Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:03]

EVERYONE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M

[CALL TO ORDER]

GOING TO CALL THE, THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR APRIL 24TH, 2024.

AND THE TIME IS 6:44 PM MY NAME IS SHADY AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL ROLL AND ASK THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU'RE HERE.

UM, OKAY, LET'S START WITH, IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? WE WILL HAVE, I THINK ONE COMMISSIONER REMOTING IN.

I'M GOING TO START WITH COMMISSIONER TOAD HERE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BENIGNO IS NOT PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SELLEK.

OKAY.

HE'S NOT HERE YET, BUT I THINK HE'LL BE HERE.

COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER OLUGO.

HERE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER SUGAR HERE.

OKAY.

AND DO WE ALSO HAVE FIRE MARSHAL HERE TODAY? NO, I'M HERE.

I'M ONLINE.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

OKAY.

AND BEFORE

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

THE CASES ARE CALLED, THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED TWO MIN, I MEAN THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.

TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FOUR CASES ON THE POSTED AGENDA.

THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER FOUR CASES FROM FORT PROPERTIES AND ONE APPEAL.

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 APPROPRIATE.

ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECORUM AND CIVILITY SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS CODE REVIEW.

ANALYST JAMES, HER HERBER WINE, I'M SORRY, WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.

THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM, OR IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.

THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES FIRST, YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MAY ASK THE WITNESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.

AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR OWN EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.

YOU'LL 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.

, I'LL BE YOUR TIMEKEEPER TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

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'LL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO PRESENT, UH, RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE FIVE MINUTES, BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, AFTER WHICH THE OWNER OR APPELLANT MAY SUMMARIZE HIS OR HER CASE.

AND THE TIME ALLOTED FOR THAT WILL BE THREE MINUTES.

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 ONCE YOUR CASE IS CALLED.

SO WITNESSES WILL NOW TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.

UM, IS ANYBODY ON THE LEFT, UM, TO MY LEFT PRESENTING? THANK YOU.

UM, DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, I DO.

I DO.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS

[00:05:01]

THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

SEE THE NUMBERS, AGENDA

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ITEM, THE MINUTES.

WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MONTH'S MEETING, MARCH 27.

AND COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE UH, REVIEW THE MINUTES AND LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR AMENDMENTS, UH, OR MOTION.

MADAM CHAIR, MOVE TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU.

UM, I SECOND DO WE? OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 27TH AND A SECOND.

DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, MEETING MINUTES APPROVED.

UM, AND THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM WILL BE THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.

ALL RIGHT.

EXCUSE ME, CHAIR.

I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE CHECKED TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS BEFOREHAND.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY IN YOUR MIC? THANK YOU.

ARE WE GOOD? ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM, ELECTIONS.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.

CHAIR.

I THINK WE'RE, UH, EXPECTING JOIN.

DO YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL YES, WE'LL MOVE THIS TO THE END? IS THAT'S ALL RIGHT? OKAY.

WE CAN START WITH THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.

WE HAVE ENOUGH FOR A QUORUM.

I MEAN, NOT, NOT THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM, BUT THE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. Case Number: CL 2024-019744]

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH.

HOW'S THAT? OKAY.

ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2024 DASH OH 1 9 7 44, AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 3 1 0 CARVER AVENUE.

THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BROWN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.

THIS CASE IS ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS UNOCCUPIED.

THE CASE WAS OPENED IN SEPTEMBER, 2022 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.

CONDITIONS ARE CONSIDERED, UM, SUBSTANDARD AND REQUIRE REPAIR.

IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.

A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.

AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE.

INSPECTOR CHRIS PALEO IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.

INSPECTOR PALEO, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

.

IT'S ON NOW.

OKAY.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS CHRIS BEO.

I AM AN INSPECTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

CODE COMPLIANCE.

THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT FOR YOU, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, I'M SORRY, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 10 CARVER AVENUE.

THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS DAVID HAMAS.

THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE WOODED, I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE STORY WOODED.

FRIEND.

FRIEND, UM, SORRY.

THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE STORY, WOODEN WOOD FRAME RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON POLES AND BEAMS, AND IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT.

ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2022.

THE PROPERTY 73 10 CARVER AVENUE WAS REPORTED BY A CITIZEN 2 3 1 1.

ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2022, INVESTIGATOR ALICIA TOVAR COMPLETED THE INITIAL INSPECTION.

THE CASE WAS DOCUMENTED AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATIONS.

ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022, THE PROPERTY WAS ABATED BY THE OWNER AND ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 2022, CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE OWNER WHO HAD STATED HE WAS UNABLE, UNABLE TO DE UH, DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE DUE TO AN ONGOING LITIGATION, BUT WAS ABLE TO ABATE THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 12TH, 2023.

A SECOND END OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT.

AND ON JULY 19TH, 2023, I WAS REASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND I CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIVE PERMITS ON FILE.

ON MARCH 7TH, 2024, AN UPDATED NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED AND WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 13TH, 2024.

FOLLOW UP INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED

[00:10:01]

AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED VACANT AND IN VIOLATION AND PERMITS WERE NOT, HAVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED, UM, ESCALATING THIS CASE FORWARD DUE TO THE OWNER NOT RECTIFYING THE VIOLATIONS.

I WILL PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED A RES UH, A RESIDENT, I'M SORRY, A RECENT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AND THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED.

PHOTO TWO A, THIS PHOTO SHOWS A VIEW OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS DETERIORATED AND THE FRONT WALLS ARE MISSING THEIR SIDING, DAMAGE TO THE ROOF, SHINGLES AND SOFFIT.

AND IT'S ALSO, YOU CAN SEE A BROKEN WINDOW.

THE FOUNDATION IS COMPROMISED AND YOU CAN SEE A SEPARATION IN THE FOUNDATION IN THE FRONT.

NEXT PHOTO PLEASE.

TWO B IS A PHOTO OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THE SIDING IS MISSING, BROKEN, AND UNDER UNDERLYING, I'M SORRY, UNDERLINING MATERIAL IS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS.

THE FOUNDATION HAS BUCKLED AND IS COMPROMISED.

AN OPENING IS LEADING UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE, ALLOWING EASY ACCESS FOR RODENTS AND ANIMALS.

WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINED PROPER PERMITS BEFORE ANY INITIAL REPAIRS.

NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THIS PHOTO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE FASCIA HAS DETERIORATED AND THE UNDERNEATH MATERIAL IS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS.

THE WINDOW IS NOT SECURE AND THE PLYWOOD THAT PREVENTED ACCESS HAS BEEN REMOVED.

NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE.

2D.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM THE RIGHT SIDE FACING THE BACKYARD.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE A MISSING FASCIA EXPOSED INSULATION TO THE ELEMENTS.

THE VEGETATION HAS GROWN INTO THE STRUCTURE.

THIS STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE UTILITIES ARE ACTIVE.

NEXT PHOTO PLEASE.

TWO E.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM THE FRONT PORCH OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'LL, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE FASCIA ROOF IS DAMAGED AND THE WOOD IS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS.

WIRES ARE UNSECURED AND RUNNING LOW ACROSS THE FRONT ENTRANCEWAY, ALSO BROKEN WINDOW.

NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE.

TWO F.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE DAMAGE IN THE MISSING SIDING, EXPOSING THE WOODEN SIDING, LOW HANGING, ELECTRICAL WIRES, MISSING STEPS, PORCH HANDRAILS AS WELL.

NEXT PHOTO PLEASE.

TWO G.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM THE LEFT BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE MISSING AND DAMAGED SIDING, EXPOSING THE WOOD TO THE ELEMENTS.

TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE MISSING HANDRAILS AND THE BROKEN WINDOW.

NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE.

TWO H.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN LEFT BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE A BROKEN WINDOW, FASCIA, PLYWOOD EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS, CITING, MISSING, AND EXPOSED WOODEN PANELS TO THE ELEMENTS AS WELL.

NEXT PHOTO PLEASE.

TWO I.

THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN LEFT BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE DAMAGED SIDING EXPOSING THE WOOD TO THE ELEMENTS.

THE FOUNDATION HAS BUCKLED AND IS COMPROMISED.

SECOND, THE SECOND UNDERNEATH STRUCTURE OPENING, ALLOWING EASY ACCESS FOR RODENTS AND ANIMALS, LOW ELECTRICAL WIRES HANGING LOW AND, AND ON THE GROUND AS WELL.

NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE.

TWO J.

THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN LEFT BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS PHOTO, YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THE ELECTRICAL BOX WIRES EXPOSED AND NOT SECURE.

THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, 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 WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.

STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J.

STAFF ALSO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.

A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.

B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.

[00:15:02]

C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY.

IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED TO ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK, THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE.

ANDRUS SHALL ACCRUE A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT, UM, CITY'S EXHIBIT ONE AS WELL AS EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS TWO A THROUGH TWO J.

NOW, UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE MR. HEMA HERE TONIGHT, JUST IN FRONT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

YEAH.

HELLO THERE.

WE DO HAVE YOUR EXHIBITS.

YES.

UM, I JUST NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THEM.

I'M SORRY.

OKAY, NO PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M, OKAY.

MM-HMM, , THEY'RE GONNA PUT 'EM UP ON THE SCREEN.

ALL SECOND.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

JAMES, ARE YOU DRIVING THE SCREEN? OKAY.

OKAY.

MY NAME, SORRY.

MAY I BEGIN? YEAH, YOU CAN BEGIN.

OF COURSE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS DAVID HAMAS.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, SOME BACKGROUND I SENT AN EMAIL TO MELANIE LAST WEDNESDAY WHEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE HEARING.

UH, IT WAS A LITTLE SURPRISING TO ME BECAUSE TO DATE I'VE SPOKEN TO AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT CODE OFFICERS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY DATING BACK TO 2021 WITH THE SAME INFORMATION RELAYED TO YOU.

SO THE PROPERTY IS, UH, SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

IT'S IN THE RED BOX.

IT'S BEEN PENDING SINCE 2017.

IT'S STILL PENDING TO THIS DAY.

IT'S AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE RELATED TO LEGAL TITLE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS PREVENTED ME FROM DOING CERTAIN MAINTENANCE ON THE PROPERTY.

IF I HAD IT MY WAY, I WOULD'VE SOLD THIS OR DEMOLISHED THIS THREE YEARS AGO, BUT I CANNOT DUE TO THE ONGOING LITIGATION.

SO I'M JUST GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE FACTS AND THEN, UH, I'LL MAKE A CONCLUDING STATEMENT.

I KNOW WE HAVE DECORUM HERE, BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO INTERRUPT ME AND ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE AS I GO.

SO JUST GOING THROUGH THIS, THE FIRST PAGE SHOWS THE DOCKET FOR THE ACTIVE LAWSUIT.

IT SHOWS PENDING AS OF TODAY.

THIS WAS PRINTED THIS MORNING, UM, TO WHOMEVER IS STEERING IT.

IF YOU GO, I THINK TO THE NINTH PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT, YOU'LL SEE THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL PETITION THAT WAS FILED IN 2017.

SO THIS HAS TAKEN A LOT LONGER THAN I'VE EXPECTED.

THAT'S THAT PAGE.

YOU CAN SEE THE TOP RIGHT.

IT SAYS 2017.

AND THEN IF YOU COULD GO A FEW PAGE FARTHER AS AN EXHIBIT.

AND I PUT A RED BOX AROUND THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROP THERE, IT WAS ONE PAGE BACK 73 10 CARVER IS PART OF THIS LAWSUIT.

OKAY, I'LL CONTINUE.

UM, IF YOU KEEP FLIPPING THROUGH, THERE'S A PERMIT INFORMATION PAGE.

OKAY.

SO ON THIS PAGE YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT THERE'S, UH, FIVE CODE VIOLATIONS.

THIS IS FROM THE AUSTIN BILL CONNECT SYSTEM.

I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THREE OF THOSE.

ROW FIVE.

YOU'LL SEE A CODE VIOLATION FROM 2021, WHICH WAS CLOSED ROW TWO.

YOU'RE GONNA SEE A CODE VIOLATION FROM 2022.

THAT IS THE CODE VIOLATION.

WE ARE HERE.

SPEAKING OF TODAY, ROW ONE, YOU'LL SEE A CODE VIOLATION FROM 2023 THAT IS CLOSED.

UH, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE? THE 20 20 21 CODE VIOLATION CAME FROM CODE SUPERVISOR DERICH KNOX.

YOU CAN SEE A SIGNATURE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

IF YOU GO TO THE, I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT.

CAN WHOMEVER'S STEERING SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM SO THEY CAN SEE.

MR. KNOX'S NAME AND SIGNATURE.

THANK YOU.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THAT MR. KNOX IDENTIFIED SEVERAL ITEMS OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, INCLUDING THE ROOF AND EXTERIOR WALLS.

UH, PLEASE KEEP SCROLLING.

[00:20:05]

THANK YOU.

I CONTACTED MR. KNOX AND RELAYED THE SAME FACTS I RELAYED TO YOU, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATELY THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LITIGATION.

I'D BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE GROUND MAINTENANCE, BUT I WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AS IT WAS MR. KNOX AGREED.

TOLD ME.

THANK YOU.

AS YOU SAW IN THE EMAIL, ENCLOSED THE VIOLATION THAT WAS IN 2021.

COULD YOU CONTINUE SCROLLING PLEASE? IN 2022? THIS IS, UH, THE CODE VIOLATION.

MS. TOVAR, COULD YOU SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM SO THEY CAN SEE MS. TOVAR SIGNATURE AND NAME PLEASE? THANK YOU.

ON THE SECOND PAGE, YOU'LL SEE SHE NOTED THE SAME STRUCTURE, MAINTENANCE RELATING TO THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND ROOF.

I CONTACTED MS. TOVAR AS THE CODE OFFICER MENTIONED, PLEASE KEEP SCROLLING WITH THE SAME INFORMATION I RELAYED TO YOU.

HER RESPONSE WAS, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SCROLL TO THE TOP OF THAT PAGE? I APOLOGIZE.

HER RESPONSE WAS, GOT IT.

THANK YOU.

THERE IT IS.

COULD YOU PLEASE KEEP SCROLLING? THANK YOU.

PLEASE.

C, PLEASE CONTINUE.

THANK YOU.

IN 2023, I RECEIVED ANOTHER CODE VIOLATION FROM, UH, A MR. MCFARLAND.

IF YOU GO TO THE, IF YOU CONTINUE SCROLLING SO THEY CAN SEE MR. MCFARLAND'S NAME AND SIGNATURE.

ON THE SECOND PAGE, YOU'LL NOTE IF THERE WAS STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, SIMILAR TO AS BEFORE, MR. MCFARLAND CLOSED THAT VIOLATION AS I SHOWED YOU ON THE FIRST PAGE.

UH, IF YOU CAN PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.

SO IN SUMMARY, I HAVE THREE CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE SAME TOPIC.

STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, ONE FROM 20 21, 1 FROM 2022, AND ONE FROM 20 23, 21 AND 23 HAVE BEEN CLOSED BASED ON THE FACTS I'VE TOLD YOU AND AS AGREED TO WITH THE CODE DEPARTMENT.

BUT 2022, UM, SOMEWHAT BEWILDERINGLY REMAINS OPEN AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

UM, PART TWO, THIS IS A CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE.

SO PART OF MY AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, CODE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO REMAIN UNOCCUPIED, WHICH IT WAS, IT HAS BEEN UNOCCUPIED FOR SEVEN PLUS YEARS.

ANY CASE TO AFFECT THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT WELCOME ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH THEY'RE NOT.

I HAVE CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICES IN PLACE.

IF YOU'RE UNFAMILIAR WITH THAT, THAT'S WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE.

IT HAS BEEN OFFICER BLACK FOR SOME TIME.

UM, I DON'T HAVE ALL OF MY CASE NUMBERS, BUT IF YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT, THIS ONE PAGE SHOWS I'VE HAD THEM IN PLACE SINCE 20 22, 20 23, AND 2024, WHICH MEANS TO BE PRECISE THAT ABSOLUTELY NOBODY IS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY FOR ANY REASON.

AND IF THEY ARE FOUND, THEY'RE TO BE REMOVED AND OR ARRESTED.

SO THE PROPERTY IS VACANT, IT'S PRIVATE AS A NO TRESPASSING SIGN POSTED, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT.

THERE IT IS, AND ABSOLUTELY NO ONE'S ALLOWED ON IT.

UM, COULD YOU SCROLL UP A COUPLE OF PAGES PLEASE? UH, THAT ONE, ONE MORE DOWN, I BELIEVE.

AND COULD YOU ZOOM IN? UM, OFFICER PALEO JUST MENTIONED THE PROPERTY HAS UTILITIES.

THAT IS INCORRECT.

THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE UTILITIES.

SO THIS PAGE IS FROM TEXAS GAS OR ONE GAS.

THE GAS SERVICE HAS BEEN RETIRED, WHICH MEANS IT'S BEEN REMOVED IN PREPARATION FOR DEMOLITION.

COULD YOU PLEASE GO TO THE SECOND PAGE? UH, SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

SHE SHOWED THE SAME PICTURE, WHICH YOU MENTIONED WAS LIKE LOOSE ELECTRIC CORE WIRES OR SOMETHING.

THAT'S ACTUALLY THE METER BOX.

THE ELECTRICAL METER HAS BEEN REMOVED ALSO IN PREPARATION FOR DEMOLITION.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE THREE YEARS AGO BECAUSE I WAS FINED FOR, FOR METER TAMPERING.

SOMEONE HAD BROKEN INTO THE PROPERTY AND WAS, UM, SIPHONING ELECTRICITY OFF IT.

SO THERE'S NO ELECTRICITY TO THE PROPERTY.

ALL THOSE WIRES ARE DEAD.

UM, I, THE CITY DOESN'T PROVIDE CONFIRMATION OF WATER, BUT THE WATER METER HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE THAT METER WAS ALSO TAMPERING WITH SOMEONE STOLE 50,000 GALLONS OF, OF WATER FROM THE PROPERTY.

SO, UH, IN SUMMARY, JUST ON THE STATE OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS VACANT.

IT HAS BEEN VACANT.

IT WILL BE VACANT.

IT WILL NOT BE RENTED.

IT HAS NO UTILITIES, NEITHER GAS, ELECTRIC, OR WATER.

IT CANNOT BE OCCUPIED.

I'M NOT TRYING TO OCCUPY IT AS A CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE IS IN PLACE.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONFLUENCE OF THESE THINGS I MENTIONED, I THINK PRETTY CLEARLY IDENTIFY THAT THIS IS NOT A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THIS IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE.

AND, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE CODE DEPARTMENT HAS TWICE AGREED PRETTY EMPHATICALLY IN 21 AND 23 THAT THEY CLOSED OUT THE VIOLATION.

AND LET ME CONTINUE DOING ROUTE MAINTENANCE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE LAWSUIT.

UH, COULD YOU PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE LAST PAGE? AND THAT'S JUST A PICTURE OF THE PROP.

I THINK IT'S THE LAST PAGE I HAVE IN MY PACKAGE, I BELIEVE.

ANYWAY, SO THAT'S, THAT'S IT, THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.

NOW.

[00:25:01]

THERE'S A NO TRESPASSING SIGN.

ALL THE WINDOWS ARE BOARDED UP.

IF THEY'RE NOT BOARDED UP, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE BARS IN FRONT OF 'EM.

IF YOU DON'T SEE BARS ON THE OUTSIDE, IT'S 'CAUSE THERE'S BARS ON THE INSIDE.

SO IT'S COMPLETELY SECURE BOARDED UP.

UM, THAT'S TO SAY THE PROPERTY.

NOW, I, I ASKED MELANIE IF THIS COULD BE, THIS HEARING COULD BE POSTPONED ON THE PROPERTY TO THE LATEST POSSIBLE DATE END THE YEAR BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE ONGOING LITIGATION.

UH, I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULDN'T WRITE AN ORDER WHEN THERE'S AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE BETWEEN TO THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, IF THAT FOREVER IS IN IS UNACCEPTABLE OR YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, I WOULD ASK YOU NOT WRITE A REPAIR ORDER INSTEAD OF WRITE A DEMOLITION ORDER FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TIME.

THAT WAY THAT THIS CAN BE RESOLVED AND THE PLEA BETWEEN PARTIES AND THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED.

SO I BELIEVE THAT'S 90 DAYS.

AND IF YOU WRITE THE DEMO ORDER, THAT ALSO PREVENTS EITHER PARTY FROM BEING AFFECTED BY TOLLING OF FINES.

I THINK IT'S $250 TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY OR WEEK OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

BUT MY PREFERENCE IS YOU JUST SET THIS FOR ANOTHER HEARING TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, AND HOPEFULLY BY THE END IT'LL BE RESOLVED.

YOU'LL BE TALKING TO THE ACTUAL OWNER AT THAT TIME, WHETHER IT BE ME OR SOMEONE ELSE.

AND MAYBE BY THEN IT'LL BE DONE.

SO WE WON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, UM, UH, ACTUALLY I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER SELIG.

YOU MADE IT WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE ON THE FIRST PROPERTY ON THE AGENDA, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CODE DEPARTMENT OR FOR THE OWNER? MR. HAMAS? MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, COMMISSIONER OLUGO.

MR. HAMAS, DO YOU SEE SOME MOVEMENT ON THE LITIGATION? DOES IT COURT DATE SET? I MEAN, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE INFORMATION THERE? YES, SIR.

THE, THE CASE ORIGINATED IN PROBATE COURT DECEMBER OF 2017.

I ACTUALLY WON IN 2021, BUT THEN THE, UH, DEFENDANT APPEALED AND IT WENT TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.

I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME.

YOU CAN.

UM, THAT HAS NOW EVENTUATED, IT'S FLOWING BACK DOWN THROUGH THE COURTS.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO INTELLIGENT ON THIS TOPIC, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S FLOWING BACK DOWN THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WILL GO THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURT AND BACK DOWN THROUGH THE PROBATE COURT, AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE THEIR FINAL ADJUDICATION AND THAT WILL RELEASE IT.

SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING DECEMBER, 2024 OR WHENEVER YOUR LAST HEARING OF THE YEAR IS, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE RESOLVED THIS YEAR, AND I EXPECT IT TO BE IN MY FAVOR, BUT UNTIL IT'S DONE, IT'S NOT DONE.

THANK YOU, SLUGO.

UM, I'LL FIRST, UH, UM, EXTEND SOME EMPATHY TOWARDS, UH, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACT.

IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY STRESSFUL AND, AND FRUSTRATING SITUATION.

UH, BUT MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY TOWARDS OUR COUNSEL, UH, UH, HERRERA, UM, COUNSEL, WOULD YOU SAY THAT WHATEVER ORDER WE PLACED TODAY, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS UNDER ACTIVE LITIGATION, THAT THEY WOULD, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT PLACE A INJUNCTION AGAINST WHATEVER ORDER WE PLACE? OR WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE EFFECT? SO I'M, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'VE NOT SPOKEN TO MR. HAMAS' COUNSEL, SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FORTHCOMING.

BUT I DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE COURT RECORDS BASED ON THE CASE NUMBER THAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. HAMAS TO OUR, TO OUR LIAISON, UM, WHO THEN PROVIDED THAT NUMBER TO MYSELF.

UM, FROM WHAT I WAS ABLE TO DISCERN, LOOKING AT THE, UH, TRAVIS COUNTY RECORDS ONLINE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IN, UM, AUGUST OF 29, OF 2021, EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS A DEFAULT JUDGMENT TAKEN IN THIS CASE.

UM, THAT DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID INVOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

AND ESSENTIALLY THE COURT DECLARED THAT THE, THAT THE DEFENDANT, SO, UH, MR. HAMAS ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN, AS THE EXECUTOR FOR AN ESTATE, UM, AS WELL AS TWO OTHER ENTITIES THAT I BELIEVE MAY BE OWNED.

UM, BUT I, I CANNOT CONFIRM.

UH, THEY ESSENTIALLY BROUGHT A LAWSUIT TRYING TO DETERMINE THE OWN, THIS OWNER, THIS ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP.

UM, AND THE, THE DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE, ULTIMATELY THIS DEFAULT JUDGMENT DECLARED THAT THEY HAD NO RIGHT, UM, OR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, 73 10 CAR AVENUE.

UM, WHAT THEN PROCEEDED TO HAPPEN IS THAT THIS CASE WAS SEVERED, MEANING IT WAS SPLIT INTO TWO BY THE COURT.

SO YOU HAVE AN ORIGINAL CASE NUMBER, AND THEN YOU HAD A NEW CAUSE NUMBER THAT WAS, THAT WAS CREATED.

THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY REMAINED WITH THAT ORIGINAL CAUSE NUMBER.

SO THIS, UH,

[00:30:01]

THIS ONE THAT WAS FILED IN 2017, UM, THE DEFENDANT THEN PROCEEDED TO APPEAL THAT CASE TO THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS.

THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS ULTIMATELY AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S DEFAULT JUDGMENT, UM, ESSENTIALLY DENYING THE APPEAL.

SO THEN THAT DEFENDANT THEN ATTEMPTED TO, TO APPEAL UP TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.

NOW, LOOKING AT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S RECORDS, IT SHOWS THAT THERE WERE THREE TIMES THAT THIS DEFENDANT NOW APPELLANT TRIED TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION FOR TIME TO FILE WHAT'S CALLED A PETITION FOR REVIEW.

THAT'S BASICALLY SOMETHING THAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT LOOKS AT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY EVEN WANT TO HEAR THE APPEAL.

UM, ESSENTIALLY THE DEFENDANT SLASH APPELLANT MISSED THEIR DEADLINE.

SO THEY WERE GIVEN ONE LAST, YOU KNOW, A THIRD CHANCE TO TRY TO FILE THIS PETITION.

THEY DIDN'T DO SO IN A TIMELY FASHION.

AND SO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CLOSED THE CASE.

SO BASED ON THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT STILL STANDS AND STILL WOULD'VE FULLY ADJU WOULD HAVE FULLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE.

UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.

I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS, OF THIS ISSUE, BUT I BELIEVE PERHAPS OUR INSPECTOR COULD SPEAK TO THAT, UM, TO THAT IN MORE DETAIL.

BUT AS FAR AS THE RESEARCH THAT I DID REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR CAUSE NUMBER, UM, THAT IS WHAT I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE.

BUT AGAIN, I'VE, I'VE NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. HAMAS' COUNSEL, UM, AS HE IS REPRESENTED.

I'M NOT ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM DIRECTLY.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

I APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU.

UM, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, UH, JUST SO THAT WAY WE CAN TALK AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING.

SECOND, BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING, I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

YOU YEAH, YEAH.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTIONS.

UM, WE'LL COME BACK.

MR. AMMAS.

UH, YES, SIR.

IN YOUR PRESENTATION, DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD PREFER THAT THE ORDER WAS TO DEMO INSTEAD OF REPAIR? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES, SIR.

UH, LET ME EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN IF I CAN.

MAY I? SURE, GO AHEAD.

SO, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS TWO PARTS.

ONE FROM MY ATTORNEYS.

I'M NOT ABLE TO ACT ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE CAST NUMBER I SHOWED YOU SAYS CLOSE OR FINAL.

IT STILL SHOWS PENDING AS OF THIS MORNING.

UM, AFTER THAT, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT.

IN THE INTERIM, IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO ISSUE AN ORDER, I WOULD PREFER IT BE FOR DEMOLITION FOR THE MAXIMUM OF TIME AND NOT REPAIR FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, A REPAIR IS JUST UNECONOMIC.

YOU SAW PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY REPAIRING IT WOULDN'T DO ANYONE ANY GOOD.

AND ALSO THAT ATTRACTS DAILY OR WEEKLY FINES.

IF I DO A DEMOLITION, IF YOU DO A DEMOLITION, I WANT TO DEMO DEMOLISH IT ANYWAY.

SURE.

SO IT ACTUALLY HELPS WITH THE APPLICATION.

IF I PUT THAT IN THE PERMIT THAT IT'S NOT A MATTER OF MY PERSONAL OPINION.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN ORDER THAT SAYS DEMOLISH IT.

AND SECOND, IT ALSO, IF THIS DOES NOT GO MY WAY, THE LITIGATION, UM, PREVENTS TOLLING OF FINES AND PENALTIES EXCEPT FOR THE ACTUAL DEMOLITION THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT DO YOURSELF.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT.

UM, IF NOTHING ELSE, LET ME, I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALSO THAT WAY TO FIGURE OUT, UM, WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CASE.

IT'S ALREADY GONE ON FOR A FEW YEARS.

SO ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT IN 2022 WITH ALL THE PARTIES.

WAS THAT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL ISSUE OR JUST SOMETHING ELSE? NO, MA'AM.

OKAY.

UM, THE BASE CASE, AND REMEMBER, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

THE BASE CASE ORIGINATED DECEMBER, 2017.

SURE.

IN THE PROBATE COURT.

JUDGE HERMAN RULED IN AUGUST OF 21.

UH, I'M GOING TO PARAPHRASE GROSSLY THAT I WON.

AND REMEMBER, THIS WASN'T JUST ABOUT ONE PROPERTY.

THIS COVERED 50 DIFFERENT TOPICS.

IT WAS VERY COMPLEX AND AS EVIDENCED BY FOUR YEARS OF SOMETHING I DON'T EVER WANNA DO AGAIN IN MY LIFE.

OKAY.

UM, AFTER THAT, THE GENTLEMAN I SUED APPEALED IT, RIGHT? AS COUNSEL HAS STATED, UM, HE LOST THAT APPEAL, MEANING IT WAS FAVORABLE TO ME.

AND THEN HE ATTEMPTED TO APPEAL IT AGAIN TO THE SUPREME COURT.

I THINK I'M NOW IN 2023.

AND THEN HE DID NOT FILE WHATEVER IT WAS SUPPOSED TO.

I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL TERM.

AND SO NOW IT HAS TO ROLL BACK DOWN THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TO THE PROBATE COURT.

HERMAN HAS TO DO SOME, I DON'T KNOW.

I I UNDERSTAND THOSE, UH, TECHNICAL PARTS, BUT WE DID NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN 2022.

IT'S ALL BEEN

[00:35:01]

TRIAL COURT SHENANIGANS.

ALRIGHT.

OKAY.

I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

UM, AND WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLUGO.

IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH US CLOSING THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING? ANY OBJECTIONS? NO.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING, WHICH MEANS WE'VE TAKEN ALL TESTIMONY.

AND THEN, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS, COMMENTS, UH, DISCUSSION POINTS, I'LL, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO HEAR THOSE.

OR WE CAN ALSO TALK ABOUT MOTIONS.

COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL, COULD WE ACCELERATE THAT PROCESS AND SAY, INSTEAD OF REPAIR TO DEMO, ALTHOUGH IT'S POSTED ON THE AGENDA AS AN ITEM, THE BACKUP MATERIAL REFERS TO REPAIR? UH, ALTHOUGH IT, IT IS TECHNICALLY POSTED IN THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT FROM BOTH THE CITY AND FROM MR. HAMAS, YOU ALL ARE, AGAIN, IT IS A RECOMMENDED ORDER BY STAFF, BUT YOU ALL DO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY THE ORDER AS YOU, AS YOU DEEM FIT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL AND THEN COMMISSIONER, UH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST THAT, UM, I THINK, UH, MR. KAMASI'S TESTIMONY WAS PRETTY DETAILED AND I FIND IT COMPELLING.

UM, JUST IN LIGHT OF THAT, I AM DEFINITELY INCLINED TO EITHER SWITCH THE ORDER TO DEMOLITION OR POSTPONE, AND I THINK THAT DOING THE DEMOLITION ORDER WOULD PERHAPS BE A BIT BETTER IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD BRING SOME FINALITY TO OUR ROLE IN THIS.

UM, BECAUSE MY EYES, A POSTPONEMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MEAN THAT YOU WOULD BE BACK IN HERE IN DECEMBER WHENEVER, UM, TO ESSENTIALLY JUST HEAR THE EXACT SAME DEMOLITION ORDER.

UM, AND AT LEAST FROM WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH DEMOLITION ORDERS IN THE PAST, AS LONG AS THE PROCESS IS MOVING ALONG ON YOUR END, THERE SHOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH RISK.

UM, SO THAT, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE WHAT I'M THINKING IS THAT WE JUST MODIFY THE ORDER TO MAKE IT A DEMOLITION.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER SGO, I MOVE TO ADOPT, UH, STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND, UH, ORDER, ORDER THE FOLLOWER AND, AND, UM, AMEND THE ORDER TO, UM, WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE FOR DEMOLITION ORDERS? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

UH, THAT I DON'T KNOW.

DO YOU WANNA I APPRECIATE IT.

YEAH.

90 DAYS, UH, UH, UM, AND TO ADOPT THE ORDER EXCEPT TO AMEND THAT ON THE 46TH DAY, IF THE, UM, PROPERTY IS NOT COMING TO COMPLIANCE TO ORDER THE CITY TO, UM, DEMOLISH TO GO, TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, UM, UM, AS THE STANDARD 90 DAYS.

90 DAYS, YES.

AND AMEND, UH, THAT ON THE, UH, AMEND SECTION ONE THAT WITHIN, IF IT'S NOT AMENDED WITHIN 40, CHANGE 45 DAYS TO 90 DAYS AND CHANGE 46TH DAY TO THE 91ST DAY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

SO IF, IF I MAY, SO IT SHOULD READ THAT INITIALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND WE CAN KIND OF FIX, TWEAK THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT, IT COMPLIES WITH WHAT YOUR INTENT IS.

SURE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY AS THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, AND THEN IF AFTER THE 91ST DAY HE DOES NOT DO, SO THE CITY ESSENTIALLY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, COMPLETE THE DEMOLITION.

CORRECT.

COUNSEL, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

JUST MAKING SURE.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT.

DO WE NEED TO RESTATE THE WHOLE MOTION OR NOT? UH, IS EVERYTHING, WOULD YOU CLEAR? WOULD YOU I GUESS ACCEPT MY, MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I, I ACCEPT, I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT, THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

OKAY.

WE HAVE THE MOTION CHAIR.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

UH, COMMISSIONER ELLI, GO AHEAD.

I'M GONNA SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION.

UM, I, YOU KNOW, I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

I'M A LITTLE STUMPED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CASE WILL BE DONE THAT QUICKLY, BUT I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE DO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TONIGHT.

UM, AND THEN IF THE PLAN, IF THE OWNER'S PLAN IS TO DEMOLISH ANYWAY, THEN MAYBE IT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANY HARM, UM, ULTIMATELY IF THAT DOES GO FORWARD.

BUT MADAM CHAIR YES, GO AHEAD.

YOUR, MY UNDERSTANDING ON THE TIMELINE, WE PUT THE 90 DAYS IN PLACE, I THINK AT OUR LAST GET TOGETHER, WE WEREN'T RUNNING 60, THEY WERE RUNNING MORE LIKE THREE TO FOUR MONTHS.

SO THAT,

[00:40:01]

THAT PUTS YOU AT SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE THIS WOULD ACTUALLY, UNLESS THERE'S SOME MOVEMENT ON YOUR PART COMMUNICATED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT TO WORK WITH YOU.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I, I DON'T MEAN THIS TO BE FUNNY, BUT I'M DON'T, I DIDN'T FOLLOW ANYTHING YOU JUST SAID.

UM, SO LET ME RESTATE IT IN A WAY THAT I THINK I UNDERSTOOD IT.

UH, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, I'M NOT A BUILDER.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT A DEMO PERMIT TAKES AS FAR AS TIMELINES.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IF YOU RULE TODAY BY SOME STATE STATUTE, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE IS 90 DAYS TO COMPLY.

YOU COULDN'T DO LIKE 120 OR SOMETHING ELSE UNLESS THERE'S SOME FACT I'M UNAWARE OF.

YOU CAN CORRECT ME ANY TIME IF I'M WRONG.

THAT'S WHY I OFFER 90 DAYS.

OBVIOUSLY THE MORE TIME I GET, THE BETTER.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT GETTING A DEMO PERMIT, BUT I KNOW I WANNA DEMOLISH IT OR SELL IT.

SURE.

WHAT I'M, BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU'VE GOT FIVE, SIX MONTHS, SO OFF THE RECORD YEAH.

BY THE TIME THIS GETS PROCESSED, YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT GOES TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THEY PROCESS THE PAPERWORK, GO THROUGH THEIR DOG AND PONY SHOW, THEN THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE YOU'RE GONNA BE DOWN THE ROAD.

SO YOU'VE GOT TIME.

OKAY.

SORRY.

THANK YOU.

EXCELLENT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND IF NO OTHER COMMENTS OR, OH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO AGAIN, GO AHEAD.

JUST I GUESS A LITTLE CONTEXT AS TO WHY A MOTIONED FOR A DEMOLITION WAS REALLY THREE PILLARS, UM, DURING LITIGATION.

I THINK IT WAS FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU CAN OFTEN INJUNCT IF THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF LITIGATION THAT'S TRULY BLOCKING ANY WORK.

NUMBER TWO, AS COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SAID, DEMOS USUALLY TAKE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OFFICIAL 90 DAYS.

NUMBER THREE, IN THIS CASE SCENARIO, THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO DEMO IT OR GIVE TO SOMEBODY WHO WILL DEMO IT.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS JUST A PATH WHERE THIS IS GONNA GO.

ANYWAY, IT MIGHT AS WELL TAKE IT OVER OUR PLATE AND, AND GIVE IT BACK TO THE PROPERTY IN ORDER.

WE CAN DO WHAT, WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO.

THANKS FOR PROVIDING THE RATIONALE.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD.

I THINK THAT'S VERY CLEAR AND REASONABLE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE, UM, ON THIS MOTION THAT WE HAVE.

SO COMMISSIONER SELLEK, SINCE YOU SECONDED, HOW DO YOU VOTE? AYE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER SLUGO? AYE.

COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

AYE I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER SOAD.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER SHUGART? AYE.

OKAY.

THE MOTION PASSES.

SO, MR. HAMAS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND GOOD LUCK WITH THE CASE.

I THINK.

THANK YOU.

I THINK IT'LL GO WELL.

TAKE CARE.

ALRIGHT, NEXT, UH, ITEM CHAIR.

YES.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR REGARDING 3 1 0 2 Y ROCK DRIVE.

CASE NUMBER, SEAL 20.

I'M SORRY, DO YOU MIND? SORRY, I FORGOT TO ADMIT THE ONUS EXHIBITS ON THAT LAST CASE.

SO THOSE ARE ADMITTED AS WELL.

PLEASE PROCEED.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 4 31 0 2, WHITE ROCK, WHITE WHITE ROCK DRIVE.

CASE NUMBER, UH, 2024 DASH OH 4 2 3 2 7 HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AND WILL NOT BE HEARD.

SO IT'S THE, IS THE WHITE ROCK ONE STILL ON? NO.

OKAY.

SO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE, RIGHT? YEAH.

900.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE

[5. Case Number: CL 2024-027597]

ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2024 DASH OH 2 7 5 97 AND IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 OLD CANA LANE.

STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE PURPLE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.

THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN JULY, 2023 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.

THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES ARE CONSIDERED UNSAFE AND HAZARDOUS WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE DEMOLITION IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ONE SHOWING THE DISTANCE TO NEARBY SCHOOLS, THE REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING, AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS, A FIRE INCIDENT REPORT AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K, AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE SUPERVISOR DAVID DOWNING, IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE.

AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY'RE DEPICTED.

SUPERVISOR DOWNING, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

THANK YOU.

SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

900 OLD KENIG IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD AND CANING LANE.

THERE HAVE BEEN 15 COMPLAINTS FOR THIS ADDRESS SINCE THE LAST BUSINESS VACATED THE PROPERTY IN 2023.

THE CURRENT VIOLATION CASE BEGAN WITH A THREE ONE ONE CALL IN JULY OF 2023 WITH A COMPLAINT OF RUBBISH ACCUMULATION AND TRESPASSERS OCCUPYING THE BUILDING INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY,

[00:45:01]

IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE DEFICIENCIES.

CODE STAFF IDENTIFIED THE OWNERS AND COMMUNICATED WITH THEM ABOUT COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES.

CODE STAFF WORKED WITH THE OWNERS AND A PD TO HAVE TRESPASSERS REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.

A TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME.

EVENTUALLY, THE OWNER STOPPED RESPONDING TO REQUESTS THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING AND CLEANING THE PROPERTY CODE STAFF HAD A CONTRACTOR INSTALL A FENCE AT THE PROPERTY AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO BOARD AND SECURE EVERY OPENING OF THE BUILDING.

ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WAS SECURED TO REMOVE SEVERAL DUMPSTER LOADS OF RUBBISH FROM THE PROPERTY.

AUSTIN POLICE HAVE MADE SEVERAL VISITS TO THE PROPERTY TO CLEAR TRESPASSERS.

IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AUSTIN FIRE RESPONDED TO A FIRE AT THE ADDRESS IN AN UNIDENTIFIED INCIDENT.

THERE WAS A ROOF COLLAPSE IN THE WEST BUILDING, AND ALL THE PROPERTY IS A PERSISTENT INVITATION TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND CONTRIBUTES TO A BLIGHT CONDITION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LABELED AS DANGEROUS AND PLACARDS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON SITE.

THE LOCATION ADDS TO THE DANGEROUS CONDITION CONCERNS.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN A PEDESTRIAN AREA.

IT IS ONE BLOCK FROM MC CAP METRO BUS STOP, AND TWO BLOCKS FROM MCCALLUM HIGH SCHOOL.

THE AREA HAS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR THIS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY IS REQUESTED.

UM, PHOTOS WILL DETAIL THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES.

UM, TWO A, THIS IS A STREET VIEW.

UH, SO HE'D BE STANDING AT OLD KIG LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY ON NORTH OF MAR BOULEVARD, WOULD BE ON YOUR RIGHT, HEADED TOWARDS.

AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, TWO 90 KIG WOULD BE BEHIND YOU TO YOUR SOUTH.

SO THIS IS LOOKING NORTH AT THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S TWO IDENTICAL BUILDINGS.

UM, AND THAT'S THE FENCE SECURING THE PROPERTY.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S RECENTLY BEEN BOARDED UP.

UM, THAT'S AN ADDRESS INDICATOR AT THE PROPERTY.

OF COURSE, THAT'S THE WEST BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE LEFT IN THE PREVIOUS PHOTO.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE, YOU KNOW, INVITATION TO NUISANCE, THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

IT, IT'S COVERED IN GRAFFITI.

UM, OF COURSE WE REMOVED RUBBISH FROM THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S OUR FENCE SECURING IT CURRENTLY.

UM, DANGEROUS PLACARD DUE TO THE ROOF COLLAPSE AND JUST PERVASIVE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, SO THIS IS, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S HOLES IN THE BUILDING.

UM, GRAFFITI.

EVERY DOOR AND WINDOW IS DAMAGED.

UM, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE WINDOW, BEHIND THE PLYWOOD IS BROKEN GLASS, DAMAGED DOORS, REMOVED DOORS, UM, AND SOME TALL WEEDS AND GRASS VISIBLE THERE.

SO ALMOST EVERY STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY IS VISIBLE IN THESE PHOTOS.

THIS WOULD BE THE FURTHEST WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

UM, AND THIS IS THE ROOF COLLAPSE.

UH, THERE WASN'T ANY WEATHER INCIDENT THAT WENT WITH THIS, I ASSUME IT WAS PEOPLE INSIDE THE BUILDING, REMOVING STRUCTURE, REMOVING COPPER AIR CONDITIONING UNITS FROM THE STRUCTURE, GETTING ON THE ROOF, TRYING TO REMOVE MATERIAL, UM, LED TO THIS ROOF COLLAPSE.

UM, AND THEN IN THE VERY BACKGROUND OF THE PHOTO, YOU SEE THERE'S A TWO STORY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNIT THERE.

SO THIS IS ALL WITHIN PLAIN VIEW OF THE RESIDENCE IN THAT BUILDING.

UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE OPENINGS WHERE TRESPASSERS BROKEN THROUGH THE PLYWOOD AFTER MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO GET IT SECURE AND THEN LEFT RUB RUBBISH.

AND WE'LL SEE INSIDE THE BUILDING SOME MORE OF THE DEFICIENCIES.

YOU CAN SEE THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.

IT MEETS ALL THE DEFICIENCIES ON THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

THE ROOF IS DAMAGED.

UM, ALL THE SIDING, THE GRAFFITI, EVERY DOOR AND WINDOW DAMAGED AT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH HAS BEEN REMOVED.

UM, EVERY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, PLUMBING SYSTEM, MECHANICAL SYSTEM IS MOST LIKELY DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER SUITE THAT'S BEEN UNDER TRESPASS OCCUPATION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

ON ONE OF OUR VISITS WITH A PD, WE'RE ABLE TO GET INSIDE THE STRUCTURE AND GET THESE PHOTOS.

NOW THIS WOULD BE IN, I BELIEVE, THE WEST BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE, AGAIN, THEY'RE IDENTICAL.

YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN THE CORRIDOR, UM, AT A HALLWAY THAT ACCESSES EVERY UNIT IN THAT BUILDING.

THESE ARE SMALL OFFICE SUITES THAT USED TO HAVE JUST LITTLE REPAIR SHOPS AND EVERYTHING IN OPERATION.

SO EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF THAT BUILDING SERVES INTO THIS CORRIDOR.

AND THIS WOULD BE THE EGRESS PATH LEAVING THE BUILDING.

SO THE DEFICIENCY FOR FIRE SAFETY, UM, IS VALIDATED HERE.

UM, THERE'S NO FIRE SAFETY SYSTEMS LEFT IN THE BUILDING.

AGAIN, WE CAN SEE JUST CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE.

UM, IN OUR LAST PHOTO,

[00:50:01]

THIS IS STANDING ON THE PROPERTY.

LOOKING BACK AT IT, THIS WOULD BE LOOKING SOUTH.

UM, THE TOWER IN THE BACKGROUND IS AT THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR.

AND THE CHARRING ON THE END OF THE BUILDING IS FROM THAT, UM, SMALL RUBBISH FIRE WHERE A FD RESPONDED AND EXTINGUISHED THAT IN MARCH.

UM, AND AGAIN, THE PROPERTY SECURE SAVED THAT ONE OPENING, UM, IN THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO THAT WAS SECURED LATER THAT DAY.

AND I'M READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE.

THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY.

BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITION SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND ARE CONSIDERED UNSAFE AND HAZARDOUS WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.

STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K.

STAFF ALSO REQUESTED THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING.

ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.

A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.

B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS, LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO.

ON THE 46TH DAY.

IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.

B THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES 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 PAID IN FULL.

AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

I'LL ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE AS WELL AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K.

UM, AND WE, LET ME SEE.

OKAY.

NO HONORS EXHIBITS.

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL LIKE TO START WITH, UM, YES, WE HAVE ONUS EXHIBITS.

OKAY, PERFECT.

I SEE THAT.

OKAY, WELL WHEN THEY COME ONLINE THEN I'LL DEFINITELY ADMIT THAT, UM, WE SHOULD HAVE A MR. EY AND MR. TAYLOR ONLINE.

UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH, UM, MR. SMITH, YOU ARE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS, UH, DEP UH, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THE RISKS THAT IT POSES TO THE COMMUNITY? THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

UH, MY NAME IS THAER SMITH.

I'M THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF OPERATIONS FOR THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT.

UH, THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TO THIS LOCATION MULTIPLE TIMES.

UH, THE PROPERTY IS A NUISANCE.

THE CURRENT SECURITY IS USUALLY BREACHED, UH, WITHIN DAYS, UM, BY, EXCUSE ME, BY THE UNHOUSED POPULATION.

AND THEY MOVE BACK INTO THIS BUILDING DESPITE ALL THE EFFORTS OF, OF CODE COMPLIANCE AND THOSE THAT HAVE SECURED THE BUILDING AND THEY MOVE BACK IN.

UH, OUR PROBLEM WITH THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS BUILDING.

UH, WE KNOW IT'S OCCUPIED BY UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS.

UH, AND THAT POSES A DANGER NOT ONLY TO THEM, UM, BUT ALSO TO THE FIREFIGHTERS THAT WILL HAVE TO GO TO THIS BUILDING, UH, TO RESCUE THEM SHOULD ANOTHER FIRE OCCUR, WHICH WE FULLY EXPECT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY WE'VE HAD THERE PREVIOUSLY.

UH, SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO, UM, PLEAD OUR CASE THAT, UM, BY THE EXTENT OF LAW, UH, ALLOWED FOR YOU TO EXPEDITE THE DEMOLITION OF THIS PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, UM, INFORMATION.

SO, UM, DO WE HAVE THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES ONLINE? AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ONLINE, UM, AS WELL AS AN AGENT, I BELIEVE JEFF TAYLOR YES.

IS SEE ONLINE.

OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? YES, THIS IS J THIS IS JEFF TAYLOR.

I'M HERE.

I I JUST BECAME, UH, UNMUTED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR, UM, COMING ONLINE.

CAN YOU HEAR US? DID YOU HEAR THE, UM, THE TESTIMONY OF THE CODE DEPARTMENT? YES, I DID.

I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO EVERYTHING I APPRECIATE.

UM, I APPRECIATE MR. DOWNING'S, UH, SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY AND IF YOU GUYS ARE READY, READY FOR ME TO SPEAK, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.

YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

MY NAME IS JEFF TAYLOR AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 59 16

[00:55:01]

NORTH LAMAR INVESTOR, LLC.

AND, UM, MR. DOWNING HAS BEEN ASSISTING MY CLIENT IN PURSUING A DEMOLITION ORDER.

UH, I DO WANNA GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY THAT, THAT HE DIDN'T COVER.

UM, BUT I, I KNOW THAT HE ALLUDED TO, UM, MY CLIENT HAS ACTUALLY FILED THREE DIFFERENT, UM, APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION.

THEY FILED IN MAY OF 2023, MAY 19TH AGAIN ON MAY 22ND, AND THEN IN JULY OF 2023.

AND ALL THREE OF THEIR DEMOLITION REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED FOR, UH, VARIOUS TECHNICALITIES.

UM, THE, IT SEEMS THAT THE MAJOR ISSUE WAS THAT THEY WERE FILING IN CONNECTION WITH A, A NEW SITE PLAN THAT THEY WERE GONNA SUBMIT AND HAVE DEVELOPED FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND, UH, UNTIL THAT SITE PLAN WAS FULLY APPROVED BY ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT, UH, THEIR DEMOLITION ORDER WAS BEING DENIED.

MR. DOWNING AT SOME POINT STEPPED IN, UM, AND, AND IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, NOVEMBER 8TH, UM, AND I PROVIDED THE, THE COMMISSION WITH, UM, SOME EMAILS BETWEEN MR. DOWNING AND, AND MY CLIENT'S REPRESENTATIVES.

AND, AND ON NOVEMBER 8TH, IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, THAT ONE EXHIBIT, IT'S, UM, IT'S A PDF WITH SEVERAL EMAILS.

AND ON PAGE TWO, UM, MR. DOWNING STATES THE DEMOLITION IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED.

UM, AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THIS TEXT AND HE GOES ON TO, TO SAY, UM, I WILL TEAM UP WITH MY MANAGEMENT AND LEAN IN TO ANY RESISTANCE TO APPROVING THE DEMOLITION.

SO WHEN HE SAID, WHEN HE SAID THAT HE IS, HE IS LITERALLY TRYING TO HELP, UH, MY CLIENT IN GETTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS, I MEAN, THAT IS ULTIMATELY THEIR GOAL.

UM, AND SO WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO, UM, TO ULTIMATELY A DEMOLITION ORDER.

UM, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT THOUGH, I DO WANNA STATE THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO FENCE OFF, UH, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT MR. D DIDN'T SHOW.

THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ON LAMAR BOULEVARD, AND MY CLIENT HAS ADDED FENCING AND PLYWOOD TO THAT, TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY IT, IT'S NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS, AS ONE WOULD HOPE.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY.

SO PEOPLE HAVE MANAGED TO GET THROUGH, THEY'VE HIRED PRIVATE SECURITY TO MONITOR THE SITE.

UM, AND THEY'VE, THEY HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP THE SITE.

UH, AND OF COURSE THEY HAVE, THEY'VE CALLED THE AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES, DPS, UM, WHEN THERE'S CRIMINAL TRESPASSING.

UM, HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I THINK IT'S CLEAR AND VERY MUCH IN, IN THE SAME WAY.

UH, THE FIRST, UM, THE FIRST MATTER THAT WAS CALLED MR. HAMAS, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THEY WANT TO, THEY WANT TO ULTIMATELY DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS.

UM, ONE LAST POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT THEY, THE REASON THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY SINCE JULY OF LAST YEAR IS YET ANOTHER, UH, SORT OF PERMITTING GLITCH.

UH, THEY WERE REDEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS GONNA INVOLVE THE PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION AND TRAVIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, MADE, MADE A CHANGE AND DENIED THE TRAVIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, UM, TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY FURTHER PFC STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

SO ONCE, ONCE THAT, ONCE THAT POLICY CHANGE OCCURRED, THEIR PLANS AND THEIR, UH, ULTIMATE TIMELINE FOR, FOR GETTING THIS PROPERTY DEMOLISHED AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WERE, WE'RE SORT OF WASHED AWAY.

UM, WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT THEY BE GIVEN SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO LINE UP THE DE THE DEMOLITION.

UM, I, I SEE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDER IS FOR 45 DAYS, JUST LIKE MR. HAMAS, I WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE GIVEN UP TO 90 DAYS BECAUSE THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO AND UH, AND IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME FOR THEM TO, TO LINE UP THAT PROCESS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, UH, WE ARE GENERALLY IN AGREEMENT THAT THE BUILDINGS NEED TO COME DOWN.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? AND ALSO IS, UM, WOULD ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS BE HERE TONIGHT? MY CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE IS WATCHING AND HE'S BEEN, HE IS BEEN, UM, ABLE TO SEE THE PRESENTATIONS, BUT HE DEFERRED TO ME TO SPEAK.

SO, UM, I, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A, A LINE OF CONNECTION TO HIM IF, IF YOU ASK A QUESTION, I CAN, I CAN, UM, I CAN SEE ABOUT REACHING OUT TO HIM, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THERE'S A DELAY ON THE, THE VIDEO FEED THAT HE'S ON.

OKAY.

NO, WE DON'T NEED HIM.

UM, SINCE, YOU KNOW, HE'S REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

SO WE'LL BE HAPPY TO, UH, POSE ANY QUESTIONS TO YOU.

OF COURSE.

UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ALL, WE'RE, UH, I MEAN, WELL YOU'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE CODE DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, UM, TIMING AND ALL THE OTHER DETAILS.

SO LET

[01:00:01]

ME SEE IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS.

ANYONE ? OKAY.

UM, COMMISSIONER SIG, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? 'CAUSE WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

NO.

MADAM CHAIR? YES.

COMMISSIONER FRANCISCO.

MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND.

OKAY.

UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING AND A SECOND, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? NO OBJECTIONS.

OKAY.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OF THE HEARING.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT THE ONUS EXHIBITS AS WELL.

UM, AND COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE THOSE EXHIBITS IN YOUR FOLDERS AS WELL WITH ALL THE EMAILS AND, UH, THE DOCUMENTS THERE.

SO I'M, I MEAN, I DON'T, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT WE CAN DO ON THIS ONE, HONESTLY, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

MR. SMITH'S THERE, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL? UH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE THERE'S GONNA BE MUCH