[00:00:01]
[Permit and License Appeal Board Hearing on May 7, 2026.]
AND GENTLEMEN.WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IT IS 8 46 ON THURSDAY, MAY 7TH, 2026.
A BRIEF WORD ABOUT THE BOARD, THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD.
MEMBERS SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION UNLESS THE CODE DICTATES OTHERWISE.
WE FIND FACTS BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, UH, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, AND APPLY THOSE FACTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE.
THE FORMAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY HERE, BUT THE BOARD MAY CHOOSE TO WEIGH, UH, DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, UH, DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON, ON, UH, ITS CREDIBILITY AND, UH, WHETHER IT'S HEARSAY, FRANKLY.
UM, IF YOU NEED ANYTHING DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE SPEAK WITH MS. SANCHEZ.
UM, WE HAVE ONE HEARING IN TODAY'S AGENDA THAT BEING, UH, CITY SECRETARY'S FINE.
FILE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 5 6 5 9.
UM, THE, THAT'S 4 9 1 0 EAST SIDE AVENUE APPEALING THE NOTICE OF FINAL DESIGNATION AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL.
UM, MR. PLEASE SAY PRESENT IF YOU ARE HERE.
MS. THOMAS? MS. TORRES IS NOT HERE.
MR. JEFFERSON, ARE YOU ON? NOT YET, BUT WE EXPECT HIM SOON.
DR. JACKSON, VICE CHAIR ILLA PRESENT? MR. JEFF IS NOT WITH US.
MS. SHIN PRESENT, MR. GONZALEZ IS NOT PRESENT.
UM, YESTERDAY MR. CILLA WAS, UH, CONFIRMED AS, UH, VICE CHAIR OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.
UH, TODAY, HE, UH, APPARENTLY HAS TO BE ON TV, BUT PROMISES TO, TO BE HERE.
UM, OTHERWISE, UH, WE HAVE MOVIE STARS.
SO, ABSENT, ABSENT IS MS. TORRES, UM, MR. JEFFERSON, FOR THE TIME BEING MR. JEFFS, MR. CRON AND MR. GONZALEZ, UH, RIGHT.
MS. THOMAS, UM, OTHER PEOPLE PRESENT? UH, WILL YOU PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME WHEN YOU'RE CALLED, THE BOARD'S GENERAL COUNSEL, TERESA CARLISLE FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
DONNA BROWN, NANCY SANCHEZ, THE, UH, APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND OR THE APPELLANT, ALAN CUFF, UH, REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND PROPERTY MANAGERS, THE APPELLANT FOR EAST SIDE AVENUE.
DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CALL? NO, I'LL NOT BE CALLING ANY WITNESSES TODAY.
AND THE CITY ATTORNEYS? CHANEL FISHER, RUDY WILLIAMS FOR THE CITY.
AND DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES YOU RECALL? YES.
UH, THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
UM, THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS, WE HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING.
UH, OUR, OUR MEETING ON THE 21ST HAS BEEN CANCELED, UH, DUE TO LACK OF BUSINESS.
UM, MS. SANCHEZ HAS INDICATED THAT, THAT WE WILL CALL A SPECIAL MEETING ON, UH, JULY 9TH, UH, WHICH IS THE SECOND TUESDAY, THURSDAY, UH, BECAUSE, UH, JULY 2ND IS, UH, THE FIRST THURSDAY.
AND THEN WE, AT THE ANNUAL MEETING DECIDED THAT WE DIDN'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD BE THERE.
UM, HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW OUR MEETING OR OUR MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE.
[00:05:02]
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES BY MR. SACKER.IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND QUINCE.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND WE WILL MOVE ON.
UH, THE APPEAL HEARING FOR 4 9 1 0, UH, EAST SIDE AVENUE.
UM, CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 5 6 5 9.
A REQUEST FROM MIAMA, UH, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I HAVE MISPRONOUNCED THAT APPEALING.
UH, THE NOTICE, UH, THE FINAL DETERMINATION IS HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, UH, UNDER SECTION 27 DASH FOUR EIGHT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
JUST, UH, FOR THE RECORD AND POSTERITY, CITY ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE THE, UH, THE CODE UNDER WHICH WE, UH, YOU HAVE PROCEEDED HERE.
YOU REFERENCING? NO, THAT'S, OH, YOU, OH, I'M SORRY.
YOU NO, I, I ASKED WHAT IS THE, THE CODE THAT, THAT HAS, THAT YOU ARE, UH, THAT THE, THE, UH, POLICE CHIEF HAS, UH, CHAPTER 1 25.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HONOR? I I DON'T THINK IT'S CHAPTER 1 45.
THAT'S, YEAH, BUT I'M, I'M ASKING HER TO STATE WHAT IT'S, UH, WE'RE NOT HERE UNDER 1 25.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
IS IT SECTION 27? I'M, I THINK I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS.
OH, SECTION 1 27, SECTION 27 46 8.
UM, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL WILL NOW READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, UH, MAYBE BEFORE OR AFTER I, I HAVE ASKED HER TO, UH, GIVE US AN OPINION, UH, THAT SHE WILL ALSO READ TODAY, YOU HAVE, BEFORE YOU AN APPEAL OF A DESIGNATION AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS BOARD TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TODAY AND, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIONS IN SECTION 27 DASH 48 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE ARE OR ARE NOT SATISFIED.
THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
NUMBER ONE, WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS OR IS NOT THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 365 DAYS IN EITHER A REPORT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOCUMENTING AN INVESTIGATION OF AN AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY.
AND TWO, WHETHER THAT THE PROPERTY IS OR IS NOT THE SITE AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME DATA.
AND THREE, AN OWNER OF HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY IS PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY TOLERATED THE AB CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE OWNER'S PROPERTY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS, INCLUDING THOSE OUTLINED IN SECTION 27 DASH 49, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS CHAPTER AS AMENDED TO ABATE THE AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AB CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MEANS THOSE ACTIVITIES LISTED IN CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE AS AMENDED.
IT INCLUDES ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DISORDERLY CONDUCT, ARSON, DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IN A PUBLIC PLACE, GAMBLING, PROSTITUTION, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, ROBBERY, DELIVERY, POSSESSION MANUFACTURER, OR USE OF AN, AN OF AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.
THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE CRIMES OF FAMILY VIOLENCE.
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THESE PRESUMPTIONS ARE SATISFIED, YOU MUST AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF POLICE.
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THE PRESUMPTIONS WERE NOT SATISFIED, YOU MAY REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
UM, SO OUR SCOPE IS LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 27 DASH FOUR EIGHT OR SAT OH, W WOULD YOU PLEASE, UM, THE QUESTION I ASKED, UM, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RULE ON IS THE, UH, WHAT IS THE DATE AFTER WHICH WE ARE NOT TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE, ARE NOT SATISFIED.
UM, YOU SHOULD BE USING THE DATE IN WHICH, UH, THE CHIEF OF POLICE GAVE
[00:10:01]
NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEY WERE PRESUMED TO BE HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, AND THAT WAS FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.SO YOU SHOULD BE CONSIDERING ANY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, UH, ABOUT ACTIVITIES BEFORE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.
AND THAT ALSO MEANS ANY, ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AFTER THAT IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN TODAY.
UH, FINALLY, WE'RE, WE'RE LIMITED TO THE, UM, THE AVAILABLE EVENTS, UH, IN THE NOTICE ON THAT DATE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD'VE THAT IS WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE.
THAT IS WHAT THE CITY BASED THEIR YEAH.
UM, OR RELIED ON TO MAKE THAT PRESUMPTION.
UM, SO THE CITY HAS TO PROVE THE PREDICATES AND THEN THE APPELLANT HAS TO PROVE REMEDIATION.
UM, ATTORNEYS, IF, UH, IF YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE OPEN AND A THREE MINUTE CLOSE, UM, AND YOUR, YOUR TIME, UH, WORKS TOWARDS YOUR PRESENTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION, CAN YOU DO IT IN 15 MINUTES OR WOULD YOU RATHER 20? WE'D LIKE THE 20 COUNSEL.
IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S OKAY WITH ME, YES.
SO, UH, YOU'LL HAVE A THREE MINUTE OPEN, THREE MINUTE CLOSE 20 MINUTES, UH, TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION CALL WITNESSES AND CROSS EXAMINE, UM, MEMBERS.
WE WILL, UH, DO OUR TYPICAL, UH, THREE MINUTES AND THEN ONE MINUTE.
UH, ANSWERING MEMBERS QUESTIONS DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME.
UM, SOMETIMES THIS TIMER GOES DEEP, REALLY LOUD, AND, UH, IF THAT HAPPENS, WE CAN'T, YOU'LL GET USED TO IT.
UH, MAYBE, UM, AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE MS. SANCHEZ TO SWEAR IN ANY, ANYONE WHO, UH, INTENDS TO GIVE TESTIMONY ON EITHER SIDE IN, IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WOULD STAND AND BE SWORN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
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.
AT THIS POINT, LET'S HAVE THE CITY'S BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT.
UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE.
THE FIRST CALLED THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST, AND THE SECOND WE'LL CALL CITY EVIDENCE ONE.
UH, THOSE WERE POSTED ON OUR, UH, WEBSITE.
UH, CITY, WOULD YOU, UH, PROVIDE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT PLEASE? UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, UH, ON THE CHAIR, UH, WE JUST HAVE A POINT OF INQUIRY.
UH, SO IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, UH, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM THE GENERAL ATTORNEY THAT, UH, THAT THE BOARD IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY AFTER THE PRESUMPTION.
IS THAT CORRECT? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE YOU BASED THE PRE YOUR PRESUMPTIONS ON ACTIVITY, YOU MADE A DE THE CITY MADE A DETERMINATION ON FEBRUARY 5TH SAYING THAT THOSE PRESUMPTIONS WERE SATISFIED.
SO IT SHOULD BE ANY EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BEFORE THAT.
THAT ALSO MEANS THAT WE DON'T CONSIDER ANY, UH, ANY ACTIONS THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AFTER THAT.
BUT I, I THINK OUR, OUR CLARIFICATION IS THERE WAS A MENTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AFTER THAT DATE CAN'T BE CONSIDERED, BUT THE ORDINANCE READS AS ANY CRIME PREVENTATIVE MEASURES AFTER THAT DAY.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE PREDICATES.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE 300 SUIT BECAUSE THEY'RE HERE TO REBUT OR OR TO APPEAL WHAT THE, UH, MR. JEFFERSON IS HERE AT NINE O'CLOCK.
UH, WHAT WAS IN THAT LETTER THAT THE POLICE CHIEF SENT, RIGHT? UH, WHICH THEY DID AT THE ACCORD MEETING, AND THEY WERE APPEALING THAT.
RIGHT? UM, SO, SO ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT DATE CAN STILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, I BELIEVE I HEARD.
[00:15:02]
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S'CAUSE YOU BASE, YOUR, YOU, THE PRESUMPTIONS WERE THAT YOU SAID FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES HAPPENED WITHIN 365 DAYS, RIGHT? SO YOU, YOU USED A SPECIFIC 365 DAYS.
SO HOW, AND THEN YOU MADE THAT PRESUMPTION.
SO YOU SAID YOU HAVE THIS AND YOU, AND THERE'S, UM, AND THEN AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY CRIMINAL AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME DATA.
SO YOU BASED YOUR PRE THE DECISIONS ON THESE PRESUMPTIONS.
SO YOU SHOULD BE USING ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 5TH, 2020 SIXTH FOR AS FAR AS CRIME PREVENTATIVE MEASURES.
SO OUR QUESTION IS, IF CRIME CONTINUED AT THE PROPERTY AFTER THAT DATE IN, IN THE FUTURE FROM WHEN THAT, FROM EVEN WHEN THE LETTER WAS SENT, WHEN WE COULDN'T PREDICT THAT, OBVIOUSLY THAT SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED.
THAT MIGHT GO TOWARDS WHETHER THE REMEDIATION WAS SUCCESSFUL, BUT THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF THIS HEARING.
AND THE FIRST PART FOR WE, WHAT, WHAT YOU GUYS NOTICED TO THEM GAVE THEM A CHANCE TO, TO RESPOND TO THEM, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE.
AND THE SECOND PART IS THEY HAVE TO DISCUSS, UH, UH, RE REMEDIATION.
UH, OFTENTIMES THE CITY ARGUES THAT, HEY, THIS REMEDIAL ACTION THE, UH, APPELLANT TOOK AFTER WE MET SHOULDN'T COUNT.
SO THE, THE FLIP SIDE WOULD BE THAT CRIMINAL EVENTS WOULDN'T COUNT.
SO THAT, THAT'S THE, THE QUESTION I ASKED.
MAY I PROCEED? GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PERMANENT LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.
WE'RE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT DESIGNATION OF 49 1 0 EAST SIDE AVENUE AS AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, OR HCP ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.
THE REASON THE CITY OF DALLAS DESIGNATED A PROPERTY AS AN HCP IS TO GET THE PROPERTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM PROPERTY DAMAGE STANDARDS, WHICH WILL LIKELY REDUCE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
YOUR JOB TODAY IS LIMITED TO DECIDING IF THE PRESUMPTIONS OF DALLAS CITY CODE SECTION 27 48 ARE SATISFIED.
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, YOU MUST ANSWER EXACTLY THREE QUESTIONS.
DID FIVE OR MORE AAT CRIMES OCCUR AT THE PROPERTY IN A 365 DAY PERIOD? IS THERE A HISTORY OF AAT CRIME AFTER PROPERTY? AND DID THE OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATE THE AVAILABLE CRIME BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THAT CRIME PRIOR TO CITY INTERVENTION ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026? THE CITY'S EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2023 TO NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025, 12, ABBA CRIMES OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY, SIX OF WHICH OCCURRED IN THE 365 DAYS THAT ELAPSED FROM NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 TO NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025.
IN ADDITION, TWO INVESTIGATIONS ON MARCH 31ST, 2025, AND MAY 2ND, 2020 25, DEALING WITH POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE AND MARIJUANA WAS RECENTLY CLOSED, AND AN INVESTIGATION ON APRIL 4TH, 2026 RESULTED IN AN ARREST FOR AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
THE CITY WILL SHOW THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS AVAILABLE CRIMES, BUT THE OWNER TO KNOWINGLY TOLERATED CRIME AT THE PROPERTY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THAT CRIME PRIOR TO CITY INTERVENTION.
IN FEBRUARY OF 2026, NUISANCE ABATEMENT, DETECTIVE MARK MICHAELS WILL DESCRIBE TO YOU A PROPERTY THAT IS A, THE SOURCE OF MANY DRUG RELATED OFFENSES, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS, WHICH DIRECTLY CORRELATES INTO OTHER VIOLENT OFFENSES ARISING FROM DRUG SALES AT THE PROPERTY.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS WILL ALSO DESCRIBE TO YOU HOW NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY, TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT VERY LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE TO ABATE FUTURE CRIME ON THE PROPERTY.
SO I'VE TOLD YOU WHAT YOU MUST CONSIDER IN DECIDING TODAY'S CASE.
NOW, I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER, AND YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER ANY STEPS THE PROPERTY OWNER TOOK TO ABATE CRIME AFTER INSURANCE OF A PRESUMPTIVE HCP DESIGNATION ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.
AND IT'S TRUE THAT SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY AT THE MANDATORY COURT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026.
[00:20:01]
BUT IN YOUR DECISION, YOU NEED ONLY CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT POINTS TO CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.AND DETECTIVE MICHAELS IS PREPARED TO EXPLAIN IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, WHY AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE HCP, THAT PRESUMPTION AND SO HONORABLE CHAIR OR HONORABLE BOARD, IT IS THE CITY'S HOPE THAT AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU'LL ANSWER YES.
THAT TO ALL THREE QUESTIONS I OUTLINED TO YOU EARLIER IN THAT YOU DENY THIS APPEAL AND THAT YOU AFFIRM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DESIGNATION OF 49 1 0 EAST SIDE AVENUE, AS IN HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
UH, COUNSEL, ARE YOU, I MEAN, YES, I SEE YOU, UM, APPELLANTS COUNSEL, UH, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE.
I THANK YOU CHAIR, HONORABLE BOARD.
MY NAME IS ALAN CUFF, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER AND PROPERTY MANAGERS OF EAST SIDE APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 4 9 1 0 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
NOW, BEFORE DIVING INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I APPRECIATE ALL THE SERVICES YOU PROVIDE, AND WE ALSO AGREE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A SAFETY CONCERN, AND THAT'S THAT, THAT THERE IS A DUTY ON PROPERTY OWNERS TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITIES ARE SAFER.
NOW, THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS THAT ONCE AN HCP PRESUMPTION IS MADE, THERE ARE VERY SEVERE PENALTIES THAT COURTS HAVE DESCRIBED AS QUASI-CRIMINAL THAT ARE IMPOSED ON PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CITY CODE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER.
AND WHAT YOU WILL SEE TODAY IS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE THE CITY'S EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE, THE, THE PRESUMPTION.
AS GENERAL COUNSEL EXPLAINED, AND AS THE CITY, UH, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS, HAS TOUCHED ON, WE AGREE THAT WHAT THIS BOARD IS LIMITED TO IS THOSE ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025.
FURTHERMORE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 27 DASH 48, THE TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR AN HCP PRESUMPTION ARE THAT THE PROPERTY MUST BE THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY THE SITE OF THOSE OF OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
THE KEY THERE IS THAT IT IS THE SITE THAT PROPERTY, THAT SPECIFIC ADDRESS.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE TODAY IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT PRESENTED BY THE CITY, SOME OF WHICH ARE NOT FOR 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE, THESE ACTIVITIES MUST ALSO BE AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AS DEFINED IN THE CODE AND CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDY CODE, YOU WILL SEE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THESE, UH, UH, UH, ALLEGED ACTIVITIES DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THAT DEFINITION AND THEREFORE CANNOT SUPPORT AN HTP DESIGNATION.
WHAT WE WILL NOT BE DOING TODAY IS CONTESTING OR DIVING INTO A FACTUAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE CRIME PREVENTION METHOD MEASURES.
WHILE MY CLIENTS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND MOVING FORWARD HAVE AND ALREADY HAVE TAKEN CERTAIN STEPS TO REMEDY AND, AND ADD NEW SECURITY MEASURES, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
AND SO WE, WE ARE NARROWING THE ISSUES TO JUST THOSE FIRST TWO TASKS THAT THE EVIDENCE MUST, ONE, SUPPORT THAT 49 10 EAST SIDE WAS THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 365 DAY PERIOD CITED IN THE PRESUMPTION LETTER.
AND THAT 2 49 10 EAST SIDE ACT AVENUE MUST HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY THE SITE OF THE BEATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES CITED IN THE HCP PRESUMPTION LETTER.
AFTER TODAY, WE, WE BELIEVE, AND WE ASK THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE A SERIOUS PENALTY UPON MY CLIENTS AND ASK THAT YOU REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE POLICE CHIEF.
ALRIGHT, UM, THE CITY YOU HAVE, UH, YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES.
WE CALL THE CITY CALLS OUR FIRST, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING OUR FIRST WITNESS.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS, UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND OCCUPATION FOR THE RECORD.
I'M A DETECTIVE WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
CAN YOU PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ENFORCE? I'VE BEEN ON THE DEPARTMENT GOING ON 24 YEARS.
I STARTED MY CAREER AT SOUTHEAST PATROL.
I MOVED ON TO A SPECIAL TASK FORCE OFFICER FOCUSING ON GAINS DRUGS AND, UH, VIOLENT GUN CRIME.
UH, AFTER THAT I WENT TO NAR, OUR NARCOTICS DIVISION WHERE I WAS A DETECTIVE, AND I WORKED UNDERCOVER FOR SIX YEARS.
AFTER NARCOTICS, I MOVED ON TO THE SWAT TEAM.
I WAS A MEMBER OF THE DALLAS SWAT TEAM FOR 11 YEARS.
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS I'VE BEEN WITH THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT UNIT.
AND WHAT ARE YOUR CURRENT DUTIES WITH THE COMMUNITY
[00:25:01]
PROSECUTION? NUISANCE ABATEMENT UNIT COMMUNITY PROSECUTION IS COMPRISED OF CITY ATTORNEYS, FIRE AND CODE INSPECTORS I WORK HAND IN HAND WITH, WITH ALL OF THEM.MY ROLE WITHIN, WITHIN THAT TEAM IS TO EVALUATE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
IN REGARDS TO POTENTIAL HCP STATUS.
WE MEET WITH PROPERTY PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS TO ADDRESS ANY CRIME ON PROPERTY AND GIVE THEM RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE DATEABLE ACTIVITY.
HOW DID YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY? AT 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE, I ADOPTED THIS CASE FROM ANOTHER DETECTIVE THAT LEFT OUR UNIT DUE TO THE HIGH CRIME IN THAT AREA.
NOW, RECORDS INDICATE THAT URI AAMA IS A PROPERTY OWNER.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY? 49 10 EAST SIDE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX COMPRISED OF THREE BUILDINGS.
THERE'S A TOTAL OF ONLY 18 UNITS WITHIN THAT COMPLEX.
THE MAJOR STREETS SURROUNDING, UH, 4 9 10 EAST SIDE ARE MUNGER BOULEVARD ON THE EAST FITSU ON THE WEST CAROLINA, THE NORTH.
THE IMMEDIATE BOUNDARY LINE IS DALLAS WORKMAN CITY PARK, WHICH BOUNDARIES THE SOUTH AND, UH, EAST WEST SIDE OF THE, THE COMPLEX.
AND DID YOU EVALUATE THE PROPERTY FOR HABITUAL CRIME PROPERTY DESIGNATION? YES, MA'AM.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS? WHEN LOOKING AT A PROPERTY, WE FIRST DO A HISTORICAL SEARCH OF THE PREVIOUS 365 DAYS AT THAT ADDRESS TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE FIVE MINIMUM PAYABLE ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO GO FORWARD.
AFTER THAT, WE LOOK AT A BROADER HISTORY GOING BACK TWO OR THREE YEARS.
WITHIN THOSE TWO OR THREE YEARS, WE LOOK AT ALL CRISP HISTORY OF CRIME AT THAT PROPERTY TO INCLUDE, UH, 9 1 1 CALLS, UH, MADE FROM THAT PROPERTY AND ENSURE THAT THE ACTIVITY IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND DO YOU COUNT ALL CRIMES OR ONLY CERTAIN TYPES? WE ONLY COUNT THE CRIMES THAT ARE LISTED IN CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE REMEDIES CODE.
THOSE CRIMES, UH, DO NOT INCLUDE CRIMINAL MISES OF LESS THAN $500 OR OF FAMILY VIOLENCE CRIMES.
AND WE DO A THOROUGH REVIEW OF ALL THE INCIDENTS THAT OCCUR AT THAT PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE HAPPENING ON THAT PROPERTY AND THEY DO NOT STEM FROM SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OFF THE PROPERTY.
FOR EXAMPLE, A TRAFFIC STOP THAT LANDED ON THAT PROPERTY OR SOMEBODY CALLING FROM THAT PROPERTY TO REPORT A CRIME THAT HAD OCCURRED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD DID YOU CONSIDER IN YOUR HCP EVALUATION? NOVEMBER OF 2024 THROUGH NOVEMBER, 2025 WAS THE INITIAL ONE YEAR.
THEN I WENT BACK TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS BEFORE THAT.
WHAT TYPE OF OFFENSES WERE REPORTED? UH, FROM THIS, THIS PROPERTY? THE MAJORITY OF THE AVAILABLE ACTIVITY WERE NARCOTICS RELATED CRIMES, ALONG WITH AN AGGRAVATED ASSAULT IN WHICH A PERSON, A VICTIM WAS SHOT AND AN AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY AVAILABLE CRIMINAL OFFENSES WERE REPORTED AT THE PROPERTY DURING THE TIMEFRAME OF NOVEMBER, 2024 TO NOVEMBER, 2025, NINE AB OFFICES.
AND BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT LEVEL OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AS HIGH OR A, AN APARTMENT UNIT OF 18? YES MA'AM.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHETHER THIS PROPERTY HAS A CRIMINAL OF, HAS A HISTORY, EXCUSE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BEYOND THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD? YES, MA'AM.
DID YOU OBSERVE A PATTERN OR REPEAT ACTIVITY? YES, MA'AM.
WITHIN THE THREE YEARS I RESEARCHED THERE WAS FIVE SEARCH WARRANTS EXECUTED ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND CAN YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? UH, JUST TO EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THAT CONTRIBUTED TO OBTAINING PROBABLE CAUSE TO ACHIEVE THAT SEARCH WARRANT, MEANING THAT IT WAS MORE THAN JUST AN OFFICER COMING ONTO THE PROPERTY AND STUMBLING ACROSS A AVAILABLE OFFENSE, EITHER IN DEPTH, WELL THOUGHT OUT, WELL-PLANNED INVESTIGATIONS THAT TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
DID THE PROPERTY NEED THE HCP PRESUMPTION FOR THE REASONS YOU JUST DISCUSSED? YES, MA'AM.
NOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AFTER NOTICE WAS SENT, DID CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CONTINUE AT THE PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE ANY SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE OWNER WAS PUT ON NOTICE? IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE ROBBED AT GUNPOINT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ONE WAS PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED.
ARE YOU AWARE IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER UNITS INVESTIGATING THIS PROPERTY? THROUGH MY INVESTIGATION, I FOUND OUR NARCOTICS DIVISION WAS INVESTIGATING THIS PROPERTY.
[00:30:01]
INVESTIGATION REVEAL? THERE WAS TWO UNDERCOVER PURCHASES OF ILLEGAL NARCOTICS FROM THAT PARK PROPERTY AND, UH, A SEARCH WARRANT THAT FOLLOWED THOSE PURCHASES.DID, DID THESE INCIDENTS APPEAR TO BE ONGOING OR ISOLATED INCIDENTS? IT WAS AN ONGOING EVENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT IN MY PERSONAL HISTORY OF WORKING IN NARCOTICS, A LOCATION IS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BEFORE EVEN THE FIRST ATTEMPT BUY IS MADE AFTER THE FIRST ATTEMPT IS MADE, A SECOND BUY IS MADE TO GAIN PROBABLE CAUSE WITHOUT GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTIGATION IS A VERY LONG, WELL THOUGHT OUT INVESTIGATION.
AND THE BUYS WERE MADE ALMOST 30 DAYS APART TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS AN ONGOING, UH, NARCOTICS, UH, ENTERPRISE.
NOW THERE IS A PARK DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES.
OLD EAST DALLAS WORK YARD PARK.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A DRUG FREE ZONES? UH, YES.
DRUG FREE ZONES INCLUDE SCHOOLS, YOUTH CENTERS, AND ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT MINORS WITHOUT.
WOULD A PARK QUALIFY AS A DRUG FREE ZONE? YES, MA'AM.
DOES DRUG ACTIVITY NEAR A PARK INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC? YES, MA'AM.
WHY DOES THAT MAKE THIS LOCATION MORE CONCERNING? ACTIVE DRUG LOCATIONS BRING ALL TYPES OF CRIMINAL ELEMENTS TO THAT AREA AND A, A PARK LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET WITH PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, NEWLY RENOVATED BASKETBALL COURT, AND JUST A GREEN AREA IS THE LAST PLACE YOU, YOU WANT A DRUG HOUSE TO BE WITHIN A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET.
AND YOU INSPECTED THE PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM.
DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANY RESIDENTS DURING ANY OF YOUR UH, INSPECTIONS? YES, MA'AM.
I SPOKE WITH MR. AVILA WHO STATED HE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GROUND SPEAKING.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE RESIDENTS WERE AWARE OF THE ARMED ROBBERY? UH, WHEN ASKED, UH, MR. AVILA ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY, HE BASICALLY ADMITTED HE BELIEVED THE NUMBER ONE THING THEY SHOULD HAVE IS SECURITY.
WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE ARMED ROBBERY, HE IMMEDIATELY SAID HE COMES HOME.
HE WAS STRAIGHT INSIDE, STRONGLY IMPLYING HE DID NOT WANNA BE INVOLVED WITH ANYTHING OCCURRING OUTSIDE.
NOW, LET ME TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO TAB EIGHT OF THE BINDER, WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AS WELL AS TO OPPOSING COUNSEL.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PHOTOS IN TAB EIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THEY SHOW REGARDING CRIME OR CRIME PREVENTION? THESE, ALL THESE PHOTOS HERE SHOW THE MULTIPLE SIDES OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO DEFINED BOUNDARY.
THERE ARE NO GATES THAT FUNCTION, AND ALL OF THE CAMERAS YOU, YOU SEE ON THE BUILDINGS ARE FAKE.
DID YOU CONDUCT THE NIGHTTIME INSPECTION? YES, MA'AM.
WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE DURING THAT INSPECTION? AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH RIGHT HERE, THIS IS THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE COMPLEX AND IT WILL SHOW CONTRAST ON THAT AREA RIGHT THERE TO THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PICTURE.
IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER IS LIT DIRECTLY BELOW IT IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE COMPLEX.
NO LIGHTING CAN BE SEEN THERE, AND THERE ARE A TON OF DARK SPOTS AND ALONG THE VEHICLES AND THE WEST PART OF THE COMPLEX ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WHICH YOU CAN BARELY SEE, IS LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO LIGHT.
WERE THERE MEANINGFUL SECURITY MEASURES PRESENT? THERE WAS NO, THERE WERE NO MEASURES PRESENT WHATSOEVER.
NO SECURITY, NO FUNCTIONAL CAMERAS, NO CONTROLLED ACCESS TO AND FROM THE COURTYARD BY, BY WORKING GATES.
NOW, DID YOU ATTEND THE ACCORD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026? YES MA'AM.
AND THE OWNER PROVIDED DOCUMENTS AT OR AFTER THAT MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
UH, LET'S BRIEFLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED.
UH, THERE WAS A TOWING AGREEMENT AND IT'S DATED FEBRUARY 20TH, 2026.
WAS THAT AFTER THE MEETING OCCURRED? YES, MA'AM.
THE OWNER LATER INDICATED THAT THERE WERE PLANS TO ADD LIGHTING, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
WAS THAT ALSO AFTER THE MEETING? YES, MA'AM.
WAS THERE ANYTHING, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT STOOD OUT TO YOU, UH, FROM THE MEETING? YES, I SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGER, MR. BRIAN HERNANDEZ, WHO WAS AT THE PROPERTY.
HE STATED THAT HE RARELY GOT, WENT BY THE PROPERTY AND WAS ONLY THERE ONCE A WEEK ON AVERAGE.
AND WHEN HE ARRIVED ON PROPERTY, PEOPLE WOULD SCATTER BECAUSE THEY COULD RECOGNIZE THE VEHICLE COMING.
THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER FROM THE PROPERTY, WHETHER THAT BE MANAGEMENT SECURITY ON A DAILY BASIS, AND THAT WHEN HE DID CHECK ON PROPERTY ON THE PROPERTY, PEOPLE BASICALLY SCATTERED
[00:35:02]
BASICALLY IF THE CAT'S WAY THE MICE WOULD PLAY.DID DPD FIND THE OWNER'S EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION? NO.
IS THERE ONSITE SECURITY AT THE PROPERTY? NO, MA'AM.
HOW IMPORTANT IS ONSITE SECURITY FOR THIS PROPERTY? WITH THE AMOUNT OF DRUG ACTIVITY ON THIS PROPERTY, SECURITY WOULD BE A GREAT DETERRENT FOR THAT OCCURRING AS THE, THE RESIDENT HIMSELF SAID THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE THING HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN TO THE PROPERTY.
IS THERE ONSITE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT? THERE'S NO OFFICE, NO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
ARE THERE SECURITY CAMERAS THERE? THERE ARE FAKE SECURITY CAMERAS AND THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMED US THAT THEY'RE FAKE.
DID THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THEIR TENANT BACKGROUND CHECKS OR SCREENING PROCESS? NO, MA'AM.
DOES THIS PROPERTY PRESENT AN ONGOING RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY? YES, MA'AM.
AS THE HISTORY SHOWS THROUGH THE MULTIPLE SEARCH WARRANTS THAT ARE ALL NARCOTICS RELATED AND THE CRIME THAT OCCURRED AT THE EXACT SAME APARTMENT FOLLOWING THE, UH, ONGOING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IS INTERVENTION NECESSARY? YES, MA'AM.
ARE YOU ASKING THE BOARD TO AFFIRM THE HCP DESIGNATION TODAY? YES, MA'AM.
MR. CUFF, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS ON CROSS.
UH, MS. FISHER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? UH, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, I DO HAVE A BRIEF CLOSING, UH, CLOSING COME AFTERWARDS.
UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UM, I, UH, LET'S GO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
UH, LET'S GO FROM HIGH TO LOW.
UM, MS. SHIN, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UH, DETECTIVE, DETECTIVE MICHAELS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
UM, IN REVIEWING THE EXHIBIT, UM, I WAS NOTICING, UM, THE ADDRESS OF THE INCIDENTS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WHEN A RESPONDING OFFICER GETS A CALL AND ARRIVES THAT THEY DETERMINE THE ADDRESS OF THE LOCATION FOR THE INCIDENT? THE ADDRESS IS GENERATED BY THE ACTUAL 9 1 1 DISPATCH SYSTEM.
THE, THE AUTOMATED DISPATCH SYSTEM THAT SHOWS THAT THE ADDRESS IS THERE AND ONCE ON PROPERTY, THEY CONFIRM IT WITH THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS ON THE BUILDING.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE INCIDENT REPORTS, UM, WHICH IS THE CORRECT, UM, ADDRESS TO LOOK AT, UM, BECAUSE I AM SEEING THAT A HANDFUL OF THESE ARE MARKED AS 4,900 EAST SIDE AND SOME THEN ARE ALSO 49 10.
IF LOOKING AT THE NARRATIVE PORTION OF THE ACTUAL UNDER TAB SIX, THE NARRATIVE PORTION WILL CLARIFY AND THE DETAILS IN THE NARRATIVE WILL CLARIFY THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACTUAL DEPARTMENT ITSELF.
IF YOU WANNA POINT OUT ONE SPECIFICALLY, I CAN RETURN TO THAT.
I ALSO NOTICED THAT THESE WEREN'T IN, UH, CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
SO, UM, LET'S LOOK AT THE FOURTH ONE IN YOUR LIST.
UM, AND IT SAYS 4,900 EAST SIDE, UM, ON 5 23 25 FOR POSSESSION.
THAT RIGHT THERE IS POINT OF INFORMATION CHAIR.
MR. ILLA JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT PAGE NUMBER THAT IS.
MS. SHIN, WE'RE NOT USING YOUR TIME.
MS. SHIN, UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW I'M STILL SCROLLING.
OH, IS THIS THE BOTTOM RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT TO GET THERE.
AND THAT'S STATED IN THE NARRATIVE OR NO, THAT'S, THAT'S DUE TO MY INVESTIGATION, MA'AM.
SO THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS 4,900 EAST SIDE.
THE, THE ADDRESS THAT THEY USED FOR THE COMPLEX WAS 4,900.
HOWEVER, MY, THROUGH MY RESEARCH LOOKING AT THE OFFICER'S BODY CAMERAS, THEY WERE ON THE PROPERTY OF 49 10.
[00:40:02]
MR. CILLA, MR. QUINT, I'M JUST KIDDING.YOU DIDN'T JUMP, SO I WON'T DO IT AGAIN.
UH, SO DETECTIVE, I'M LISTEN TO ALL OF YOUR, UM, INFO THAT YOU GAVE US AND YOU SAID THE THREE, UH, AND, UM, FIVE SEARCH WARRANTS WERE ISSUED IN A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT IN ORLY AMOUNT? UH, ALLOT? YES.
AND WITH ALL THE, UM, LACK OF SECURITY, LACK OF MANAGEMENT, UM, UH, NO WORKING GATES, WOULD YOU SAY THEY HAVE FAILED THEIR TENANTS IN THE CITY? YES.
UM, YOU MENTIONED, UM, INTERVENTIONS NECESSARY.
IS THAT, UM, WITH ALL THE STEPS YOU'VE ASKED THEM TO TAKE? YES, MA'AM.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF IT WAS LEFT STRICTLY UP TO YOU, WOULD YOU MAKE THIS, WOULD YOU MAKE THE DESIGNATION YOURSELF FOR HIGH CRIME? YES, SIR.
UM, MR. K THANK YOU, DETECTIVE FOR BEING HERE.
UM, QUESTIONS, JUST TO GET CLARIFICATION, DID YOU SAY THAT THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS, BUT ONLY 18 UNITS IN THAT LOCATION? YES, SIR.
THERE ARE THREE, THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE ONLY 18 UNITS TOTAL AT THAT COMPLEX, I BELIEVE.
AND HAVE YOU EVER, DID YOU, DID YOU KNOW IF THE OWNER ATTENDED THE ACCORD MEETING? YES, SIR.
AND DID THE PROPERTY MANAGER ATTEND THE ACCORD MEETING? YES, SIR, HE DID.
AND HOW DID THE OWNER TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES OR DID YOU GET ANY INFORMATION SINCE WE WILL NOT BE HEARING FROM HIM, WHETHER, HOW OFTEN HE VISITS THE PROPERTY? I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OWNER STATED HE DID NOT, HE DID NOT STATE VISITING THE PROPERTY AT ALL.
IT WAS JUST THE PROPERTY MANAGER.
'CAUSE THE ACTUAL OWNER IS OVERSEAS.
HE'S OVERSEAS, OR AT LEAST WHAT I GOT WAS AN ADDRESS AND IT LOOKED LIKE OUT OF, OUT OF TEXAS.
IS THAT CORRECT? DID ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A, A STATESIDE ADDRESS, BUT DURING THE ACTUAL COURT MEETING, HE WAS IN A VIDEO CONFERENCE FROM JAPAN.
OKAY, SO HE WAS NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON? NO, SIR.
AND SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER IS THE PROPERTY MANAGER WHO VISITS ONCE A WEEK.
AND DID THEY EVER HAVE ANY SECURITY THAT YOU KNOW OF IN YOUR RESEARCH OR THE ACCORD MEETING WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS? CORRECT.
THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY, UH, SECURITY ON PROPERTY.
YOU WERE NOT SHOWN ANY KIND OF SECURITY CHECK-INS OR CONTRACTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, SIR.
THE ONLY THING I SAW IN THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED.
DID YOU TALK OR DISCUSS ANY OF THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT? THAT ACTUAL AGREEMENT WAS RECEIVED? A COUPLE DAYS FOLLOWING THE ACTUAL COURT MEETING.
I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
DURING THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD, UM, THE MEETINGS WITH THE RESIDENTS, COULD YOU, UM, HAVE ANY KIND OF INDICATION FROM THE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT THERE MAY BE FEARFUL DURING THESE, UH, OFFENSES THAT THEY, PERIOD? I ONLY SPOKE WITH THE ONE RESIDENT WHO WAS, HE WAS VERY SHORT AND BRIEF WHEN I DESCRIBED THE, THE OFFENSE OR THE AGGRAVATED ROBBERY THAT OCCURRED OCCURRED IN THE PROPERTY.
HE BASICALLY WAS LIKE, HEY, I COME HOME, I GO INSIDE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.
STRONGLY IMPLYING THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO HANG OUT OUTSIDE IN THAT AREA.
AND THEN, UM, DID YOU, UM, SINCE IT ONLY THE PROPERTY MANAGER WAS THERE, DID THEY EVEN, EVEN, UH, INITIATE, THEY MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER STAFF ON THE PROPERTY TO, UH, REVIEW SOME OF THESE OCCURRENCE OR EITHER DO SOME KIND OF IMPROVEMENT? NO, MA'AM.
I BELIEVE MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
[00:45:01]
GOOD MORNING.UH, ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AS WELL, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
NO QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT, MR. SAXON? NO QUESTIONS.
UM, WHAT IS AT 40 EAST SIDE AVENUE? THAT, THAT'S JUST A, A GENERIC BLOCK NUMBER.
THERE'S NO PHYSICAL ADDRESS, PHYSICAL BUILDING AT 4,900.
IS IT A A A LOT? NO, THERE'S NO PHYSICAL ADDRESS THERE.
IF, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK UP DCA, I BELIEVE IT'S 49 0 3, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET TO 49.
SO WHEN, WHEN, UH, AN OFFICER NOTES, I I, I'VE NOTICED, UM, THROUGHOUT THESE, UH, REPORTS, UH, THERE ARE NOTES OF 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
HOW DOES THAT COME TO BE? DOES DOES THE OFFICER LOOK TO DATABASE OR NO, THAT'S, I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER WHY HE WOULD DO THAT, BUT IT'S JUST A, IT, NO, NOTHING SHORT OF THEM NOT TAKING THE EXTRA EFFORT TO WALK IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND LOOKING AT THE DAMAGE ON THE BUILDING.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT EVENT ON 5 23 0 7 3 1 7 3.
UM, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE, LIKE THERE WAS A HOMELESS PERSON, UH, DETAINED ON A CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT.
AND AGAIN, ON 4,900, UH, UH, UM, THERE IS A PARK RIGHT NEXT TO IT, RIGHT? NOT, NOT ALL THE WAY, LIKE ACROSS THE STREET.
IT, IT LITERALLY BORDERS THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, PERHAPS AROUND THERE IS A BUILDING THAT IS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF IT, AND THEY SHARE THAT BORDER IT.
YOU WANNA SEE THAT ON THE MAP? SURE.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR, UH, IN YOUR PACKAGE.
UM, I, I JUST WANNA, I'M, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, YOU SAID SOMETHING WAS ACROSS THE STREET.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CONTIGUOUS, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF TIME.
UH, THERE, THERE'S A SECOND ONE THAT IS PARAPHERNALIA THAT APPEARS TO BE AN OFFICER WHO SAW PEOPLE IN A BREEZEWAY AT 49 10, UH, BUT ULTIMATELY FOUND THE SUSPECT AT 4,900 BLOCK OF EAST SIDE WAS THEN DETAINED.
UH, WE WILL COME BACK, UH, MAYBE, UM, SECOND ROUND.
UM, MS. SHIN, NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
MR. KASHIA? YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD? UM, NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UM, JUST ONE, DID UM, OFFENSE HAPPEN AT ALL THREE BUILDINGS? I WOULD HAVE, MA'AM, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, THEY ALL ALMOST TOUCH EACH OTHER.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DOOR NUMBERS TO TELL YOU WHERE THE, IT WAS ACTUALLY LOCATED NOW.
AND ALL THREE BUILDINGS ARE IN 40 19? YES, MA'AM.
THEY'RE WITHIN ARMS DISTANCE OF EACH OTHER.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST BUTTED UP AGAINST EACH OTHER ALMOST.
MR. JEFFERSON, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
MS. SMITH? NO FURTHER, MS. ALA, NO QUESTIONS.
MR. SAXON, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE LAST TIME, UH, BASED ON THE INCIDENTS, UH, REPORTED IN THE PACKET, UM, YOU GUYS JUST, CAN YOU ATTEST THAT THEY, IN YOUR BEST KNOWLEDGE, OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S NONE THAT ARE LISTED IN THE PACKET THAT OCCURRED OFF PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
[00:50:02]
IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED AT UNIT 1 0 1 0 6.HOW MANY OF THEM ARE PEOPLE, UH, WHO LIVED THERE AS OPPOSED TO THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AT LEAST ONE PROBLEM.
UH, LOOKING AT MY NOTES, GOING BACK TO SEPTEMBER OF 2023, THERE WAS A SEARCH WARRANT AT 1 0 6.
THEN, THEN AGAIN, THERE WAS A SEARCH WARRANT IN MAY OF 2025 AT 1 0 6, AND THAT PERSON WAS SHOT STANDING OUTSIDE THE DOOR OF 1 0 6, JUST FIVE DAYS LATER, ANOTHER SEARCH WARRANT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025.
WITH THAT 1 0 6, THE BUY LETTERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL PACKET MM-HMM
SHOW THE UNDERCOVER OPERATION IN DETAIL OF GOING INTO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE UC OFFICER DESCRIBING, SEEING MULTIPLE PEOPLE PRESENT, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PRESENT INSIDE THERE WITH THE AMOUNT OF DRUGS THAT ARE BEING SOLD.
THEY'RE NOT JUST IN THERE, THEY'RE USER, WHICH IS, UH, NUMBER 1 9 2.
YOU HAVE, UH, 20 MINUTES, SIR.
NOW, AS A REMINDER, NO EVIDENCE AFTER FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026 CAN BE CONSIDERED.
THE CITY SPENT MUCH OF THEIR DISCUSSION ON EVENTS THAT OCCURRED AFTER FEBRUARY OF 2026, BUT THAT IS IMPROPER AND MUST BE EX EXCLUDED FROM TODAY'S CONSIDERATION.
I'D LIKE TO RETURN THE FOCUS OF THE BOARD TO THOSE TWO QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE AT ISSUE TODAY.
AND THE, THE, THE, THE CRUX OF ALL OF THIS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE USED BY THE CITY IN SUPPORTIVE OF PRESUMPTION LETTER IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THAT HCP PRESUMPTION.
THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE, AND THAT IS THE NARROW SCOPE OF TODAY.
BUT IT FAILS TO MEET THAT EXPECTATION FOR TWO REASONS.
FIRST, THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT 4 9 1 0 EAST SIDE AVENUE WAS THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AS LISTED IN THE LETTER.
AND SECOND, THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THE SITE OF A PAYABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES BASED ON THOSE CRIMES CITED IN THEIR LETTER.
FIRST, AS ADDRESSED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND, AND AS TESTIFIED TO BY DETECTIVE MICHAELS, THE FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE FAVORABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS 4 9 1 0 EASTSIDE AVENUE.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS AS SHOWN BY THE CITY'S PRESENTATION AND THEIR, THEIR, THEIR DATA PULLED FROM THE, THE DA AS WELL AS TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE MICHAEL.
NOW, WE AGREE MR. ROCKY YAMA ONLY OWNS THE PROPERTY AT 4 9 1 0 EASTSIDE AVENUE, AND THAT IS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS IT, UH, IT PRESUMED TO BE A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN, AND WHAT YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT FROM ME, IS THAT EVIDENCE CITED IN SUPPORT BY THE CITY IS NOT FOR 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE, ANY CRIMES REPORTED AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN HCP PRESUMPTION BECAUSE IT MUST BE SITE SPECIFIC AS STATED IN THE CODE AS THE PROPERTY MUST BE THE SITE TURNING TO THE CITY'S EVIDENCE.
AND IF I MAY SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE EVIDENCE PACKET, UH, GIVE US A SECOND.
CAN YOU SEE MY, MY SCREEN? YES.
SO YOU, WE CAN SEE THAT WE'RE HERE ON PAGE 27.
MS. SANCHEZ, IF THERE IS A WAY TO MAXIMIZE THIS ON OUR SCREEN BY GETTING RID OF OUR VIDEOS, IT SLOWS TIME THERE IF I'M ASKING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A WAY.
UM, AND WE'LL GET YOU, WE'LL GET YOUR TIME BACK AFTER NO PROBLEM.
JUST LEMME KNOW ONCE YOU'RE ABLE TO, TO SEE THE PICTURE.
CLEARLY THERE IS THAT, CAN YOU GUYS SEE THIS BETTER? OKAY.
[00:55:05]
OKAY, WE'RE HERE.I KNOW SOMETIMES THE TECH, UH, ALL RIGHT, BUT THIS IS, UH, SUBMITTED AS CITY'S EXHIBIT ONE.
AND IF WE'RE ON PAGE 27, LOOKING AT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT THE CITY CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE HCP PRESUMPTION, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THEY REFERRED SIX CRIMES IN THE ONE YEAR PERIOD, AND THEN SIX CRIMES AS THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN THE PAST TWO TO THREE YEARS.
BUT FURTHER, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT SIX CRIMES WITHIN 365 DAYS OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY, OR THAT THEY WERE ALL FOR AVAILABLE, UH, UH, CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
TURNING FIRST TO SOME, SOME OF THESE CRIMES HERE ARE NOT EVEN SUPPORTED BY THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY.
IN FACT, THE CITY HAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THEIR EVIDENCE TWO ADDITIONAL CRIMES THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH 31ST AND APRIL 29TH, 2025.
UH, THAT IS NOT, HOWEVER, THOSE AREN'T EVEN INVESTIGATION REPORTS.
THEY'RE ALSO NOT LISTED HERE ON THIS LETTER.
AND SO THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED OF THESE LISTED OFFENSES.
SOME OF THEM ARE INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S EVIDENTIARY PACKET, WHICH THEY HAVE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT, SPECIFICALLY, NUMBER ONE, THE MAY 2ND, NUMBER TWO, THE MAY 7TH, NUMBER THREE, THE MAY 23RD, NUMBER FOUR, THE SEPTEMBER 2ND, NUMBER FIVE, THE SEPTEMBER 8TH, AND NUMBER SIX, THE NOVEMBER 7TH.
HOWEVER, OF THESE SIX, TWO OF 'EM, OR SORRY, THREE OF THEM ARE, ARE IMPROPER.
AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE REASONS WHY.
FIRST, TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE MAY 23RD, 2025, UH, OFFENSE, WHICH IS LISTED TO BE ON PAGE 66.
WE HAVE HERE THE INSTANT REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, AS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT.
NOW, AS THE BOARD, UH, ASKED AND WAS RESPONDED TO BY DETECTIVE MICHAELS UNDER THE INCIDENT ADDRESS, WE HAVE 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE, BUT DETECTIVE MICHAELS ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 4,900 IS AN ENTIRE BLOCK.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ON THE 4,900 BLOCK OF EAST SIDE AVENUE.
AND IF A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION IS TO BE IMPOSED OR PRESUMED ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY ADDRESS MUST BE THE SITE OF THOSE REPORTS OF THAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE IS NOT THE PROPERTY THAT MY CLIENTS OWN AND MANAGE MY CLIENTS OWN AND MANAGE 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
IT COULD, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A CRIME OR AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED ANYWHERE IN THE 4,900 BLOCK OR ADJACENT TO IT THAT IS INSUFFICIENT FOR HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION.
AND IN FACT, WHEN THE POLICE REPORTS HAVE, UH, UH, DOCUMENTED 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE, THEY HAVE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE ADDRESS AS 49 10 EAST SIDE, AS WELL AS INCLUDING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHICH SPECIFIC UNIT WAS RESPONDED TO.
HOWEVER, THAT IS ABSENT FROM THIS REPORT.
AND SO IT IS NOT CLEAR, AND IT CANNOT BE SAID WITH CERTAINTY THAT THIS WAS IN FACT A RESPONSE AT 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
SO THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM BEING THE WRONG PROPERTY ADDRESS.
I'M SORRY, YOU'RE ON PAGE 6, 6, 6 6.
NOW, NEXT I WANT TO TURN TO PAGE 90.
IF YOU CAN STILL SEE, OR IF YOU, IF YOU'RE WITH ME HERE ON PAGE 90, WE HAVE AN INCIDENT REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A REPORT THAT IDENTIFIES CORRECTLY 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
YOU'LL SEE THAT CRITICAL DISTINCTION IN THAT THIS DOES SHOW THAT THIS WAS AT THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE CODE ALSO PROVIDES THAT A, THAT THE PRESUMPTION MUST ONLY BE BASED ON DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
AND THE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AS EXPLAINED BY THE CITY AND GENERAL COUNSEL, ARE LISTED IN THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDY CODE CHAPTER 1 25, CHAPTER 21, 25 SEC, SORRY.
SECTION 1 25 0.05 LISTS OFF A NUMBER OF CRIMES INCLUDING ROBBERY, INCLUDING AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND DRUG POSSESSION.
BUT ONE CRIME THAT IS NOT LISTED IS BURGLARY.
AND AS YOU'LL SEE UNDER THIS OFFENSE, THIS WAS A BURGLARY OFFENSE.
BURGLARY IS NOT AN AB CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND THEREFORE THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN HCP PRESUMPTION.
THE NEXT, LIKE TO TURN TO PAGE 135 HERE ON, UH, UH, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025,
[01:00:03]
IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A STREET ADDRESS, 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE.THIS, AGAIN, IS NOT THE PROPERTY THAT EAST SIDE LOCATED AT.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN TO ANY OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD AFFECT 49 AVENUE.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS, UH, UH, PERMIT BY, UH, LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WE'LL SEE IN THE NEXT SECTION, WOULD SPECIFY OTHER ADDRESSES THAT WERE NOT 49 10 TO.
AND THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WERE, IN FACT, OTHER ADDRESSES IN THE 4,900 BLOCK THAT POLICE WERE RESPONDING TO DURING THIS TIMEFRAME.
AND THAT IS, AGAIN, WHY IT IS CRITICAL THAT IT MUST BE 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
THAT IS WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES.
IT REQUIRES THAT THE PROPERTY BE THE SITE, NOT THAT THE PROPERTY BE NEAR THE SITE OF THE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
NOW, HAVING REVIEWED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS FROM THE SIX THAT WERE LISTED ON PAGE 27 OF THE HCP PRESUMPTION LETTER, THESE WERE THE SIX OFFENSES THAT WERE USED TO SUPPORT THAT DESIGNATION.
THE CITY HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THREE OF THESE, AND THEREFORE THEY FALL SHORT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING FIVE OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED WITHIN THE 365 DAY PERIOD.
MAY 23RD, 2025, AS WELL AS NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025 WERE AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.
AND SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025 WAS FOR AN ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT DEFINED AS AN DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AND FOR THIS REASON ALONE, WE ASK THAT THE BOARD REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE POLICE CHIEF.
NOW, MOVING ON TO THE SECOND PRONG OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THE SIX CRIMES LISTED IN THE HCP DESIGNATION LETTER, PRESUMPTION LETTER AS AS EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WITHIN THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS ON THIS LIST, AND AS SUPPORTED, AS SHOWN IN EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT IN EXHIBIT ONE IS THE SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2023 INCIDENT, THE MAY 17TH, THE MAY 30TH, SEPTEMBER 12TH, AND THE SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2024 DRUG OFFENSES.
HOWEVER, THE CITY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE, UH, ALLEGED NOVEMBER, OR SORRY, DECEMBER 13TH OFFENSE.
THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION OF THAT.
AND SO IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING FIVE.
THREE OF THESE WERE AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE MAY 17TH OFFENSE, WHICH BEGINS ON PAGE 74.
ONCE AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE HERE THAT THE INCIDENT ADDRESS IS IDENTIFIED AS 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
MOVING TO PAGE 80, THE SAME THING, 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE ON THAT BLOCK.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS, AND THIS IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
NEXT, GOING TO PAGE 1 22, THIS WAS ACTUALLY REPORTED AS 49 22 EAST SIDE AVENUE, AS WELL AS 4,900 EAST SIDE AVENUE WITH, REGARDLESS OF WHICH ADDRESS IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS, NEITHER OF THESE IS 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE.
WHAT THIS GOES TO SHOW IS THAT THIS WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE HCP DESIGNATION LETTER WITH THESE 12 REFERENCED CRIMES AS SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE AND CITY TO MY CLIENTS IN FEBRUARY OF 2026.
AND THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HCP PRESUMPTION.
THERE IS NOT, AS WE HAVE JUST GONE THROUGH AND DISCUSSED, THERE ARE THREE PRIME AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ALLEGED THAT WERE NOT ACTUALLY AT THE PROPERTY OR OF AN ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THAT PERIOD.
THREE WITHIN 365 DAYS FALLS SHORT OF THE FIVE, UH, ACTIVITY REQUIREMENT.
AND SIMILARLY, WHEN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL CRIME DATA EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE, THE, THE CITY AS WELL AS NOTED IN THE LETTER, THIS DATA FALLS SHORT BECAUSE ONE OF THESE IS NOT EVEN SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, AND THREE OF 'EM ARE FOR DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, BRINGING THE TOTAL DOWN TO JUST TWO OFFENSES WITHIN THE PAST TWO TO THREE YEARS.
AND WE WOULD CONTEND THAT HAVING AN AVERAGE OF ONE OFFENSE PER YEAR IS NOT SUFFICIENT AS HISTORICALLY.
UH, CRIMINAL HABITUAL PROPERTY EVIDENCE IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT WE ASK THE BOARD THAT, THAT THE DECISION BE OVERTURNED, THE CODE MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR.
THERE MUST BE FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE 49 10 EAST SIDE.
AND FURTHERMORE, THE SITE MUST HAVE BEEN THE, THE LOCATION OF HISTORICAL CRIME DATA.
THE CITY HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT THIS PRESUMPTION THERE EVIDENCE.
AND WE ASK FOR THIS REASON OR EITHER REASON THAT THE BOARD OVERTURN THE DECISION IN FIRST.
[01:05:01]
THANK YOU.UM, MS. FISHER, DID I, SORRY, WOULD YOU LIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, I GUESS HE DIDN'T TESTIFY.
HE DIDN'T TESTIFY, SO THAT'S FAIR.
UM, MR. CUFF, YOU'RE FINISHED? YES, THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
THEN WE WILL MOVE TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
I ASSUME, UH, WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY AS WELL.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, MS. SHIN? NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, CILLA, MR. CUFF, GOOD MORNING.
UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO REGARD YOUR INCIDENTS THAT YOU POINTED OUT.
SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE TELL ME THE PAGE NUMBERS SINCE YOU SPECIFICALLY HAVE THEM FOR THE INCIDENTS.
YOU SAID THERE WAS, UM, I GOT MAY 17TH, WAS PAGE 74.
WHAT WAS MAY 30TH? YOU'RE REFERRING TO? MAY 30TH, 2024 IS, UM, LOCATED ON PAGE 80 IS WHERE IT BEGINS.
AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE SEPTEMBER 12TH YOU SENT? UH, SEPTEMBER 21ST WAS ONE THAT I CONTESTED.
THAT ONE WAS, AND THEN WHAT ABOUT, I THOUGHT YOU HAD ANOTHER SEPTEMBER 29TH, WAS THAT CORRECT? UM, NOT SEPTEMBER 29TH.
AND THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTATION FOR DECEMBER 13TH, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHAT WERE THE OTHER TWO THAT YOU WERE POINTING OUT TO US? SURE.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LIST TOO TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
YEAH, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE CITIES AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE POWERPOINT AND ALL THAT, BUT I WANNA HEAR FROM YOU.
SO AS SEEN IN, UH, IN, IN EXHIBIT ONE, WE HAVE, UH, MAY 23RD, 2025 OFFENSE.
THAT IS ON PAGE 66 IS WHERE IT BEGINS.
THERE'S A SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025 THAT BEGINS ON PAGE 90.
THERE'S ALSO NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025 THAT BEGINS ON PAGE 135.
AND THEN I ALSO REFERRED TO PAGES 1 73 AND 1 74.
JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THOSE TWO WERE DOCUMENTS ARE FIRST NOT POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORTS, AND SECOND, THAT THEY ARE ALSO NOT CONTAINED IN THE HCP DESIGNATION LETTER GOING TO THE HISTORICAL CRIMES.
WE HAVE PAGES 74 RIGHT BEFORE YOU DO THAT, MR. CUFF, CAN I ASK YOU, THE THREE THAT YOU'RE CONTESTING ARE NOT, UM, WITHIN THE 49 10 PROPERTY, WHICH DATES FOR THOSE AGAIN? SORRY.
UH, FOR THE 365 DAY PERIOD, THAT IS MAY 23RD, 2025.
NOVEMBER 7TH, 2000, 2025, THOSE WERE AT 4,900.
AND THEN FOR THE HISTORICAL PROPERTY SIDE, MAY 17TH, MAY 30TH, AND SEPTEMBER 21ST, WERE ALL FOR ADDRESSES THAT WERE EITHER 4,900 OR 49 22 EAST SIDE.
SO THE MAY 23RD AND THE NOVEMBER 7TH ARE THE ONES THAT YOU ARE DISPUTING ARE NOT, SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE 365 DAY MARGIN.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE ONLY THOSE TWO, UH, THOSE TWO FOR THE REASON OF THE ADDRESS, I ALSO CHALLENGED SEPTEMBER 2ND BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AS DEFINED.
AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER, DO YOU KNOW, AND YOURSELF, HAVE YOU VISITED THE LOCATION AND DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER APARTMENT WITHIN A HUNDRED YARDS OF THAT PLACE? I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT FOR SURE.
AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT IT.
UM, MI DR. JACKSON, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
MR. SACKER, CAN I ASK A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIR? OKAY.
AM I ALLOWED TO GIVE MY MINUTES, UH, TO, UH, GIA TO LET HIM FINISH? NO MORE? WE CAN'T DO THAT.
UM, MR. CUFF, WILL YOU WALK ME THROUGH, UM, WHICH OF WHICH OF THE, UM, UH, THE PREDICATES, UH, DO YOU ARGUE WASN'T EVEN AN OFFENSE? IS THAT THE BURGLARY ON NINE? YES.
[01:10:01]
RIGHT DATE.THE, THE, THE BURGLARY WAS ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, ON PAGE 90.
SO IT LOOKS TO ME ON, ON THAT ONE THAT THERE IS ALSO A PARAPHERNALIA TAG ALONG.
DO YOU, DO YOU SEE THAT MAY TELL ME WHY THAT DOESN'T COUNT.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THE PRIMARY OFFENSE THAT WAS CITED, UM, AS THE REASON FOR THE OFFENSE, THE ACTIVITY.
BUT HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THE EX INCLUSION OF THAT, UH, THERE'S STILL ONLY FOUR OF THE FIVE REQUIRED OFFENSES WITHIN THAT 365 DAY PERIOD.
LET'S, LET'S GO TO, UM, TO, WELL, FOR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE A 4,900, IS THAT AN ADDRESS OR IS IT A BLOCK? TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND AS SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY FROM THE CITY, IT'S JUST A BLOCK.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE THERE.
UM, UH, THIS, I THINK IT'S THE LAST ONE ON 7 0 11 7, UM, SUSPECTS LEFT, THE OFFICER FOUND THE SUSPECT IN THE SOUTH ALLEY OF 4,900 BLOCK OF EAST SIDE.
UM, I'M ULTIMATELY GONNA BE ASKED TO BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE, UM, THE USES OF 4,900 ARE MISTAKEN, ESSENTIALLY TYPOS.
UM, ARE THERE IN, ARE THERE A LOT OF 49 HUNDREDS IN, IN ALL OF THESE, UM, REPORTS, UH, IS IT THE, MAKE THAT YES, THE NARRATIVES OF THESE REPORTS ALSO REFLECT 4,900.
IS IT ONLY ONE OFFICER DOING THAT, OR MORE THAN ONE OFFICER? I BELIEVE IT'S MULTIPLE OFFICERS, BUT I HAVE, UH, WE'D HAVE TO REVIEW FURTHER.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT THE TWO OF SIX, THAT, THAT, THAT YOU ARE, UM, THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING ARE THE I'LL COME BACK.
FOR ONE MINUTE, SHALL WE, UM, MS. SHIM, MR. CUFF, UM, 49, YOU ARE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE 4,900 BLOCK, IS THAT CORRECT? THE, THE APARTMENT, NOT YOU? YES.
UH, MR. CUFF, HOW MANY BUILDINGS ARE IN THE 4,900 BLOCK? I BELIEVE THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 10 OR SO BUILDINGS.
APPROXIMATELY 10? YES, I BELIEVE SO.
I, UH, YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE EXHIBIT WHERE THEY'VE, WHERE THE CITY SUBMITTED THE DA, UH, A REPORT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S 10 OR SO BUILDINGS.
SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY IF YOU HAD SO MANY OF THESE REPORTS ALL WITH THE SAME, UH, BLOCK NUMBER, AND AS MUCH AS IT'S NOT 49 10, WOULD YOU SAY THESE WERE OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE OFFICERS WRITING THESE REPORTS? NO.
I WOULD, UH, SAY NO BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.
OTHERWISE, WE CANNOT SAY WHICH OF THOSE PROPERTY WAS.
THANK, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING.
BUT AGAIN, I'M GONNA REITERATE, SO YOU HAVE OFFICERS GOING OUT TO THIS PROPERTY AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY'VE USED 4,900.
IF WE BROUGHT IN ALL THOSE OFFICERS AND THEY COULD CLARIFY IT, WOULDN'T THAT MAKE IT RIGHT? PERHAPS, BUT THEY'RE NOT HERE UNFORTUNATELY.
MR. K, UM, DID YOU RAISE THESE ISSUES DURING THE COURT MEETING OR DID YOU ATTEND THE ACCORD MEETING? FIRST OFF, I WAS AT THE ACCORD MEETING.
HOWEVER, WE DID NOT RAISE THESE ISSUES.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO US OF ANY OF THESE REPORTS.
UM, WAS IT NOT, AND I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP RIGHT NOW.
WAS IT NOT ACTUALLY LISTED IN REGARD TO WHAT THE ADDRESS WAS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT INCIDENTS IN THE NOTICE OF ACCORD OR NOTICE OF VIOLATION? UM, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
[01:15:01]
ARE YOU ASKING IF, SO THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A LETTER SENT BY THE CITY? UM, YES.ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY JUST LISTED THE INCIDENTS, NOT THE ADDRESSES? THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
ARE YOU, THAT'S ON PAGE 27 OF THE DOCUMENT.
YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF.
UM, SO YOU DID HEAR THE DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY, WAS THAT CORRECT? I DID, YES.
AND YOU HAD A CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM, DID YOU NOT? I HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY, YES.
AND YOU DECLINED TO DO THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU COULD HAVE CLARIFIED WHETHER 4,900 OR 49 10 WERE TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS OR MERELY JUST AN OVERSIGHT OF SCRIBNER'S ERROR.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT.
YOU COULD HAVE ASKED HIM THAT.
MR. MAY I FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION? YES, PLEASE.
UH, BUT, UH, OTHERWISE, TIME IS UP.
HOWEVER, THAT WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE DETECTIVE MICHAELS HAD ALREADY, UH, TESTIFIED AND IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER QUESTION, CONFIRMED THAT THIS PER WAS MOST LIKELY JUST AN OFFICER'S, UH, CHOICE NOT TO LIST IT OR COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN.
I JUST, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION MAYBE TO CLARIFY MY OWN SELF FOR CONFIRMATION.
I SEE THAT YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LOCATION OF TWO OF THEM THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THERE, BUT COULD YOU ALSO CONSIDER AS, UH, 49 10, UH, APARTMENT 1 0 6? IT HAS SEVERAL OFFENSES.
I SEE TWO THAT WOULD BE IN THE 365, UM, RANGE.
SO THOSE TWO INCIDENTS, COULD THEY BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME FIVE WITHIN THE 365? YES.
IF, IF WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME ONES, I BELIEVE THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS 49 10 EAST SIDE AVENUE, AND WERE WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, SO YES.
WITH, UH, TWO OTHER DIFFERENT OFFENSES, DIFFERENT DATES, YES.
J I'M NOT SURE, BUT I DO KNOW THE CODE ADDRESSES WHETHER, AND, AND WE'LL STOP YOUR TIME.
UH, I ASK MS. CARLA, HOW, HOW DOES CODE HANDLE, UM, STACKING OFFENSES FOR THE SAME CALL? ALL THE CODE PROVIDES IS IT'S FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL PRO CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 365 DAYS, RESULTING IN EITHER REPORT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOCUMENTING AN INVESTIGATION, UM, OF AN DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ACTIVITY.
UH, DR. JACKSON, YOUR TIME WAS, UH, STILL OUT.
YOU PROBABLY GOT 20 SECONDS FINISH.
UM, MR. JEFFERSON, NO COURT, NO QUESTIONS.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CUP, JUST TO, TO CLARIFY, YOUR CLIENT HAS NOT BEEN TO THE PROPERTY SINCE THEY RECEIVED THE LETTER OF, UM, THE, THE ALLEGED CRIME GOING ON AT THE, AT THE ADDRESS, CORRECT? UH, THE OWNER, NO.
BUT THE PROPERTY MANAGERS, YES.
UM, COUNSEL, REAL QUICK, I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH FIVE OFFENSES THAT I FOUND IN THE, UH, CITY'S EVIDENCE THAT DO HAVE 49 10 LISTED, AND THAT, UM, DID OCCUR WITHIN THE NOVEMBER TO NOVEMBER RANGE ON PAGE 58, UH, FIVE TWO AS THE DATE OF THE OFFENSE.
PAGE 61, PAGE 90, PAGE 100 AND PAGE 1 61.
UM, THESE FIVE CONSTITUTE, UM, AAT CRIMES 1 9 2 SEPTEMBER NINE TWO.
ON PAGE 90, YOU HAD SAID THE PRIMARY OFFENSE IS BURGLARY, BUT THE SECONDARY IS POSSESSION OF PARAPHERNALIA.
AS PER THE ORDINANCE THAT OUR, UM, UH, COUNSEL JUST READ OFF, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SECOND ONE WOULD COUNT.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, CAN YOU TELL ME WHY THOSE FIVE ON PAGE FIFTY EIGHT, SIXTY ONE, NINETY ONE HUNDRED AND ONE SIXTY ONE SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED? UH, IF THE SECONDARY OFFENSE COUNTS, AND THEY ALL SHOULD BE COUNTED, HOWEVER, WE WOULD THEN RELY ON OUR ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT THE, SORRY, UH, WE, WE GOT BEEPED OUT.
UH, DO YOU MIND STARTING YOUR ANSWER OVER? I'M, OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I WOULD SAY IF, IF THE SECONDARY OFFENSE, UH, IS SUFFICIENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE FIVE.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD THEN TURN TO OUR ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS THAT
[01:20:01]
THE HISTORICAL PRIME DATE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN ACP PRESUMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 27 48, A TWO.UH, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HEARING.
YOU WOULD, WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING IT? I'M NOT SURE THAT'LL SURE DO MUCH GOOD, BUT WE'LL TRY IT.
YEAH, SOMETIMES THE TECH, YOU KNOW, UM, I WOULD, UH, MY ANSWER IS THAT IF THE SECONDARY OFFENSE IS SUFFICIENT, THEN WE DO CONCEDE THAT THAT IS FIVE WITHIN THAT DATE PERIOD BECAUSE OF THOSE FIVE, FOUR OF THEM DO HAVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS, AND THEN THE SECONDARY OFFENSE THAT COUNTS WOULD MEET THE FIVE.
BUT IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, WE WOULD STILL, UH, RELY ON THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT, WHICH IS THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SECOND PRONG OF THE HCP PRESUMPTION, WHICH IS THE HISTORICAL CRIME DATA, UH, MR. CUFF, UM, UH, QUICKLY, WHEN, WHEN YOU GO NEVER HAVING BEEN, WHEN, WHEN YOU GO TO AN ACCORD MEETING, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU GET? DO YOU GET ANYTHING MORE THAN THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO YOU? NO, IT WAS JUST THE LETTER.
SO YOU DON'T GET THESE REPORTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, ON YOUR FIVE ABATES, IT LOOKS TO ME, I GUESS WE ANSWERED THE, THE SECONDARY.
UM, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE CHALLENGED THE, UM, INCIDENT ON 5 23 AND ALSO ON 11 SEVEN.
IS THAT TRUE? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT 11 SEVEN.
THE, UM, THE, THE OFFICER'S, UH, WELL, GO AHEAD.
HELP ME, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY, UH, GIVEN THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY THAT THAT ISN'T ON SITE.
CERTAINLY, AND I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT OUT OF RESPECT TO THE TIME.
THE ONLY MENTION OF 49 10 IS THAT THE OFFICER OBSERVED THE, THE, THE INDIVIDUAL SITTING THERE WITH OTHERS, HOWEVER, SITTING ON 49 10 IS NOT AN DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL HE HAD MOVED AWAY, WHICH THEN WAS IDENTIFIED AS 4,900, WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR THE CODE.
AT THIS POINT, WE WILL, UM, MOVE TO MS. FISHER FOR, FOR, UH, CLOSING OUR THANK YOU.
AND TO JUST TO JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE INQUIRIES OR POINTS RAISED BY OPPOSING.
IF YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION OF THE, THE OFFICERS ARE DESCRIBING THE STOCK AT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
THERE'S TRESPASSING SIGNS, HIGH CRIME, AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
HIGH CRIME AND A HISTORY OF CRIME, WHICH FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF 49 10.
UM, MR. UFF ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE 12 13 20 24 INCIDENT REPORT WAS NOT INCLUDED EXACTLY AT PAGE ONE 60 WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AT ITS COURT.
THIS CASE COMES DOWN TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDITION OF THEIR PROPERTY.
THE EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED NINE CRIMINAL OFFENSES WITHIN A YEAR, A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND NO MEANINGFUL SECURITY MEASURES IN PLACE, EVEN AFTER BEING PLACED ON NOTICE INSTEAD OF IMPROVEMENTS, WE SAW ESCALATION CULMINATION, CULMINATING IN AN ARMED ROBBERY AT THE PROPERTY.
THE ORDINANCE EXISTS FOR EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
IT PROVIDES A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS PROPERTIES WHERE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS PERSISTENT AND WHERE INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY.
THE THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION HAS BEEN MET.
DID FIVE OR MORE MORE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCUR AT THE PROPERTY IN 365 DAYS? YES.
NINE CRIMES OCCURRED FROM NOVEMBER, 2024 TO NOVEMBER, 2025, INCLUDING CRIMES DURING THE UNDERCOVER OPERATION.
IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIME? THE CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY HOW MANY CRIMES NEED TO BE CITED TO SUPPORT THE HISTORY.
THE PROPERTY HAS A HISTORY OF 15 AVAILABLE CRIMES WITHIN A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
DID THE OWNERS KNOWINGLY TOLERATE AND ABATE THE AVAILABLE CRIME BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THAT CRIME? PRIOR TO CITY INTERVENTION, WHICH WAS ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2026? YES, THE OWNERS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES PRIOR TO THE NOTICE LETTER SENT ON FEBRUARY, 2026.
YOU SEE THAT THE TOWING CONTRACT AND ADDITIONAL
[01:25:01]
LIGHTING WAS NOT OBTAINED UNTIL AFTER THE ACCORD MEETING, WHICH WAS IN FEBRUARY ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026.THE FACT SUPPORT, THE DESIGNATION HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED AFFIRMING.
THE DESIGNATION DOES NOT END THE PROCESS.
IT ENSURES THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKES THE STEPS NEEDED TO REDUCE PINE AND CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEIR RESIDENTS TO REVERSE ITS DESIGNATION.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD UNDERMINE THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND LEAVE RESIDENTS WITHOUT THE PROTECTION IT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THE BOARD AFFIRM THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION.
THANK YOU, MS. FISHER, MR. CO.
NOW, WHAT YOU'VE HEARD TODAY HAS INCLUDED TESTIMONY AND, AND THE THEME OF THE CITY'S ARGUMENT BEING CULMINATIONS OF FUTURE ACTIVITY, BUT THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW.
AND FURTHERMORE, MY CLIENT, AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE, HAS TAKEN STEPS TO IMPROVING SAFETY IN THE AREA.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE HAVE TAKEN STEPS TOWARDS RECTIFYING THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE ISSUE TODAY IS WHETHER THE HCP PRESUMPTION WAS PROPER.
AN HCP PRESUMPTION AND FINAL DESIGNATION IS A VERY SERIOUS DESIGNATION WITH DIRE CONSEQUENCES.
IT INCLUDES FINES UP TO THAT CAN EXCEED $140,000 ANNUALLY, AND IT ALLOWS AN EASY AVENUE FOR THE CITY TO PURSUE AN EMINENT DOMAIN OR OTHER LAWSUIT TO, TO SUE THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND POTENTIALLY EXERCISE CONTROL AND SEIZE THAT PROPERTY.
THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE ATTACHMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS THAT COURTS HAVE DESCRIBED IT AS A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
AND WHEN SUCH STAKES ARE ON THE LINE, THE CODE MUST BE ADHERED TO.
THIS CODE REQUIRES THAT THE SPECIFIC SITE BE THE LOCATION OF THOSE FIVE OR MORE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AND THAT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
THE PRESUMPTION LETTER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESUMPTION TO BE VALID.
AND WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE SOME TECHNICALITIES, THEY ARE CRITICAL TECHNICALITIES THAT COME WITH CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND ACCORDINGLY, IF THE CITY IS TO IMPOSE SUCH A SEVERE DESIGNATION, IT MUST BE FOLLOWED PROPERLY.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE CITY CANNOT IN THE FUTURE EVER COME BACK AND TRY AGAIN, BUT IF THEY ARE TO DO SO, THEY MUST DO SO PROPERLY, WHICH THEY DID NOT DO IN THIS TIME.
IT CANNOT BE THAT THE CITY AND THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED TO BECOME LAX IN THEIR REPORTING AND EVIDENTIARY PRODUCTIONS TO ALLOW GENERALIZATIONS OF SOMEWHERE ON A 4,900 BLOCK, WHEREAS SHOWN IN THE EVIDENCE THERE ARE NUMEROUS BUILDINGS WITHIN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER TO SAY THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY AND, AND A SINGLE PROPERTY, A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, AND ISOLATE THEM AS THE ONLY SOURCE AND THE DEFINITE REASON FOR LOCATION OF THE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A HIGHER STANDARD THAT THE CITY MUST BE HELD TO BEFORE IMPOSING SUCH STRICT REQUIREMENTS.
TO THAT END, MY CLIENTS DO RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES AND HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS RECTIFYING THEM.
THAT IS WHY WE DID NOT ARGUE AS WELL AND ADHERE THE CODE AS TO CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES THAT OCCURRED AFTERWARD.
THE FOCUS ON THIS IS WHETHER THE CRIMES IN THE HCP DESIGNATION LETTER WERE SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, AND THEY WERE NOT.
EVEN IF THERE WERE FIVE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL OFFENSES AT 49 10 WITHIN THE 365 DAY PERIOD, THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HISTORICAL ACTIVITY BASED ON THE ONLY TWO THAT, UH, UH, IN THE PAST TWO TO THREE YEARS THAT WERE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE AT 49 10, IT FOR THESE REASONS THAT WE ASK THE BOARD TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE POLICE CHIEF AND LIFT THE AC HCP PRESUMPTION UNLESS PROPER EVIDENCE.
UM, I, THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS YOU, I I HAVE ONLY BEEN CHAIR SINCE MID-OCTOBER.
THIS IS, I BELIEVE, THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE EVER HAD A CASE WHERE NEITHER SIDE ASKED FOR A RESET EXACTLY 10 DAYS PRIOR OR AT THE MINIMUM.
SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR USE OF OUR TIME, BOTH OF YOU, AND THAT THAT'S, UM, THAT SAID, THE, UH, HEARING IS CLOSED AND I SEEK A MOTION.
YOU CAN LOOK TO MS. CARLISLE'S DRAFT MOTION, UH, IF YOU WANT, OR MR. SAXON.
I MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
UH, I MOVE THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD AND APPEAL THE VISUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION FOR EASTSIDE APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 4 9 1 0 EASTSIDE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF POLICE IN ACCORDANCE OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY DO SHOW THAT THE PRESUMPTIONS IN SECTIONS, UH, SECTION 27 48 ARE SATISFIED.
[01:30:01]
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.SO THE MAKER IS MR. SAXY, SECONDED BY MR. QUINT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, THANK BOTH SIDES AGAIN.
UH, FOLLOWING, UH, CHAIR'S RESPONSE THERE.
UM, FOR USE OF OUR TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, CALL OUT TWO THINGS.
UM, THE FIRST PRESUMPTION OF FIVE OFFENSES IN ONE YEAR.
UM, WHILE THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL IS CORRECT THAT THERE ARE MANY, UH, INCIDENCES THAT ARE REPORTED THAT DO NOT, IN MY OPINION, COUNT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS.
UM, I AM POOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE OFFICERS WHO WRITE THESE REPORTS TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO THESE KIND OF EVENTS.
UM, HOWEVER, BY SAYING THAT I DID POINT OUT FIVE OFFENSES IN THAT YEAR WITH THE CORRECT ADDRESS, WITH DEBATABLE CRIMES ATTACHED TO THEM.
SO, PRESUMPTION ONE, IN MY OPINION IS, UM, SUFFICIENT, UH, SUFFICIENTLY MET PRESUMPTION TWO, THEN GOES ON TO KINDA STATE HISTORICAL, AND WE HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY MENTION THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHAT HISTORICAL MEANS.
HOWEVER, I'VE GONE AND LOOKED THROUGH THE INCIDENT REPORTS THAT CITY PROVIDED, AND I SAW TWO THAT DID HAVE THE RIGHT ADDRESS.
ONE IN SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2023, UM, RIGHT ADDRESS AVAILABLE CRIME.
AND ANOTHER, UH, ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024, THAT IS PAGE 1 0 9.
A SAME THING, RIGHT? ADDRESS, UM, AVAILABLE CRIME.
SO I, I THEN SAY THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR PRESUMPTION TWO AS WELL THAT THE CITY HAS PROVIDED.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, I, I IMPLORE THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT OFFICERS WHO ARE CREATING THESE REPORTS, UH, LIST THE ADDRESS, UM, THAT THE, UH, INCIDENT OCCURRED ON AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, AND I ALSO JUST WANNA REITERATE, THANK YOU AGAIN, UM, APPELLANT'S COUNSEL, YOU WERE VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
IT WAS MY MISTAKE WHEN YOU WERE, UH, TALKING, I, I JUST COULDN'T HEAR.
UM, WE HAVE LOUD BEEPS, SO, UM, THANK YOU.
MR. QUINT, YOU WERE THE SECOND? YES.
I, I AM, UH, I, I SIDE WITH THE CITY, UH, THE, THE, THERE'S NO ARGUMENT ON, ON THE, THE, THE FINAL PART.
UM, I SIDE WITH THE CITY ON, UH, THE GENERAL AREA.
I, I, I BELIEVE THAT THAT STANDARD, THE SECOND PART OF THIS, DOES NOT REQUIRE AAT OFFENSES, I BELIEVE, BUT I, I WANNA CHECK.
I I BELIEVE IT'S SIMPLY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, BUT THAT SECOND PRONG SAYS AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
UM, SO I COULD BE PERSUADED ON THE FIRST ONE.
UM, SO LET'S JUST GO THROUGH 'EM.
UM, LET, AND I COUNT, I'M, I COUNT ONLY WHAT WAS NOTICED.
UH, SO I COUNT, UH, 5 2 25 0 6 1 7 0 9.
I DON'T, UH, I'VE GOT NOTES NOW.
UM, UM, I COUNT MAY 7TH, 2020 5, 0 6, 0 4 9 OH.
UM, I COUNT THE, UM, UH, THE, UH, BURGLARY THAT I ASKED ABOUT.
THAT'S, UH, UH, 1 2 6 3 0 5 BECAUSE I ACCEPT THE, THE, UH, ANCILLARY, UH, I, I ALSO COUNT 9 8 25 1 2 9 7 1 2.
SO WHAT I DON'T COUNT IS 5 23 25 0 7 3 1 7 5, UH, IT'S A 4,900 AND IT, IT'S ALSO A HOMELESS PERSON.
SO THAT LEAVES ME WITH, UM, 11 7 20 25 1 6 0 2 5 8, AND UH, UH, THE OFFICER,
[01:35:02]
THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE OFFICER SAYS, YEAH, I SAW SOME PEOPLE IN A BREEZEWAY AT 40, AT AT 49 10.BUT TO, TO COUNSEL'S POINT, THERE'S NOTHING DEBATABLE ABOUT THE BREEZEWAY.
ONCE THEY LEFT, THE OFFICER STATES THAT, UH, THAT HE FOUND THE SUSPECT IN QUOTE, THE SOUTH ALLEY OF 4,900 BLOCK OF EAST SIDE AND DETAINED THEM THERE.
SO THE WENT WHERE'S THE AVAILABLE FENCE? THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT IT TURNS ON FOR ME.
NO, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT ONE.
UH, OH, WELL THEN, WHICH IS, I'M SORRY.
LET ME GET JUST, IS THAT PART OF THE NOTICED? I'M SORRY, WHAT TYPE 1 61 60.
I'M DOING MY, MY COMPUTER, UH, THINKING.
I'M, I YOU SAID PAGE 1 6 1, WHAT'S ONE? YOU MEAN THE NUMBERED 1 6 1? YEAH.
SO NOW I'M LOOKING AT IT AND IT SAYS, UH, IT SAYS 1213 OF 24.
UM, IS THAT WITHIN OUR, OUR 365, UH, ARSON CODE? NO, NO, SORRY, I'M, UM, 49 10 EAST SIDE OR APPEARS TO BE AVAILABLE AND I DON'T SEE REALLY ANY COMMENTARY, UM, RIGHT.
AM I MISSING NOTHING? SO, ALRIGHT, IF THAT IS IN THE NOTICE, THEN I GO BACK UP, THEN I, THEN I'LL BE CONVINCED.
UM, I'M SORRY GUYS, I JUST WANNA GET THIS RIGHT.
UH, IF IT'S NOT LISTED ON PAGE 27, BUT IT IS LISTED BELOW, DOES IT MATTER? YES.
HOW SO? UM, BECAUSE THE ONLY, UM, THINGS THAT, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS THE ABILITY TO REPLY TO IS WHAT WAS NOTICED TO OTHERWISE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A REHEARING.
SO THAT'S WHY I START WITH, THERE'S SIX CASES.
AND I'VE GOT FIND FIVE OUT OF IT.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I'M AT IF, 'CAUSE YOU AND I BOTH AGREED THAT TWO OF THOSE CASES DON'T COUNT.
TWO OF THE SIX, I BELIEVE TWO TWO
AND WHAT THEY DID NOT PROVIDE IN THE DATE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR THE 365 WAS WHAT'S 365? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? UH, FOR THE FIRST PART ON PAGE 27, IT SAYS, UM, THE PROPERTY'S BEEN CIRCULATED FOLLOWING THE BILLABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER.
UHHUH
UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DIDN'T LIST THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2024 ITEM THERE WITHIN 365 DAYS.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT IT IS LISTED BELOW WHERE IT SAYS HISTORICAL IN THE PAST TWO TO THREE YEARS.
SO ALL OF MY FIVE ARE LISTED IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS.
SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES WHETHER AFTER NOTICE THE CITY CAN MOVE SOMETHING FROM THE HISTORIC BUCKET INTO THE 365 BUCKET.
AND THAT'S PURELY A FUNCTION OF NOTICE.
UH, I WOULD, UH, UH, IN A MINUTE I'LL ASK MS. CARLA, BUT MS. SHIN, I WANTED TO COMMENT THAT IT IS IN THE NOTICE LISTED ON FEBRUARY 5TH.
SO JUST BECAUSE IT WAS AN EDITING ERROR, THE APPELLANT STILL HAD NOTICE THAT IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH, UM, BECAUSE
[01:40:01]
THE PHRASE, THE TIMEFRAME THAT THEY GIVE IS NOT 365.SO IF YOU TAKE THE LAST DATE OF NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025 AND GO BACK 365 DAYS TO NOVEMBER 8TH, 2025, THEN WE WILL CAPTURE THAT FALL 13, WHICH IS IN THIS LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 5TH.
SO THEY, THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.
OKAY, SO I AGREE WITH THE, WITH THE FACTS AND THE, THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT, I MEAN WE HAVE NOTICE FOR A REASON.
UH, DO I THINK IT'S A MISTAKE? SO, OKAY, I'M CONVINCED.
CAN I HAVE ONE MORE JUST TO SURE.
JUST, JUST TO REPEAT, GO FOR DETECTIVE, WHAT YOU DO AND YOUR TEAM DO ARE, IS AMAZING GREAT WORK, BUT I, THIS IS JUST ME, UH, IF I SEE THE WRONG ADDRESS, I'M NOT, I'M NOT GONNA COUNT THAT IF THERE'S NO COMMENTARY LISTED ON WHY, UNLESS TO THE CHAIR'S POINT, IT WAS OBSERVED AT 49 10 AND THEN WE ARRESTED AT 4,900.
BUT AS I SEE THESE IN SAYING 4,900, THAT'S A GOOD CASE, UH, FOR THE APPELLANT TO BRING UP.
SO I, I AGREE WITH THEM ON THAT.
BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE FIVE AVAILABLE OFFENSES IN THE PAST 365 I THINK LISTED HERE, IT HELPS.
UM, SO I'D SAY ABSENT MS. SHIN'S ARGUMENT, I, I DON'T THINK WE, WE COULD VOTE FOR THIS, BUT, UM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S FIVE, I BELIEVE ALL KINDS OF THINGS ARE HAPPENING.
IT'S JUST WE GOTTA THE CODE IT.
I MEAN, THIS HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT.
UH, MS. HIN CONVINCED ME THAT I SHOULD COUNT THAT CASE IN THE FIVE, OTHERWISE THE REST OF IT DOES NOT MATTER.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR? WE CALL THE VOTE.
MS. SHIN, PLEASE SAY I, UH, THE, THE VOTE IS TO AFFIRM IF YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO, IF YOU'D LIKE TO VOTE TO AFFIRM, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
IF YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY NAY.
MS. AYALA NAY, MR. SACKER? AYE.
AND MR. AGNIS? AYE THE MOTION PASSES WITH MR. JEFFERSON AND MS. SMITH OPPOSED? UH, SO THAT IS, UM, JUST SEVEN TO TWO.
OPPOSED IS MS. AYALA AND MS. SMITH AND MR. JEFFERSON, LET'S GET THE MS. MS. SMITH WERE, WERE YOU? NO, I I AFFIRMED YOU CUT OUT.
SO IT IS SEVEN TWO WITH JEFFERSON AND AYALA IN OPPOSITION.
UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR BEING HERE.
UH, AND, AND I, I, AGAIN FOR, FOR COMING HERE QUICKLY WITHOUT, WITHOUT DELAY AND, AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU, WITHOUT DOING IT FOR THE LAST MINUTE, BUT IT REALLY MATTERS.
UM, HOUSEKEEPING, WE, AS I MENTIONED, WE WILL NOT MEET IN TWO WEEKS.
UM, YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR A, UH, WELL, WE, THE JUNE, UH, MEETING IS WHAT DAY? JUNE 4TH.
AND, UH, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY EXPECT AS WE LOOK AT OR CASELOAD THAT WE'LL MEET ON JULY 9TH.
AND, UH, IT IS 10 30 ON APRIL, I MEAN ON, ON MAY 7TH, 2026.
PERMANENT LICENSE FIELD BOARD IS ADJOURNED.