[Permit and License Appeal Board on February 15, 2024.]
[00:00:04]
ABSENT FROM THIS HEARING ARE, UH, CHAIR SATNICK.
UH, MS. ANO, MS. ALA AND MR. JEFFERSON.
WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AT THIS MEETING, AND IT'S NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
WILL OTHERS PRESENT AT TODAY'S HEARING? PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF, STARTING WITH THE BOARD'S GENERAL COUNSEL.
MY NAME IS MATTHEW SAPP WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, MIROSLAVA MARTINEZ, NANCY SANCHEZ, DONNA BROWN.
UM, THE APPELLANT, APPELLANT, RED MOUNTAIN ASSET FUND DEPUTY HERE.
SEAN SCRIBNER ON BEHALF OF RED ADDISON MOUNTAIN.
UM, DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES TODAY? UH, SHAUNA HERE.
UH, ANDREW SKINNER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, JULIUS JENKINS IS ALSO WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND WE HAVE ONE WITNESS, UH, DETECTIVE JUAN HERNANDEZ.
AND I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYONE THAT IS JOINING US ONLINE, PLEASE HAVE YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO ON WHEN ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
UH, WE WILL NOW, UH, ACTUALLY, THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, UM, THAT HAVE REGISTERED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, CORRECT? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS CHAIR.
UM, SO THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 1ST BEFORE WE START OUR FIRST HEARING, IS THERE A MOTION REGARDING THE MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES ON THE FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING.
MOTION BY MR. QUIMP TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE MOTION HAS PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTES.
MR. HAYES, I, THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR THE APPEAL REQUEST OF RED MOUNTAIN ASSET FUND, LLC APPEAR, APPEARING THE NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 27 DASH 51 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THIS HEARING IS ON THE APPELLANT AT THIS TIME.
ANY WITNESS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN THIS HEARING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU CAN BE SWORN IN BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
NOW, UM, NOW WE'LL GO OVER TIME FOR THE RECORD.
HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO PRESENT THE CASE FOR RED MOUNTAIN ASSET FUND LLC? I WOULD LISTEN AT 45 MINUTES.
FOR THE RECORD, CITY, UM, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE CITY NEED TO PRESENT THIS CASE? WE EXPECT TO NEED ABOUT 30 MINUTES.
UM, WE CAN GIVE, WE CAN GIVE EACH SIDE 45 MINUTES IF YOU NEED LESS TIME, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
IF YOU NEED MORE TIME, YOU CAN ASK FOR MORE TIME, UM, DURING THIS MEETING AS WELL.
YOU WILL HAVE TIME IN THE BEGINNING FOR AN OPENING, AND YOU WILL HAVE TIME IN THE END FOR CLOSING.
THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR 45 MINUTE PRESENTATION.
UH, WE WILL ALSO BE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES AS, UM, THE BOARD THAT DOES NOT FEED INTO YOUR 45 MINUTES.
I WILL BE THE ONE TO KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME, AND I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP IN YOUR FIVE AND ONE MINUTE.
[00:05:01]
THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT RED MOUNTAIN ASSET FUND, LLC AND HAS NUMBERED THEM EXHIBITS ONE.UM, THE BOARD HAS ALSO ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE CITY AND HAS NUMBERED THEM AS WELL.
WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY PLEASE AT THIS TIME READ THE RELEVANT ORDINANCE? A PROPERTY IS PRESUMED A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY IF THE PROPERTY IS THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 365 DAYS, RESULTING IN EITHER A REPORT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOCUMENTING AN INVESTIGATION OF AN AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY AND AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME DATA.
NOW, WE WILL BEGIN WITH OPENING STATEMENTS.
YOU'LL EACH HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH OPENING STATEMENTS, UH, FROM THE APPELLANT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT? YES, I WOULD.
MY, UH, QUICK INQUIRY AS TO, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING.
AND BEFORE YOU BEGIN, I JUST WANTED TO JUST CONFIRM MR. GILLAN AND MR. SCRIBNER, Y'ALL ARE BOTH ATTORNEYS FOR THE APPLICANT? CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHO IS WHO.
AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, BEGIN BRIEFLY BY, UM, MR. ANNOUNCING MY ROLE HERE.
I, UH, LEAD ATTORNEY MR. KEVIN MORAN, UM, HAS, UM, UNFORTUNATELY FALLEN ILL.
AND HE WAS, UH, ENGAGED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, TO SEE IF WE COULD GET A CONTINUANCE OF THIS.
AND WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING AS TO THAT.
UM, SO WE ARE HERE READY TO PROCEED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION THAT, UH, MR. MORAN CANNOT BE HERE TO AN ILLNESS AND A CONTINUANCE WAS REQUESTED.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED.
WE APPRECIATE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU TO ARGUE THIS APPEAL.
AS WE KNOW, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO APPEAL THE DETERMINATION DESIGNATED IN OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE, UH, PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS REDBIRD VILLAGE, LOCATED AT 4 3 4 3 WEST CAMP WISDOM ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 7.
THE, UH, DESIGNATION OF IT AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
OUR CLIENT HAS BEEN OPERATING THE PROPERTY SINCE 2015, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AT THE OUTSET, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENT TODAY AND THE TESTIMONY WILL CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT OUR CLIENT HAS AT ALL TIMES TAKING REASONABLE STEPS TO ATTEMPT TO AMELIORATE ANY ISSUES RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE EVIDENCE WILL, IN OUR OPINION, BE OVERWHELMING TO THAT EFFECT.
I WOULD POSIT THAT CONSIDERING THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE FACED WITH UNDER THE STATUTE REGARDING THAT A OWNER HAS KNOWINGLY TOLERATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS, IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS WE SEE THEM, AS THE EVIDENCE WE BELIEVE WILL DEMONSTRATE.
WE BELIEVE THAT REASONABILITY IS MORE THAN AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE EVIDENCE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS INCURRED BY OUR CLIENT AND ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, SUBSTANTIAL COSTS, COSTS IN EXCESS OF $250,000.
YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT THE COPIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ENGAGED IN BY OUR CLIENT THROUGH MEM WITH MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES ALL IN GOOD FAITH, ALL DONE WITH THE PERFECT EE EXPECTATION THAT THESE EFFORTS WOULD SATISFY THE REASONABILITY STANDARD AND CERTAINLY FLY IN THE FACE OF ANY DETERMINATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED THAT OUR CLIENT WAS KNOWINGLY TOLERATING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
WE BELIEVE THE, AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THIS OVERWHELMINGLY.
I WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE MEMORANDUM AUTHORED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS' ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING TODAY.
JUST TO POINT OUT AGAIN, TO, TO GO BACK QUICKLY DUE TO MR. MORAN'S ILLNESS, I WAS INFORMED FAIRLY LATE YESTERDAY OF THE, MY NEED TO BE HERE TODAY.
SO I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO, UH, DIVE INTO IT AS DEEPLY AS, AS, UH, I, AS MR. MORAN HAS, AND THAT'S WHY I WILL BE DEFERRING TO MR. GILLILAND TO, UH, BE HANDLING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
[00:10:01]
TO, AGAIN, THESE INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS GIVE A FEW THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE SEEN FROM MY QUICK REVIEW.THE MEMORANDUM AUTHORED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TRULY IS, IS ONE OF THE MORE CONCLUSORY DOCUMENTS THAT I, THAT I HAVE EVER READ.
UM, IT SEEMINGLY IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE AN IPSO FACTO DETERMINATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS THAT YOU WERE DETERMINED THE PRESUMPTION WAS, UH, INSTIGATED BY THE HAVING FIVE OR MORE VIOLATION OR INSTANCES IN A GIVEN YEAR.
THUS, UM, THE PRESUMPTION EXISTS.
WE PRESENTED EVIDENCE, IT WAS THE DALLAS POLICE DETERMINED IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH, AND, AND THAT'S IT.
YOU LOSE AND
I WILL POINT OUT JUST BRIEFLY, UM, ON PAGE TWO OF THE MEMORANDUM WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS, IS EXPLAINING THE BASIC PROCESS FOR HOW THIS, UH, GOES.
WHERE AFTER THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS, IS INITIATED, AN ATTEMPTED COLLABORATION IS INSTITUTED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO SOME RESOLUTION AS TO FIGURING OUT HOW TO, HOW TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES GOING FORWARD.
AND I JUST PARTICULARLY WANNA HIGHLIGHT THIS, THIS, UH, LANGUAGE.
IN A SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION, THE PROPERTY OWNER COMMITS SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PREVENT THE KINDS OF HABITUAL AND FORESEEABLE CRIMES FROM ROUTINELY HAPPENING IN THE PROPERTY.
RARELY CAN A COLLABORATION LIKE THIS ACHIEVE SUCCESS WITHOUT A PROPERTY OWNER'S COOPERATION AND COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING NEEDING RESOURCES.
AND I BRING THAT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION JUST STRICTLY TO, UH, EMPHASIZE WHILE YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE, AGAIN, OF THE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS IN CURVE.
NEXT EXCESS OF $250,000 A STATEMENT SUCH AS THIS, I CAN ONLY TERRIBLY BELIEVE, UM, WERE NOT CROSS-REFERENCED WITH ANY OF THE FACTS HERE.
OR IF THEY WERE, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR WHAT SUFFICIENT RESOURCES IS CONSIDERED TO BE IF IN EXCESS OF QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS AND, UH, DEMONSTRABLE AS DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING AND HIS TESTIMONY WILL CORROBORATE IT, IT, THAT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT SUFFICIENT.
THAT, THAT IS A, A HARD ONE TO, UH, TO PROCESS IN MY MIND.
AND CONTINUE ON BRIEFLY, THE, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY PROCEEDS TO DESCRIBE, AGAIN, THE PROCEDURAL NATURE OF IT, SAYING THE OWNER PROVIDED SOME EVIDENCE, SOME EVIDENCE OF CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023, WHICH IS THE DATE OF THE PRESUMPTION NOTICE, BUT PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN BEFORE THEM.
AND AGAIN, UH, WE HAVE NO ANALYSIS AS TO WHY THE DETERMINATIONS WERE THAT DETERMINATION WAS BASED ON SOME UNREASONABILITY AND AGAIN, JUST OVERARCHING HIGH LEVEL STATEMENTS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT.
WE MAINTAIN THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE THAT PROVIDE GUIDELINES OR RELEVANT FACTORS, NOT EXHAUSTIVE, NOT INCLU, NOT INCLUSIVE OF EVERY MEASURE TAKEN, JUST HELPFUL GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN UNDER THIS PROVISION OF THE CODE AND, AND ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS SUCH A SITUATION AS THIS.
WE BELIEVE WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY ENGAGED AND SATISFIED THE MAJORITY OF THEM.
AND THE, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A, WE'RE IN A DEALING WITH A CONTINUAL OVERREACH RESPECTFULLY BY THE CITY OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO SHIFT EVEN FURTHER BURDENS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, I HIGHLIGHT THAT MOST, UM, APPROPRIATELY OR OR SIGNIFICANTLY AT THE TURN THE LAST PAGE OF THE CITY'S MEMORANDUM WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITS AT THE END, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE WILL REEVALUATE WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN THE OWNER IMPLEMENTS ALL, ALL CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES RECOMMENDED BY THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THAT IS NOT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STANDARD, THAT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE CODE THAT ALL MEASURES THAT THEY SUGGEST MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.
AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT STATUTE INCLUDES GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT COULD BE DONE, AND WE BELIEVE WE SATISFIED THE MAJORITY OF THOSE.
AT THE VERY LEAST, THIS, THE, THE FURTHER STANDARD THAT WE MUST SATISFY ALL, OR, AND MR. GILLAND WILL GO INTO THIS MUCH MORE DETAIL, THE, THIS, A CONTINUAL PATTERN OF ONEROUS DEMANDS EXISTING BEYOND THAT WHICH WE BELIEVE ARE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE.
AND AS A CONSTANT SHIFTING TARGET, WE ARE FULL COMPLIANCE, SEEMINGLY, SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY, UH, AS A TAKEAWAY ON ALL THIS, IF THE EVIDENCE IS HEARD AND CONSIDERED TODAY, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE DETERMINATION THAT OUR CLIENT HAS KNOWINGLY TOLERATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE ANY SUPPORT AS A CONCLUSION.
I, I WOULD, I WOULD REALLY CHALLENGE THE BOARD TO, TO THINK OF THAT AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE THAT, THAT THAT CONCLUSION THAT
[00:15:01]
OUR CLIENT IS REASONABLY TOLERATED AL ACTIVITY, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE OUTRIGHT DOWNRIGHT OFFENSIVE BASED ON, AGAIN, ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE DEMONSTRATED, UH, WORK AND THE INCREDIBLE COSTS EXPENDED.AND I, I JUST WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO KEEP THAT IN CONSIDERATION AS IT HEARS THE EVIDENCE.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL GLADLY TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. GILLAND, WHO WILL PROCEED FORWARD.
WELL, UH, BEFORE YOU PROCEED, UM, WE DO WANT TO LET THE CITY HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, DOES THE CITY HAVE A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT AS WELL? WE DO.
AND I ALSO HAVE A BRIEF POWERPOINT, OR ARE WE ABLE TO SHARE OUR SCREEN? YEAH, UH, I BELIEVE SO.
DO YOU WANNA DO THIS FOR THE OPENING? YOU WANNA, UH, I HAVE A FEW SLIDES IF, IF YOU WOULD PREFER.
HONORABLE VICE, VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PERMIT LICENSE FIELD BOARD.
UH, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THE H THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43 43 WEST CAMPUS ROAD AS THEY HAVE VISUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, WHEREAS WE'LL REFER TO IT IN HCP.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THE BASIC PROCESS OF DESIGNATING A PROPERTY AS HCP AND THE DPD OR ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT BECOMES AWARE OF A PROPERTY THAT THEY BELIEVE EXPERIENCES HIGH CRIME, THAT PROPERTY IS REFERRED TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT UNIT OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, FOR A DETECTIVE TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY, UH, AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.
AND IF THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THE CITY'S NOTIFIES THE OWNER AND THEN MEETS WITH THEM AT THE ACCORD MEETING THAT, UH, OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS, HAS POINTED OUT, UH, AT THAT ACCORD MEETING, THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, AND THE DETECTIVE, UH, WILL CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO OBSERVE, UH, THAT THE DETECTIVE IS ABLE TO OBSERVE ABOUT THE PROPERTY, UH, IN LIGHT OF THE AVAILABLE CRIMES THAT WERE COMMITTED, UH, TO DETERMINE IF THE PRESUMPTIONS IN THAT STATUTE ARE MET AND IF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY WAS REFERRED FOR EVALUATION, AND ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023, THE DPD SENT A LETTER NOTIFYING THEM THAT THEY HAD BEEN PRELIMINARILY DESIGNATED.
WE MET WITH THEM ON OCTOBER 1ST, UH, AT THE ACCORD MEETING.
THEY DID PROVIDE EVIDENCE AS WE WILL GO THROUGH, UH, IN FULL TODAY.
UM, BUT THE, THE DETECTIVE EVALUATING THE CASE, UH, WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE.
AND, UH, I BELIEVE AT THE END OF THE DAY, AFTER HEARING OUR EVIDENCE, YOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTIONS, UH, THAT EXIST.
NOW, BEFORE I OUTLINING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'LL HEAR TODAY, I'D LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER THE ORDINANCES.
UH, SECTION 27 51, UH, C STATES THAT THE PERMIT LICENSE BILLBOARD IS LIMITED TO THE ISSUES OF, OF, UH, WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIONS IN SECTION 27 DASH 48 ARE SATISFIED.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.
UH, IN 27 48, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO PRESUMPTIONS, UH, THAT WE'LL BREAK DOWN INTO THREE QUESTIONS I'LL GO OVER IN A MOMENT.
UH, THE FIRST PRESU, THE FIRST PRESUMPTION IS THAT A PROPERTY IS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
AND THAT, UH, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS THAT GO INTO THAT.
DID FIVE OR MORE DEBATABLE CRIMES OCCUR IN THE 360 IN A 365 DAY PERIOD? AND IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIMES AT THE PROPERTY? THE SECOND PRESUMPTION REGARD IS THE OWNER DID.
THE OWNER, UH, THE OWNERS PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY TOLERATED THE AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THE, THE ACCORD MEETING IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN OWNER TO PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID TAKE THOSE REASONABLE STEPS.
UH, IF IN DETERMINING IF THESE TWO PRESUMPTIONS ARE SATISFIED, I WANT TO, I WANT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THREE QUESTIONS TODAY.
SO THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, UH, ONE, DID FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCUR AT THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE 365 DAY PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2022 TO, UH, SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023? I'LL REFER TO THIS PERIOD AS THE HCP PERIOD.
UH, THE SECOND QUESTION, IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIME AT THE PROPERTY? AND FINALLY, DID THE OWNER FAIL TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES ON THE PROPERTY? REGARDING QUESTIONS ONE AND TWO, THE CITY WILL PROVE THAT THE REQUISITE AVAILABLE CRIME OCCURRED, AND THAT THE FIRST PRESUMPTION IS CATEGORICALLY SATISFIED.
THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION THEN LEFT FOR THE BOARD IS WHAT STEPS WOULD'VE BEEN REASONABLE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE? UH, AND THAT IS CONSIDERING THE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROPERTY, THIS OWNERSHIP IN THESE AVAILABLE CRIMES, AND WERE ALL THOSE REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN? YOU'LL HEAR EVIDENCE TODAY THAT NINE AAT CRIMES OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY IN THE HCP PERIOD.
THAT WOULD BE THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD.
UH, AND THERE WERE AN ADDITIONAL 28 AVAILABLE CRIMES THAT OCCURRED IN THE FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THAT.
YOU'LL ALSO HEAR EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROPERTY UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP WAS INVOLVED IN THE HCP PROCESS IN 2019, AND
[00:20:01]
WAS PROVIDED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES, UH, BACK THEN, SOME OF WHICH HAVE STILL NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, UH, DESPITE THE CONTINUED AVAILABLE CRIME.YOU ALSO HEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE OWNER MAINTAINED NO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS DURING THE HCP PERIOD, AND THAT THOUGH THEY DID PROVIDE SECURITY PATROLS, THEY WERE FOUND TO BE INEFFICIENT, INSUFFICIENT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY ARGUE THAT THE HCP DESIGNATION IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE THAT ACCORD MEETING.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSES THIS SITUATION, UH, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, UM, IN SECTION 27 DASH 50, WHICH STATES, UH, THAT THE DPD MAY AT ANY TIME REEVALUATE THE PRESUMPTIONS PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, THAT IS WHEN SOMETHING LIKE A A NEWLY IMPLEMENTED CRIME PREVENTION MEASURE WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROCESS.
UH, DETECTIVE HERNANDEZ WILL EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS LATER.
BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE, THE ORDINANCE IS NOT TO ASSESS A PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIVENESS TO CITY REQUESTS, UH, BUT RATHER TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE PROACTIVELY TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
SO, UH, IN CONCLUSION, I'LL JUST RETURN TO THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY THAT WILL DETERMINE IF THE TWO PRESUMPTIONS IN SECTION 27 DASH 48 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
DID FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCUR? THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT NINE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCURRED IN THE HCP PERIOD.
QUESTION TWO, IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIME AT THE PROPERTY? THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT OVER THE FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING THE HCP PERIOD, THERE WERE 37 AVAILABLE CRIMES.
AND FINALLY, THE THIRD QUESTION, DID THE PROPERTY OWNER FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A REASONABLE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES? THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS INFORM OF REASONABLE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES LONG BEFORE THE HCP PERIOD, YET FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THEM.
ONCE THE CITY ESTABLISHES THE ABOVE FACTS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AS A DIGITAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
UM, WE WILL NOW MOVE, WE WILL NOW MOVE FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATIONS.
YOU WILL EACH HAVE 45 MINUTES.
UM, BEFORE WE WILL START WITH THE APPELLANT, BUT BEFORE WE MOVE OVER TO THE CITY, THE CITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOUR WITNESS.
UM, AND THAT DOES TAKE AWAY YOUR, FROM YOUR 45 MINUTES.
SO THEN ONCE THE CITY PRESENTS, YOU'LL HAVE TIME, YOU'LL, YOU'LL WANNA LEAVE SOME TIME TO ALSO, UM, HAVE SOME TIME TO QUESTION DETECTIVE FERNANDEZ TODAY.
UM, SO WE'LL START WITH THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPELLANT.
EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? MM-HMM,
MR. MRS. CHAIR, THIS IS RICHARD CILLA.
I HAVE A POINT OF INTEREST HERE BEFORE, UH, APPELLANT STARTS, MAYBE.
YES, MR. CILLA, YOU'RE, IF IT WOULD JUST BE RECOGNIZED, MY QUESTION WAS IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY, THERE ARE REFERENCES TO TABS OF AN EVIDENCE, UM, BINDER, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY, AM I MISSING THE ATTACHMENT? YOU ARE NOT MISSING THE ATTACHMENT.
UM, I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ONLY RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS INCORRECT.
WE ALSO SUBMITTED AN EXHIBIT BINDER.
WE ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MEMORANDUM.
LET ME, UM, ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UH, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT EXHIBIT? 'CAUSE WE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN, I CAN BRING UP THE EMAIL.
SO IT WAS A, A FAIR, A, A LARGE SIZED DOCUMENT AND, UH, I EXPLAINED IN THE EMAIL TO, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR
UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS SENT TO THAT THERE WAS A LINK TO AN ADOBE FILE THAT IT HAD TO BE DOWNLOADED, UH, 'CAUSE I COULDN'T GET IT INTO AN EMAIL.
AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THAT EMAIL IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT.
LET ME, UM, ASK WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT ATTACHMENT.
UH, LET'S TAKE, YEAH, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WHILE WE FIGURE OUT WHERE, UM, THAT ATTACHMENT IS.
AND THANK YOU MR. CCIA FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
WE WILL NOW BE, UM, IN RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WE'VE HAD AN HOUR AND 17 MINUTE RECESS.
UH, WE'VE TRIED, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, RIGHT? TO HAVE EVERYTHING, UM, FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE, UM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CITY.
UM, THANK YOU MR. CILLA FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
AND WE DO, UM, I GUESS WANT TO TAKE A PAUSE TO SEE IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WANNA MAKE A MOTION IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE, UM, AT THIS TIME, SO THAT SINCE WE STILL DO NOT HAVE
[00:25:01]
THE, THE CITY'S EVIDENCE, AND WE ARE NOT SURE REGARDING WHEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT.UM, BUT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY GIVE US TIME TO, UM, REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND THEN ALSO FIGURE OUT THE TECHNICAL ISSUES SO THAT MAYBE AT OUR NEXT HEARING, WE WILL NOT, UM, WE, WE'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, SMOOTH SAILING.
UM, BUT I DO WANNA OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING, UM, A CONTINUANCE AT THIS TIME.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE INTERESTED.
CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 7TH, 2024.
MR. QUINT HAS MADE A MOTION TO, UM, MOVE THIS HEARING TO OUR NEXT PLA HEARING.
WAIT, WHAT, WHAT DATE DID YOU SAY? I'M SORRY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I, I SECOND, SECOND IT BY MR. JEFFS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UM, MR. QUINT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE MOTION? I'LL SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY.
UM, I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO, UH, REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND SEE WHAT BOTH SIDES HAVE TO SAY, ESPECIALLY WHAT THE CITY'S, UH, PRESENTATION WAS.
ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAIN? I HAVE A, A QUESTION.
IS THE, IS THE, DOES MARCH 7TH CREATE A FACILITIES ISSUE FOR US? OR WE WILL HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE ROOM THAT DAY, POTENTIALLY.
SO WE, WE WON'T HAVE TO CUT THE TIME SHORT THEN.
DOES ANYBODY, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? OKAY.
UH, I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO CALL A VOTE AT THIS TIME.
ALL THOSE IN, UH, AGAINST THE MOTION, SAY NAY.
THE MOTION PASSES, UH, IN A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
UM, WE PROMISE TO HAVE THIS ISSUE FIGURED OUT AT OUR NEXT LAB MEETING, WHICH WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED ON THE SEVENTH.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING EVERYBODY AGAIN THAT DAY.