[00:00:42] >> GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2019. >> MAYOR, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL A SESSION AGENDA. THE TIME IS 9:17 A.M. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR [1. Invocation] PATIENCE. WE'LL BEGIN TODAY BY RECOGNIZING COUNCIL MEMBER VIAGRAN TO WELCOME OUR INVOCATOR. >> VIAGRAN: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. IT IS MY HONOR TO INVITE PASTOR EDDIE MEDEL IS THE PASTOR OF MIRACLE CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO. HE HAS AN EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE OF 30 YEARS IN MINISTRY, ASSISTING HIS FATHER, SENIOR PASTOR, RUBEN MEDEL, AND NOW THREE YEARS AS PASTOR. AND HELPING BUILD AND ENCOURAGE THE BETTERMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. PASTOR EDDIE MINISTERS WITH MOTIVATION AND ENTHUSIASM EVERY SUNDAY TO OVER 900 CHURCH MEMBERS. HE IS THE CHIEF LEADER OF 12 DEPARTMENTS IN OVER 150 CHURCH STAFF. HE IS THE LEADER OF THE MEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT WHERE MEN ARE REDIRECTED TO A BETTER ROLE MODEL FOR THEIR FAMILIES. HE IS PRESENTLY WORKING ON HIS GOAL TO FINISH THE MIRACLE CENTER GYM PROJECT SO THAT THE YOUTH OF THE COMMUNITY CAN HAVE A PLACE TO GO, RATHER THAN BE ON THE STREETS. MIRACLE CENTER CHURCH HAS BEEN A BIG INVESTOR IN OUR PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY WITH NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT I'VE BEEN PROUD TO PARTNER WITH THEM. AND, LASTLY, PASTOR EDDIE'S VISION IS TO BE A BLESSING TO THE FAMILIES OF OUR COMMUNITY AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THE POSITIVE VIEW OF GOD THROUGH LOVE, COMPASSION, ACCEPTANCE, AND EMPATHY SO THAT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO HAVE A QUALITY AND FRUITFUL WAY OF LIFE THROUGH JESUS. PASTOR EDDIE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE. IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE. BELIEVE ME, AT FIRST WHEN I WALKED IN I SAW PASTOR HAGEE AND I THOUGHT, WOW, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE CHURCH. BUT I'M HONORED TO BE HERE. AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER VIAGRAN FOR THE INVITATION AND FOR ALL THE GREAT WORK SHE'S DOING. I HAVE BEEN A LIFELONG SOUTH SIDER AND I HAVE SEEN ALL THE WORK HER AND HER STAFF ARE DOING OUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND I JUST REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING AND ALL YOUR EFFORTS. I KNOW, AND I CAN TELL THIS THIS IS GOING TO BE A MEETING THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT A LARGE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WE CAN ALL SAY AND THE COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH ALL OF US HERE IS WE ALL WANT THE BEST FOR THE CITY THAT WE LOVE. I CAN HONESTLY SAY AND I CAN SEE THAT EVERYONE IS HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT ALL OF US ARE HERE TO DO. IN SAYING THAT, I WANT TO START WITH A PRAYER, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THERE IS WISDOM IN THE COUNCIL OF MANY. AND IN THE BOOK OF RUTH CHAPTER 4:14 SAYS THIS: SOMETIMES WE THINK WE'RE HERE BY CHANCE OR HERE BY COINCIDENCE, BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL HERE BY DESIGN. I'M GOING TO PRAY THAT GOD GIVE US GUIDANCE AND WISDOM TO MAKE THE DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS MORNING. AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR ANSWERING THE CALL OF A PUBLIC SERVANT. FATHER GOD, WE PRAISE YOU AND WE GLORIFY YOU THIS MORNING. WE ASK YOU THAT YOU GIVE US GRACE AND WISDOM. THAT YOU COME INTO OUR MIDST THIS MORNING AND ALLOW US TO MAKE KEY DECISIONS, FATHER GOD, FOR THE BETTERMENT AND NOT BE GUIDED BY SELFISH MOTIVATION BUT BY BETTERMENT OF WHAT YOUR WORD [00:05:01] SAYS. AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITIES OF SAN ANTONIO. WE ESPECIALLY ASK FOR THE COMMUNITY IN DISTRICT 2 AND DENVER HEIGHTS, FATHER GOD, AND ALL THE VIOLENCE THAT IS TRANSPIRING THERE. THAT YOU INTERVENE AND YOU MOVE ON THEIR BEHALF, FATHER GOD. AND YOU DO SOMETHING, FATHER, TO QUELL THE VIOLENCE IN THOSE AREAS. WE ASK YOU THAT ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THEIR CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD OF THEM THAT YOU HELP THEM TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT WILL BE A BETTERMENT FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THE PEOPLE OF THEIR COMMUNITIES. AND I ASK YOU RIGHT NOW FOR OUR MAYOR, THAT YOU CONTINUE TO GIVE HIM THE GUIDANCE AND THE COUNSEL THAT HE SO NEEDS TO LEAD THIS GREAT CITY INTO THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE US GO. AND EACH AND EVERY COUNCIL PERSON THAT IS HERE TO AID HIM AND HIS STAFF FOR WHATEVER IT IS THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. IN YOUR SON JESUS' NAME WE PRAY AND WE THANK YOU, AMEN. [2. Pledge of Allegiance] THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, PASTOR EDDIE. WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TRANSLATION SERVICES. [3. Approval of Minutes of the City Council Regular Meetings of March 20 - 21, 2019.] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. ITEM NO. 3 IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 20 THROUGH 21. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. I UNDERSTAND, ANDY, THAT YOU HAD A STATEMENT. BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME FOLKS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON MINUTES. COULD YOU GO AHEAD? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. YES, I SAW THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. THE MINUTES ARE A PROCEDURAL ITEM IN WHICH THE BODY, THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES WHETHER THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE MEETING OF MARCH 20, 21. SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DO THAT. THEREFORE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MINUTES IS NOT PERMITTED. SO WITH ALL DUE APOLOGIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP, THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, ANDY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 20 AND 21. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. [Additional Item 1] OKAY. FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS TODAY, I DO WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT. I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME VOTES TODAY. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THESE VOTES, I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL BUSINESSES -- NO BUSINESS, EXCUSE ME, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS VOTE, NO BUSINESS, ANY OF THOSE OPERATING WITHIN THE LAW SHALL BE BARRED FROM OPERATING IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I'VE CALLED FOR AN OPEN B SESSION SO THAT CITIZENS AND THE CITY COUNCIL CAN FURTHER DISCUSS CONTRACTING ISSUES TO ENSURE OUR PROCESSES OPERATE UNDER THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE TO MAKE HIS MOTION. BUT BEFORE DOING SO, ANDY, WOULD YOU LAY OUT THE GROUND RULES SINCE WE'RE OPERATING ROBERT'S RULES PROCEDURES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE MOTION THAT'S GOING TO BE MADE BY COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE, AS HE GAVE NOTICE OF UNDER ROBERT'S RULES LAST MEETING, WILL ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. AND THIS MOTION IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE. THE MOTION IS NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S POSTED AGENDA. AS SUCH ALL DISCUSSIONS ON THE COUNCIL MUST BE LIMITED TO THE PROCEDURAL REQUEST ONLY. SO THE ITEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL, SHOULD THE ISSUE BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING. BECAUSE TODAY'S MOTION IS STRICTLY PROCEDURAL AND NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA, THERE IS ALSO NO PUBLIC COMMENT OR DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM DURING THE MEETING. COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS THE UNDERLYING MERITS OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT DURING ITS DELIBERATION -- I'M SORRY. CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DISCUSS THE UNDERLYING MERITS OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT DURING ITS DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION. THIS IS WHAT THE STANDARD SHOULD BE. NO PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF INDEED THE ITEM IS PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. SO THAT SHOULD BE YOUR GUIDE [00:10:02] POST IN TERMS OF YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, AS NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM YOUR COMMENTS ON CONSIDERING COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE'S MOTION ON HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF THE ITEM IS INDEED PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM, AND I'LL TRY TO CLARIFY. IF THE STAFF -- CITY STAFF IS ASKED A FACTUAL QUESTION. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT? OBVIOUSLY, STAFF CAN ANSWER FACTUAL QUESTIONS. IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES, IF THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE ITEM IS PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK, THEN THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THE MERITS OF THE ITEM JUST AS THEY WOULD ON ANY OTHER POSTED AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. I RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE TO MAKE HIS MOTION. >> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. ANDY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE THEN CAN ANY MEMBER IN THIS HALL TODAY MAKE A COMMENT AT ALL ABOUT THIS WHATSOEVER? >> NO ONE IN THE -- NO ONE OTHER THAN COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> BROCKHOUSE: IS THAT WAIVERBLE BY THE MAYOR? >> NO. >> BROCKHOUSE: IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE LEADERS WHO SHOWED UP IN THIS HALL TODAY CANNOT MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS, SO I'LL DO MY BEST TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM. AND IT'S CLEAR I CAN MAKE MY COMMENTARY AND THEN MAKE A MOTION? >> CORRECT, COUNCILMAN, AS YOU WOULD ANY OTHER MOTION. >> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR FOR RECOGNIZING ME. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS IN THE CHAMBER TODAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENDANCE. TO MY COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON WHY I AM MAKING THIS MOTION TODAY. I'M REMINDED OF A GOLF MOVIE THAT I ABSOLUTELY LOVE, AND THERE'S A LINE IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE THESE DEFINING MOMENTS IN YOUR LIFE. AND EITHER YOU DEFINE THE MOMENT OR THE MOMENT DEFINES YOU. I CONSIDER THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR US TODAY TO BE A DEFINING MOMENT FOR THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. IT WILL SPEAK TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO CONVEY TO USE THE MAYOR'S WORDS AS HE OPENED THE DEBATE, TO USE THE MAYOR'S WORDS THAT EVERYBODY, NOBODY WILL BE TURNED AWAY. I BELIEVE THAT THIS VOTE AND THIS OPPORTUNITY GIVES US THE CHANCE TO PUT SOME MEANING BEHIND THOSE WORDS. AND THAT MEANING IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT AN ITEM THAT WE PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON. THE KEY POINTS OF THE MATTER ARE PRETTY SIMPLE. THE ITEM WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH LITTLE -- EXCUSE ME, ZERO PUBLIC INPUT. I BELIEVE THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REVOTE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO MOTION ON TO BRING BACK THIS ITEM WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PUBLIC CONVERSATION AND DEBATE AND TO BRING IN EVERY PARTY IN THIS OPERATION. SO TODAY'S VOTE IS A VOTE FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FULL PUBLIC DEBATE, PUBLIC COMMENTARY. FOLLOWING THE VOTE THERE'S BEEN A MASSIVE NATIONAL PUBLIC OUTCRY AND A OUTCRY ACROSS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT WE MADE A TERRIBLE DECISION IN EXCLUDING PEOPLE OF FAITH OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. SO THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN OUT LOUD. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS BODY FOLLOWING THE VOTE HAD RECANTED THEIR VOTE, SAID THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. IT WAS A 6-4-1 RESULT. ONE MEMBER RECANTED, WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT FIVE AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED. SO THERE HAS BEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTARY THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE HERE. WE NEED TO FIX IT AND THEY WOULD VOTE OTHERWISE IF THEY HAD THE E AS A COMMUNITY LOSE OUR CREDIBILITY ACROSS THE NATION. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO RESTORE THAT WITH TRUE PUBLIC DEBATE AND COMMENTARY. PEOPLE NEED TO BE HEARD. AND THE BIGGEST QUESTION OF ALL OF THIS THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER FOR OURSELVES WITH MY MOTION IS WHO'S NEXT? THOSE TWO WORDS HAVE TO RING TRUE AS YOU PLACE THIS VOTE. BECAUSE THAT'S THE UNCERTAINTY WE'RE SPEAKING TO. WHO'S NEXT? IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO A CAUSE TO SUPPORT ISRAEL, ARE YOU GOING TO BE TARGETED IN THE FUTURE? IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION IN THIS CITY, ARE YOU GOING TO BE RESEARCHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO YOUR VOTE FOR YOUR DONATION AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT? >> EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMAN. I THINK YOU'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO THE MERITS. >> BROCKHOUSE: THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO REVOTE IT. I'LL MOVE THROUGH IT. THOSE ITEMS ARE WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING. SO TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO THIS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU VOTE, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD REVISIT AND VOTE IT CLEANLY. AND HAVE A CONVERSATION AND ALLOW PEOPLETO BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE MY DISAGREE ON THINGS BUT IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATION AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT DOWN OUR THOUGHTS IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S SAD THAT THE FAITH COMMUNITY CANNOT SPEAK TODAY. [00:15:02] SO WHAT I WILL DO WHEN I READ MY MOTION IS I'LL ASK YOU TO STAND AS I READ IT. ANYBODY WHO IS IN HERE TODAY TO STAND IN SUPPORT, I'M GOING TO READ THIS MOTION TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO BRING THIS BACK. I WANT TO BRING IT BACK BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT'S RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE WITH ME WHILE I READ THIS MOTION. I WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE WHO IS HERE, BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS OF SAN ANTONIO, ON BEHALF OF THEM AND OUR REPUTATION ACROSS THE NATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE GIVEN I MOVE TO PLACE ON THE MAY 2, 2019 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AN ITEM FOR THE DELIBERATION AND ACTION TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENT THAT REMOVED CHICK-FIL-A FROM OPERATING AT THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ADOPTED ON MARCH 21 , 2019. >> SECOND. >> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY. I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY STANDING HERE. WE ARE HONORED TO HAVE YOU IN THIS HALL. THIS IS AS MUCH YOUR CHAMBER AS IT IS EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. ANDY, CAN YOU STATE THE RULES AGAIN? BECAUSE I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN BEFORE WE VOTE. >> DO YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER THEM IN TOTAL AGAIN, MAYOR? I CAN DO THAT. THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLACE AN ITEM ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. IT IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE. THE MOTION IS NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S POSTED AGENDA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL SUCH DISCUSSIONS FROM THE DAIS MUST BE LIMITED TO THE PROCEDURAL REQUEST ONLY. AND THAT REQUEST IS THAT THE ISSUE BE PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. BECAUSE THE MOTION IS PROCEDURAL AND NOT ON THEAGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT OR DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM. CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DISCUSS THE UNDERLYING MERITS OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT DURING ITS DELIBERATION ON THE COUNCILMAN'S MOTION. AGAIN, THE STANDARD SHOULD BE THIS. NO PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF INDEED THE ITEM IS PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA FROM YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. AGAIN, THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD YOU SHOULD FOLLOW. NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL FROM YOUR COMMENTS TODAY HOW YOU WOULD VOTE ON THE ITEM IF INDEED IT IS PLACED ON THE AGENDA. IF THE STAFF IS ASKED A FACTUAL QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY FACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT. IF THE ITEM IS PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA -- IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE MOTION CARRIES, IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA AND THERE WILL BE FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE ITEM AS IT WOULD FOR ANY OTHER ITEM THAT'S PLACED ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, ANDY. OKAY. AND SO THE COMMENT QUESTION WILL BE PERTAINED ONLY TO THE DATE OF AGENDAIZING POTENTIALLY FOR VOTE NEXT WEEK. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES. >> GONZALES: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TODAY AS WE DELIBERATE THIS ISSUE. I FOR ONE DON'T APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES PUTTING ME OR THE CITY IN A POSITION LIKE THIS. THIS ITEM WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN A B SESSION OR ANY OTHER SESSION, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROCESS. THERE WAS A VERY STRICT BLACKOUT PERIOD IN WHICH WE HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT THIS ITEM EXCEPT FOR A FEW DAYS BEFORE. AND I ESPECIALLY DON'T APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES MAKING AMENDMENTS ON THE DAIS WITHOUT GIVING US ANY INFORMATION. I FOR ONE FELT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO PROCEED ON THIS CONTRACT. IT HAD BEEN TWO YEARS PENDING. AS THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP, I HAVE TRIED TO EDUCATE MYSELF ON THE ISSUE OF A CHICK-FIL-A. I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER EATEN AT A CHICK-FIL-A. THERE ARE NO CHICK-FIL-AS IN MY DISTRICT. GIVEN THE IMPORTANT WORK OF MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE APPROPRIATE HOUSING, THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING KILLED ON OUR STREETS, THAT WE ARE PROVIDING ADEQUATE FOOD AND RESOURCES FOR OUR COMMUNITY, THAT HAS BEEN MY PRIORITY. CHICK-FIL-A STILL, WHETHER IT'S THIS FAST FOOD CHAIN OR ANY OTHER, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME. MY ONLY PRIORITY WAS FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAD PUT THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS CONTRACT. AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS A VERY CLEAR DECISION AND WE SHOULD PROCEED. I FIND IT VERY TROUBLING AND VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE THIS TO MANY OF US WHO HAVE NO PARTICULAR INTEREST IN WHATEVER CHAIN RESTAURANT STAYS. I FIND IT VERY OFFENSIVE THAT WE PUT THE CITY IN THIS POSITION [00:20:02] AND THAT THE MAYOR HASN'T TAKEN CONTROL OF THIS SITUATION EARLY ON. I FOR ONE AM OFFENDED AND TIRED OF IT AND BELIEVE WE NEED TO GET ON TO THE IMPORTANT WORK OF THIS CITY. AND I'M BEYOND OFFENDED THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION. NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO COME TO THIS COUNCIL SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS WHENEVER THEY CHOOSE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A CITIZENS TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY NIGHTS. AND ANYBODY IS WELCOME TO DO THAT. NEXT WEDNESDAY OR ANY WEDNESDAY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN AGENDAIZED ITEM. ANYBODY CAN COME AND SPEAK WHENEVER THEY CHOOSE. AND SO WE WELCOME YOU TO DO THAT ON A WEDNESDAY SHOULD YOU SO DESIRE. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE JUST GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANT WORK OF THIS COUNCIL AND OF THE CITIZENS WHO EXPECT US TO PERFORM EVERY DAY ON THEIR BEHALF. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALES. COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. >> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, ANDY. ANDY, I HAVE AN EXCLUSIVELY PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR YOU. >> I HOPE I CAN ANSWER IT, COUNCILMAN. >> PELAEZ: ME TOO, ANDY. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF YOU CAN'T. I INVITED TWO PEOPLE TODAY TO HELP WALK THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION FROM THE PUBLIC'S POINT OF VIEW AND MY PLAN WAS THAT BEFORE THE VOTE AND WHILE WE WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION, IS TO INVITE THEM UP TO THE PODIUM THE WAY WE DO WITH OTHER ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN -- I CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TODAY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TODAY, COUNCILMAN. >> PELAEZ: AND IF I TRY TO DO THAT -- >> THE REASONS ARE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA AND WHILE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN APPRECIATE THE NUANCE HERE IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION ON THE PROCEDURE, THE PROCEDURAL REQUEST TO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I DON'T SEE HOW A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK TO THE ISSUE WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE BODY, THEREFORE THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE IS NOT GERMANE. >> PELAEZ: MR. BROCKHOUSE SUGGESTED THAT THE MAYOR CAN WAIVE THE LAW. IS THAT TRUE? >> NO. >> PELAEZ: THANK YOU. I WILL SAY THAT PROCEDURALLY I'M STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS ON MAY 2. WHY MAY 2 HAS BECOME A SUICIDE PACKET FOR MR. BROCKHOUSE? I UNDERSTAND AND I TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WANTS THIS DONE FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE REASONS, BUT IT SMACKS OF POLITICS. AND ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM WOULD BE NAIVE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAYORAL POLITICS AND THE CONVENIENCE OF IT BEING TWO DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION. I THINK I WOULD BE DISHONEST IF WE DIDN'T SAY THE TRUTH TO EACH OTHER. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. COUNCILMAN PERRY. >> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR. ON THE PROCEDURES, THE DATE, MAY 2, IS THAT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IT BE REHEARD AGAIN? IS THAT THE DATE? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. >> COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE, I THINK THAT WAS THE DATE, RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE THE MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU? >> BROCKHOUSE: YES. NOW, MY CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, ANDY, JUST TO BE CLEAR WITH COUNCILMAN PELAEZ'S QUESTIONS, NUMBER ONE, I DIDN'T MAKE ANY INFERENCE THAT THE MAYOR DID ANYTHING. NUMBER TWO, THE MAY 2 DATE FROM YOUR TWO-STEP -- >> THREE-STEP PROCESS. >> BROCKHOUSE: AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT WAS THE DATE THAT YOU PROVIDED? >> CORRECT. USUALLY THE PROCESS IS THE THREE-STEP PROCESS IS YOU GIVE NOTICE AT ONE MEETING, YOU MAKE THE MOTION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING. AND THEN IF THE MOTION CARRIES IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING. >> BROCKHOUSE: I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT COMPLETELY PUTS DOWN COUNCILMAN PELAEZ'S ARGUMENT. THANK YOU. >> PERRY: AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURES GO, THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE QUICKLY IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. COULD I CALL STAFF TO THE PODIUM? CARLOS. AS FAR AS THAT PARTICULAR SPACE IN THE AIRPORT. >> SO, COUNCILMAN, FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL TO [00:25:02] PROCEED, STAFF EXECUTED THE CONTRACT, AS WE NORMALLY WOULD. THE CONTRACT HAS LISTED ALL OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED. AND IN THE SPOT WHERE CHICK-FIL-A WAS, THERE'S A TBD LISTED THERE. SO REITERATE, THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXECUTED, IT'S MOVING FORWARD AGGRESSIVELY TO LOCATE ANOTHER CONCEPT FOR THAT LOCATION AND THEY ARE IN SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS TODAY TO FIND ANOTHER CONCEPT FOR THAT LOCATION. IT IS IN THE SECOND PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION, SO THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH DESIGN ON FIRST PHASE AND BEGINNING THAT WORK IMMEDIATELY, SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND THEY'RE DOING THAT NOW. BUT PARADIES IS MOVING FORWARD WITH TALKING TO OTHERS IN SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FINDING A CONCEPT FOR THEM. >> PERRY: SO IT COULD BE ANY DAY THAT THEY DO A DEAL AND GET SOMEBODY ELSE IN THERE. >> CORRECT. >> PERRY: SO IF A DECISION IS GOING TO BE MADE TO CHANGE THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE PRETTY QUICKLY, RIGHT? >> WELL, AGAIN, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY MOVE FORWARD, WE MOVE FORWARD TO FILL THAT SPOT. >> PERRY: RIGHT. BUT THEY HAVEN'T FILLED IT YET. >> THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THEY ARE IN SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF CONCEPTS. >> PERRY: ALL RIGHT. SO A DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ERIK HAD INFORMATION ON YOUR QUESTION. >> WALSH: I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE OTHER PIECE, COUNCILMAN, IF COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE'S MOTION PASSES TODAY, THEN WE WOULD STOP WORK AND WE WOULD ADVISE PARADIES TO STOP WORK ON THAT TO BE DETERMINED PORTION, PENDING FUTURE COUNCIL POSSIBLE CHANGE. >> PERRY: PROCEDURALLY I SECONDED THIS MOTION BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ANGST HERE IN THE CITY. AND I CAN APPRECIATE COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES' COMMENTS ABOUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVERY, EVERY MEETING THAT I HAVE BEEN AT, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN AUDIO] TO BE REVISITED. AND I AM AGREEING WITH THIS PROCEDURE TO PUT THIS BACK ON FOR TOPIC. WE JUST HEARD THEY'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS OR THEY'RE APPROACHING OTHER COMPANIES, SO THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY TO EITHER MAKE THIS DEAL WITH WHOMEVER IT IS, OR MAKE A CHANGE, WHICH CAN STILL BE DONE. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HALT ANY CONSTRUCTION. IT'S NOT GOING TO HALT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT ONE SPOT IN THE AIRPORT. SO PROCEDURALLY I THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY BECAUSE IT HAS CREATED SOME HUGE ISSUES HERE. IN MY DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF Y'ALL'S DISTRICTS, BUT THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE TOPIC, BAR ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW. SO I'M LISTENING TO MY DISTRICT AND I AM SUPPORTING THIS TO BRING THIS BACK UP AND OPEN THIS BACK UP FOR THE FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN COMING TO ME SAYING PLEASE REVISIT THIS AND REVERSE THAT DECISION. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE ON THIS COUNCIL, TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTINUALLY PUSHING TO REVISIT THIS AREA. SO, WITH THAT, THANK YOU, SIR. I'M DONE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY. COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL. >> SANDOVAL: MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME. ALSO, LIKE COUNCILMAN PELAEZ SAID, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT 7 HERE WHO WERE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION. I KNOW WE LET YOU KNOW SORT OF AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE, BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I DO APPRECIATE YOU -- WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE -- YOU ARE ALWAYS WELCOME HERE IN OUR CHAMBERS AND I'M VERY GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK FOR DISCUSSIONS THAT DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE AIRPORT CONCESSION CONTRACT AS WELL, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SIDEWALKS AND HOUSING AND OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL. I WANT TO -- I DO WANT TO MAKE A REMARK ON WHETHER OR NOT WE TAKE A REVOTE. THERE ARE MANY SAN ANTONIANS, SOME OF YOU ARE HERE TODAY, THAT [00:30:01] ARE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS WE DEVIATED FROM A PROCESS WHEN WE TOOK THAT VOTE A FEW WEEKS AGO. AND THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T LOOK AT ALL OF THE BUSINESSES AS CLOSELY. MAYBE SOME WERE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY THAN OTHERS. AND MANY ARE ALSO CONCERNED -- AND I SAY THIS WITHOUT ANY MALICE TO OUR LGBTQ COMMUNITY, THAT A CERTAIN VENDOR WAS IDENTIFIED WITH HATE. AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE DESERVED MORE CONSIDERATION THAN WE GAVE IT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE FROM LOOKING AT ONE DECISION TO ACTUALLY HOW WE DO OUR WHOLE CONTRACTING. AND THE DAY OF THE VOTE I DID MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A BLACKOUT PERIOD, HOW LONG THAT BLACKOUT PERIOD GOES. ALSO, HOW BIG ARE THE CONTRACTS. HOW CLOSELY DO WE SCRUTINIZE THEM. ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT ROBUST AND HEALTHY DISCUSSION IGNORES THE BIGGER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE AT STAKE HERE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE APPLICANTS FOR HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS, WHATEVER FAITH THEY MAY REPRESENT OR WHATEVER POLITICS THEY MAY REPRESENT, ALL GO THROUGH THE BEST PROCESS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY DESIGN. THEREFORE, I SUPPORT BRINGING THE ITEM BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT A B SESSION. AT THIS POINT I DO FEEL THAT RETAKING A VOTE WITHOUT THAT DISCUSSION IS PREMATURE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL. COUNCILMAN HALL. >> HALL: THANK YOU, MAYOR. FIRST LET ME ASK ANDY A QUESTION. SO FROM OUR VOTE PREVIOUSLY, IS THERE ANY LEGAL BASIS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED AS A COUNCIL FOR THE ACTION THAT WE TOOK? >> CURRENTLY, NO. AND THE REASON I SAY "CURRENTLY" IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, COUNCILMAN, THERE IS NO COMMITMENT YET FOR ANYONE TO FILL THAT SPOT. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO. I DON'T SEE ANY LEGAL REASON FOR THAT. >> HALL: OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY FILL THE SPOT, YOU MEAN FILL THE SPOT, AS IN THE CHICK-FIL-A SPOT? >> CORRECT. >> HALL: SO THE DECISION IN AND OF ITSELF WITH THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT WAS MADE, WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT PRESENTS A LEGAL PROBLEM FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. >> NO. I HOPE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. WE'RE NOT REVISITING THE CONTRACT ITSELF. IT'S BEEN SIGNED AND EXECUTED, SO THAT CONTRACT HAS BEEN SIGNED WITH THE ENTITY THAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER WE PUT THE ITEM CONCERNING WHAT SPOT WILL GO INTO THAT PARTICULAR CONCESSION, NOT THE CONTRACT ITSELF. SO, AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANY LEGAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF YOUR VOTE TODAY. >> HALL: LET ME MAKE A COMMENT AND I MIGHT COME BACK TO IT. NUMBER ONE, I WAS ONE OF THE FOUR THAT VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, I'M ONE OF THESE FOLKS THAT BELIEVES THAT ONCE YOU MAKE A DECISION, YOU STICK WITH IT. AND PARTICULARLY -- AND THAT CAN GO ON BOTH SIDES. BOTH THE POSITIVE SIDE AS WELL AS THE NEGATIVE SIDE. THE ONLY REASON I THINK WE WOULT REVOTING ON AN ITEM IS, NUMBER ONE, IF THERE WAS A LEGAL BASIS FOR REVOTING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE THOUGHT THERE WAS A LEGAL ISSUE, THEN POTENTIALLY IF WE WENT BACK AND REVOTED ON THE ITEM TO CORRECT THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN IDEA FOR ME. SO DOES THAT HELP EXPLAIN THE QUESTION? >> I THINK SO, COUNCILMAN. SO THERE IS NO LEGAL ISSUE THAT YOU NEED TO RESOLVE BY TAKING A FURTHER VOTE. >> HALL: OKAY. AND THE ONLY OTHER BASIS THAT I WOULD SEE REVOTING AS AN OPTION IS IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE MISSED OR A REVOTE MIGHT CHANGE THE OUTCOME. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE CAN'T KIND OF GAUGE WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT BE ON A REVOTE BECAUSE I THINK FOR ME AT LEAST THAT WOULD INFORM MY DECISION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROCESS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT B SESSION, NOW THERE WAS A VOTE ON B SESSION AND THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. I SUPPORTED GOING TO B SESSION BUT THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. I'LL ALSO MENTION -- AND I DO THINK THAT MORE INFORMATION DURING A B SESSION WOULD BE HELPFUL. I WILL TELL YOU WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL PRIOR, WE DID HAVE THESE [00:35:01] LARGER CONTRACTS IN A B SESSION, AND OFTENTIMES BOTH SIDES, COMPANIES, NOT JUST STAFF, WERE ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. AND THAT CHANGED OVER TIME, FOR REASONS. AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE REASONS. AND WHEN WE CHANGE A PROCESS LIKE THAT FOR A REASON, WE'VE GOT TO STAND BY WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE, WHETHER OR NOT WE AS INDIVIDUALS AGREE WITH THAT. I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THE BLACKOUT PERIOD IS A FAIRLY NEW CONCEPT. WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL PRIOR, WE DID NOT HAVE AS LONG OF A BLACKOUT PERIOD AS YOU ALL HAVE NOW. AND YOU ALL ARE A COUNCIL, NOT NECESSARILY INDIVIDUALS HERE, PUT IN PLACE THAT BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR A REASON. AND WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT OR WHETHER ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL LIKES IT OR NOT, THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WAS INSTITUTED FOR VERY PARTICULAR REASONS. WE CAN GO BACK AND REVISIT THOSE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, BOTH ON THE B SESSION SIDE AND THE BLACKOUT PERIOD SIDE. SO I SEE SENATOR CAMPBELL IS HERE, AND WE HAVE ALL MADE DECISIONS ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS. SOMETIMES WE REGRET THE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE BASED ON INPUT THAT WE RECEIVE AFTER. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE MADE A DECISION AS COUNCIL MEMBERS ON INFORMATION THAT WE HAD AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. AND IT'S RARE THAT I SEE PEOPLE GO BACK FOR A REVOTE. AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO STAND BY OUR DECISION. I DISAGREED WITH THE DECISION BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR GOING BACK AND REDOING THE PROCESS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR IT. AND I DON'T SEE A CHANGE IN THE OUTCOME. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HALL. COUNCILMAN COURAGE. >> COURAGE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK THE POINT TO ME IS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, I BELIEVE, WHEN THE DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL. I RECOGNIZED THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE DELAY THIS. AT THAT TIME I THOUGHT THERE WAS A PRETTY FIRM DECISION BY MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL. BUT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE WE DIDN'T HAVE 11 PEOPLE PRESENT. I THINK WE DO NOW. I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE HAD SOME RECONSIDERATION. AND I APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION THAT COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL MADE ABOUT HAVING A B SESSION. AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HAVING MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE CONSIDER POSSIBLY ADDING TO HIS SUGGESTION THAT WE DO INVITE PEOPLE TO COME OUT TO SPEAK AT THE NEXT CITIZENS TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO THAT MEETING ON MAY 2. ALSO ON MAY 1 THAT WE HAVE A B SESSION TO GIVE FULL DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. AND THEN BRING IT UP ON MAY 2 AFTER WE'VE HAD THAT COMMUNITY INPUT AND THAT FULL DISCUSSION LOOKING AT ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT WE MADE. >> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN COURAGE, ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO ADD TO THE MOTION, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR THAT IN THAT AS COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES POINTED OUT, THE CITIZENS ARE FREE TO COME TO SPEAK AT CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AT ANY TIME AND ON ANY ISSUE. THERE'S NO AGENDA FOR THAT. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN COME AND TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO ADD THAT TO THE MOTION. >> COURAGE: CERTAINLY, BUT HAVING A B SESSION BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT MOTION. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. I'M SORRY. I GUESS I DIDN'T -- >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: LET ME CLARIFY THIS. COUNCILMAN COURAGE, THERE WILL BE A CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AS SCHEDULED ON MAY 1ST. THERE WILL BE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THAT WEDNESDAY SESSION. THE TIME FOR COUNCIL DEBATE ON THE ITEM ON ITS MERITS WILL OCCUR WHEN THE VOTE IS AGENDAIZED. THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE IS SUGGESTING. >> COURAGE: I HEARD FROM COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL AND I HEARD IT MENTIONED BY COUNCILMAN HALL THAT HE THOUGHT A B SESSION COULD BE VALUABLE, ALTHOUGH HE'S INDICATING TO MOVE FORWARD. I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT IT AS SUPPORTING THAT WAY OF GOING ABOUT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL OUR BASES COVERED ON THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S JUST MY SUGGESTION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNCILMAN WANTS TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE INCORPORATING A B SESSION, OR NOT. BUT I THINK THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONG THE COUNCIL IN OPEN PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO A FINAL DECISION [00:40:01] THAT WILL BE MADE AT THE MAY 2 MEETING. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU. SO, ANDY, PROCEDURALLY CAN HE AMEND HIS MOTION? COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. >> I THINK THE WAY WE USUALLY HANDLE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS, I THINK HE CAN AMEND HIS MOTION. >> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. IS ANYBODY GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW? WELL, FIRST, LET ME JUST SAY YES I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A B SESSION ON THAT DAY. AND I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE A PRECEDENT OF HAVING GONE TO HIGH-PROFILE CONTRACTS. AND THIS WASN'T GOING TO BE NEW. I THINK WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER DID WE DO A DISSERVICE TO THE CITY? YES. WE HAVE DONE A DISSERVICE TO THE CITY. WE HAVE DONE A DISSERVICE TO ALL OF THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE A PART OF THIS, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO DO A DISSERVICE TO OUR CITIZENS AND OUR COMMUNITY WITH THIS ITEM MOVING FORWARD. AND I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION ON THIS. SO, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO YIELD THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. AND I'LL FINISH UP -- >> BROCKHOUSE: POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN. >> BROCKHOUSE: MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR? POINT OF CLARIFICATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: STATE YOUR CLARIFICATION. >> BROCKHOUSE: ANDY, MAY I AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE A B SESSION ON MAY 1ST? >> YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE A B SESSION BUT PUT IT ON FOR A SESSION. >> BROCKHOUSE: YES. WE HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE. BROUGHT IT BACK THE NEXT DAY FOR A VOTE. THE COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO HAVE A B SESSION PIECE. I HAVE HEARD THREE ALREADY SAY THEY WANTED MORE INFORMATION. I THINK THAT ACTUALLY SATISFIES THIS, RIGHT? IF THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IN THEIR STATEMENTS, THEN LET'S GO TO THE B SESSION. STAFF HAS TIME TO PREPARE A DILIGENT BRIEFING FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY, AND THEN WE BRING IT FOR A VOTE. >> SO, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR MOTION WAS TO PUT THE MOTION ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING A SESSION. ALL YOU'RE DOING IS AMENDING IT TO INCLUDE A B SESSION ON THE DAY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR? >> BROCKHOUSE: RIGHT. SO WE CAN HAVE FULL INFORMATION, AS REQUESTED BY THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THEIR COMMENTARY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STICKING POINT IN THE CONVERSATION I HEARD FROM THE COLLEAGUES. >> IF YOU COULD THEN READ YOUR MOTION AND IF YOU CAN GET A SECOND ON THAT, I THINK WE CAN PROCEED. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WILL THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE TO WITHDRAW HIS ORIGINAL MOTION TO PLACE A SECOND ONE ON THE FLOOR? SO STATE YOUR NEW MOTION, COUNCILMAN, AND THEN YOUR SECOND WILL HAVE TO AFFIRM HIS SECOND. >> BROCKHOUSE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE GIVEN ON THE APRIL 112019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I MOVE TO PLACE ON THE MAY 1 B SESSION AND THE MAY 2 A SESSION CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS ITEMS TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENT THAT REMOVED CHICK-FIL-A FROM OPERATING IN THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TO ORDINANCE 2019-0321-0221 ADOPTED ON MARCH 21, 2019, AND I HEREBY ACCEPT COUNCILMAN COURAGE'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THREE OTHER COLLEAGUES FOR A REQUESTED B SESSION . >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. I'LL FINISH UP AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE. AS I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS VOTE, NO BUSINESS OPERATING WITHIN THE LAW HAS BEEN OR SHALL BE BARRED FROM OPERATING IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I HAVE CALLED FOR AN OPEN B SESSION, SO COUNCIL AND CITIZENS CAN FURTHER DISCUSS ALL CONTRACTING ISSUES TO ENSURE THAT OUR PROCESSES ARE OPERATING UNDER THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THIS VOTE IS TO REAGENDAIZE THE CONCESSION CONTRACT PREVIOUSLY VOTED BY COUNCIL LAST MONTH. SO, WITH THAT, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR REAGENDAIZING THE AIRPORT CONCESSION CONTRACT. >> MAYOR, I WANTED TO CLARIFY. THE ITEM IS NOT TO RECONSIDER THE CONTRACT, IT'S SIMPLY TO RECONSIDER THE AMENDMENT WHICH PROHIBITED CHICK-FIL-A. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. COUNCILMAN HALL. >> HALL: ANDY, ON THAT POINT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT. THE BASE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WHENEVER THE MOTION WAS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MINUS CHICK-FIL-A. THAT WAS THE BASE MOTION AND THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT DURING THAT ENTIRE PROCESS. >> THE ITEM THAT COUNCILMAN WANTS TO RECONSIDER IS NOT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT BUT SIMPLY THAT ADDED PART TO THE CONTRACT WHICH SAID TO NOT INCLUDE CHICK-FIL-A. [00:45:01] SO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WE'RE NOT REOPENING THE CONTRACT. >> HALL: GOT IT. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT TO THAT. AND SO AS LONG AS WE CAN -- I GUESS, REDACT THAT LITTLE PIECE AND DEAL WITH THAT PIECE. >> YES. THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE, COUNCILMAN. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL. >> SANDOVAL: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY MY POSITION BEFORE WE TAKE THIS VOTE. LIKE I STATED, I SUPPORT A ROBUST DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL ALL THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER, ERIK, BUT I'LL SUPPORT THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE TAKING A VOTE ON THIS ITEM, WHETHER OR NOT WE RECONSIDER THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT. BECAUSE, LIKE COUNCILMAN HALL, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE -- OH, NO. YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT. YOU SAID ONCE WE MAKE A DECISION WE STICK TO IT. SORRY. BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION AT B SESSION PRIOR TO DECIDING IF WE WERE TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM. SO THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL COMMENT FROM COUNCIL. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR REAGENDAIZING CONSIDERATION OF THE CONCESSION. PLEASE VOTE. [Consent Agenda] MOTION FAILS. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO OUR REGULARLY-SCHEDULED ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH ITEM NO. 4 -- ACTUALLY, I NEED TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES NOW IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS FROM WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE AGENDA. SO FAR WE HAVE ITEM 4 FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. >> SALDANA: ITEM NO. 10, A, B, AND C. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ITEMS 10A, B, AND C. ANY OTHERS? I HAVE ITEMS 4 AND ITEMS 10A, B, AND C FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, ALL ITEMS SAVE FOR 4 AND 10. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. I DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS REMAINING ON CONSENT. JACK FINGER. >> COUPLE OF ITEMS I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA HERE. ITEM NO. 9, A CONTRACT WITH THE MARTINEZ STREET WOMEN'S CENTER. IT'S A LEASE. AND, YES, IT'S A RELEASE RENEWAL. AND WHAT LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENT AND IT SAID $0 IN RENT. $0. BUT THEY GET A CHANCE TO PAY FOR THE UTILITIES AND THE MAINTENANCE, BUT NO RENT. THIS IS ON CITY PROPERTY. AND BUT I DID NOTICE SOME OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE MARTINEZ STREET WOMEN'S CENTER THAT YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT. SINCE WE'RE ALL ON A MORALITY KICK HERE, WELL, LET'S SEE HOW MUCH Y'ALL WANT TO REALLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT MORALITY. MR. AUDIO-VISUAL MAN, PUT THAT ON THE AUDIO-VISUAL SCREEN. THIS IS FROM THE LOCAL HOMOSEXUAL'S COMMUNITY'S WEBSITE. IT SAYS MARTINEZ STREET CENTER CURRENTLY RUNS PROGRAMS. WHAT ARE THOSE PROGRAMS? THE GIRLS OWN PROGRAM. WHAT THEY OFFER IS AN EVIDENCE-BASED AND LGBT INCLUSIVE SEX ED. YEAH. EVIDENCE-BASED AND LGBT INCLUSIVE SEX ED FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THAT'S ON ITEM 9. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT, BUT SOME OF US DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS AND WE WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR AND MAYBE YOU WANT TO REMOVE NO. 9 FOR A LITTLE DELIBERATION THERE. ALSO ITEM 15, $230,000 COURT SETTLEMENT. THE IDEA IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT I THINK THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITH AN SAPD VEHICLE. AND MY QUESTION IS, YEAH, WE'RE SHELLING OUT $250,000 BECAUSE APPARENTLY WE THINK THAT MAYBE THE POLICEMAN OR SOMEBODY WAS DERELICT. MY QUESTION IS HAS THE DERELICT OFFER BEEN REPRIMANDED? AS IS MY QUESTION TO ANY TIME. [00:50:04] THE PERSON AT FAULT, NAMELY THE CITY EMPLOYEE, DOES THAT PERSON EVER GET REPRIMANDED? ARE THEY GOING TO PAY THE $250,000 THAT WE THE TAXPAYERS ARE SHELLING OUT FOR THIS? HUH? OKAY. BASICALLY A LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT. LET'S SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH ITEMS 9 AND 15. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. FINGER. OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCILMAN HALL. >> HALL: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE SOME OF OUR APPOINTMENTS. JOSE PICON, KATALINA MUNOZ, AND JAMES MCNAMARA. ONE THING I HAVE DONE SINCE I HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE SINCE JANUARY IS TO MAKE SURE WE GO IN AND FILL ANY SPOTS ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I THINK IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT THAT DISTRICTS ARE REPRESENTED. AND SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE. SO I WANT TO THANK THOSE PEOPLE FOR APPLYING AND ASK OTHERS TO CONTINUE TO APPLY. AND THEN ALSO, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT ONE OF THE DISTRICT 2 CANDIDATES IS HERE WITH US TODAY. WE APPRECIATE SELENA BEING WITH US. SHE WAS HERE WITH ME YESTERDAY AND SHE'LL BE HANGING WITH US ALL DAY TODAY. THANK YOU, SELENA. SHE WAS A FORMER CHAIR OF THE MARTINEZ STREET WOMEN'S CENTER. SO THANK YOU AGAIN, SELENA, FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HALL. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. [4. Briefing and possible action on legislation filed in the 86th Regular State Legislative Session, an update on the status of proposed State legislation and its impact on the City of San Antonio. [Carlos Contreras, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Coyle, Director, Government and Public Affairs]] PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NO. 4. >> ITEM NO. 4 IS A BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON LEGISLATION FILED IN THE 86TH REGULAR STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THE UPDATE ON THE STATUS ON PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, GOOD MORNING. JEFF COYLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE SIX WEEKS LEFT IN THE SESSION NOW. THE SIX HARDEST WEEKS. AS ANDY CAN ATTEST, HE WENT UP YESTERDAY AT NOON TO TESTIFY ON A BILL, GOT TO TESTIFY ABOUT 7:00 P.M. AND HE WAS LUCKY, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE WENT UNTIL 6:45 IN THE MORNING. THAT'S ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW MOST OF THE BILLS THIS POINT, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH DETAILED EXPLANATIONS AND MOSTLY GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE THINGS ARE AMONG THE 7500 BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED AND THE MORE THAN 1500 THAT WE ARE TRACKING AS HAVING SOME RELATION TO OUR CITY OPERATIONS. I'LL START RIGHT AWAY WITH THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUES. THE FOUR BILLS THAT WERE BROKEN UP FROM THE ORIGINAL SB15 HAVE ALL PASSED THE SENATE NOW. AGAIN, THOSE ARE BILLS THAT PROHIBIT CITIES FROM REGULATING A PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S BENEFITS, SCHEDULING PRACTICES, THEIR LEAVE POLICIES, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY CONSIDER AN APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL BACKGROUND AS PART OF THE HIRING PROCESS. SO THOSE HAVE ALL PASSED THE SENATE. THEY MOVE ON TO THE HOUSE NOW. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD YET. MEANWHILE, THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM ON THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUE, THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMPANION BILLS FROM REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL AND SENATOR MENENDEZ THAT WOULD CREATE A STATEWIDE SICK LEAVE MANDATE ON EMPLOYERS HAVE NOT MOVED. THE HOUSE BILL WAS HEARD THIS PAST MONDAY IN COMMITTEE AND WAS LEFT PENDING, AND THE SENATE BILL HAS NOT HAD A HEARING YET. ON TO PROPERTY TAX. I'LL GO OUT OF ORDER HERE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S UNFOLDED. THE SENATE SB2 PASSED THE FULL SENATE THIS PAST MONDAY. THE 2.5% PROPERTY TAX CAP WAS RAISED TO 3.5%. AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO IT. SO IT HAS MOVED OUT OF THE SENATE. THE HOUSE, MEANWHILE, HAS DELAYED TWO FLOOR VOTES ON HB2 TO WATCH WHAT THE SENATE DID. SO THEY HAVE RESCHEDULED THEIR DEBATE FOR THIS COMING WEDNESDAY. AND WE EXPECT THAT THE SENATE BILL WILL COME OVER AND ESSENTIALLY BECOME THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DISCUSSION. SO WE BELIEVE THEY WILL BEGIN FROM A STARTING PLACE OF THE 3.5% THAT IS IN THE SENATE BILL. ON THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FRONT, THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE THAT THE COUNTY HAS BROUGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE, AN ADDITIONAL $10 FEE IF VOTERS HERE APPROVE, HAS PASSED HOUSE TRANSPORTATION. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT. AND THE SECOND ITEM IS THE ATD HOUSE BILL 3258. THE ITEM ON THE SLIDE SAYS PENDING, BUT LAST NIGHT IT WAS ACTUALLY PASSED OUT OF HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS. SO BOTH OF THE BILLS THAT WOULD CREATE SOME LOCAL OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL, ARE ON THE MOVE. [00:55:02] AND THEN THE LARGER BILL THAT EXTENDS THE STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING THAT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS STATEWIDE THROUGH PROP 1, THIS EXTENDS THE SUNSET DEADLINE FOR THAT PROP 1 FUNDING, HAS FULLY PASSED THE SENATE NOW AND MOVES OVER TO THE HOUSE. ON SOME CITY ISSUES, SOME PREEMPTION BILLS THAT ARE MOVING, HOUSE BILL 3899 IS THE ONE THAT RELATES TO INTERCITY COMMERCE, BUSINESSES THAT DO COMMERCE IN MULTIPLE CITIES IN TEXAS. CITIES WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM REGULATING THEM IN ANY WAY, UNLESS THERE IS A UNIQUELY LOCAL CONCERN. THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. AS HAS A BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT QUOTE, UNQUOTE, DUAL LICENSING, MEANING CITIES COULD NOT LICENSE CERTAIN PROFESSIONS IF THE STATE DOES. THAT WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND PUT ON THE LOCAL CALENDAR. AND THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, ESSENTIALLY. THERE'S A LOCAL CALENDAR COMMITTEE AND THERE'S A GENERAL CALENDARS COMMITTEE. WHEN SOMETHING IS PUT ON LOCAL IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONTROVERSIAL AND MORE PROCEDURAL. WHEREAS THE GENERAL CALENDARS WILL HOLD BILLS UP THAT THE COMMITTEE DISAGREES WITH. THAT 1209 WAS KICKED OFF OF THE LOCAL CALENDAR YET, MEANING THAT PROTESTS WERE RAISED BY MEMBERS THAT IT WAS NOT AN UNCONTROVERSIAL BILL AND IT NOW MOVES OVER TO THE GENERAL CALENDARS. THERE'S ALSO A BILL ON LOCAL CALENDARS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY ORDINANCES IN THE ETJ UNLESS WE HAVE EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE STATE TO IMPLEMENT THEM. SO THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IN A WHOLE SERIES OF WAYS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH ARE MILITARY PROTECTIONS AND OUR WATER QUALITY ORDINANCES. SPEAKING OF MILITARY PROTECTION, AND I GUESS SENATOR CAMPBELL LEFT, THAT'S SENATE BILL 422 THAT WOULD PROHIBIT FEES AND FINES IN AREAS THAT SAY NO TO ANNEXATION. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE MILITARY BUFFER AREAS THAT WERE CREATED BY THE ANNEXATION BILL LAST SESSION. WE HAD LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM MULTIPLE GENERALS, FROM THE TEXAS COMMANDERS COUNCIL, FROM ALL THREE MEMBERS, CHAIRS OF OUR MILITARY TRANSFORMATION TASK FORCE, INCLUDING COUNCILMAN PERRY, COMMISSIONER WOLFF, AND THE CHAMBER PRESIDENT, RICHARD PEREZ. UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE ALL THAT, THE SENATOR WAS UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF OUR AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND AN EFFORT ON THE SENATE FLOOR TO AMEND IT AND FIX THAT BILL FOR US NARROWLY FAILED AUDIO] AGAIN OF ENSURING THAT THOSE MILITARY PROTECTIONS ARE NOT UNDONE BY THAT BILL. THE CABLE FRANCHISING BILL IS THE SAME STATUS THAT IT WAS LAST TIME I REPORTED. HB3535 IS SITTING IN CALENDARS COMMITTEE WAITING TO GET TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE . THE SENATE BILL HAS MADE IT THROUGH THE SENATE AND IS COMING BEHIND IT NOW THROUGH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE. AND THEN ON THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES FRONT, UNFORTUNATELY, AS CITIES HAVE PROTESTED IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AT THE LEGISLATURE, ONE OF THE REACTIONS BY THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN TO SAY THAT WE DON'T LIKE WHAT CITIES ARE DOING AND WE'D LIKE TO CURB THAT. AND SO HOUSE BILL 281 AND SENATE BILL 29, WHICH IN DIFFERENT WAYS WHICH PROHIBIT ANY EXPENDITURE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. THE HOUSE BILL IS WAITING IN CALENDARS FOR A FULL HOUSE VOTE. AND THE SENATE BILL WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE THIS WEEK ALONG PARTY LINES. SO THOSE REMAIN SERIOUS THREATS, AS IT WOULD LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION IN FUTURE SESSIONS. AS I MENTIONED, ANDY WAS UP AT THE CAPITAL YESTERDAY TESTIFYING ON A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS THAT PASSED LAST SESSION. SPECIFICALLY HE TESTIFIED ON A BILL THAT REMOVES ENDORSEMENT FROM THE LAW. SO THE LAW BASICALLY SAYS A CITY CANNOT ADOPT IN FORCE OR ENDORSE AN ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS COOPERATING AND ENFORCING WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW. THE ENDORSEMENT PROVISION HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN BY FEDERAL COURTS AS BEING TOO UNFAIR TO ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND SO THIS BILL WOULD RECTIFY THAT IN STATE LAW. AND ANDY TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THAT. SIMILARLY HE TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF A BILL THAT WOULD REMOVE THE PROVISION THAT REMOVES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FROM OFFICE IF THEY ARE DETERMINED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE SANCTUARY CITIES BILL. WORKER'S COMP PROCESS FOR FIREFIGHTERS WHO GET CANCER. IN FACT, WE HAVE AN 11:30 CALL [01:00:01] THIS MORNING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE. ON THE ALAMO FRONT, THE HOUSE BILL DIRECT AIM AT THE ALAMO BUT WOULD HAVE EFFECT NONETHELESS. THEY WOULD PROHIBIT CITIES FROM MOVING ANY MONUMENTS FROM REMOVING, RELOCATING, ALTERING ANY MONUMENTS THAT ARE 40 YEARS OR OLDER WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC VOTE. I TESTIFIED ON THAT BILL AND AUDIO]. I PUT IT UP HERE BECAUSE SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT IT. IT REMAINS THE SAME. IT HAS NOT CHANGED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEWIDE REALTORS ARE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO IT. THEY DO NOT LIKE THE DENSITY PROVISION AND FEEL LIKE IN AUDIO] FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO THAT BILL HAS SOME PROBLEMS. WE'LL SEE IF IT MOVES, BUT FOR NOW IT IS STALLED. AND I'LL STOP THERE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, JEFF, FOR YOUR SUMMARY TODAY. I SAW SENATOR CAMPBELL HERE TODAY. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION HE WAS HERE TO DISCUSS SB422 AND TALK ABOUT THE PEELING BACK OF THE IMPORTANT MILITARY PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN WITH HER HELP. IS THAT NOT THE CASE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS HERE FOR. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PRIOR CONVERSATION. BUT YOU AND I HAVE MET WITH HER AND EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS AND, UNFORTUNATELY, EVERY ITERATION OF THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IT ON THE HOUSE SIDE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I'LL CALL THEM NOW. >> YES, MAYOR NIRENBERG AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JACK M. FINGER. WELL, YESTERDAY AT THE CAPITAL, I WAS ALSO THERE AND THERE WERE SOME ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE THAT DEALT WITH A CERTAIN ISSUE THAT Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE WHILE AGO. BUT YOU NEED NOT WORRY. I WON'T EVEN MENTION THE WORD CHICK-FIL-A. AFTER ALL, IN MS. GONZALES' WORDS, THAT'S AN UNIMPORTANT RESTAURANT RIGHT NOW. YEAH. BUT I DO WANT TO REPORT TO YOU THAT IF I LOOK A LITTLE RAGGED IT'S BECAUSE I'VE BEEN UP FOR ABOUT 24 HOURS OBSERVING THE TESTIMONY I GUESS AT LEAST 100 PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON CERTAIN ISSUES THAT RESULTED FROM THE DELIBERATIONS THAT Y'ALL HAD ABOUT A CERTAIN INIMPORTANT CHICKEN RESTAURANT, YOU SEE. AND, MY GOODNESS, QUITE A FEW SPOKE ON THAT AND IT WAS LED BY AN ORGANIZATION CALLED TEXAS VALUES, HEADED BY MR. JONATHAN SAENZ. AND THEY WERE TELLING THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE IS DELIBERATING ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THE RESULTS OF A CERTAIN SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL THAT IS HAVING [INDISCERNIBLE] ALL AROUND THE NATION. HERE'S SOME OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE LEGISLATION THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT AS LATE AS THIS MORNING, YOU SEE. TEXAS VALUES ACTION SAYS SAVE THE UNIMPORTANT CHICKEN RESTAURANT BILLS THERE. YEAH, FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT HB3172. I'LL JUST READ THE FIRST POINT THERE. ENSURES THE GOVERNMENT RESPECTS THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF ALL CITIZENS TO LIVE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR BELIEF REGARDING MARRIAGE WITHOUT FEAR OF GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION OR PUNISHMENT. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS THERE. ET CETERA, ET CETERA. YES, SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT. THE OTHER ONE COMPANION BILL IS FREE TO BELIEVE ACT. HOUSE BILL ENSURES THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PUNISH INDIVIDUALS, RELIGIOUS [01:05:02] GROUPS, MEDICAL PROVIDERS, WEDDING VENDORS AND STATE EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR BELIEFS ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALITY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. AUDIO-VISUAL MAN. RETURN THE CAMERA, IF YOU WOULD. SO, YEAH. IN FACT THE TEXAS VALUES ALSO HELD A BIG RALLY AND IN THAT RALLY A NUMBER OF SIGNS WERE -- YOU REMEMBER THAT SIGN THAT SAYS "COME AND TAKE IT"? YEAH, THIS TIME INSTEAD OF A CANNON THEY HAD THE BIBLE THERE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. FINGER. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A GROUP SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK TIME. THIS APPEARS TO BE A GROUP, BUT THEY ARE ONLY SIGNED UP -- THEY ARE SIGNED UP AS A GROUP, CORRECT? OKAY. SO Y'ALL HAVE NINE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND ABOUT THE BILLS SB15 AND THOSE REPACKAGED AS SB15. TODAY HERE WE HAVE STANDING WITH US MEMBERS FROM MOVE TEXAS, MEMBERS FROM TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT. THE IBEW LOCAL 60, AFLCIO, UNITE HERE, THE YOUNG ACTIVE LABOR LEADERS, AND THE ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER. WE ALL TOGETHER ARE HERE TO STAND UP FOR THE CIVIL AND WORKPLACE RIGHTS OF SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS. AND WE ALSO WANT TO STAND FOR LOCAL CONTROL HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. SB15 AND EACH OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN REPACKAGED AS SB15, INCLUDING SB2785, SB2486, SB2487, 2488 ERODE THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS IN SAN ANTONIO AND THROUGHOUT TEXAS, AND WE SHOULD NOT GIVE UP OUR POWER TO THE STATE. BECAUSE IT GREATLY LIMITS OUR ABILITY FOR PROTECTIONS AND ENSURE THAT YOU ALL AS OUR REPRESENTATIVES CAN ACTUALLY REPRESENT US. AND SO OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, WE KNOW THAT OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE CLOSER AND MORE IN TUNE WITH THE CONSTITUENCY AND WE SHOULD RETAIN THE POWER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO MAKE LAWS THAT ADDRESS OUR LOCAL FAMILY CONCERNS. SB15, ALL OF THESE LOCAL PREEMPTION BILLS, ALL THE MANY VERSIONS OF THEM, IT MEANS THAT WE'RE WEAKENING OUR RIGHTS. IT MEANS WE'RE WEAKENING THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES ACROSS THE STATE. AND IT MEANS THE REMOVAL OF WATER BREAKS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN DALLAS. AND FROM THE THOUSANDS OF HARD-WORKING FAMILIES. BUT IT ALSO MEANS WE WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THESE RIGHTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. LET ME EXPAND ON THE ISSUE OF THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING LGBTQ COMMUNITIES AT RISK. MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S LGBTQ ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAVE INDICATED THEY WANT TO EXPAND OUR NDO ORDINANCE INTO THE PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SO TO MAKE SURE THAT ACROSS THE CITY WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. DALLAS, EL PASO, AND AUSTIN ALREADY ENSURE THIS RIGHT. THESE BILLS ATTACKING LOCAL CONTROL PUTS EACH OF THESE LAWS IN DANGER. AND IT ALSO PUTS THE LGBTQ IN A VULNERABLE POSITION. COUNCILMAN KASAR FROM AUSTIN, THEY SENT THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO STAND AGAINST THE PREEMPTION BILL. DALLAS -- I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL KNOW THIS, NEXT WEEK THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO ENSURE PAID SICK TIME ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND SO WITH OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ARE ENSURING RIGHTS FOR THEIR LOCAL RESIDENTS. THE WAY FORWARD IS FOR US TO STAND TOGETHER AS CITIES BECAUSE WE NEED TO ENSURE AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS IN OUR LOCAL CITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE IF WE DON'T STAND TOGETHER AS CITIES, THE STATE IS GOING TO TAKE MORE AND MORE AWAY FROM US. AND THIS YEAR IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING THEIR BEST TO TAKE A LOT OF RIGHTS AWAY FROM OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO [01:10:01] IS TO MAKE A DEFEND PAID SICK T. STAND UP AND PROTECT THE LAWS THAT WE PASS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL AND THE WORK THAT YOU DO AND I HOPE YOU DO VOTE TO STAND UP FOR THE LAWS WE PASS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. COUNCILMAN SALDANA. >> SALDANA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU TO THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE WITH WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE. I KNOW YOU'RE FEELING A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER, BUT YOU CAME IN TO SPEAK TODAY. OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TAKE A CLEAR POSITION BY TAKING A CLEAR VOTE AS A FULL BODY. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, AS CHAIR OF THE IGR I HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PREVIOUS CHAIR OF THE IGR. AND THERE WAS A CERTAIN PROCESS FOR US DEALING WITH ISSUES LIKE THE ONE THAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY, THIS IS THE ONE SORT OF COMMITTEE WHERE EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN OUR COMMITTEE TO PRESENT IT TO THE FULL COUNCIL. AND IT'S PRESENTED TO THE FULL COUNCIL THAT HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. BUT WHAT WE DO IS WE GIVE OUR CITY STAFF OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. THAT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA HAS VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT I KNOW JEFF WILL HAVE AT THE READY IF WE NEED TO USE IT. VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE AUDIO] AND THE ONE I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT IS THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED IN AUGUST. AND IT'S UNIQUE IN ITS FRAMING IN MY MIND, AND NECESSITATES A FULL-BODIED COUNCIL VOTE, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE PASSED THAT'S BEEN BACKED BY, IN THIS CASE, 80,000 VERIFIED PETITION SIGNATURES FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND 144,000 WERE COLLECTED. THERE WAS A THRESHOLD THAT IT HAD TO MEET TO BE ON THE FULL BALLOT TO GO UP TO THE VOTERS. IT WAS NOT BECAUSE IT CAME TO US. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY A MISTAKE FOR US TO BE IN THIS POSITION WHERE STAFF IS, AT BEST, NEUTRAL. AND, AT WORST, CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE THE CITY MIGHT BE ON THIS POSITION. AND WHILE IN PREVIOUS COUNCILS THIS WAS LEFT UP TO THE IGR COMMITTEE, MORE VOTES AND MORE DISCUSSION IS NOT A BAD THING WHEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE HERE WHERE THERE'S CLEARLY A PREEMPTION ISSUE, CLEARLY THEY'RE GOING AFTER SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PASSED IN AUSTIN. AND IT MAKES A STATEMENT ABOUT THIS BODY FOR TODAY, BUT IT ALSO MAKES A STATEMENT ABOUT THE BODY IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT YOU ALL AS A COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH AUSTIN COMING IN TO PREEMPT BILLS IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER THAT IS THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, YOU NAME IT. IF YOU HAD PASSED IT HERE, TOBACCO 21, THEY WILL LIKELY GO AND THE QUESTION FOR US IS IF WE WILL STAND UP FOR ANY BILL THAT'S A PREEMPTION. AND THAT'S THE MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED IN AUGUST WITH THE SIGNING OF A NUMBER OF PETITIONS GATHERED BY THE WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE. AT THIS TIME, MAYOR, I'M MOVING TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT THE CITY'S NEED TO PRESERVE LOCAL DECISION MAKING BY DIRECTING OUR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS TEAM TO OPPOSE ANY BILLS, LIKE SB2487, SB15, AND HB1654 THAT WOULD UNDO AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL AND THAT FURTHER ERODE LOCAL CONTROL. >> SECOND. >> SALDANA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR -- COUNCILMAN, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION? ARE YOU ASKING FOR SPECIFIC POSITION TO BE TAKEN ON SPECIFIC BILLS? ARE YOU ASKING FOR SOMETHING TO BE ADDED TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA? >> SALDANA: NO, I'M NOT ASKING ANYTHING TO BE ADDED TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. I'M ASKING FOR A POSITION ON A SPECIFIC BILL. I'LL READ THE MOTION AGAIN. I'M MOVING TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT THE CITY'S NEED TO PRESERVE LOCAL DECISION MAKING BY DIRECTING OUR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS TEAM TO OPPOSE ANY BILLS LIKE, IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, SB2487 AND HB1654 THAT HAVE TO [01:15:03] DO WITH THE PAID SICK LEAVE POSITION AND OUR VOTE IN AUGUST THAT WOULD UNDO AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL AND THAT FURTHER WOULD ERODE LOCAL CONTROL. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN COURAGE. >> COURAGE: THANK YOU. JEFF, I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT THE VERY FIRST ONES YOU SPOKE ABOUT, THE EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, PAID SICK LEAVE, ALL OF THESE. DO ANY OF THESE IMPOSE A RESTRICTION ON THE CITY, CREATING AGREEMENTS WITH BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH US THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, NOT ALLOW US TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY WE WANT YOU TO INCLUDE PAID SICK LEAVE OR WE WANT YOU TO INCLUDE CERTAIN BENEFITS. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CITY FROM HAVING THE AGREEMENT AND FROM VOLUNTARILY SIGNING SUCH AGREEMENTS WITH US? >> HELLO, COUNCILMAN. EDWARD GUZMAN WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAY THE BILLS ARE CURRENTLY DRAFTED, IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT US FROM HAVING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH VENDORS OR CONTRACTORS. THAT WOULD NOT BE A MAN DATED OR REGULATORY SCHEME, REQUIREMENT ON THOSE VENDORS . IT WOULD BE A NEGOTIATED ITEM IN A CONTRACT AND THEREFORE ANY BREACH OF THAT CONTRACT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH AN ACTUALLY BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION. SO IT'S NOT MANDATED OR REGULATED BY THE CITY. NO, IT IS NOT AFFECTED. >> COURAGE: IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN STILL CONTINUE HAVING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON OUR CONTRACTS. THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. >> COURAGE: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE. COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES. >> GONZALES: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR -- SORRY, JEFF. I BLANKED FOR A MOMENT. >> THAT'S OKAY. >> GONZALES: SO COULD YOU JUST E MOVING FAIRLY QUICKLY. I GUESS THERE'S STILL TIME TO TAKE A POSITION AND STATE OUR CASE. I KNOW THAT THINGS ARE KIND OF MOVING BY THE DAY. IN FACT, I'M ALMOST SURPRISED THAT IT HASN'T COME UP ALREADY. >> YES. THERE IS STILL TIME. THE SENATE BILLS HAVE PASSED THE SENATE. HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD YET IN THE HOUSE. SO WHEN THOSE FOUR BILLS THAT EMERGED FROM SB15 ARE HEARD IN THE HOUSE, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO REGISTER A POSITION ON THOSE BILLS AND/OR SEND A WITNESS UP AND TESTIFY. WHAT WE DID IN THE FIRST ROUND IN THE SENATE WAS REGISTER ON THE BILL. AND THEN SUBMITTED A WRITTEN HISTORY OF HOW THE PAID SICK LEAVE CAME ABOUT AND WHAT THE EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY LOCALLY, IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION. >> GONZALES: I KNOW I'M ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PAID SICK LEAVE INTERNALLY AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO US IN THE FORM OF A REFERENDUM. WE DECIDED TO ADOPT IT AS AN ORDINANCE KNOWING THAT IN SIX MONTHS WE COULD MAKE SOME ALTERATIONS SO THAT IT'S SPECIFIC TO SAN ANTONIO. BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS ONE THAT WAS USED IN AUSTIN AND THAT PERHAPS IN SAN ANTONIO WE COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH. I KNOW AS MY POSITION AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WAS THAT BUSINESSES WANT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO AUDIO] BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM AND WE ARE THEN PUNISHED FOR FOLLOWING THEM, THAT CREATES A HUGE PROBLEM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS NOT PERFECT AND SO WE NEED TO ADJUST IT. I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT INTERNALLY. HOWEVER, THIS IS -- I THINK THE ISSUE OF LOCAL CONTROL IS VERY SERIOUS. AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE ALWAYS OPPOSED ANNEXATION. I WAS A LONE VOTE AGAINST IT MANY TIMES AND HAVE BEEN SINCE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL. BUT WHENEVER WE WENT FORWARD WITH LOCAL CONTROL ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH ANNEXATION, I ALWAYS SUPPORTED THAT BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. EVEN THOUGH I DON'T SUPPORT THE ISSUE. AND SO I THINK WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, WHILE I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYBODY SUPPORTS THIS ISSUE, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED. I HOPE WE CAN GET TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE TIMELY OR MORE SENSITIVE TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, IN PARTICULAR. I KNOW I DID A QUICK COUNT IN MY [01:20:02] DISTRICT, JUST BASED ON THE MAJOR CORRIDORS, AND THERE WERE OVER 900 SMALL BUSINESSES IN DISTRICT 5 JUST ON THE CORRIDORS. SO IT'S A HUGE OUTREACH THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO REALLY BELIEVE THAT AS COUNCIL WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH ALWAYS PROTECTING LOCAL CONTROL. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE COUNCILMAN ON THIS ISSUE. I JUST -- IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE SO LATE IN THE GAME TO START WEIGHING IN ON THIS ISSUE. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF INDECISION ON THE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED. I THINK YOU NEED DIRECTION FROM ME TO PROCEED, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES. COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. >> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. JEFF, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN MAYBE IF COUNCIL MEMBER SALDANA CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND TOO FROM HIS POSITION ON ITEMS THAT ARE UNDER LITIGATION. LIKE THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUE. IT'S UP IN THE THIRD COURT AND IT'S MOVED UP, AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN REJECTED IN THE COURT SYSTEMS. SO WITH THE COUNCILMAN'S POSITION, JUST KIND OF WALK ME THROUGH HOW YOU GAUGE THINGS THAT ARE UNDER LITIGATION LIKE THAT. LOOK, I'M ALL FOR LOCAL CONTROL. THE DEBATE FOR ME IS NOT LOCAL CONTROL THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE MOVING THROUGH A CHAIN OF LEGAL ISSUES, HOW THE CHAIR OF THE IGR SEES THAT. IF WE'RE ADVOCATING SOMETHING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT WE'RE FIGHTING SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY IN THE COURT SYSTEM THAT IS BEING CHALLENGED AND MOST LIKELY WILL BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE STATE, HOW DOES ALL THOSE LEGAL THINGS WORK IN YOUR CALCULUS? >> IT ISN'T AN ALL OR NOTHING SORT OF PROPOSITION. THERE ARE BILLS THAT WE WEIGH IN ON THAT THERE MAY BE LITIGATION GOING ON OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. AND TYPICALLY IF THE LEGISLATURE PASSES A LAW IT OFTEN INTERVENES WITH THE LEGAL PROCESS BECAUSE IT CREATES THE NEW LAW AROUND IT. IN THIS CASE, THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL -- >> BROCKHOUSE: I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. IT SOUNDS LIKE A THUNDER STORM BACK HERE. >> I CAN PAUSE FOR A SECOND. THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL OF THE REASONS WE LAID OUT IN COMMITTEE THAT WE INITIALLY RECOMMENDED TAKING A WAIT AND SEE APPROACH TO IT, MEANING MONITOR THE POSITION. BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN STRUCK DOWN. AUSTIN'S ORDINANCE HAD BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN THEIR COURT. AND WE HAD THE LOCAL COMMITTEE HERE WORKING ON IMPLEMENTATION AND MODIFICATION. SO WITH THOSE TWO THINGS WE SAID WHY DON'T WE WATCH THE PROCESS. >> HOPEFULLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN. IT IS VERY MUCH A CASE-BY-CASE IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND WHERE THE STATUTE IS IN TERMS OF GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS ONE, AS JEFF SAID, THERE IS A DECISION OUT OF AN AUSTIN APPEALS COURT. WHILE IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US -- I MEAN, IT'S STILL OUT THERE IN TERMS OF A COURT READING THAT DECISION. NOBODY HAS SUED US ON OUR ORDINANCE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THOSE COURTS ARE TRYING TO INTERPRET A STATE STATUTE. AND THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW THE TRYING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE INTENDED. SO WITH ALL THAT, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW OUR FOCUS IS ON THE BILLS BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE. >> BROCKHOUSE: JEFF, YOUR POSITION IS STILL NEUTRALITY? >> WELL, WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE. >> BROCKHOUSE: BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TODAY, BASED ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S MOTION? >> I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE NEED THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL. WE TAKE THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL UP TO AUSTIN. >> BROCKHOUSE: BUT YOU ALSO ALWAYS BRING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> WELL, I HADN'T -- >> BROCKHOUSE: WHAT'S THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED POSITION ON THIS NOW? I MEAN, DOES IT STILL STAND AS YOUR RECOMMENDED POSITION? >> WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT A RECOMMENDATION. THE POSITION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THUS FAR IS WHAT STANDS NOW. UNTIL WE'RE TOLD OTHERWISE, THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE TAKING. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ERIK. >> WALSH: TODAY'S ITEM IS A BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION. OUR DIRECTION IS THE LAST ORDER OF THE COUNCIL. SO THE LAST ORDER WE RECEIVED WAS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. IF THAT CHANGES, BASED ON COUNCILMAN SALDANA'S MOTION OR ANOTHER MOTION, THEN THAT WILL BE THE NEW ORDER WE UNDERTAKE. >> BROCKHOUSE: OKAY. MY CONCERN, AGAIN, JUST THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THINGS THAT ARE BEING CHALLENGED LIKE THAT. LOCAL CONTROL IS IMPORTANT. WE DON'T WANT -- YOU KNOW, WE DO WANT YOUR OWN ABILITY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL YOUR OWN COMMUNITY, RIGHT? THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU GET OUT OF THAT BANDWIDTH AND THINGS BEGIN TO GET CHALLENGED, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU STEP OUT OF A LANE OR THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL. THOSE ARE THE EDGES THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT WE DO THINGS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY GOING TO GET STRUCK DOWN AND THE [01:25:01] EXPOSURE FOR THE CITY. IT'S THE LEGAL EXPOSURE I'M WORRIED ABOUT. THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, DEFEATED AT A STATEWIDE LEVEL. SO LOCAL CONTROL IS NOT OMNIPOTENT. MUNICIPALITIES AND PEOPLE, WE MAY MAKE DECISIONS THAT STEP OUTSIDE OUR BOUNDARIES AND VIOLATE STATE AND AUDIO]. >> I CAN PUT JUST A LITTLE FINER POINT. SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY, OBVIOUSLY, TO PASS AN ORDINANCE -- YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PASS ORDINANCES THAT YOU SEE ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN STATE LAW SUPERCEDES. AND WE EITHER HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN OR THAT TELLS US WE MAY NOT ENGAGE IN THAT AREA. WHEN WE USE THE WORD PREEMPTION, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE STATE IS SPEAKING AND HERE'S WHAT THE STATE IS AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO THESE BILLS WOULD DO THAT. THEY WOULD SAY YOU CITIES SHALL NOT REGULATE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN TERMS OF THOSE AREAS. >> BROCKHOUSE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. >> PELAEZ: THANK YOU. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT JEFF COYLE MUST BE OPERATING WITH A LOT OF CAFFEINE IN HIM RIGHT NOW. I KNOW, JEFF, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF DAYS UP THERE. AND MEAGAN TOO. Y'ALL HAVE BEEN PUTTING A LOT OF MILES ON YOUR CARS. AND THAT YOU'RE COMING HOME LOOKING RAGGED SOMETIMES. I SAW YOU YESTERDAY, JEFF, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE RIDDEN HARD AND PUT UP WET. YOU KNOW, YOUR HARD WORK IS NOT LOST ON ME, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR. I WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE PAID SICK LEAVE IS A REALITY FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE. I WANT THAT. I THINK PAID SICK LEAVE IS AN IMPORTANT GOAL TOWARDS WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD WORK. AND I ALSO THINK THAT LOCAL CONTROL IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE STATE HAS TAKEN OUT ITS VERY SHARP KNIVES AND HAS BEEN MAKING RUNS AT LESSENING THE ABILITY FOR CITIES TO CONTROL THEIR OWN LOCAL AFFAIRS. AND EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF CITIES LIKE US HAVING LESS AND LESS CONTROL OVER OUR DESTINIES. THAT SAID, WHEN I VOTED FOR THIS ORDINANCE, I DID SO MAKING VERY CAREFUL COMMENTS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE REMEMBERED, RIGHT? >> THIS WAS GOING TO GET CHALLENGED IN COURT AND THERE WERE GOING TO BE BILLS. AND THAT THE CHALLENGES WERE GOING TO BE BASED ON TWO THINGS ONE, A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE THAT -- AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS CITIES WILL NOT PASS OR ENFORCE ORDINANCES THAT CONTRADICT WHAT THE STATE HAS ALREADY SET IN PLACE. IN OTHER WORDS, STATE LAWS. AND THEN THE TEXAS LABOR CODE SETS OUT THOSE LAWS, AND THEY SAY WE AND ONLY WE ARE IN CHARGE OF WAGES AND WHAT PEOPLE PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES. I'VE YET TO MEET A CREDIBLE WAGE AN HOUR LAWYER WHO DISAGREES THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED FROM THIS. THAT SAID, WE STILL PASSED THE ORDINANCE AND IT'S OUR ORDINANCE, AND AS PREDICTED ON THAT DAY, THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS RULES ON THIS AND IT'S BEING KICKED UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. AND I AM NOT A SOOTHSAYER, BUT I'M NOT GOING OUT TOO FAR ON A LIMB WHEN I TELL YOU THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HAND US A DECISION THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE PREEMPTED. THAT'S JUST GOING TO HAPPEN. NOW, THIS LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT I'M TORTURING ALL OF YOU WITH IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON MY SUPPORT FOR OR AGAINST PAID SICK LEAVE. IT'S JUST A RECITATION OF THE LAW. AND SO THAT SAID, WE DO HAVE A LOCAL CONTROL ISSUE; HOWEVER, AND THIS ORDINANCE TESTS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE STAND UP FOR ALL ORDINANCES THAT WERE PASSED. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T FLESH THIS OUT AT COMMITTEE AND GET CONSENSUS AT OUR COMMITTEE BEFORE EVEN COMING HERE TODAY. THE LAST COMMITTEE WHERE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FLESHED OUT, JEFF, WAS A BRIEFING FROM YOU TO MR. -- COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA AND MYSELF. THAT WAS IT. TWO DUDES IN A ROOM GETTING A BRIEFING FROM JEFF COYLE. >> COYLE: YOU MEAN THE LAST IGR MEETING. >> PELAEZ: AND THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO QUORUM, RIGHT? >> COYLE: UH-HUH PELZ I'M SORRY, RIGHT? >> COYLE: THAT'S CORRECT. >> PELAEZ: SO A MEETING GETTING [01:30:01] A BRIEFING FROM JEFF COYLE DOES NOT A COMMITTEE MAKE. WE'RE HERE TODAY, AGAIN, SKIPPING OVER THE IMPORTANT WORK THAT COMMITTEES DO, AND THIS COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, DOES PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT WORK TOWARDS GAINING YOU KNOW -- CONSENSUS BECAUSE I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES UNANIMITY AND CONSENSUS AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY. JEFF, WHEN YOU GO UP THERE AND YOU START ADVOCATING FOR CERTAIN CHANGES OR PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET ASKED, SO THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL? THAT'S RIGHT. AND IF YOU'RE ASKED, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, IS THIS THE UNANIMOUS POSITION, NAH, JUST SIX OF THEM OR JUST SEVEN OF THEM, AND THEN YOU START GETTING LETTERS FROM SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT OPPOSE THIS, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITY A LITTLE HARDER. >> COYLE: IT COMPLICATES THINGS FOR SURE. NOBODY CARES MY POSITION OR CARLA'S POTION OR MEGAN'S POSITION. WE'RE UP THERE REPRESENTING THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND THE COUNCIL ATMOSPHERE A BODY. SO, YES -- AS A BODY. SO CLARITY ON THE POSITIONS WE TAKE UP THERE IS VERY HELPFUL. >> PELAEZ: SO THE REASON WE WORK SO HARD AT REFINING AND THEN REFINING EVEN MORE, AND SOMETIMES THE WHEEL TURNS VERY, VERY SLOW WHEN WE GRIND OUT A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, BUT THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE TO ARM YOU WITH CREDIBLE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE COUNCIL ARGUMENTS, RIGHT? IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE -- I MEAN, JUST JUDGING FROM THE COMMENTS YOU'RE GOING TO GET A DIVIDED COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR A -- YOU KNOW, A POSITION TO TAKE AT -- IN AUSTIN YOU'RE NORTHGOING TO LIE TO THESE FOLKS IN AUSTIN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL THEM IF ASKED, TECHNICALLY, CONGRESSMAN, IT'S A DIVIDED COUNCIL. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO SELL UP THERE IS CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE'RE SENDING YOU UP TO DO. I THINK WE'RE SETTING A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT BY PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH, BUT EVEN WORSE, BY NOT REFIEBING THIS AT A -- REFINING THIS AT A COMMITTEE, AND EVEN WORSE PRETENDING THAT THE LAST ATTEMPTED COMMITTEE MEETING IS WHERE WE DID THAT WORK. WE DIDN'T. SO YOU'RE GOING TO GET A NO VOTE FROM ME TODAY. THANKS. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. COUNCILMAN PERRY? >> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR. JEFF, THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, IGR, THAT WE TOOK A VOTE ON, WHEN WAS THAT COMMITTEE MEETING? >> COYLE: THAT WE TOOK A VOTE ON? >> PERRY: ON THIS ISSUE. >> COYLE: WE DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. THE COMMITTEE APPROVED THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA LAST FALL, AND THEN IT WENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL. THERE ARE OFTEN ITEMS THAT COME -- THE NUANCES OF LEGISLATION THAT MAY NOT FALL NEATLY INTO THE BOXES OF THE PROGRAM, SO WE HAD A DIGS -- DISCUSSION WITH YOU, I BELIEVE, AT THE MEETING AT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY TO SAY THESE BILLS ARE COMING, HERE'S WHAT WE RECOMMEND WE DO. >> PERRY: RIGHT. >> COYLE: AND ALTHOUGH A VOTE WAS NOT TAKEN, MEMBERS SPOKE UP AND GAVE US A CONSENSUS APPROVAL OF THAT RECOMMENDATION. >> PERRY: YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT. SO WHO AT THE MEETING AGREED WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION? >> COYLE: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN -- I WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU-ALL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS CLEAR THAT HE WANTED TO OPPOSE IT. I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN PE PELAEZ SAID AT THE CHAIR OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, HE DIDN'T WANT OUR ACTIONS AT THE CAPITOL TO INTERFERE WITH THAT PROCESS. I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU WERE OPPOSED TO US OPPOSING PRE'EM SHUN AND I THINK THE MAYOR WAS NOT AT THE MEETING. I THINK THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE GOT. >> PERRY: I THINK -- WEREN'T YOU AT THAT MEETING ALSO? YEP. AND WERE YOU -- I'M ADDRESSING COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. JUST -- JUST -- >> PERRY: AND I REMEMBER THAT MEETING VERY WELL, AND WE AGREED TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAY NEUTRAL. AFTER THAT, THERE WERE SOME LETTERS SENT TO THE CAPITOL. CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH LETTERS GOT SENT OUT TO THE CAPITOL? >> COYLE: I SAW A DRAFT LETTER THAT WAS NOT SIGNED BY EVERYBODY, SO I'M NOT SURE FORMALLY WHEN ONE WENT UP. I THINK THE CHAIRMAN HAS COMMUNICATED THAT HE HAS SENT A LETTER CONVEYING HIS POSITION. >> PERRY: OKAY. >> COYLE: BUT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE SPEAKING FOR ALL OF YOU AND YOUR POSITIONS ON THIS. I'D MUCH PREFER YOU TELL US. >> PERRY: OKAY. YEAH. I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF LETTERS SENT TO THE CAPITOL ABOUT THIS. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME DISAGREEMENT, WHICH IS [01:35:03] FINE, AND ABSOLUTELY WE CAN BRING THOSE DECISIONS HERE TO COUNCIL TO DISCUSS IT. AND EVEN OVERRIDE THE COMMITTEES. WE -- YOU KNOW, WE DO THAT ON OCCASION HERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEES ARE THERE FOR A REASON, TO THOROUGHLY VET THESE THINGS AND COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID AT THAT MEETING. BUT HERE WE FIND OURSELVES WITH SOMEONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THE COMMITTEE, BRINGING IT TO THE FULL COUNCIL. YES, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE, I VOTED AGAINST THAT ORDINANCE. BECAUSE OF NUMEROUS LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, I'VE -- I'VE GOT A BUNCH OF LETTERS HERE RIGHT NOW THAT REPRESENT OVER 400,000 EMPLOYEES HERE IN TOWN THAT ARE AGAINST CHANGING OUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OTHER THAN BEING NEUTRAL. I'VE GOT A LETTER HERE FROM THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL. ANOTHER ONE FROM THE SOUTH SAN ANTONIO CHAMBER.SAN ANTONIOT ASSOCIATION, SAN ANTONIO MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SAN ANTONIO AUTO DEALERS, SAN ANTONIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. SO THIS REPRESENTS A LARGE SECTION OF OUR ECONOMY IN BUSINESSES THAT SAY -- THAT ARE SAYING THEY WANT US TO STAY NEUTRAL ON THIS. BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS THAT'S GOING ON, AND WASN'T THERE A LAWSUIT ON THIS THAT -- ISN'T THIS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, THIS PARTICULAR PAID SICK LEAVE. >> COYLE: THERE'S A LAWSUIT ON THE AUSTIN ORDINANCE. >> PERRY: WHERE IS THAT RIGHT NOW? >> >> SEGOVIA: COUNCILMAN, AS WE NOTED, I THINK THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT IT WAS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ASKED THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, AND THAT'S WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW. >> PERRY: OKAY. AND WHEN DO WE EXPECT THAT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT? >> SEGOVIA: WELL, FIRST, THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO REVIEW IT. THERE MIGHT BE A REQUEST FOR THE BRIEFING ON THE MERITS, THAT'S UP TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, IF I HAD TO GUESS, YOU WILL HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT, YES, INDEED IT IS PREEMPTED OR EVERYBODY IN THE STATE WILL GET PAID SICK LEAVE. SO MY SENSE IS THE STATE -- AGAIN, THE LAWSUIT PERTAINS TO INTERPRETATION OF A STATE LAW. IF THE STATE LEDGE LAY -- LEGISLATURE TAKES AWAY ANY UNCERTAINTY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I WOULD THINK THAT LITIGATION WOULD BE PUT TO A HALT. >> PERRY: OKAY. BUT IT'S BEING REVIEWED BOTH THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE LEGISLATIVE. >> SEGOVIA: THERE'S CURRENTLY A REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW IT. AND THAT WILL TAKE SOME TIME FOR THEM TO GET SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. >> PERRY: GREAT. WELL, AGAIN, THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF TO REMAIN NEUTRAL; HERE WE ARE BRINGING SOMETHING BACK UP AGAIN THAT IS -- THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL. WE HAVE INDICATORS OUT HERE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND POSSIBLY, IF NOT THAT, THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM, SO ALL THE INDICATORS OUT THERE IS THAT WE'RE KIND OF FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE HERE. AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST REASON WHY I SAID, OKAY, LET'S STAY NEUTRAL ON THIS. AND GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. AND WITH THAT, I'M STILL FIRMLY ENTRENCHED TO STAY WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. AND I HOPE THAT THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE READ THESE LETTERS. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS GOTTEN THESE LETTERS, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN OUT THERE BY OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE ARE BECOMING AN ANTIBUSINESS CITY COUNCIL WITH THE THINGS THAT WE'RE PASSING OR TRYING TO PASS HERE AT THIS COUNCIL. SO I'M -- I'M, AGAIN, STICKING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT Y'ALL MADE, JEFF, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMATION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SIR. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY. AS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR ON A PARTICULAR ITEM. THERE IS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. IF THERE ARE ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS BEYOND THE MOTION WE CAN DO THAT AT THAT TIME, BUT PLEASE TRY TO KEEP YOUR DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. COUNCILMAN HALL? >> HALL: THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST A BRIEF COMMENT. I THINK I ALIGN WITH COUNCILMAN PELAEZ ON MY POSITION. THE ONLY THING I WOULD DISAGREE [01:40:02] WITH COUNCILMAN PELAEZ ON IS THAT ONCE THIS BODY SPEAKS, WHETHER DIVIDED OR NOT, THAT'S THE VOICE OF THIS BODY. AND SO EVEN IF IT'S SIX TO FIVE, THAT'S THE VOICE OF THIS BODY. CHICK-FIL-A, I MAY BE IN AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH IT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONCE WE VOTE THAT BECOMES OUR VOICE. SAME THING ON THIS OR ANY OTHER ITEM. AND SO -- NOW, I DO AGREE THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEND INDIVIDUAL LETTERS, BUT IF IT WERE ME SENDING A LETTER TO LEGISLATOR OR WHOEVER, I WOULD MAKE VERY CLEAR THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS SPOKEN. I MAY BE A DISSCRENDING OPINION ON IT AND THIS IS WHAT MY OPINION IS BUT I WOULD MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT POINT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HALL. COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL? >> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I SUPPORT THE MOTION PROPOSED BY COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA. I DID RECEIVE LETTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE -- THOSE LETTERS AND THOSE THOUGHTS, AND WHAT I -- WHAT I'VE ASKED WHEN I'VE MET WITH SOME OF YOU IS GIVE ME SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR HOW WE CAN PROTECT HEALTH AMONG THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE PAID SICK LEAVE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THE -- THROUGH THE COMMITTEE THAT WE'VE SET UP AND THAT PROCESS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR SOME OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES AND BE ABLE TO TAILOR SOMETHING FOR OUR OWN EMPLOYERS AND FOR OUR OWN WORKFORCE. AT THIS TIME, I STILL SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ADOPTED. IT CAME TO US WITH OVER 100,000 SIGNATURES. I VOTED TO ADOPT IT AS OPPOSED TO SENDING IT TO THE BALLOT. WELL, A, BECAUSE WE WERE -- I'D SEEN INFORMATION IT WOULD HAVE PASS OVERWHELMINGLY IF PLACED ON THE BALLOT. BUT SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE SOONER WE ADOPTED IT, THE SOONER WE COULD MODIFY IT TO MEET LOCAL -- LOCAL CONDITIONS TO TAILOR IT FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY. SO I STILL STAND BY THAT VOTE THAT I TOOK, AND BECAUSE THE STATE IS DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD UNDO OUR VOTE, I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD OPPOSE THAT. EVEN IF I'M NOT ON THE IGR COMMITTEE, I ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THIS -- AUDIO] -- I ALSO THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONCERNING ITEMS IN THAT BILL -- OR IN THAT SET OF BILLS, SOME OF THEM ARE MENTIONED BY THE CITIZENS WHO SPOKE EARLIER REGARDING THINGS LIKE WATER BREAKS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. I THINK WE NEED TO PROTECT LOCAL CONTROL. AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, WE ARE MUCH MORE NIMBLE THAN WE CAN BE AT THE STATE LEVEL. WE CAN TAILOR THINGS FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WE CAN ACT FASTER THAN EVERY TWO YEARS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR JEFF. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THE NDO IS ON THIS? I -- IN THIS SET OF BILLS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NDO ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED; HOWEVER, ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY OTHER CITIES MAY BE. >> COYLE: THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE RIGHT SUMMARY. THE BILLS TO RECAP RELATE TO A PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S LEAVE BENEFITS, SCHEDULING AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS. OUR NDO DOES NOT ADDRESS THOSE THINGS. WE HAVE A FAIRER -- EQUAL OPPORTUNITY HIRING CLAUSE IN OUR NDO RELATED TO THE CITY'S HIRING. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S HIRING, OTHER THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, CONTRACTS THAT WE MIGHT ENTER INTO WITH ENTITIES. SO THE TWO DO NOT INTERSECT. OTHER CITY'S NDOS ARE DIFFERENT AND DO SPEAK TO THE HIRING PRACTICES OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND SO IN THOSE CASES, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT PREEMPTING THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCE.P AUSTIN IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THEM, AND I BELIEVE DALLAS HAS OPPOSED TO BILLS FOR THAT REASON, NOT FOR THE PAID SICK LEAVE PIECE. >> SANDOVAL: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEFF. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A VERY -- FOR ME, IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED AND EMOTIONAL ECONOMIC ISSUE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. I FIRST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN HERE, AND ALL OF THE LETTERS AND ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING. AND TO BE CLEAR -- SO, JEFF, THE IGR COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE DID HAVE, WHICH I DID AGREE TO [01:45:03] AT THAT TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. I DID, BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE POINTS THAT COUNCILMEMBER PELAEZ BROUGHT UP WAS BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND THEN CREATING THE COMMISSION. WHAT DAY WAS THAT AGAIN? WHEN WAS THAT? >> COYLE: AM I RIGHT, MEGAN, I THINK IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY. >> VIAGRAN: RIGHT KOILDZ THIS WAS BEFORE WE STARTED THE WEEKLY LEG UPDATE. I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY'S. >> VIAGRAN: AND IT WAS FEBRUARY. SO IT WAS SOME TIME AGO. ACTUALLY WHEN THAT ALSO HAPPENED, IT WAS SOME TIME AGO, AND IT WAS ALSO BEFORE ALL OF THE -- BEFORE THAT BILL WAS BROKEN UP INTO THE FOUR THAT IT IS NOW, CORRECT? >> COYLE: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WAS SB15 AT THE TIME. IT WAS SET FOR A HEARING THAT WEEK, WHICH WAS WHY WE HAD THE DISCUSSION. >> VIAGRAN: RIGHT. AND SO ONE OF THE CHANGES WAS BECAUSE FT IT WAS BROKEN UP INTO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BILLS THAT MOVES FORWARD. I KNOW, MAYOR, YOU SAID WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS MOTION, CORRECT? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT RIGHT NOW IN MOVING FORWARD IS BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION ALSO ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL AND HOW WE WANT TO MAINTAIN LOCAL CONTROL. AND WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE NARRATIVE HOW THE STATE DOES NOT LIKE WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMES IN AND MESSES ON STATE ISSUES. THE CITIES DON'T LIKE WHEN THE STATE COMES IN AND MESSES UP WITH LOCAL ISSUES. BUT THEN PRIVATE SECTOR AND SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T LIKE IT WHEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMES IN AND MESSES WITH SOME THINGS THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH AS WELL. SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE -- I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE HERE. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE, AS A COUNCIL, AS THE ORDINANCE, VOTED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. AND IT WAS A 9 TO 2 VOTE, IS THAT CORRECT, TO CREATE THE ORDINANCE? >> COYLE: I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE VOTE COUNT IN FRONT OF ME AUDIO] >> VIAGRAN: WE DID MOVE THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE FORWARD FOR MANY REASONS AND PEOPLE DID IT FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS. SO IT'S TRYING TO -- AUDIO] -- WAS A NEUTRAL STANCE. AND IF THE CITY REMAINS NEUTRAL -- AND WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE OUT CONFUSION, HOW DOES MAINTAINING A NEUTRAL STANCE BRING ANY CLARITY TO OUR LAWMAKERS? >> COYLE: WELL, IT ALLOWED US TO LAY OUT FOR THEM WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS ON OUR ORDINANCE. THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DID. WE REGISTERED ON THE BILL, MEANING YOU'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION BUT NOT SAYING DO THIS OR DO THAT. >> VIAGRAN: UH-HUH. >> COYLE: AND WE PRESENTED THE SUMMARY OF BOTH THE PETITION PROCESS, HOW MANY WERE GATHERED, WHAT THE ACTION WAS OF THE COUNCIL, WHAT THE ONGOING AD HOC, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE LITIGATION THAT'S IN THE BACKGROUND OF THIS. >> VIAGRAN: AND SO WHEN YOU TALKED -- WHEN YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR LEGISLATORS, HAS THAT BEEN HELPFUL FOR THEM OR HAVE THEY GIVEN COMMENT OF SAYING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? >> COYLE: I THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHAT SIDE OF THE ISSUE THEY'RE ON. >> VIAGRAN: SURE. >> COYLE: THERE ARE MEMBERS WHO WANT US TO TAKE A POSITION ON EITHER SIDE. AND WHEN I'VE EXPLAINED TO THEM WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, THE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS ONGOING CONVERSATION AT COUNCIL AND, IN FACT, WHEN REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL'S BILL CAME UP LAST MONDAY, I TOLD HIM THAT WE STILL HADN'T HAD ANY CHANGE IN OUR PROCESS YET, BUT THEY'RE STILL ONGOING CONVERSATION ON COUNCIL. HE SAID, IN THAT CASE, DON'T REGISTER AT ALL AND I'LL PRESENT MY BILL. AND SO WE DIDN'T FOR THAT BILL, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS DIRECTION, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH ALL OF YOU. NOW, AS A BODY, YOU ALL TELL US ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER TO TAKE, THAT'S VERY CLEAR AND WE'LL GO DO THAT. >> VIAGRAN: SO I ALSO WANTED TO SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, TOO, WHERE I AM ON THIS AND LOOKING AT THIS, TOO. BECAUSE ONE, WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH BENEFITS, THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL WORKERS. WE HOPE THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN. BUT WE ALSO, AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN SOME CONVERSATIONS, PATCHWORK AND HOW WE TALK ALSO ABOUT CONSISTENCY. AND IF THERE IS A PATCHWORK THAT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? BUT THEN ALSO KNOWING THAT PAID SICK LEAVE IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, I'M ALSO THINKING ABOUT MY SMALL BUSINESS MEMBERS IN DISTRICT 3 THAT MAY HAVE 15, THAT MAY HAVE 20 WORKERS IN THEIR COMMUNITY OR EVEN 30, BUT THAT PAID SICK LEAVE MAY THEN BREAK THEM AS A SMALL BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO WHERE IS THE BALANCE THERE? WHERE IS THE ALIGNMENT THERE? I WANT TO TRY AND FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE, AND I'M GRASPING TO [01:50:01] FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE AND HOW TO GET TO THAT HAPPY MEDIUM. SO I'M WONDERING, IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A -- MAYBE, ANDY, THIS IS FOR YOU. IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A RESOLUTION OR AS WE TALK ABOUT IGR -- MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, I THINK, IN OUR IGR AGENDA, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN NOT JUST -- WE CAN LOOK AT DOING A PROCESS OF NEEDING A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF JUST A MAJORITY VOTE? >> SEGOVIA: COUNCILWOMAN, TO DO THAT -- I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT REQUIRED. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE -- IN AUDIO] -- WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL WOULD AGREE TO -- NOT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, BUT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO VOTE AS AN ORDINANCE. >> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. COUNCILMAN TREVINO? >> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE OPPOSITE OF GOOD IS NOT BAD, IT'S INDIFFERENCE. AND THIS BODY WAS NOT INDIFFERENT WHEN IT VOTED FOR PAID SICK LEAVE. I WANT TO THANK RAY FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AND I THINK I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT COUNCILMAN HALL SAID. WE'VE DECIDED ON THIS ISSUE, AND THIS BODY WAS NOT INDIFFERENT. ULTIMATELY, THIS COUNCIL, WHEN IT DECIDES SOMETHING, IS THE FINAL SAY. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT COMMITTEES AND OTHER GROUPS -- THIS HAS HAPPENED. WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. ULTIMATELY, IT'S THIS COUNCIL. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA FOR BRINGING THIS BACK BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE BASIS FOR WHICH WE'RE TAKING THE STAND, AND IT'S -- WE CANNOT REMAIN INDIFFERENT. THAT'S JUST THE OTHER WORD FOR -- COUNCILMEMBER FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, I ABSOLUTELY -- I HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF THOSE LETTERS, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M A SMALL BUSINESS MYSELF, BUT I'VE ALSO SEEN SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN ACTION. I'VE SEEN THEM GROWING UP, I'VE SEEN THEM IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, AND I TELL YOU, THAT I'VE ALSO TALKED TO HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS THAT WILL TELL YOU AND ARGUE THAT THIS ITEM ACTUALLY HELPS IN THE LONG RUN. THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND BEING INDIFFERENT IS NOT THE RIGHT THING. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN TREVINO. COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA. >> SALDAÑA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I'LL JUST SORT OF CLOSE UP BY SAYING THAT I THINK THAT THE -- LITIGATED THAT. IT WAS A 9 TO 2 VOTE IN AUGUST. SO WHAT WE'RE LITIGATING TODAY IS THE QUESTION OF, IS A 9 TO 2 VOTE BY THIS COUNCIL AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL, A POSITION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN, VERY CLEARLY, SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD OPPOSE IF IT IS TRYING TO BE THREATENED TO UNDO? SO IT'S A QUESTION OF PREEMPTION AND LOCAL CONTROL, THIS IS WHAT THE MOTION IS FOR. SO WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN AN IGR COMMITTEE, AND FRANKLY, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THEN, THIS IS A DECISION WE'VE BEEN CLEARLY LAID OUT WITH A 9 TO 2 VOTE, AND I SHOULD SAY TO YOU, WHILE YOU WANT A NEUTRAL POSITION, WE'RE NOT NEUTRAL BASED ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IS CLEAR AROUND LOCAL CONTROL. THIS IS A QUESTION OF NOT RELITIGATING A -- THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY'S ASKED -- THE WORKER'S RIGHTS ASKED IT OF US, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT DISCUSSION. THIS IS A QUESTION OF LOCAL CONTROL AND A POSITION OF PREEMPTION ON THIS BILL. YOU KNOW WHAT THE GREAT THING IS, WE'RE ALL GOING TO VOTE AND THERE WILL BE A POSITION AT THE END OF THIS, AND THERE WILL BE LESS CONFUSION FOR JEFF GOING FORWARD AND -- AFTER WE TAKE THIS VOTE, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE SORT OF -- AUDIO] -- >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA. I'LL JUST START, AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST, IN A CITY THAT IS RANKED AMONG THE TOP GROWING ECONOMIES, METROS IN THE NATION, I REJECT THE NATION THAT WE ARE ANTIBUSINESS HERE AT THE CITY COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY WITH THE JOBS THAT WE'RE CREATING AND THE SECTORS THAT WE'RE DIVERSIFYING IN. ALSO IN A CITY IN WHICH OUR WAGES ARE GROWING TWICE AS FAST THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, I REJECT THE NOTION THAT WE'RE ANTIWORKER. WE DELIVER -- AUDIO] -- THOUGHTFULLY ABOUT ISSUES TO PROTECT WORKERS BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY GROWS. IT'S NOT AN EASY ISSUE. SO LET ME START BY WHERE WE BEGAN ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WE HAD A PETITION BROUGHT TO US, A CITIZEN-DRIVEN PETITION OF 140,000 SIGNATURES BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT HAD BEEN PREDRAFTED WITHOUT COMMUNITY INPUT, WITHOUT BUSINESS INPUT, WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE CITY [01:55:01] COUNCIL AND WORKERS AND BUSINESSES COMING TOGETHER TO DRAFT SOMETHING LOGICALLY THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED WELL IN SAN ANTONIO. SO WE HAD A CHOICE TO MAKE, WHETHER OR NOT TO ADOPT THAT ORDINANCE INTO LAW AS IS OR PLACE IT ON THE BALLOT, WHICH WE KNOW WOULD BE PUT INTO LAW AS IS. THE OTHER OPTION WE HAD WAS TO REJECT IT ALTOGETHER. WE DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS. WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE SO THAT WE'D HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY, BUSINESSES, WORKERS, THE CITY COUNCIL TO DRAFT SOMETHING IN THE EVENT THAT WE STILL HAVE -- WE'VE SEEN SIMILAR LEGISLATION PREEMPTIVELY ATTACK BY THE LEGISLATURE AND WE'VE SEEN A COURT CASE NOW MOVE THROUGH IN WHICH THERE IS ALREADY A DECISION STATING THAT THIS ORDINANCE DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL VIOLATES THE TEXAS MINIMUM WAGE ACT. ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE'RE DRAFTING LANGUAGE INTO OUR IGR AGENDA. TO DO SO WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT CONTEXT, I THINK IS AN IRRESPONSIBLE TO GOVERN. SO LET ME JUST TELL YOU WHERE I AM ON THIS: I BELIEVE, AS COUNCILMAN PELAEZ STATED, THAT, NUMBER ONE, WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR A COMMUNITY THAT HAS SICK LEAVE BENEFITS FOR ALL OF OUR WORKERS. WE ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE THAT SOME JURISDICTION DOESN'T FALL SOLELY TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT'S MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE THE DOMAIN OF THE STATE, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE THE DOMAIN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND WE RESPECT THOSE JURISDICTIONS AS BEST WE CAN. SO WHERE WE ARE ON THIS ITEM, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, JEFF. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE OF PAID SICK LEAVE. AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY TO REGULATE IT. BUT THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER CONVERSATIONS AUDIO] -- BOTH INTERCITY BUT ALSO STANDING ALONE SOMETIMES AS SAN ANTONIO TO PROTECT OURSELF-GOVERNANCE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. THAT IS NOT TO BE ABRIDGED. SO TO BE CLEAR, OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA -- >> COYLE: I WAS ASKED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. ONE OF OUR SIX PRIORITIES IN OUR AGENDA IS PRESERVING LOCAL DECISION-MAKING, AND THE STATEMENT BEYOND THAT IS THAT THE CITY SUPPORTS THE CONTINUED ABILITY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE, TO PASS ORDINANCES THAT ADDRESS THE PRIORITIES, UNIQUE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. AND ALSO ONE OF THE IMPORTANT VALUES OF TEXAS, BUT ALSO IN SAN ANTONIO, IS NONDISCRIMINATION AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IN FACT, ONE OF THE FIRST ACTIONS THAT ME AND MY COLLEAGUES TOOK TOGETHER AS A BODY WAS TO ESTABLISH A NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE. AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA SPECIFIC TO NONDISCRIMINATION TO PROTECT OUR ORDINANCE AND ALSO TO PROTECT OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY THAT ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD. IS THAT LANGUAGE STILL IN THE AGENDA? >> COYLE: YES, IT'S BROADER THAN THAT. IT'S ABOUT MAINTAINING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE CITY AND THE STATE ON A NATIONAL SCALE TO OPPOSE DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PUT US IN A COMPROMISED POSITION WHEN COMPETING FOR BUSINESS AND SO FORTH. BUT, YES, AND THE NDO ITSELF, AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS LONG SINCE BEEN PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED AND IN PLACE HERE, WOULD FALL UNDER THAT LOCAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY PRIORITY MENTIONED FROM BEFORE. SO IF THERE WAS A BILL -- IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN BILLS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACK OUR NDO AND WE'VE REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO THEM. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: AND I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA AND MY COLLEAGUES HERE ON THE DAIS, THAT THAT IS AN UNCOMPROMISING POSITION. WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE AND WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY IT AS CHANGES PERMIT. AND SO I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK SPECIFIC ABOUT THE BILLS THAT WERE MENTIONED -- >> COYLE: YES. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: SB15 WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED HAD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE PROTECTING AND EXEMPTING NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES IN THE CITY; IS THAT CORRECT. >> COYLE: YES. IT HAD A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR NONDISCRIMINATION. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: IN THE ABUNDANT WISDOM I SAY THAT SARCASTICALLY OF OUR LEGISLATURE, THEY REMOVED THAT FROM THE PREEMPTION BILL. >> COYLE: THEY DID. THERE'S OFTEN A COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE, WHICH MEANS THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL BRINGS FORWARD A NEW VERSION AND LAYS THAT OUT FOR THE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SB15 PULLED THAT NONDISCRIMINATION ISSUE OUT. [02:00:02] THAT LEFT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT DISCRIMINATORY ACTION. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: AND THAT WAS SB15. >> COYLE: RIGHT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: WHICH WAS SENSE BROKEN UP INTO THE FOUR BILLS MENTIONED. >> COYLE: RIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE NONDISCRIMINATION -- I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE NONDISCRIMINATION EXEMPTION, SB15 STALLED, IT NEVER CAME UP TO A VOTE IN THE SENATE, SO THE SPONSOR OF THAT BILL, SENATOR BRANDON CRAYTON BROKE IT UP INTO FOUR PIECES. HE'S ATTACHED EACH PIECE INDIVIDUALLY AND HIS ARM ON THE SENATE FLOOR IS THAT THE BILLS ARE NOW SO NARROW THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES THERE. ARE PLENTY OF GROUPS WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: AND THE PAID SICK LEAVE PORTION OF THAT BILL WAS ALREADY PASSED OUT OF SENATE. >> COYLE: YES. OF THE FOUR, 2487 IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH PAST, ALL FAWR -- FOUR OF THEM HAVE PASSED. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: SO OUR POSITION ON SB27 WOULD BE MOOT. >> COYLE: WELL, IT MOVES INTO THE HOUSE NOW. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: SO THE HOUSE SIDE DOES RETAIN THE -- IN AUDIO] -- >> COYLE: THE HOUSE BILL DOES. 1654 DOES CONTAIN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. IT HAS NOT HAD A HEARING YET, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE SIX WEEKS OUT, SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL. I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THOSE FOUR SENATE BILLS WILL GET REFERRED TO A HOUSE COMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS WILL BEGIN THERE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. WELL, MY POSITION ON -- ON THIS ITEM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL, I THINK, VERY THOUGHTFULLY PASSED THE ORDINANCE BROUGHT TO US BY THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE, THE CITIZEN PETITION, SO THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE, BUSINESSES, WORKERS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, OUR CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE SOMETHING TO IMPLEMENT IF WE STILL HAVE AUTHORITY. BECAUSE OUR CITY COUNCIL, I THINK, THOUGHTFULLY DID THAT, AND THAT PROCESS IS UNDER WAY, I WOULD ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO CONTINUE IN THE EVENT WE STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY. BUT I WILL SAY I DON'T SUPPORT TAKING A POSITION ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL. WHAT I WOULD ASK, THOUGH, IS THAT THE SAME FOLKS THAT ARE AT THE TABLE TRYING TO THOUGHTFULLY WORK THIS THROUGH, ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS SOCIAL MEDIA FOLKS, POLITICIAN WHOSE ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE THIS COMMUNITY, WITH REGARD TO STRIPPING AWAY NONDISCRIMINATION NOT JUST IN THIS SESSION, BUT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS. AND THAT WE NEED TO SEND A VERY STRONG MESSAGE THAT WE OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES FROM OUR CITY AND OTHER CITIES, BUT WITH REGARD TO THE PAID SICK LEAVE, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT THE -- LANDS -- LEGISLATOR HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO DECIDE, I DON'T THINK IT'S A PRUDENT DECISION TO MAKE A POSITION OTHER THAN NEUTRAL. THOSE ARE MY POSITIONS. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR CHANGING THE POSITION ON THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SALDAÑA. SO A YES VOTE IS TO CHANGE POSITION FROM NEUTRAL. A NO VOTE WOULD BE TO RETAIN THE CURRENT POSITION OF NEUTRAL ON THOSE BILLS. PLEASE VOTE. [10. Approving the following Ordinances, on behalf of SAWS, authorizing the acquisition through negotiation or condemnation of interests in 28 permanent parcels and 10 temporary parcels of land sufficient for project purposes of privately-owned real property and declaring the projects to be public use projects and a public necessity for the acquisitions: [Peter Zanoni, Deputy City Manager; Razi Hosseini, Interim Director, Transportation & Capital Improvements]] 10. >> CLERK: ITEM NUMBER 10 IS AN ORDINANCE AND ORDINANCES ON BEHALF OF SAWS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THROUGH NEGOTIATION -- AUDIO] -- PARCELS OF LAND SUFFICIENT FOR PROJECT PURPOSES OF PRIVATELY OWNED REAL PROPERTY AND DECLARING THE PROJECTS TO BE PUBLIC USE PROJECTS AND A PUBLIC NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITIONS. >> COUNCILMAN -- THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AUTHORIZE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN -- AUDIO] -- PUBLIC USE PROJECT FOR SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM PROJECT BY ACQUIRING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BY THE CITY CLERK AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THIS MOTION. >> CLERK: THE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INTEREST LOCATED IN SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS 4, 6 AND 10 ARE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING: A IS LEON CREEK W-1 NEW CITY BLOCKS 13942, 13951, 15332. ITEM B, W6, WHICH IS HIGHWAY 90, NEW CITY BLOCKS 13975, 15655, 13518, 15323 -- AUDIO] -- 302, 152, 999-51-5602. 15589, 15600, 16528, 16531, [02:05:03] 13951, 13962 AND ITEM C, E4, WHICH IS THE BULVERDE AREA -- PROPERTIES ARE DEPICTED IN THE OVERALL PROJECT DRAWING MAP AND ATTACHED IN EXHIBIT A-2 OF EACH RESPECTIVE ORDINANCE ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THIS MOTION. [City Manager's Report] HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION -- >> WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT SHANNON MILLER AND THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS WORKING WITH EACH OF YOUR OFFICES TO SHOWCASE LEGACY BUSINESSES IN YOUR DISTRICTS AND PHOTOS WILL BE RELEASED DURING THE MONTH OF MAY. WE'LL HAVE AN OFFICIAL KICKOFF PARTY ON MAY 2ND FOR PRESERVATION MONTH AT THE -- ALSO WE'VE GOT THE AMAZING PRESERVATION RACE, IT WILL BE DOWNTOWN ON SATURDAY THE FOURTH. AND -- PRESERVATION RACE FOR KIDS AT THE SAN ANTONIO ZOO ON SATURDAY, MAY 18TH. AND THEN THE FINAL EVENT WILL BE THE SECOND EVENT -- OR THE SECOND -- THE ANNUAL REHABARAMA, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAID THAT RIGHT, THAT WAS POSTPONED FROM LAST WEEK DUE TO RAIN. IT'S SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY MAY 11TH AND WE'LL BE IN THE MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT. GUIDO MATERIALS IS THE TITLE SPONSOR AND IT'S REALLY A CONCERTED EFFORT FROM HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS TO HELP REHAB HOMES IN THE AREA. THE FULL LISTING OF THE EVENTS AND SPONSORS IS AT SAPRESERVATION.COM AND WE'RE PASSING OUT PRINTED MATERIAL FOR YOU AS WELL. LASTLY, AND JUST REAL QUICK, THIS FRIDAY IS THEE YEAH SETERBO'S LAST DAY AT THE CITY, MANY OF YOU KNOW HER WITH HER WORK AT GPA AND YOUR OFFICES ON PRESS RELEASES AND DEALING WITH THE MEDIA. THIE IS GOING TO GO TO THE HEEM MISS FAIR REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHERE I'M SURE SHE'S GOING TO BE BORED, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY EXCITING WORKING FOR THE CITY, BUT WE WISH TH ICIALGA WELL, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK ANY TIME YOU WANT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THANKS, MAYOR. [APPLAUSE] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THIA, DO YOU HAVE A FINAL STATEMENT, THIA? [LAUGHTER] >> I'VE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROACH THE DAIS, SO THANK YOU, ERIK, SO MUCH FOR WHAT YOU SAID. AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT'S BEEN AN ABSOLUTE HONOR TO SERVE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU IN YOUR STAFF. I'M GLAD THAT I WON'T BE TOO FAR AWAY, I'LL STILL BE PART OF THE FAMILY, SO THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND KEEP DOING THE GOOD WORK. [APPLAUSE] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT WORK, THIA. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN? >> VIAGRAN: I JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M EXCITED ABOUT PRESERVATION MONTH, VERY HAPPY IT'S GOING TO BE IN DISTRICT 3 ONCE AGAIN. THANK YOU, SHANNON, AND ALL OF YOUR TEAM, AND GLAD WE'RE GOING TO HIGHLIGHT EVERY -- SO MANY LEGACY BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY. AND THEN I'M SO SAD TO SEE THIA GO, I'M -- BUT WE KNOW IT'S TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS, SO CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN. COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. >> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, ERIK. THE BRAIN DRAIN IS TOO MUCH TO HANDLE. FIRST MIKE FRISBEE, NOW THIA. THIA, CONGRATS. I'M REALLY PROUD OF YOU. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU SUCCEED SPECTACULARLY OUT THERE. HPARC'S LUCKY TO HAVE YOU. IT'S OUR LOSS. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PELAEZ. WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU, THIA, BUT WE'LL SEE YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. IT'S BEEN GREAT WORKING WITH YOU. I DO HAVE A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT, ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IS NOW TURNING AN UNDISCLOSED AGE, AND THAT IS COUNCILMAN COURAGE ON APRIL 21ST. AND SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND RECOGNIZE OUR COLLEAGUE AND SING HIM HAPPY BIRTHDAY. [02:10:01] [APPLAUSE] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT. >> COURAGE: MAYOR, MAY I JUST MENTION -- >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, COUNCIL. >> COURAGE: I AM CELEBRATING THE 29TH ANNIVERSARY OF MY 39TH BIRTHDAY. [Executive Session] THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, ALSO A 2:00 P.M. ZONING MEETING. THE TIME IS NOW 11:26 A.M. ON THIS THURSDAY APRIL 18TH, 2019. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND TO DELIBERATE OR DISCUSS THE ITEMS POSTED FOR THE APRIL 17TH B SESSION INCLUDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION 551.087 EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT, THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY, SECTION 551.072, LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND LITIGATION MATTERS INVOLVING THE CITY PENDING AND CONTEMPLATED LEGISLATION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. [Zoning Consent Agenda] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL 2:06 P.M. CITY COUNCIL HAS RECONVENED FROM ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION AND NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. WE'LL BEGIN NOW WITH OUR ZONING ITEMS. I HAVE SO FAR LISTED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS ITEMS Z1, Z7, P2 AND Z12, 1213 AND Z14 AND PLEASE KNOW THAT [INDISCERNIBLE] AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FROM WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'LL ASK OUR AV TEAM TO ROLL THE TRANSLATION VIDEO. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. WE HAVE ITEMS Z1, 2, Z7, P2, 4 INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS REMAINING ON CONSENT THAT MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA? >> SECOND. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA. WE DO HAVE CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ITEMS REMAINING ON CONSENT. I'LL CALL THEM NOW. JACK FINGER. >> >> WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR NIRENBERG AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JACK M. FINGER. A FEW ITEMS I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS PORTION -- YES, Z13, IN MR. BROCKHOUSE'S DISTRICT, YES, THE -- THIS ONE HAS A NUMBER OF RED FLAGS HERE, SIR. BOTH THE ZONING STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION HAVE SAID NO TO IT. SUGGEST WE DENY IT BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STAFF HAS NOTED ADVERSE IMPACTS AND THERE WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC, MORE NOISE AND THE CABLE WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ALSO OPPOSES IT, SIR BUT I GUESS WHAT THE BIGGEST NOTICE IS THAT THIS THING HAS BEEN DELAYED -- WELL, I THINK THIS MAKES ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES NOW, SIR. YES, WE KNOW YOU CAN DELAY IT INFINITELY MANY TIMES BUT THERE COMES A POINT WHERE THIS THING JUST BECOMES CRAZY. AND INQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW JUST WHY -- WHAT YOUR GAME PLAN IS AS FAR AS DOING THIS THING FOR SO, SO MANY MONTHS HERE. WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY NO TO THE DARN THING. IT'S GOT SO MANY HOLES IN IT HERE, UNLESS YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO WEAR PEOPLE DOWN ON IT THERE. THEN Z12 IN MRS. GONZALES' DISTRICT, YES, THE STAFF -- ZONING STAFF SAID NO TO IT [02:15:03] BECAUSE OF THE ADVERSE INCOMPATIBLE -- AUDIO] -- IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE -- IT'S NOT EQUIPPED FOR COMMERCIAL -- THE PROPOSAL IS NOT EQUIPPED FOR THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, IT'S ENCROACHMENT, IT'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT, IT'S NOISE, AIR POLLUTION, NUISANCES, ALL KINDS OF THINGS THERE. AUTO REPAIR SHOP THERE. AND THE RESIDENTS -- AUDIO] -- NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSES IT, SO MAYBE YOU'D WANT TO SAY NO TO THIS ONE, MRS. GONZALES. THE -- AND LET'S SEE. THE -- MRS. SANDOVAL'S DISTRICT, YES, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER ONE, THE STAFF SUGGESTED DENIAL ON THIS ONE BECAUSE THE ASSISTED LIVING THERE CAN ONLY HOLD SO MANY RESIDENTS, EIGHT RESIDENTS. 12 IS WAY TOO MUCH AND THEY -- AND THEY'RE REQUESTING AS MANY AS 16. 16, AND BECAUSE -- AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE STAFF HAS NOTED TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONCERNS. THIS IS RIGHT ON MANATO STREET, RIGHT NEAR ST. LUKE'S CHURCH, MRS. SANDOVAL. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW? AND ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA, WHERE ONCE AGAIN, MRS. GONZALES YOU HAVE A BAR -- >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. FINGER. >> LIKE I SAY, SO MANY SCANDALS, SO LITTLE TIME. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: SUZANNE ON Z-4. >> : IT'S ON CONSENT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: YES, MA'AM. YOU DON'T WANT THE TIME? >> NO. MAIMS ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ROSE HILL SPEAKING ON Z6, ALSO ON CONSENT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN HALL, MY NAME IS ROSE HILL, PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM SIX. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE, AGAIN, FOLLOWED OUR PROCESS IN MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THEM AND WE WELCOME THEM TO OUR COMMUNITY AND THEIR NEW PACKAGING FACILITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING IN GOVERNMENT HILL. AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. HILL. REBECCA SEDILLO, FOLLOWED BY KEITH PIKE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND STAFF. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HILLIARD CLINIC, WHICH IS JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED APPLICANT ZONING CHANGE, BECAUSE WE ARE WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BOUNDARY. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE NEW DESIGNATION. WE FEEL THAT IT'S AN UPGRADE TO THE FACILITIES, AND IT'S ALSO AN UPGRADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE BEEN A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROMISING NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM AND THE PLANS AND WE CAME TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. SEDILLO. KEITH PIKE? FOLLOWED BY MIKE CAMERON. >> I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND I WANTED TO THANK THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE FOR THEIR SUPPORT, WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP MEETING PROCESS AND GOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE THERE. I WAS VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT. AND ALSO THE HELP FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT, WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE SLIGHTLY CHANGE THE ZONING SO IT WOULD FIT MORE INTO THE FUTURE PLANS OF THE AREA. AND I JUST WANTED TO THANK ALL THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT IN THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. PIKE. MR. CAMERON? MIKE CAMERON? >> MAYOR, MY NAME IS MIKE CAMERON, CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR COMPANY, WHICH IS DEVIL'S RIVER DISTILLERY. WE ARE THE TENANT. THIS IS A SMALL MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE PLAN TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY IMPROVING IT, AND WANTED TO GIVE AB -- ASSURANCES TO ANYONE HERE, WE PROMISE TO BE A GOOD TENANT AND WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE OUR BUSINESS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. WE'RE MOVING OUR OPERATION FROM DALLAS DOWN TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. WE HAVE A SECONDARY LOCATION DOWNTOWN ON HOUSTON STREET FOR TOURISM. SO WE'RE EXCITED. WE'RE GOING TO EMPLOY APPROXIMATELY 20 PEOPLE IN OUR COMPANY. THOSE ARE NEW JOBS TO SAN ANTONIO. AND SO JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MR. CAMERON. RAMON RENTERIA SPEAKING ON Z9, ALSO ON CONSENT. IS MR. RENTERIA HERE? YOU'RE PASSING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. [02:20:01] WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA. THAT'S ALL ITEMS SAVE FOR Z1, Z2, Z7, P2, P12, Z13 AND Z14. PLEASE VOTE. [Z-1. ZONING CASE # Z-2018-900086 HL (Council District 1): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "C-1 NCD-2 AHOD" Light Commercial Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District to "C-1 HL NCD-2 AHOD" Light Commercial Historic Landmark Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District, on the east 18.59 feet of the North 105.73 feet of Lot 7, and the North 105.73 feet of Lot 8, Block 5, NCB 1877, located at 800 West Russell Place. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval.] MOTION CARRIES. ITEMS -- EXCUSE ME, ITEM Z1. >> CLERK: Z1 IS FROM Z1 -- I'M SORRY, C1 TO C1HL LOCATED AT 800 WEST RUSTLE PLACE. STAFF AND ZONING PLACE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 27 NOTICES MAILED, SEVEN IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST; THEREFORE, THIS WILL REQUIRE NINE VOTES TO PASS. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN TREVINO. >> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I WANT TO THANK THERESA NEW WHO'S HERE AS WELL AS THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. THIS IS -- AS YOU HEARD, IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY, BUT WE FEEL IT'S THE RIGHT THING. IT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF PROVIDING COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEREFORE I MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM Z1. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z1. WE DO HAVE CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I DON'T HAVE THE... OKAY. THERESA NIÑO, FOLLOWED BY SUSAN BEVIN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS THERESA NIÑO AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS THE COUNCILMAN SAID WE HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR OVER A YEAR ON TRYING TO PRESERVE THESE PROPERTIES, OUR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, THEY HAVE SOME VERY INTERESTING STORIES. WE ARE LOCATED BETWEEN -- IN AUDIO] -- SO IT'S A VERY DESIRABLE -- PEOPLE WILL BE INTERESTED IN OUR HOMES AND SO I THANK COUNCILMAN TREVINO FOR HELPING US PRESERVE -- HELPING US KEEP OUR HOMES AND HOPE TO WORK WITH YOU ALL SO IN THE FUTURE TO DO SO AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. NIÑO. SUSAN -- >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCIL. THE SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY SUPPORTS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION -- IN AUDIO] -- NECESSARY TO QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. THE ORIGINAL OWNER, MARY DELAJY IS SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO -- DEVELOP -- ALTA VISTA. THE HOUSE EMBODIES DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE AND IS AN ESTABLISHED VISUAL FEATURE ON THE CORNER OF THE NORTH FLORES CORRIDOR LEADING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SAN PEDRO -- DESIGNATION WILL NOT ONLY ENABLE THE OWNER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TAX INCENTIVES BUT WOULD HELP PRESERVE A BUILDING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO ALTA VISTA'S ELIGIBILITY AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. BEVIN. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z1. PLEASE VOTE. [Z-2. ZONING CASE # Z-2019-10700002 HL (Council District 1): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "MF-33 NCD-2 AHOD" Multi-Family Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District to "MF-33 HL NCD-2 AHOD" Multi-Family Historic Landmark Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District on the East 7.18 feet of South 29 feet of Lot 6, South 33 feet of Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 5, NCB 1877, located at 2511 North Flores Street. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval] MOTION CARRIES. ITEM Z2. >> CLERK: Z2 IS FROM MF33 TO MF33HL LOCATED AT 2511 NORTH FLORES STREET. STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 28 NOTICES MAILED, FOUR IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED, THEREFORE THIS WILL REQUIRE NINE VOTES TO APPROVE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM Z2. THERESA NINO FOLLOWED BY SUSAN BEVIN. >> THANK YOU, -- AUDIO] -- IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOW LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS MIDDLE HOUSING -- OR THE MISSING MIDDLE. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ARE IN A VERY DESIRABLE LOCATION, WE ARE -- SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK IS RIGHT IN ALTA VISTA, AND THAT IS THE BERTH PLACE OF SAN ANTONIO -- BIRTH PLACE OF SAN ANTONIO, SO, AGAIN, THIS HOUSING IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. NIÑO. [02:25:02] SUSAN BEVIN? >> THE SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY SUPPORTS THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 2511 NORTH FLORES, WHICH PREDATES 1911 AND IS ONE OF THE OLDEST STRUCTURES IN THIS PART OF THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS BUILDING, WHICH HAS BEEN USED AS AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING SINCE 1921, MEETS THREE CRITERIA NECESSARY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THIS STRUCTURE ALSO MEETS CRITERION 7. THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF THIS HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 2500 BLOCK OF NORTH FLORES MAKES IT A LOCATION AS AN ESTABLISHED -- ENTRY CORRIDOR INTO ALTA VISTA FROM THE SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK. AS THE ONLY OTHER TWO-STORY HOUSE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BLOCK, THE STRUCTURE'S PRESENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING THE VISUAL CONTINUITY OF HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK ALONG THIS SECTION OF THE STREET. ALTHOUGH SOME ORIGINAL MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SUPERFICIALLY ALTERED, THE BUILDING'S BASIC FORM REMAINS INTACT. LANDMARK DESIGNATION WOULD ALLOW THE OWNER TO QUALIFY FOR TAX CREDITS WHILE CONTINUING TO OFFER AFFORDABLE, MULTIHOUSING -- MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WITHIN THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD ALSO STRENGTHEN THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THE COLLECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES NEAR THE CORNER -- ELIGIBILITY AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, MRS. BEVIN. COUNCILMAN TREVINO. >> TREVINO: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND, AGAIN, THANK YOU, THERESA AND ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS MRS. BEVIN TODAY. SHE LISTED OFF SOME OF THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION, AND I WANT TO READ ONE THAT I THINK IS ALSO AS IMPORTANT, IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT. IT BEARS AN IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DISTINCTIVE STRUCTURES, SITES OR AREAS, EITHER HAS AN IMPORTANT COLLECTION OF PROPERTIES OR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OR CRAFTSMANSHIP WITH FEW INTRUSIONS OR BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE AREA ACCORDING TO THE PLAN BASED ON ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC OR CULTURAL MOTIF. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE THAT -- IN AUDIO] -- >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z2. [Z-7. ZONING CASE # Z-2019-10700002 HL (Council District 1): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "MF-33 NCD-2 AHOD" Multi-Family Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District to "MF-33 HL NCD-2 AHOD" Multi-Family Historic Landmark Alta Vista Neighborhood Conservation Airport Hazard Overlay District on the East 7.18 feet of South 29 feet of Lot 6, South 33 feet of Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 5, NCB 1877, located at 2511 North Flores Street. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from “C-2 MLOD-3 MLR-1 AHOD” Commercial Martindale Army Airfield Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 1 Airport Hazard Overlay District to “C-2 CD MLOD-3 MLR-1 AHOD” Commercial Martindale Army Airfield Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 1 Airport Hazard Overlay District with Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales (Full Service) on Lot 1, Block 1, NCB 12897, located at 4918 Rigsby Avenue. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval, with Conditions.] PLEASE VOTE. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: MOTION CARRIES. >> CONDITIONAL USE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES FULL SERVICE AT -- APPROVING -- SCREENED FENCING ALONG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND USES. NO TEMPORARY SIGNS, TENANTS, FLAGS OR WAIVER SIGNS. 18 NOTICES WERE MAILED, 0 IN FAVOR, 0 OPPOSED IN THE EASTERN TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT GROUP IS IN SUPPORT. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY. THERE ARE SEVERAL CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS -- OH, EXCUSE ME. Z7 HAS NO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. I APOLOGIZE. COUNCILMAN VIAGRAN. >> VIAGRAN: I WANT TO THANK OUR ZONING COMMISSION TER, JOY MCKEE AND THE EASTERN TRIANGLE MANAGEMENT GROUP FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE FOR THEIR INPUT ON THESE CONDITIONS. I WILL ALSO BE INCLUDING AN NA AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO NONALCOHOL SALES, SO WITH THAT, I MOTION TO APPROVE AS C-2 NACD FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED. >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: AUDIO] >> MAYOR NIRENBERG: OKAY IN AUDIO] WITH CONDITIONS AS STATED. PLEASE VOTE. [Items P-2 & Z-12] MOTION CARRIES. ITEMS P2 AND Z12. >> CLERK: GUADALUPE WEST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY MIXED USE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FROM R4 AND C-2 NA TO IDZ FOR AN OFFICE AUTO TRUCK REPAIR AND USES PERMITTED IN C-2 P AND R4. GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST OF COLEMA STREET AND SOUTH ZARZAMORA STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION [02:30:01] RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 45 NOTICED MAILED, THREE IN FAVOR, 0 OPPOSED. HISTORIC RESIDENCE -- AUDIO] -- THE APPLICANT HAS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS ITEM. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: OKAY. WE HAVE CITIZENS TO SPEAK, SO SHOULD WE HEAR THE CITIZENS FIRST? >> WE CAN ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK AND THEN WE CAN ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO AMEND PRIOR TO THE MOTION. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: SOUNDS GOOD. SO FIRST WE HAVE AMELIA VALDEZ, AND SHE'LL BE FOLLOWED BY NATALIE GUERRERO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S AMELIA VALDEZ AND I RESIDE AT 1635POTOCY, BORN AND RAISED IN THE WEST SIDE AND A PART OF DISTRICT FIVE. AS YOU SEE, THERE IS A MAP ON THE SCREEN AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HISTORIC REST SIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION. I WANT YOU TO SEE THAT CERTAIN AREAS THAT ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO THE AUTO REPAIRS, AND THEY RESIDE ALONG GUADALUPE AND ALONG WEST COMMERCE AND BUENA VISTA, INCLUDING ON ZARZAMORA WHICH IS 1001 ZARZAMORA WHERE -- IN AUDIO] -- AUTO REPAIR. ALSO THERE'S ANOTHER AUTO REPAIR IN THAT AREA ALSO. SO -- AUTO REPAIR SHOPS, WE -- THEY HAVE FOUR TO FIVE STAR RATING AND WE'VE ALWAYS -- AUDIO] -- WE ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTED AS FAR AS US GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS. WE'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST THREE YEARS. WE WANT OUR VOICES HEARD. ACCORDING TO OUR OBJECTIVES FOR THE ASSOCIATION ENHANCING THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY IS ONE. [INDISCERNIBLE] A SENSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG MEMBERS AS WELL AS OTHERS -- AUDIO] -- WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THIS CASE AND WE INSIST ON BEING HEARD AND OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD. ASSOCIATION HAS NEVER HAD A VOICE -- THAT TO BE RESPECTED. I'VE BEEN A PART OF DISTRICT 5, ACTUALLY I HELPED COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY GONZALES AS PART OF A PILOT PROGRAM FOR CPS, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME LIGHTING IN SOME OF THE SPACES THAT WE NEEDED, AND WE HELPED WITH THAT AS JUST AS CONSTITUENT. SO, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITY -- GUADALUPE COMMUNITY PLAN, I KNOW THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- I BRING FOREFRONT -- TO THE FOREFRONT IS THE VOICES OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA -- AUDIO] -- AND YOUR TIME TODAY TO HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, MRS. VALDEZ. NEXT IS NATALIE GE -- GU -- GUERRERO. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: TO TONY GARCIA? NEXT WE'LL HAVE MARIAN HERNANDEZ. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: SO MR. TONY GARCIA, YOU'RE UP NEXT. YOU'LL HAVE MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA, I LIVE AT 243 EAST [INAUDIBLE] IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION. OCCASIONS DEFINED COMMON GROUND FOR THIS OCTOBER 2018 WHEN A PLANNED AMENDMENT WAS FIRST AUDIO] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO A POSITION OF CONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION UNTIL EARLIER THIS WEEK. THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE MET WITH THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE [INDISCERNIBLE] ORTIZ ON TUESDAY [02:35:03] APRIL 16TH. AT THE END OF THIS MEETING THERE WAS A FINAL HISTORIC WEST SIDE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD FULLY SUPPORT THE ZONING APPLICATION IF THREE ELEMENTS WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. ITEM ONE WAS TO ADD A 5-FOOT DEEP BUFFER LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE THE FENCE AND ALONG 125 FEET BUSINESS PROPERTY LINE ON SAN PATRICIO STREET. ITEM TWO WAS TO ADD A 5-FOOT DEEP BUFFER LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE THE FENCE AND ALONG THE PROPERTY ON COLIMA STREET. AND THE LAST ITEM WAS TO ADD LANDSCAPE ISLAND ON SOUTH ZARZAMORA IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING OFFICE STRUCTURE. BASED ON THE ABOVE AGREED TWO ITEMS, THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE APPLICATION DESPITE THE CITY'S POSITION RECOMMENDING DENIAL. REGRETTABLY HISTORIC WEST SIDE RECEIVED AN AMENDMENT SITE PLAN LATER IN THE WEEK WHICH DID NOT REFLECT THE MUTUALLY AGREED TO ITEMS, CREATING TO ITEM TWO AND THREE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM, ITEM 1 WAS NOT ON THE AMENDED -- BUFFER LANDSCAPE AND ALSO ADDED AN ENTRANCE ON SAN PATRICIO STREET WHICH IS NOT ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION. I -- APRIL 16TH AND REVISE THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE NOTE RESIZING THE SITE PLAN WILL -- AND SECTION 35-421 OF THE UDC ADDING THE BUFFERING LANDSCAPE. THE AESTHETIC IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF COLIMA STREET, SAN PATRICIO STREET WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. IN ADDITION, THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA, IS MINIMIZED. NOISE, AIR POLLUTION, POLLUTANTS SUCH AS ANTIFREEZE, OIL, GREASE, BATTERY ACID AND OTHER AUTO REPAIR NUISANCE -- AUDIO] -- CONTAINED WITHIN THESE BUFFER LANDSCAPES. FURTHER MORE, THE ADDED BUFFER LANDSCAPING WOULD MEET THE PROVISIONS NOTED IN THE SA TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WHERE IT STATES THAT ONE SHOULD ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE BUFFERS AND -- THAT THERE IS A COST TO THE BUSINESS OWNER, BUT THERE IS A SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BUSINESS MODEL CHANGES RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE IS ALSO WILLING TO MEET WITH THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS SITE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL -- BUFFER ZONES. IT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF THE GUADALUPE WEST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SA TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I BELIEVE HISTORIC RESIDENT ASSOCIATION WOULD THEN FULLY SUPPORT THE ZONING APPLICATION IF THESE BUFFER ZONES WERE ADDED TO THE SITE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU. LAST SPEAKER ON P2/Z12. >> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION AND WE APPRECIATE COMING TOGETHER. YES, FOR THE PAST, WE HAVE HAD SIX MEETINGS WITH MRS. MCDONALD FROM BROWN & ASSOCIATES -- AUDIO] -- CAME WITH THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE NEEDED FOR MR. CHACOTE'S MECHANIC SHOP. WE HAVE ALSO MET MR. CHACOTE AND HIS FAMILY [INAUDIBLE] E-MAIL OF THE PLAN WAS SENT LATER. THERE WERE CHANGES THAT SURPRISED ALL THE ASSOCIATION, - WORK TOGETHER AND WORK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, MRS. HOFFMAN. [02:40:02] THE COUNCIL. >> CLERK: THE APPLICANT HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SET. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: OKAY. MRS. CAROLINE? >> YES, HELLO, CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN ORTIZ AT 112 EAST PECAN. I APOLOGIZE, I WAS HOPING TO IS SUBMIT THIS BEFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPOKE. AS MR. GARCIA WITH MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE REST -- VERY BENEFICIAL CONVERSATIONS AND WE ARE AGREEING TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS AND CONCRETE APPROACH ALONG SAN PATRICIO AND ESTABLISHING THE FIVE-FOOT BUFFER AS PER THEIR REQUEST. SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY -- REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S SUPPORT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, MRS. MCDONALD. COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES. >> GONZALES: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO I JUST -- I KNOW THAT Y'ALL HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, THOUGH, REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE NOISE. I'M NOT SURE WHO CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION FROM THE -- >> WE CAN LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. >> GONZALES: OKAY. >> YES, MA'AM? >> GONZALES: SO CAN YOU ADDRESS THOSE TWO ISSUES THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE -- BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS REGARDING THOSE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE PRETTY COMMON WITH AN AUTO BODY SHOP -- RATHER, IT'S NOT AN AUTO BODY. I THINK IT'S A MECHANIC. PRETTY COMMON COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOISE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PART. >> YES. OF COURSE. AND THANK YOU. TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIRST, MR. CHICO HAS OPERATED AT THIS LOCATION SINCE 2007 AND THERE WAS A MECHANIC SHOP THERE WHEN HE PURCHASED IT. >> GONZALES: DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WAS THERE? >> BEFORE HE PURCHASED IT? >> GONZALES: YES. >> I BELIEVE 15 TO 20 YEARS BEFORE THAT. >> GONZALES: I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE IN MY LIFETIME, SO... >> SO, YES. HE'S BEEN THERE SINCE 2007. IT HAD BEEN PRESENT THERE PREVIOUSLY. HE DOES COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS AS FAR AS COLLECTING ANY OF THE FLUIDS AND DISPOSING IT. HE HIRES A COMPANY TO COME TO HIS PROPERTY AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THE MATERIALS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN MENTIONED. AND AS FAR AS SOUND GOES, HE DOES OPERATE FROM 8:00 TO 6:00 MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, BUT WE DO -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF CHRISTY CAN SHOW THIS MAP. BUT WE DO HAVE SUPPORT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. WE GOT 11 SIGNATURES THAT HAVE LIVED THERE FOR A WHILE NOW, AND THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS AND THEY DO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. >> GONZALES: THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES. SO I KNOW THERE WERE LOTS OF MEETINGS. I DID HAVE MY STAFF ATTENDING MANY OF THOSE AS WELL REGARDING SOME LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING AND THOSE KIND OF ISSUES. AND SO ALL THOSE WERE ADDRESSED. I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE WAS JUST SOME LAST-MINUTE TWEAKS THAT WERE AN ITEM OF CONTENTION, AND SO YOU ADDRESSED THOSE. >> YES, MA'AM. AND SO WE, AGAIN -- AUDIO] -- CONCRETE APPROACH ALONG SAN PATRICIO, WHICH WAS THE POINT OF CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE SPEAKING OF, AND WE HAVE ADDED THE 5-FOOT BUFFER ALONG SAN PATRICIO AND COLIMA STREET STREET AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL [INDISCERNIBLE] ON ZARZAMORA WHICH IS REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT I JUST SUBMITTED. >> GONZALES: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> GONZALES: I THINK IT HAS BEEN A NICE EXAMPLE OF WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SO THEY'VE BEEN FORMALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MAYBE ONLY IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, SO WE APPRECIATE THEIR WORK. AND I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD COMPROMISE HERE AND WITH THAT, I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE. >> THANK YOU. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. [Z-13. ZONING CASE # Z2018256 (Council District 6): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "R-6 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "C-2NA AHOD" Commercial Nonalcoholic Sales Airport Hazard Overlay District on Lot 15, Block 1, NCB 15586, located at 2311 Westward Drive. Staff recommends Denial, with an Alternate Recommendation. Zoning Commission recommends Denial. (Continued from March 21, 2019)] MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM Z13. >> CLERK: Z13, REZONING FROM R-6 TO -- WESTWARD DRIVE. STAFF [INAUDIBLE] DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF R-6 CD CONDITIONAL USE FOR A NONCOMMERCIAL PARKING LOT. ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL. 20 NOTICES MAILED, 0 IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED. CABLE WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: WE HAVE NO CITIZENS SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM. COUNCILMAN BROCKHOUSE. >> BROCKHOUSE: I MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO MAY SECOND. >> SECOND. [02:45:01] >> MAYOR PRO TEM: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE. [Z-14. ZONING CASE # Z-2019-10700022 CD (Council District 7): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from "R-5 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District to "R-5 CD AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District with a Conditional Use for an Assisted Living Facility with no more than sixteen (16) residents on Lot 2, Block 22, NCB 12282, located at 4618 Manitou Drive. Staff recommends Denial. Zoning Commission recommends Approval.] >> MAYOR PRO TEM: ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. FINAL ITEM, Z14. >> CLERK: -- AUDIO] -- ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH NO MORE THAN 16 RESIDENTS LOCATED AT 4618MANATOU DRIVE -- PRO TEM THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. >> CLERK: I'M SORRY. I FAILED TO -- MAYOR PRO TEM ALL RIGHT. WE'LL INVITE EZRA MENDOZA. AND MR. MENDOZA, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCILMAN. MY NAME IS EZRA MENDOZA, OWNER OF MENDOZA ASSISTED LIVING COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO AND ALSO PERSONALLY THANK ANA SANDOVAL, FRANK RAMIREZ AND THE REST OF THE TEAM IN AUDIO] FOR ALL THEIR SUPPORT AND HELP THEY HAVE PROVIDED US. MY GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE MY FACILITY IS IN GOOD STANDARDS WITH THE CITY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS METAPHOR THE SAFETY OF ALL MY -- MET FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL MY RESIDENTS. THANK YOU, GOD BLESS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU, MR. MRS. SANDOVAL. >> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MENDOZA AUDIO] I UNDERSTAND AUDIO] SUPPORT AS WELL AS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ST. LUKE'S -- OR SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT FROM ST. LUKE'S CATHOLIC CHURCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENCE ON THAT. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS FOR ASSISTED LIVING FOR 12 OCCUPANTS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH CONDITIONS. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS ON ZONING. AND THIS MEETING IS * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.