THE CHAIR DOESN'T, OR WHOEVER'S ACTING THE CHAIR DOESN'T MAKE MOTIONS, BUT I WOULD VIEW FAVORABLY, I THINK THE MOST, UH, HAVING SYMPATHY FOR THE, THE, UH, APPELLANTS, UM, I THINK THE MOST THAT, THAT WE CAN PROVIDE AT THIS TIME IS, UH, REDUCE THE CIVIL AMOUNT TO 10% IS REQUESTED AND THEN EXTEND THE TIME, THE 90 DAYS, WHETHER THEY FIX IT OR DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S STILL GOING TO, ON THE 90TH DAY, INITIATE THE CITY'S PROCESS TO DEMOLISH.
SO AT SOME POINT THIS IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
UM, EVEN IF THAT PROCESS STARTS, I THINK, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY, IT'S STILL GONNA BE MONTHS AWAY.
THAT DOES PROVIDE ENOUGH TIME FOR IF THE APPELLANT REALLY GETS MOVING ON THIS, THAT, THAT THEY PROBABLY CAN MAKE ENOUGH PROGRESS TO ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THIS.
UM, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO GET MOVING REALLY FAST.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IF I'M, I EXPECT THAT IF YOU ARE OUT THERE WORKING AND YOU'VE GOT PLANS AND YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BULLDOZE YOUR PROPERTY, UM, BUT THAT, THAT STARTS THE PROCESS TO REMEDY THIS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT PROVIDES ABOUT AS, AS MUCH RELIEF AS WE CAN PROVIDE WITHIN THE LEEWAY OF THIS ORDER.
IT'S IMPERFECT, BUT I THINK IT'S ALL WE CAN OFFER YOU.
SO I THINK SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR 10% IN 90 DAYS.
I'D SUPPORT THAT, BUT YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RE UM, ADOPT THE REC STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
MODIFIED, UH, REDUCED THE CURRENT CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT ACCRUED IN ITS 2017 ORDER TO 10%, $10,165.
ORDER THE OWNER TO COMPLY WITHIN THE FOLLOWING 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
OBTAIN ALL FINALIZED PERMITS, DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AS REMOVED DEBRIS, REDUCED INSPECTIONS, OR EXCUSE ME, REQUEST INSPECTIONS.
FALSE AND CODE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE ON THE 90TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.
AUTHORIZED CODE OFFICIALS TO PROCEED WITH
[02:50:01]
THE DEMOLITION SECTION A AND B IS STATED.SO SMALL AMENDMENT ON THE 91ST DAY OF COMPLIANCE.
DOES ANYONE WANT A SECOND, MATT? I'LL SECOND MATT.
OKAY, SO, UM, THAT A MOTION, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? UH, YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER FREID BERGER.
UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS? YES.
AND I ALSO AM IN FAVOR, SO, UM, SO THERE WE GO.
VERY APPRECIATE THAT AND THANK YOU AS WELL.
UM, SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE ONE ITEM LEFT.
WE'VE GOT LIKE, WHAT, 18 MINUTES? I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, UH, WE CAN EXTEND THIS TO 10 30 PROBABLY.
WE PROBABLY NEED TO, BUT WE NEED TO, WE GONNA HAVE TO EXTEND THIS.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET THIS WRAPPED UP IN THANK YOU.
WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE AND THEN WE ALSO NEED TO APPROVE THE DATES FOR NEXT YEAR'S MEETINGS.
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TONIGHT.
THAT WON'T TAKE LONG, BUT, UM, WHY DON'T WE APPROVE THE, THE MEETING DATES FIRST AND SEE HOW MUCH TIME'S LEFT.
[8. Approval of the 2023 Building and Standards Commission regular meeting schedule]
LET'S DO THAT.LET'S APPROVE THE MEETING DATES AND THEN WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH TIME WE, WE NEED TO ADD TO THIS MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETINGS.
THERE'S A, A CHART IN YOUR, UM, READERS THAT HAS THE PROPOSED DATES, WHICH ARE THE FOURTH WEDNESDAYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NOVEMBER WHEN WE HAVE NO MEETING IN DECEMBER, WHICH I'VE PROPOSED EITHER THE SIXTH OR THE 13TH.
I'VE CONFIRMED WITH DSD THAT THIS ROOM IS AVAILABLE ON THE 13TH.
UM, I DO, THEY DID NOT CONFIRM THE SIXTH FOR ME, SO WE MIGHT BE IN A DIFFERENT ROOM IF WE WERE TO, UM, HAVE THE MEETING ON THE SIXTH.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, I THINK, I THINK THE SIXTH IS PROBABLY BETTER.
USUALLY BY THE 13TH YOU START GETTING INTO, YOU MIGHT GET STARTED HITTING COLONATED FUNCTIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BEFORE IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING US FORWARD.
UM, I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION IS DO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING FOR DECEMBER? YEAH.
SO I THINK FOR DECEMBER I WOULD PROPOSE THE SIX.
THE SIX IS WHAT WE, AND I WILL SAY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT ROOM CONFIRM.
YOU KNOW, NONE OF THESE DATES ARE CONFIRMED YET.
CITY HALL WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM THE DATES.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SOMEONE THAT SCHEDULES THESE ROOMS AND THEY HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THAT WE WOULD GET THIS ROOM ON THE SIXTH.
UM, BUT WE WOULD GET A DIFFERENT ROOM ON THE SIXTH, RIGHT? MAKE, YEAH, I HOPE SO.
OH, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR CAN WE JUST SAY THEY LOOK GOOD? SHOOT FOR THE SIXTH.
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS DID MAKE A MOTION AND IT WAS SECONDED.
THAT BEEN, WE HAVE A MOTION IS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THIS.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR DECEMBER DATE? STATE? WELL IT SAYS TWO DATES THERE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S VOTE ON THAT.
CAN I MENTION ONE OTHER THING? SO ARE YOU INTERESTED? SO WE, I ALSO WANTED TO BRING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A RETREAT NEXT YEAR AND WE HAVE QUITE SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS WHO TURN, WHOSE TERMS ARE EXPIRING IN FEBRUARY.
THEY'LL HAVE A 60 DAY HOLD OVER POSITION UNTIL THE END OF APRIL, BUT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER WAITING UNTIL NEW COMMISSIONERS ARE ON BOARD BEFORE WE HAVE A RETREAT.
UM, OR WE CAN HAVE A REFRESHER AT SOME POINT.
UM, IT'S JUST UP TO YOU, BUT I THOUGHT I ALSO INCLUDED A, ANOTHER CALENDAR WHICH IS FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
SO YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AND POSSIBLY THINK ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO PROPOSE A DATE FOR A RETREAT AT THIS POINT.
YOU CAN WAIT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
IT'S JUST A LIKE IN THE MAY, JUNE KIND OF SUMMERTIME.
[02:55:01]
IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO TABLE RETREAT DISCUSSIONS OUT OF, I THINK THESE FOLKS HAVE BEEN HERE QUITE A WHILE, IF WE CAN TRY TO GET THEIR DEFINITELY.I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP WHILE WE WERE DISCUSSING THE MEETING DATES.
YEAH, THAT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK UP AT TIME.
YEAH, AND WE'LL CONSIDER THAT.
I THINK, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO PROBABLY SHOOT FOR YEAH.
I, UM, WE CAN JUST GO OR WE CAN JUST MOVE TO EXTEND THIS MEETING TO 10 15.
UH, WHY DON'T WE GO AND THEN WE CAN EXTEND, UH, ONCE WE KNOW HOW MUCH WE NEED TO.
YOU WANT ME TO GO? GO AHEAD MR. MUELLER.
YOU ARE AN OPTIMIST, BUT WE'RE GONNA GO WITH IT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT IT?
[5. Case Number: CL 2017-129687]
YES, PLEASE.ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 2017 1 29 6 87 AND IS A RETURNING CASE REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 48 0 7 CREEKWOOD ROAD STAFF.
EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE ROYAL BLUE BOOK IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDERS.
UH, HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.
THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 25TH, 2017 BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING.
A BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR REPAIR OF THE GARAGE ROOF STRUCTURE WITH 30 DAY, WITHIN 30 DAYS WITH A PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK TO BEGIN TO ACCRUE ON THE 61ST DAY.
IF REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETE, NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE TO DATE.
AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE ACCRUED CIVIL PENALTY TOTAL $63,929 AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE DUE TO THE CONTINUING DETERIORATION OF THIS STRUCTURE, IT IS BLIGHT TO THE COMMUNITY AND REMAINS TO BE SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES DEMOLITION IN YOUR READERS, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO J, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED.
EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH CONTAINS AN UPDATED COMPLAINT IN CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF HEARING AND POSTINGS, A COPY OF THE EXISTING BSC ORDER TRV 2017 1 7 9 53 3 AND A PENALTY STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF CODES, PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR M.
AND LASTLY, CODES RECOMMENDED ORDER.
AUSTIN CODE INVESTIGATOR FAIR PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
INSPECTOR PRESLEY, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M AN INVESTIGATOR WITH THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM OF THE AUSTIN CODE DEPARTMENT.
THIS CASE WAS ASSIGNED ILLEGAL AFTER A BSC REPAIR ORDER WAS ISSUED AT THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF 2017.
THIS PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT SINCE THE BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED.
THE CARPORT HAS EXPERIENCED SERIOUS DETERIORATION THAT HAS LED TO THE STRUCTURE NEEDING TO BE DEMOLISHED INSTEAD OF REPAIRED.
THE CARPORT IS UNSAFE AND UNSOUND.
THE CARPORT IS OVER 300 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, WHICH REQUIRES A DEMO PERMIT.
THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE CONTACTED US AND KNOW THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THE CARPORT TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THIS PROPERTY IS BEING SECURED AND BEING MOWED AND BEING MAINTAINED.
I WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS MARKED FOUR A THROUGH FOUR.
M FOUR A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER HAS REMOVED THE ROOFING TILES AND DECKING, BUT LEFT THE FRAME OF THE CARPORT.
FOUR B SHOWS A CLO CLOSER UP VIEW OF THE FRAMING OF THE CARPORT.
FOUR C SHOWS A CLOSER UP VIEW OF THE ROTTEN WOOD OF THE CARPORT.
THE FRAME IS WATER DAMAGE AND INSECT INFECTED.
FOUR D SHOWS THE MAIN MIDDLE BEAM IS KICKED BACK AND IS NOT HOLDING ANY OF THE STRUCTURES WEIGHT.
FOUR E SHOWS THAT THE STRUCTURE IS OVER 300 SQUARE FEET AND WILL REQUIRE A DEMO PERMIT.
FOUR F SHOWS A CLOSER VIEW OF THE ROTTEN FASCIA BOARDS AND THE DECKING FROM THE CARPORT NOT BEING ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE CORRECTLY, WHICH JUST CAUSED WATER TO BE HELD IN, IN AND IS CAUSING THE ROTTEN WOOD 4G CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE RAFTERS AND THE INFESTATION THAT IS IN THE WOOD.
YOU'RE ON FOUR H, OH, SORRY, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE PLEASE? HERE'S 4G.
OH, 4G IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE INFESTATION OF THE ROTTEN WOOD.
FOUR H AND FOUR I SHOWS THE CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THE MISSING WALL BENEATH THE ROOFING FOR J THROUGH FOUR M SHOWS THE PROPERTY WHEN IT ORIGINALLY WENT TO BSC AND SHOWS THAT THE ROTTEN WOOD MISSING WALL BENEATH THE CARPORT AND INFESTATION WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.
NEXT PHOTO AND THEN NEXT PHOTO.
[03:00:03]
THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD A REPAIR ORDER FOR SIX YEARS WITHOUT ANY WORK BEING DONE.SINCE THE AIR OF THE PROPERTY NOW UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE CODE VIOLATION, I'M ASKING FOR DEMO SINCE THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR.
STAFF ALSO ASKED THE REQUE THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE.
FINDING OF FACT THE COMMISSION'S CURRENT BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ORDER TRV 2017 1 7 9 5 3 WAS NOT APPEALED AND THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED HAS LAPSED FINDING A FACT.
THE COMMISSION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK IN ITS 2017 ORDER TRV 2017 1 7 9 53 3 PENALTIES HAVE ACCRUED IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,929 TO DATE AND ARE STILL ACCRUING AS OF THE DATE OF THE, THAT THE COMMISSION ISSUED THIS ORDER.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT PAID THIS CIVIL PENALTY.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY THE 2017 ORDER BY ONE REDUCING THIS CURRENT CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT ACCRUED IN ITS 2017 ORDER TRV 2017 1 7 9 5 3 3 I E $63,929 TO 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO DATE, OR $15,982 AND 25 CENTS TO ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B DEMOL DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM AUSTIN CODE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE THREE ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE AND CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH B PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES OCCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS.
INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
UH, THANK YOU MS. ALL AND I'LL MOVE THAT WE ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT I, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR M INTO THE RECORD.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, TWO APPELLANTS, TWO SPEAKERS HAVE SIGNED UP MS. CAROLYN HOUSTON AND MISS MARSHA HAIR.
SO, UM, AS I MENTIONED WAY BACK AT THE BEGINNING, WE, UM, TYPICALLY PROVIDE, WE PROVIDE FIVE MINUTES FOR YOU TO RESPOND OR, UM, AS A COURTESY, UH, THE EQUIVALENT TIME THAT THE CITY USED, UH, I TIMED, UH, INSPECTOR PRESS.
SHE USED THREE MINUTES AND SO FIVE MINUTES YOU'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE MORE, MORE TIME THAN SHE USED.
SO, UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF, UH, OF THE CODE OFFICIALS IF YOU WISH.
UM, AND WITH THAT I'LL STOP TALKING AND UH, JAMES, IF YOU CAN JUST LET US KNOW WHEN WE'RE AT ONE MINUTE.
UM, CAROLYN IS MY MOTHER AND THE OTHER LADY STATED, IT WAS MY GRANDMOTHER, RUBY HOUSTON.
UM, THE PROPERTY AT 48 0 7 CREEKWOOD HOLDS A LOT OF SENTIMENTAL VALUE FOR MY FAMILY.
UH, MY UNCLE, THE OLDEST OF SIX, FOLLOWED HIS DREAM AND BOUGHT HIS MOTHER A HOUSE.
UM, AND AFTER SHE PASSED, UM, MY AUNT SOON BECAME ILL.
SHE WAS ALSO LIVING THERE AND THE HOUSE FELL INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR.
UM, MY MOM IS, IS THE HEIR THAT HAS BEEN REFERENCED IN, IN WHAT THE ENFORCEMENT HAS SAID.
AND ALTHOUGH MY GRANDMOTHER DIDN'T HAVE A WILL, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SAY WITH WHAT THEY WANT DONE WITH THE HOUSE, BUT NO MONEY TO OFFER TO GET THINGS DONE TO THE HOUSE.
AS OF THIS WEEK, WE HAVE OBTAINED THREE DIFFERENT ESTIMATES TO GET THE CARPORT DEMOLISHED.
WE CAN HAVE THE CARPORT DEMOLISHED BY FRIDAY.
WE DO ASK THAT YOU ALSO REDUCE THE FEES.
WE BASICALLY ASK FOR WHAT YOU DID FOR THE PEOPLE, THE
[03:05:01]
CASE BEFORE US.UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS AN EYESORE.
WE, WE DO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT THE HOUSE IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
UM, ADDITIONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, WE SPOKE TO ERIC BAUM WHILE MY MOTHER HAD AN APPOINTMENT WITH ERIC BAUM THIS MORNING.
UH, HE DOES LIKE THE, THE STRUCTURE CONSULTING, I THINK FOR THE PERMITTING.
AND HE SENT US AN EMAIL THAT IN HIS OPINION HE DOES NOT THINK THAT WE NEED A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE CARPORT.
ALTHOUGH THOSE BEAMS ARE ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THEY ARE NOT PART OF ANY LOAD BEARING STRUCTURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR THE HOUSE.
SO THE CARPORT CAN BE DEMOLISHED AND IT CAN BE DONE QUICKLY.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW? KNOW, LIKE, EXCUSE ME.
I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH MY PARTS AND I'VE BEEN TAKING CARE OF THIS HOUSE EVER SINCE MY DA NOT MY DAUGHTER, BUT MY SISTER DIED AND SHE LEFT ME IN HER WILL AND LEFT ME HER PORTION.
AND I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS RIGHT NOW.
BUT EVERYBODY HAS A SAY OF WHAT I SHOULD DO, BUT NOBODY'S BACKING ME UP.
BUT I HAVE BEEN TRYING, LIKE, I HAD GONE THROUGH THE, NOT NECESSARILY THE PERMIT PROCESS, BUT I'VE GONE AND TALKED TO PEOPLE LIKE THAT ON BOMB THE WARTON SPRING.
I'VE GONE DOWN THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES AND LIKE BEFORE YOU SEE THAT IT'S JUST THE STRUCTURE NOW.
I HAD SOME GUYS COME AND THEY ACTUALLY TOOK THE SIDING OFF OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY YOU ONLY SEE THE FRAME, BUT THEN THEY DISAPPEARED AND IT JUST, I JUST NEVER WENT FORWARD WITH IT.
LIKE, I PAID MONEY FOR THEM TO DO THIS AND LIKE THEY DISAPPEAR ON ME.
AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GET IN CONTACT WITH 'EM.
SO IT JUST FELL INTO NEGLECT AND I'VE BEEN, IT'S, I HAVE BEEN TRYING, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S A NICE SORE AND I'M, I'M WILLING NOW TO GO AHEAD AND GET A DEMOLISHED LIKE THIS WEEK I HAVE REALLY BEEN TRYING TO FIND PEOPLE TO COME IN AND DO STUFF AND I DID, I GET, I GOT THREE ESTIMATES OF PEOPLE THAT CAN DO THIS FOR ME, BUT I WAS WAITING TO SEE, CUZ I GET CONFLICTING ADVICE FROM PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO THROUGH THE PERMIT.
AND IT, AND I'M GONNA INTERRUPT YOU FOR ONE MINUTE.
I WANNA MAKE A QUICK MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THIS MEETING TO 10 20.
DOES ANYONE WANNA SECOND THAT? SECOND, UM, FROM MR. THOMPSON, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING THIS TO 10 20.
THREE UNANIMOUS VOTES IN A ROW.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE EXTENDING 10 20.
YOU HAVE, UM, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES REMAINING IN YOUR TIME.
YOU WERE MENTIONING YOU'VE GOTTEN SOME PRICES FROM SOME CONTRACTORS.
YEAH, I'VE TALKED TO THREE SEPARATE CONTRACTORS FROM THE HIGHEST TO THE LOWEST.
BUT I WAS WAITING TO COME HERE TO FIND OUT IF I ACTUALLY HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT BECAUSE I TALKED TO ERIC BAUM THIS MORNING AND HE WAS SAYING THAT HE DIDN'T THINK I NEEDED A PERMIT TO GO AHEAD AND DEMOLISH IT.
I'VE TALKED TO ROBERT JOHNSON THE DAY BEFORE, WHICH WAS MY BIRTHDAY ON 25TH.
I CAME AND I TALKED TO HIM AND HE REFERRED ME TO ERIC BAUM.
I I DO WANNA ADD, IT'S NOT A LACK OF WILLINGNESS OF TAKING CARE OF THE HOUSE.
THAT IS NOT WHY IT FELL INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY A LACK OF MONEY.
UM, SHE IS RECENTLY RETIRED AND IT'S, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS JUST HER DOING IT ON HER OWN.
NOW AS A FAMILY, I, I'VE KIND OF PUT OUT, YOU KNOW, THE APB ALL NEED TO COME HELP US SORT OF THING.
AND THEY ARE WILLING TO HELP US DO THINGS LIKE MAINTAIN THE YARD AND FIX EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN FIX ON OUR OWN WITHOUT A PERMIT.
LIKE YOU SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS IT'S CHANGED AND THERE'S, UM, THERE'S LOTS OF REMODELING AND THINGS GOING ON.
THE WAY IT LOOKS IS AFFECTING PEOPLE'S PROPERTY VALUES AND THAT'S WHY IT, IT, IT, IT, WE ARE HERE TODAY, BUT PLEASE DO GIVE US THE CHANCE TO TEAR DOWN THE CARD FOR IT.
IT, IT WILL BE, IT WILL BE GONE.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR COMING AND THANK YOU FOR AGAIN WAITING AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY INTERRUPTION.
UM, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR SIMILAR TREATMENT TO THE PREVIOUS CASE.
UM, SO I HEARD THE REDUCTION IN CIVIL PENALTY, BUT UM, SO ARE YOU ASKING FOR MORE, MORE THAN 46 DAYS TO COMPLY? I, I, WE DON'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLY.
WE HAVE THE ESTIMATES AND EVERYONE WE'VE SPOKEN TO HAVE TOLD US THEY'RE JUST WAITING
[03:10:01]
FOR A GREEN LIGHT TO DO IT.WE DIDN'T KNOW IF WE COULD BECAUSE SHE HAS HEARD CONFLICTING THINGS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED A PERMIT.
WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE PERMIT.
AND AS OF MOST RECENTLY, WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE DON'T NEED A PERMIT.
SO IF THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE, IT IT CAN BE DONE IN MUCH, MUCH SOONER THAN 45 DAYS.
SO WE DON'T NEED MORE TIME, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A REDUCTION IN THE FEES, JUST FOR THE HARDSHIP PURPOSES.
SHE IS RETIRED AND, UM, I, I DON'T WORK THE BEST JOB, BUT I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP PAY.
SO, AND YOU, AND YOU DO INTEND AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THE CARPORT PER WHAT CITY WANTS.
WE ARE READY TO GET THE PARTY STARTED.
AND IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION TO US ABOUT THE PERMIT, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, I KNOW THIS IS VERY FRUSTRATING, BUT, BUT WE CAN'T, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS WITH THE, UM, CITIES.
WELL, WITH ACTUALLY THE, THE, THE BUILDING RIGHT.
WE CAN'T REALLY TELL YOU EXACTLY.
UM, WE HAVE TO DO FOR THE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, UH, INSPECTOR PER OR CITY CODE, IT'S ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING IN OVER 300 SQUARE FEET.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE TELLING THEM A DSD THAT WELL, WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH DSD FOR SURE.
IT, IT MAY IS THIS 300 AT THE BASE OR THE OVERHANG OR NO, NO, IT'S A TWO CAR, CAR PORT WITH A LITTLE LIKE SIDE STORAGE UNIT ON IT.
SO IT'S DEFINITELY OVER 300 SQUARE FEET.
AT AT, AT THE STRUCTURAL BASE, NOT AT THE OVERHANGS.
SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME SORTING OUT TO DO THERE.
I THINK WE, WE UNDERSTAND YOU ASKED PRETTY CLEARLY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I SEAL EARLIER WE HEARD THAT YOU, UH, THE ABILITY TO REDUCE THE FINES BEYOND DOWN TO ZERO.
IS THAT RIGHT? I DON'T THINK SO.
WHAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO ZERO, RIGHT, RIGHT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10% CUZ.
SO WE COULD GO BELOW THAT IF WE WANT.
THERE'S JUST WAS JUST CURIOUS.
I WONDER, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I HAVE NOT MADE IT CLEAR TO THESE LADIES MICROPHONE MM-HMM.
SO IF YOU GOT IT DOWN TO 10%, THEY MIGHT BE IN NOT OWE ANYTHING.
THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO UNDERSTAND.
UM, WHEN YOU PROCEED WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THIS CARPORT, RIGHT.
UM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP DOCUMENTATION OF YOURS, OF YOUR EXPENSES TO DO THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S A PROCESS WHICH, UH, WE CAN, BUT JAMES CAN HELP YOU WITH, UH, TELL YOU MORE ABOUT IT.
BUT THERE'S A PROCESS WHERE YOU CAN, AFTER YOU'RE DONE, YOU CAN COME BACK AND YOU CAN ASK FOR THAT EXPENSE THAT YOU INCURRED TO MEET THE ORDER THAT, THAT OFFSET WHAT YOU OWE.
RIGHT? SO OBVIOUSLY IF YOU, IF THE FEE IS AS STA AS IT'S PROPOSED 15,982 AND YOU SPENT MORE THAN THAT TO DEMOLISH, THEN IT KIND OF ZEROS IT OUT.
RIGHT? SO REAL QUICK, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
WE JUST ADMINISTRATIVELY DO IT IN OFFICE.
IT'S ONLY FOR, UH, COMMERCIAL.
SO THERE'S A PROCESS SAY EVEN EASIER, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS.
I WOULD MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS AND YOU KEEP ALL THOSE RECORDS.
UH, ANYBODY ELSE? UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THEY WOULD NEED TO KEEP, UH, COPIES OF CHECKS, LIKE ANYTHING YOU PAID FOR THE FRONT AND BACK COPIES OF THE CHECKS THAT YOU PAID FOR ANY OF THE DEMOLITION AND, UH, INVOICES FROM THE CONTRACTOR THAT DID THE DEMOLITION.
SO ANY KIND OF PROOF THAT YOU HAD THE DEMOLITION PERFORMED, WHAT WORKED WAS DONE, AND UM, THEN SUBMIT THAT TO ME AND THAT WOULD, AND I WOULD PROCESS THAT.
I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT GOT PROCESSED.
IF YOU HAVE THE PROPOSAL, YOU'VE GOT TO SIGNED CONTRACT INVOICES, RECEIPTS, CHECKS, ALL OF THAT.
NO, I I WOULD ADD THOUGH TO THE COMMISSION MAYBE THAT WE CONSIDER THE DIFFICULTY THAT MIGHT COME ALONG WITH TRACKING THOSE EXPENSES AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS PERFECTLY IN A WAY THAT, UM, FULLY REDUCES THE COST.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE PERFECTLY.
AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE FINE TO BE IMMATERIAL IF IT EVEN IS LESS THAN THE ESTIMATED DEMOLISHED COST, JUST IN THE SENSE THAT THERE'S A RISK AT ADMINISTRATIVELY THEIR RECEIPTS IN SOME, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION MAY FOUND TO BE LACKING.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST SAY, WELL, IT'S GONNA BE LESS THAN THE COST, SO WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT'S JUST, UH, A POINT TO MAKE.
AND THEN ALSO, SORRY, A SECOND POINT TO MAKE WOULD BE THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE SINCE THERE IS,
[03:15:01]
UM, AT LEAST SOME CONFLICT, MAYBE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE NEED FOR A PERMIT THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE TIME ELEMENT AS WELL, LIKE WE DID FOR THE LAST CASE.UM, COMMISSIONER MUELLER OR STUFFS DAD ONLINE? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT? NO.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO, UH, TO A MOTION
I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP ONE MORE POINT THAT GIVEN WHAT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT REDUCING THE FINE AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE US CONSIDER BRINGING IT DOWN TO 5%, UM, OF THE TOTAL FINE.
THAT'S, SO IT'D BE LIKE $3,150.
I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHY THE PREVIOUS GROUP GOT 10% AND THIS ONE GETS 5%.
IT'S A HARDSHIP CASE AND IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE, IT'S JUST THE CARDBOARD IS NOT THE HOUSE AND THEY ASK FOR 10%.
YEAH, I'M JUST, NO, NO, NO, IT'S GOOD.
ASKED, UM, MOTION, ANYBODY? I'LL MAKE THEM MOTION ADOPT THE, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS REDUCING THE CURRENT CIVIL PENALTY MAL ACCRUED IN ITS 2017 ORDER, UH, 63,929.
29 TO 10%, UH, REDUCTION TO OWE TO DATE OR $6,392 ORDERED THE OWNER TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITH.
THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, SO I, MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT EXTENSION WHETHER THERE'S GONNA BE THE DEMO PERMANENT OR NOT.
THAT'S AN UNKNOWN VARIABLE, RIGHT? SO MAYBE WE GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT TO THE 45 DAYS AND JUST SAY, UM, 60 DAYS OR DO YOU WANNA MAKE IT TO 90? I CAN GO EITHER WAY.
I WOULD, I WOULD LEAN TOWARD MORE LENIENCY THE MOTION.
SO WE'LL MAKE IT 90 DAYS, UH, FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL PERMITS, DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE.
REMOVE THE DEBRIS AND REQUEST INSPECTION FROM AUSTIN CODE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE ON THE 91ST DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE IS NOT ACHIEVED, AUTHORIZED CODE OFFICIALS PROCEED WITH A DEMOLITION OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE INTO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE ATTACHED CARPORT STRUCTURE TORE AND DISPOSE OF SUCH PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS AND EXPENSES OCCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN RECORDED WITH TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS INTEREST WILL AGREE TO RATE 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE ASSESSMENT TOOL PAID IN FULL.
BEFORE WE MOVE TO SECOND THAT MS. CURRY, I SEE, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING FLAWED IN THAT
UM, I KNOW THAT YOU SAW THAT YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION SINCE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, BUT I WILL SAY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE THING.
UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER BENIGNO HAS THE SHEET, UM, THAT YOU CAN, YOU CAN STATE IT MUCH.
I NOTICED MORE SIMPLY THE SHEETS WEREN'T IN HERE THIS TIME, SO I WAS JUST KIND OF FREEWHEELING.
SO THE, BUT SO THE MOTION BASICALLY, UH, 10% AND 90 DAYS COMMISSIONER SEA LEAGUE, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND GO TO 5%? NO, NO, NO, NO.
SO KIND OF BACK TO THE, I WOULD JUST SAY ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT I SAID IN TERMS OF LIKE BEING AWARE THAT THESE COSTS MAY BE, HAVE ADDITIONAL, UM, BURDENS BEYOND JUST, UH, REDEEMING OR, OR MATCHING THEM THE, THE CITY, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, I'D BE IN FAVOR AS 5% OR AS LOW AS 1%, UM, TO PREVENT THE, THE KIND OF FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT THEY MIGHT OCCUR.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, JUST TO PUT THAT AND YOU CAN MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
RIGHT? BUT I SPOKE FOR YOU COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
DO YOU WANNA RESTATE IT? I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
WELL LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT.
LET'S GO TO THAT TO THE BEGINNING.
YEAH, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH IT FROM THE TOP.
JUST STATE THE, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO STATED MOTION ON THE TABLE.
YEAH, LET'S GO RESTATE THE, SO YOU WANT FROM THE TOP? YOU WANT A FRESH MOTION? NO.
WHAT IS, BECAUSE WE HAD ORIGINAL MOTION IN A SECOND.
SO THAT MOTION'S STILL ON THE TABLE? NO, THE, THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS NOT VALID AND NEEDED TO BE RESTATED.
UM, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO INCORPORATE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WAS, THAT HAS BEEN STATED, BUT WE JUST NEED A CLEAN MOTION.
YEAH, AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS NUMBER FOUR.
WHY WANT TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE STAFF'S PROPOSED.
I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING EQUITABLE AND UM, BEING CONSISTENT IN OUR ORDERS.
AND SO WHILE I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE, THE MOTIVATION BEHIND FURTHER REDUCING THE PENALTIES, AND I THINK THAT IS NOBLE.
[03:20:01]
UM, I DO THINK ME PERSONALLY, I REALLY WOULD STRIVE MORE FOR EQUITABLE AND CONSISTENT ORDERS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WHICH COMMISSIONER FRYBERG, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD EQUATE TO 10% AND 90 DAYS.BUT NOT A DEAL BREAKER FOR ME, BUT JUST THROWN IT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO I MOVED THE DO STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND INCLUSION LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, RECOMMENDED ORDER EXCEPT FOR REMOVING THE PENALTIES.
CHANGING THE PENALTIES TO 10%, WHICH IS THE $6,392 AND THE DATES FROM 45 DAYS TO 90 DAYS AND 46 DAYS TO 91 DAYS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL MAKE SURE.
SO THAT'S WHAT, FOUR OR FIVE? I DON'T IN A ROW.
MAYBE WE SHOULD, YEAH, LET'S EXTEND THE MEETING.
SO, UH, MISS ALL, ANYTHING ELSE? OTHERWISE I'M GONNA CALL THIS MEETING
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
FUTURE.OH, SORRY, FUTURE AGENDA AUDIENCE.
JUST, UH, WE'LL HAVE TO PICK UP THE RETREAT, UH, ANNUAL RETREAT NEXT, NEXT MEETING, THAT DISCUSSION.
UM, YEAH, OTHER THAN THAT, UM, I'M GONNA MOVE WITH THIS MEETING.
I'M GONNA CALL THE MEETING CLOSED.
SO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR COMING.
UH, I GUESS THIS MEETING OFFICIALLY ENDED AT 10 11.
UM, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND UM, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LATE NIGHT
WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR DECISION AND YOUR TIME.
MY OWN LOVE IS LOOKING FOR ME.
I'M GOING BACK TO MISSISSIPPI.