[00:00:37]
GOOD MORNING.WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18TH, 2019.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROCK HOUSE PRESENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER COURAGE PRESENT.
WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL A SESSION AGENDA.
THE TIME IS 9:17 AM THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WE'LL BEGIN TODAY, UH, BY RECOGNIZING COUNCIL MEMBER VIE GRAND TO WELCOME OUR INDICATOR.
I'M, IT'S MY HONOR TO INVITE PASTOR EDDIE MEDEL IS THE PASTOR OF MIRACLE CENTER IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO.
HE HAS AN EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE OF 30 YEARS IN MINISTRY ASSISTING HIS FATHER, SENIOR PASTOR REUBEN MEDEL, AND NOW THREE YEARS AS PASTOR IN HELPING BUILD AND ENCOURAGE THE BETTERMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
PASTOR, PASTOR EDDIE MINISTERS WITH MOTIVATION AND ENTHUSIASM EVERY SUNDAY TO OVER 900 CHURCH MEMBERS.
HE IS THE CHIEF LEADER OF 12 DEPARTMENTS AND 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'S PRESENTLY WORKING ON HIS GOAL TO FINISH THE, THE MIRACLE CENTER GYM PROJECT SO THAT THE YOUTH OF THE COMMUNITY 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.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE.
IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE, BELIEVE ME.
UM, AT FIRST WHEN I WALKED IN, I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA, I SAW PASTOR HAGUE AND I THOUGHT, WOW, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE CHURCH.
AND I WAS LIKE, BUT, UH, I'M, I'M HONORED TO BE HERE AND I WANT TO THANK, UH, COUNCILMAN BRAN FOR THE INVITATION AND, UH, FOR ALL THE GREAT, UH, WORK SHE'S DOING.
I'VE BEEN A LIFELONG SOUTH SIDE, AND I'M REALLY PROUD TO SAY THAT I AM.
AND, AND I'VE 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 COULD TELL THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A, 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 THAT WE ALL WANT, UH, THE BEST FOR THE CITY THAT WE LOVE.
I CAN HONESTLY SAY, AND I COULD SEE THAT EVERYONE HERE IS HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT ALL OF US ARE HERE TO DO.
AND IN SAYING THAT, I WANNA START WITH A PRAYER.
'CAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THAT THERE IS, THERE IS WISDOM IN THE COUNCIL OF MANY.
AND THEN THE BOOK OF RUTH, CHAPTER FOUR, VERSE 14 SAYS THAT GOD HAS PREPARED YOU FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS.
SOMETIMES WE THINK THAT WE'RE HERE BY CHANCE, OR WE'RE HERE BY COINCIDENCE, BUT I THINK THAT WE ARE ALL HERE BY DESIGN.
SO I'M GONNA PRAY THAT GOD GIVE US GUIDANCE AND WISDOM TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS MORNING.
AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR ENTERING THE CALL OF BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT.
FATHER GOD, WE PRAISE YOU AND WE GLORIFY YOU THIS MORNING.
WE ASK YOU, FATHER GOD, 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, BY, BY BETTERMENT OF WHAT YOUR WORD SAYS.
AND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITIES OF SAN ANTONIO.
[00:05:01]
ASK FOR THE COMMUNITY AND DISTRICT TWO, AND, UH, 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 CO FATHER TO QUELL THE VIOLENCE IN THOSE AREAS.
AND WE ASK YOU, FATHER, THAT ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THEIR CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD OF THEM, FATHER, 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 COUNCIL THAT HE SO NEEDS FATHER GOD 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 THEIR STAFFS FOR WHATEVER IT IS THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, IN YOUR SON JESUS' NAME, WE PRAY, AND WE THANK YOU.
AT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND REPUBLIC, WHICH IS STANDS, ONE NATION AND GOD, THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OF JUSTICE FOR ALL.
WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TRANSLATION SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 20TH TO 21ST.
I'LL ENTERTAIN THE 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, WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON MINUTES.
COULD YOU GO AHEAD? THAT THAT'S CORRECT, MAYOR.
I SAW THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, UH, SIGNED UP FOR, UH, SPEAK ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
UM, THE MINUTES ARE A PROCEDURAL ITEM IN WHICH THE BODY, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES WHETHER THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT, UH, THE MEETING OF, UH, MARCH, 2021.
UH, SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DO THAT.
UH, THEREFORE, PUBLIC COMMENT ON MINUTES IS NOT PERMITTED.
SO WITH ALL DUE, APOLOGIES TO THOSE THAT SIGNED UP.
THERE'LL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
SO THERE IS A, A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
MINUTES FROM MARCH 20TH AND 21ST, PLEASE VOTE.
UH, FOR THE BETTERMENT OF, UH, THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS TODAY, I DO WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE SOME VOTES TODAY, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THESE VOTES, UM, 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 THAT OUR PROCESSES OPERATE UNDER THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE FOR, TO MAKE HIS MOTION SO STATED, BUT BEFORE DOING SO, ANDY, WOULD YOU LAY OUT THE GROUND RULES SINCE WE'RE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES? PROCEDURES? THANK YOU, MAYOR.
UH, THE MOTION THAT'S GONNA BE MADE BY COUNCILMAN BREUS IS HE GAVE NOTICE OF, UH, UNDER ROBERT'S RULE'S LAST MEETING, UH, WILL ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
AND THIS, UH, MOTION IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE.
UH, THE MOTION IS NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S POSTED AGENDA.
AND AS SUCH, ALL DISCUSSIONS, UH, ON THE COUNCIL MUST BE LIMITED TO THE PROCEDURAL REQUEST ONLY.
UM, SO THE, UH, ITEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL IS, 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, CITY 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 GUIDEPOST.
IN TERMS OF YOUR COMMENTS TODAY IS NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM YOUR
[00:10:01]
COMMENTS ON CONSIDERING COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE'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, UH, ASK THEM.
AND I WILL, I'LL TRY TO CLARIFY IF THE STAFF, UH, CITY STAFF IS ASKED A FACTUAL QUESTION.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT? UH, OBVIOUSLY STAFF CAN ANSWER, UH, FACTUAL QUESTIONS IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES.
IF, IF, IF THEY, UH, IF THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE 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.
UH, RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE TO MAKE HIS MOTION.
THANK YOU, MAYOR ANDY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE THEN, CAN A ANY MEMBER OF THE IN THIS, UH, HALL TODAY MAKE A COMMENT AT ALL ABOUT THIS WHATSOEVER? NOT NO ONE IN THE, UH, NO ONE OTHER THAN COUNCIL MEMBERS.
IS THAT WAVEABLE BY THE MAYOR? NO.
IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE, THE LEADERS WHO SHOWED UP IN THIS, UM, HALL TODAY CANNOT MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS.
SO I'LL DO MY BEST, UM, TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM.
AND IT'S CLEAR I CAN MAKE MY COMMENTARY AND THEN MAKE A MOTION.
IS THE PROCEDURE IS OKAY FOR ME TO COMMENT FIRST, CORRECT? CORRECT.
COUNCILMAN LES AS AS YOU WENT.
UH, THANK YOU MAYOR FOR RECOGNIZING ME.
UH, THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S IN THE CHAMBER TODAY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENDANCE AND TO MY COLLEAGUES.
UH, JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU, UH, SOME BACKGROUND REAL QUICK ON WHY I AM, UH, MAKING THIS MOTION TODAY.
I'M REMINDED OF A, A, A GOLF MOVIE, UH, THAT I ABSOLUTELY LOVE.
AND THERE'S A LINE IN THERE THAT SAYS, UH, YOU HAVE THESE DEFINING MOMENTS, UH, 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, 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 PUBLIC, EXCUSE ME, WITH ZERO PUBLIC INPUT.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RE-VOTE 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, UH, 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.
UM, IT WAS A 6 4 1 RESULT, ONE MEMBER RECANTED, WHICH WOULD'VE MADE IT FIVE AND WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED.
SO THERE HAS BEEN, THERE HAS BEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTARY THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE HERE.
WE NEEDED TO FIX IT, AND THEY WOULD VOTE OTHERWISE IF THEY HAD THE CHANCE.
AND EVERY DAY UNCERTAINTY STANDS.
WE AS A COMMUNITY LOSE OUR CREDIBILITY ACROSS THE NATION.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO RE RESTORE THAT WITH TRUE PUBLIC DEBATE AND COMMENTARY.
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 GONNA 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 INTO A LITTLE BIT INTO THE MERITS.
THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO REVOTE IT.
BUT I'LL, I'LL, 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 PEOPLE TO BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE MAY DISAGREE ON THINGS, BUT IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATION.
AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT DOWN OUR THOUGHTS IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC AND IN FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY.
UM, I THINK IT'S SAD THAT THE FAITH COMMUNITY CANNOT SPEAK TODAY.
SO WHAT I WILL DO WHEN I READ MY MOTION IS I'LL ASK
[00:15:01]
YOU TO STAND AS I READ IT, UM, ANYBODY WHO'S IN HERE TODAY TO STAND IN SUPPORT, I'M GONNA READ THIS MOTION, UH, TO ASK THESE, MY COLLEAGUES TO BRING THIS BACK UP.UH, I WANNA BRING IT BACK UP 'CAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
IT'S, IT'S RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
SO IF YOU'D PLEASE RISE WITH ME WHILE I READ THIS MOTION.
I WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE WHO'S HERE BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS OF SAN ANTONIO, ON BEHALF OF THEM AND OUR COMMUNITY, AND OUR REPUTATION ACROSS THE NATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE GIVEN.
AT APRIL 11TH NINE, UH, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I MOVED TO PLACE ON THE MAY 2ND, 2019 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
AN ITEM FOR THE DELIBERATION AND ACTION TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENT THAT REMOVED CHICK-FIL-A FROM OPERATING IN THE SAN ANTONIO AIRPORT TO ORDINANCE 2 0 1 9 0 3 2 1 0 2 2 1, ADOPTED ON MARCH 21ST, 2019.
SECOND, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER PERRY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO'S STANDING HERE.
WE ARE HONORED TO HAVE YOU IN THIS HALL.
THIS IS AS MUCH YOUR CHAMBER AS IT IS EVERYBODY ELSE'S IN THIS COMMUNITY.
UM, ANDY, CAN YOU STATE THE RULES AGAIN BECAUSE I DO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO'D LIKE TO, UM, CHIME IN BEFORE WE VOTE.
YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER 'EM? UH, UH, THE, IN, IN, IN TOTAL AGAIN, MAYOR, I, I CAN DO THAT.
UM, OH, THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLACE AN ITEM ON, UH, NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA.
THE MOTION IS NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S POSTED AGENDA.
AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALL SUCH DISCUSSIONS FROM THE DIOCESE 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 THE AGENDA, 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 SHOULD BE THIS NO PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF INDEED THE ITEM IS IN PLACE 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 THERE WE ARE HERE TO A ANSWER ANY FACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT, IF THE, IF THE ITEM IS PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE MOTION CARRIES, IT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA AND THERE'LL 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.
AND SO THE, UH, COMMENT QUESTION, UH, WILL BE PERTAINED TO ONLY THE DATE OF IZING, UH, POTENTIALLY FOR VOTE NEXT WEEK.
THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TODAY AS WE DELIBERATE THIS ISSUE.
UH, 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 DAAS WITHOUT GIVING US ANY INFORMATION.
I, FOR ONE, FELT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO PROCEED ON THIS CONTRACT.
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-A'S IN MY DISTRICT.
GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT I HAVE WITH MY CONSTITUENTS, 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.
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'VE PUT THE CITY IN THIS POSITION, AND THAT THE MAYOR HASN'T TAKEN CONTROL OF THIS SITUATION EARLY ON.
[00:20:01]
UH, I, FOR 1:00 AM OFFENDED AND TIRED OF IT AND BELIEVE THAT 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.
UH, AND ANYBODY IS WELCOME TO DO THAT NEXT WEDNESDAY OR ANY WEDNESDAY.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN AGENDAS ITEM.
ANYBODY COULD COME AND SPEAK WHENEVER THEY CHOOSE.
AND SO WE WELCOME YOU TO DO THAT ON A WEDNESDAY, SHOULD YOU SO DESIRE.
UH, 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.
AND ANDY, I, I HAVE A, UM, AN EXCLUSIVELY A A, UH, A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, I HOPE I CAN ANSWER IT, COUNCILMAN? YEAH, ME TOO.
UM, AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF YOU CAN'T, UH, THE, I INVITED, UH, TWO PEOPLE TODAY, UH, TO HELP WALK THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION FROM THE PUBLIC'S POINT OF VIEW, SPECIFICALLY MIKE SHERROW AND MY PASTOR ED NEWTON.
UM, 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, UH, SO THAT WE CAN I CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS.
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TODAY? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TODAY, COUNCILMAN.
AND IF I TRY TO DO THAT AGAIN, THE REASONS ARE, IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
AND, UM, WHILE, WHILE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN APPRECIATE THE NUANCE HERE IN TERMS OF, OF DISCUSSION ON THE PROCEDURE, THE PROCEDURAL REQUEST TO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UM, UM, I DON'T SEE HOW A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK TO THE ISSUE WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS.
'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE BODY, THEREFORE, I MEAN, THE, THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE IS, UM, IS NOT, IS NOT GERMANE.
AND MR. BROCK HOUSE SUGGESTED THAT THE MAYOR CAN WAIVE THE LAW.
UH, IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE? NO.
I, I, I WILL SAY THAT PROCEDURALLY, I, I'M STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS ON MAY 2ND.
WHY MAY 2ND HAS BECOME A SUICIDE PACT FOR MR. BROCK HOUSE? 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, UM, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAYORAL POLITICS AND THE CONVENIENCE OF IT BEING TWO DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION.
UM, I THINK THAT I'D BE DOING A DISSERVICE AND I'D BE BEING DISHONEST IF WE DIDN'T SAY, UH, THE TRUTH TO EACH OTHER.
UM, ON THE PROCEDURES, IT WAS THE, UH, THE DATE MAY 2ND, IF, UM, IS THAT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IT BE REHEARD AGAIN? IS THAT, IS THAT THE DATE? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
I THINK THAT WAS THE DATE, RIGHT? YOU'RE, YOU'RE, DO YOU HAVE THE MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU? UH, YES.
NOW MY CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, ANDY.
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR WITH COUNCILMAN PAL'S QUESTIONS, NUMBER ONE, I DIDN'T MAKE ANY INFERENCE THAT THE MAYOR DID ANYTHING.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO, THE MAY 2ND DATE SAID FROM YOUR TWO STEP PROCESS, THAT THREE STEP PROCESS.
THREE STEP PROCESS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THAT WAS THE DATE YOU PROVIDED? CORRECT.
I MEAN, USUALLY THE PROCESS IS THAT THE THREE STEP PROCESS, 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.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT COMPLETELY PUTS DOWN COUNCILMAN'S ARGUMENT.
AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURES GO, UM, THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE QUICKLY.
IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THOSE CHANGES, COULD I CALL STAFF TO THE, TO THE PODIUM? CARLOS, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACT RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS COUNCILMAN THAT PARTICULAR SPACE? SURE.
SO COUNCILMAN, UM, FOLLOWING THE DIRECT DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL TO PROCEED, UM, STAFF EXECUTED THE CONTRACT AS WE NORMALLY WOULD.
[00:25:01]
UH, THE CONTRACT HAS ALL LISTED ALL OF THE, UH, CONCEPTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED.AND IN THE SPOT WHERE CHICK-FIL-A WAS, THERE'S A T B D, UH, LISTED THERE.
SO TO REITERATE, THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXECUTED.
UH, PARODIES HAS MOVED IT FORWARD AGGRESSIVELY TO LOCATE ANOTHER CONCEPT FOR THAT LOCATION.
AND THEY'RE IN SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS TODAY TO, TO, TO FIND ANOTHER, ANOTHER CONCEPT FOR THAT LOCATION.
UM, IT IS IN THE SECOND PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION.
UH, SO THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH DESIGN ON THE FIRST PHASE, UH, AND, AND BEGINNING THAT WORK, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATELY SIMULTANEOUSLY.
AND NOW THEY'RE DOING THAT NOW.
UM, BUT, UH, PARODIES IS MOVING FORWARD WITH TALKING TO OTHERS IN VERY SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FINDING A CONCEPT FOR THEM.
SO IT COULD BE ANY DAY THAT THEY CORRECT.
DO A DEAL AND GET SOMEBODY ELSE IN THERE, CORRECT.
TO, SO IF A DECISION IS GONNA BE MADE TO CHANGE THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE PRETTY QUICKLY, RIGHT? WELL, AGAIN, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY'VE MOVED FORWARD, WE'VE MOVED FORWARD TO TO, TO FILL THAT SPOT.
RIGHT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T FILLED IT YET.
BUT THERE ARE IN SERVICE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NUMBER OF, UH, CONCEPTS.
UM, SO A DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE QUICKLY.
UM, ERIC HAD INFORMATION ON YOUR QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE, ONE OTHER PIECE, UH, COUNCILMAN THAT IF, IF COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE'S MOTION PASSES TODAY, THEN UM, WE WOULD STOP WORK ON AND WE WOULD ADVISE PARITIES TO STOP WORK ON THAT TO BE DETERMINED PORTION, UM, PENDING A FUTURE COUNCIL, UH, POSSIBLE CHANGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I PROCEDURALLY, UH, I SECONDED THIS MOTION BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ANGST HERE IN THE CITY, AND I CAN APPRECIATE COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ'S COMMENTS ABOUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVERY, EVERY MEETING THAT I HAVE BEEN AT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHATEVER, DISTRICT 10 MEETINGS, THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE TOPIC RIGHT NOW THAT PEOPLE WANT IT TO BE REVISITED.
AND I AM AGREEMENT, I N AM AGREEING WITH THIS PROCEDURE TO PUT THIS BACK ON FOR TOPIC.
IT, WE JUST HEARD THEY'RE, 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 GONNA HALT ANY CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S NOT GONNA HALT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT ONE SPOT IN THE, 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.
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, UH, 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.
COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL, UH, MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR, FOR RECOGNIZING ME.
UM, ALSO, LIKE COUNCILMAN BELIA SAID, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT SEVEN HERE WHO WERE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION.
UM, I KNOW WE LET YOU KNOW, SORT OF AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE, BUT I WANNA TELL YOU THAT I DO APPRECIATE YOU, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, YOU'RE 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, UM, AS WELL.
UM, I WANNA, I DO WANNA MAKE A REMARK ON, UM, ON WHETHER OR NOT WE, WE DO, UH, WE TAKE A REVOTE.
UM, THERE ARE MANY SAN ANTONIANS, UM, SOME OF YOU ARE HERE TODAY THAT ARE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS WE DEVIATED FROM A PROCESS,
[00:30:01]
UH, WHEN WE TOOK THAT VOTE A FEW WEEKS AGO.UM, AND THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T LOOK AT ALL OF THE BUSINESSES AS, UH, AS CLOSELY.
UH, MAYBE SOME WERE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY THAN OTHERS.
AND MANY ARE ALSO CONCERNED, AND I SAY THIS WITHOUT ANY MALICE TO OUR L G B T Q COMMUNITY, THAT A CERTAIN VENDOR WAS IDENTIFIED WITH HATE.
AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
UM, 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 MADE, UH, I DID MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A BLACKOUT PERIOD, HOW LONG THAT BLACKOUT PERIOD GOES.
UM, 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.
FIRST, LET ME ASK ANDY A QUESTION.
UM, SO FROM OUR VOTE PREVIOUSLY, IS THERE ANY LEGAL BASIS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED AS A COUNCIL, UH, FOR THE ACTION THAT WE TOOK CURRENTLY? NO.
AND, AND THE REASON I SAY CURRENTLY IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, COUNCILMAN, THERE IS NO COMMITMENT YET TO, FOR ANYONE TO FILL THAT SPOT.
SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO.
THERE'S, I DON'T SEE ANY LEGAL REASON FOR THAT.
AND SO WHEN YOU SAY FILL THE SPOT, YOU MEAN FILL THE SPOT AS IN THE CHICK-FIL-A SPOT? CORRECT.
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.
IT, IT, IT, IT, IT, I, I HOPE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REVISITING THE, THE CONTRACT ITSELF, IT'S BEEN SIGNED AND EXECUTED.
UM, SO THAT CONTRACT HAS BEEN SIGNED WITH THE ENTITY THAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED.
THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE IS, 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.
AND, AND SO MAYBE WELL, LEMME MAKE A COMMENT.
I MIGHT COME BACK TO THE, TO IT.
UH, NUMBER ONE, I WAS ONE OF THE FOUR THAT VOTED AGAINST THE, THE MOTION.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M, I'M, I'M ONE OF THESE FOLKS THAT BELIEVES THAT ONCE YOU MAKE A DECISION, YOU STICK WITH IT.
AND, UH, PARTICULARLY IF, IF, YOU KNOW, AND THAT CAN GO ON BOTH SIDES, UM, BOTH THE POSITIVE SIDE AS WELL AS THE NEGATIVE SIDE.
THE ONLY REASON I THINK WE, WE WOULD, THAT I WOULD SUPPORT, UH, UH, REVOLTING ON AN ITEM IS NUMBER ONE, IF THERE WAS A LEGAL BASIS, UM, FOR, FOR REVOLTING.
AND SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF IF WE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL ISSUE FOR THE VOTE THAT WE TOOK, THEN POTENTIALLY IF WE WENT, WENT BACK AND REVOLTED ON THE ITEM TO CORRECT THAT, UH, SO THAT WE REMOVE THE LEGAL BASIS, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN IDEA FOR ME.
SO DOES THAT HELP EXPLAIN THE QUESTION? UH, I, I, I THINK SO, COUNCILMAN, SO THERE, THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO LEGAL ISSUE THAT, THAT YOU NEED TO RESOLVE BY TAKING A, A FURTHER VOTE.
AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER BASIS THAT I WOULD, UH, SEE REVOLTING AS, AS AN OPTION IS IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE MISSED OR, UM, A REVOTE MIGHT CHANGE THE OUTCOME.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE CAN'T KIND OF GAUGE WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT BE ON, ON A REVOTE, UH, BECAUSE I THINK FOR ME AT LEAST, THAT WOULD INFORM MY DECISION ON THIS PARTICULAR, UH, ITEM.
SO, 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 AND I SUPPORTED THE GOING TO B SESSION, BUT THAT, THAT, AGAIN, WAS VOTED DOWN.
I'LL ALSO MENTION THAT, AND I DO THINK IT, UH, MORE INFORMATION DURING A B SESSION WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UH, I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL PRIOR, WE DID HAVE THESE LARGER CONTRACTS IN A B SESSION.
[00:35:01]
COMPANIES, NOT JUST STAFF, WERE ABLE TO, TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.AND THAT CHANGED OVER TIME FOR REASONS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE REASONS.
AND, UM, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN WE CHANGE A PROCESS LIKE THAT FOR, FOR A REASON, WE GOTTA STAND BY WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE, WHETHER OR NOT WE AS INDIVIDUALS AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT.
UH, I'LL ALSO TELL YOU THE BLACKOUT PERIOD AS A FAIRLY NEW CONCEPT.
UH, WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL PRIOR, WE DIDN'T NOT HAVE A AS LONG OF A BLACKOUT PERIOD, UH, AS, AS YOU ALL HAVE NOW, AND YOU ALL, OR A COUNCIL AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY INDIVIDUALS HERE IN PUT IN PLACE THAT BLACKOUT PERIOD FOR A REASON.
AND WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT, WHETHER ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL LIKES IT OR NOT, THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WAS INSTITUTED FOR, FOR VERY PARTICULAR REASONS.
WE CAN GO BACK AND REVISIT THOSE.
UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WAS, THAT WAS ESTABLISHED FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, BOTH ON THE B SESSION SIDE AND THE BLACKOUT PERIOD SIDE.
UM, SO I SEE SENATOR CAMPBELL'S HERE AND, AND WE'VE ALL MADE DECISIONS ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS.
SOMETIMES, UH, 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, ON, ON INFORMATION THAT WE HAD AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.
AND IT'S RARE THAT I SEE PEOPLE GO BACK FOR A REVOTE.
UM, AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I, I THINK WE GOTTA STANDBY OUR DECISION.
I DISAGREED WITH THIS DECISION.
UH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UH, 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.
UH, MAYOR, I THINK THE POINT TO ME IS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE, UH, ENOUGH INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE WHEN THE DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, I RECOGNIZED THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE DELAY THIS.
UH, AT THAT TIME I THOUGHT THERE WAS A PRETTY FIRM DECISION BY MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNCIL, BUT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE, WE DIDN'T HAVE 11 PEOPLE PRESENT.
I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE, UH, HAD SOME RECONSIDERATION, AND I APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION, UH, THAT COUNCILMAN, UH, SANDOVAL MADE ABOUT HAVING A B SESSION.
AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HAVING MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UH, COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE CONSIDER POSSIBLY ADDING TO, UH, 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 2ND.
ALSO ON MAY 1ST THAT WE HAVE A B SESSION TO GIVE A FULL DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM AND THEN, UH, BRING IT UP ON MAY 2ND AFTER WE'VE HAD THAT COMMUNITY INPUT AND THAT FULL DISCUSSION.
UH, LOOKING AT ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISION, ANDY, THE DECISION WE MADE, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WANNA INTERRUPT THE, THE COUNCILMAN, UH, COUNCILMAN COURAGE, UH, ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO ADD TO THE MOTION.
UH, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR THAT IN THAT, UH, AS COUNCILMAN GONZALEZ POINTED OUT, THE CITIZENS ARE FREE TO COME TO SPEAK AS 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, 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, BUT I, I, I, I'M SORRY.
I GUESS I'M, I DIDN'T HEAR, LET ME CLARIFY THIS.
UM, COUNCILMAN CURS, THERE WILL BE A CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AS SCHEDULED ON MAY 1ST.
UH, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTARY, UH, ON THE WEDNESDAY SESSION.
THE TIME FOR COUNCIL DEBATE ON THE ITEM ON ITS MERITS WILL OCCUR WHEN THE, WHEN THE VOTE IS AGENDIZED.
SO THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN, UH, BROCK HOUSE IS SUGGESTING.
WELL, AS I SAID, I, I HEARD FROM COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL, AND I EVEN HEARD IT MENTIONED BY COUNCILMAN HALL THAT HE THOUGHT A B SESSION, UH, COULD BE VALUABLE, ALTHOUGH HE'S INDICATING TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT IT AS, UH, SUPPORTING THAT, UM, THAT WAY OF GOING ABOUT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT ALL OUR BASES COVERED ON THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
UH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNCILMAN WANTS TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE INCORPORATING A B SESSION, UH, OR NOT, BUT I THINK THAT, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONG THE COUNCIL IN OPEN PUBLIC, UH, WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO A FINAL DECISION.
THAT'S BEEN MA THAT'LL BE MADE AT THE MAY 2ND MEETING.
[00:40:01]
YOU.SO, UM, ANDY, PROCEDURALLY, CAN HE AMEND HIS MOTION? COUNCIL MEMBER BROCK HOUSE? I THINK THE WAY WE USUALLY HANDLE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS, I THINK HE CAN AMEND HIS MOTION.
IS ANYBODY GONNA SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW? WELL, UM, WELL FIRST LET ME JUST SAY, UM, YES, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO A B SESSION, UM, ON THAT DAY.
AND, UM, 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'VE DONE A DISSERVICE TO THE CITY.
WE'VE DONE A DISSERVICE TO ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AS PART OF THIS, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO DO A DISSERVICE TO OUR CITIZENS AND OUR COMMUNITY WITH THIS, UM, 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.
AND I'LL FINISH UP, WE'LL TAKE THE MOTION POINT CLARIFICATION.
MAYOR, COUNCILMAN, MAY, MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR, YOU, YOU ASKED FOR POINT, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, CLEAR CLARIFICATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
ANDY MAY STATE YOUR CLARIFICATION AND, AND YOU'LL ANSWER.
AND MAY I AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE A B SESSION ON MAY 1ST? SO YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR MOTION TO, TO INCLUDE A B SESSION, BUT PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FILE FOR THE A SESSION.
YES, WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE WE B SESSION, THEN BROUGHT IT BACK THE NEXT DAY FOR VOTE, BECAUSE I THINK A COUPLE OF COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED THIS SINCERE DESIRE TO HAVE A B SESSION PIECE.
SO I THINK THAT ACTUALLY SATISFIES THIS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT SHOULD, SO IF THAT'S WHAT THEY, THEY SAID IN THEIR STATEMENTS, THEN, 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, THE, YOUR MOTION, YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING A SESSION.
ALL YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE ADMITTING IT TO ADD, TO INCLUDE A B SESSION ON THE, THE DAY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR, RIGHT? SO WE CAN HAVE FULL INFORMATION AS REQUESTED BY THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THEIR COMMENTARY.
SO IT, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT IF, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STICKING POINT WHEN THE CONVERSATION I HEARD FROM THE COLLEAGUES, IF, IF YOU COULD THEN RE READ YOUR MOTION AND IF, UH, YOU CAN GET A SECOND ON THAT AGAIN, THEN I THINK WE CAN PROCEED.
UH, WILL THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE TO WITHDRAW HIS ORIGINAL MOTION TO PLACE A SECOND ONE ON THE FLOOR? OKAY.
SO STATE YOUR NEW MOTION COUNCILMAN, AND THEN YOUR SECOND WILL HAVE TO AFFIRM HIS SECOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE GIVEN ON THE APRIL 11TH, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I MOVED TO PLACE ON THE MAY 1ST B SESSION AND THE MAY 2ND, A SESSION, CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS ITEMS FOR THE DELIBERATION AND ACTION TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENT THAT REMOVED CHICK-FIL-A FROM OPERATING IN THE SAN ANTONIO AIRPORT TO ORDINANCE 2 0 1 9 0 3 2 1 0 2 2 1, ADOPTED ON MARCH 21ST, 2019.
AND I HEREBY ACCEPT COUNCIL MEMBER COURAGES, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THREE OTHER COLLEAGUES FOR A REQUESTED B SESSION.
OKAY, 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 THAT CITY 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 IZE THE CONCESSION CONTRACT PREVIOUSLY VOTED BY COUNCIL, UM, LAST MONTH.
SO WITH THAT, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR IZING THE AIRPORT CONCESSION CONTRACT.
AND MAYOR, EXCUSE ME, I JUST 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.
SO COUNCILMAN HALL, ANDY, ON THAT POINT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT, THE BASE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WHENEVER THE, THE MOTION WAS MADE WAS, WAS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MINUS CHICK-FIL-A.
AND THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT DURING THAT ENTIRE PROCESS.
THE WHAT THE, THE ITEM THAT WANTS TO, THE, THE ITEM THOUGH THAT THE COUNCILMAN WANTS TO RECONSIDER IS NOT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT, BUT SIMPLY THAT ADDED PART TO THE CONTRACT, WHICH SAID TO, UH, NOT INCLUDE CHICK-FIL-A.
SO I, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WE'RE NOT REOPENING THE CONTRACT.
[00:45:02]
GOT IT.BUT I DO WANNA MAKE CLEAR THOUGH, THAT, 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, THEN, THEN, OKAY.
COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY MY POSITION BEFORE WE TAKE THIS VOTE.
LIKE I STATED, I SUPPORT A ROBUST DISCUSSION.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL ALL THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER, ERIC, BUT I SUPPORT THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE TAKING A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
WHETHER OR NOT WE RECONSIDER THAT PART OF, OF THE CONTRACT, BECAUSE, LIKE COUNCILMAN HALL, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE, UH OH, NO, YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT.
YOU SAID ONCE WE MAKE A DECISION, WE STICK TO IT.
UM, BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION AT B SESSION PRIOR TO DECIDING IF WE, IF WE WERE TO, TO, TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM.
THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR IZING, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THE CONCESSION.
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
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 FOUR FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, ITEM NUMBER 10, A, B, AND C.
ALRIGHT, ITEMS 10, A, B, AND C.
ANY OTHERS? I HAVE ITEMS FOUR AND ITEMS 10, A, B, AND C FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THAT'S ALL ITEMS SAY FOR FOUR AND 10.
THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS REMAINING ON CONSENT.
WELL, MAYOR NURENBERG, ANOTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SAN ANTONIO COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD.
COUPLE ITEMS I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA HERE.
ITEM, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE, A CONTRACT WITH THE MARTINEZ STREET WOMEN'S CENTER.
IT'S A LEASE AND, UH, YES, IT'S A RELEASE RENEWAL.
AND WHAT I LOOKED THROUGH THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS ON THIS, AND I FOUND, UH, WELL, WHAT ARE THEY PAYING IN RENT? LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS, SAID $0 IN RENT.
YEAH, $0, BUT THEY, WELL, THEY GET A CHANCE TO PAY FOR THE UTILITIES AND THE MAINTENANCE, BUT, UH, NO, NO RENT.
AND, UH, BUT I DID NOTICE SOME OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE MARTINEZ STREET, UH, WOMEN'S CENTER THAT YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT, UM, SEEING SINCE WE'RE ALL ON A, ON A MORALITY KICK HERE.
WELL, LET'S SEE HOW MUCH Y'ALL WANT TO REALLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT MORALITY.
UM, MR. AUDIOVISUAL MAN, PUT THAT ON THE AUDIOVISUAL SCREEN.
LET'S SEE, WHAT DOES THE, THIS IS FROM THE, UM, UH, THE LOCAL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITIES WEBSITE, OUT AN ESSAY SAYS MARTINEZ STREET CENTER.
THEY CURRENTLY RUNS PROGRAMS. WHAT ARE THOSE PROGRAMS? THE GIRL ZONE PROGRAM? IT IS AN, WHAT THEY OFFER IS AN EVIDENCE-BASED AND L G B T INCLUSIVE SEX ED.
BASED IN L G B T INCLUSIVE SEX ED FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.
WOULD YOU ASK ON ITEM NINE? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT, BUT SOME OF US DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS AND, UH, WE, UH, WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT YOU VOTING POINT, MAYBE YOU'D WANT TO, UH, REMOVE NUMBER NINE FOR, FOR A LITTLE DELIBERATION.
THERE ALSO, UM, ITEM 15, UH, $230,000 COURT SETTLEMENT.
UH, THE IDEA IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT I THINK THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITH AN S A P D VE VEHICLE.
AND, UM, WE, MY QUESTION IS THE, YEAH, THE, THE, UM, WE'RE SHOWING OUT A $250,000 BECAUSE APPARENTLY WE THINK MAYBE THE, THE POLICEMAN OR SOMEBODY WAS DELICT.
MY, MY QUESTION IS, UM, HAS THE DELICT OFFICER BEEN REPRIMANDED, AS IS MY QUESTION TO ANY, ANY TIME, IS THE PERSON WHO IS AT FAULT, NAMELY A CITY EMPLOYEE, WAS, IS THAT
[00:50:01]
PERSON EVER GET REPRIMANDED FOR THESE THINGS? UH, I MEAN, ARE THEY GONNA PAY FOR THE, FOR THE $250,000 THAT WE, THE, THE TAXPAYERS ARE SHELLING OUT FOR THIS? HMM.BASICALLY, I JUST WANNA HAVE LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
LET'S SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH, UH, ITEMS NUMBER NINE AND 15.
UM, THERE IS A BALANCE, OR EXCUSE ME, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COUNCILMAN HALL? THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE, UH, SOME OF OUR APPOINTMENTS, UH, JOSE PICCO, UH, CATALINA MUNOZ, AND JAMES MCNAMARA.
ONE THING THAT I'VE DONE SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, UH, SINCE JANUARY, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO BACK IN AND FILL ANY, UH, EMPTY SPOTS ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
I THINK IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT THAT DISTRICTS ARE REPRESENTED.
UM, AND SO WE, WE ARE, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE.
SO I WANNA THANK THOSE PEOPLE FOR APPLYING AND, UH, ASK OTHERS TO CONTINUE TO APPLY.
AND THEN I'LL ALSO, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MENTION THAT, UH, ONE OF THE DISTRICT TWO CAN CANDIDATES IS HERE WITH US TODAY.
UH, WE APPRECIATE SELENA BEING WITH US, AND SHE'LL, SHE WAS HERE WITH ME YESTERDAY AND SHE'LL BE HANGING WITH US, US ALL DAY TODAY.
AND SHE WAS A FORMER CHAIR OF THE MAR MARTINEZ, UH, STREET WOMEN'S, UH, CENTER.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN, SELENA, FOR JOINING US.
COUNCILMAN HALL, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON LEGISLATIVE 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, MAYOR COUNCIL.
JEFF COYLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT.
WE HAVE, UH, SIX WEEKS LEFT IN THE SESSION NOW.
UH, THE SIX HARDEST WEEKS, AS ANDY CAN ATTEST.
HE WENT UP YESTERDAY AT NOON TO TESTIFY ON A BILL, UH, GOT TO TESTIFY ABOUT 7:00 PM AND HE WAS LUCKY BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE WENT TILL 6 45 IN THE MORNING.
SO THAT'S ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE RIGHT NOW.
UH, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE BILLS AT THIS POINT, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.
UH, MOSTLY GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE THINGS, UH, ARE.
UH, A AMONG THE 7,500 BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED, AND THE MORE THAN 1500 THAT WE ARE TRACKING, UH, AS HAVING SOME RELATION TO OUR CITY OPERATIONS.
UH, I'LL START RIGHT AWAY WITH THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUES.
THE FOUR BILLS THAT, UH, UH, WE'RE BROKEN UP FROM THE ORIGINAL SB 15, UH, WE'RE HAVE ALL PASSED THE SENATE NOW.
UH, AGAIN, THOSE ARE BILLS THAT, UH, PROHIBIT CITIES FROM REGULATING, UH, PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S BENEFITS, UH, SCHEDULING PRACTICES, THEIR LEAVE POLICIES, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY CONSIDER AN APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, UH, AS PART OF THE HIRING PROCESS.
SO THOSE HAVE ALL PASSED THE SENATE.
THEY MOVE ON TO THE HOUSE NOW, THEY'VE NOT BEEN HEARD YET.
MEANWHILE, THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM ON THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUE, THE, UH, HOUSE AND SENATE COMPANION BILLS FROM, UH, REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL AND SENATOR MENENDEZ THAT WOULD CREATE A STATEWIDE PAID SICK LEAVE MANDATE ON EMPLOYERS, UH, 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 ONTO PROPERTY TAXES.
I'LL GO OUT OF ORDER HERE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S, UH, UNFOLDED.
THE SENATE, UH, SSB TWO, UH, PASSED, UH, THE FULL SENATE THIS PAST MONDAY.
THE 2.5%, UH, PROPERTY TAX CAP WAS RAISED TO 3.5%.
UH, AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO IT.
SO IT HAS MOVED OUT OF THE HOU OUT OF THE SENATE.
THE HOUSE MEANWHILE, HAS DELAYED TWO FLOOR VOTES ON HB TWO 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, UH, BEGIN FROM A STARTING PLACE OF THE 3.5% THAT IS IN THE SENATE BILL ON THE VE UH, TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FRONT, UH, THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE THAT THE COUNTY HAS BROUGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE AN ADDITIONAL $10 FEE IF VOTERS HERE APPROVE HAS PASSED HOUSE TRANSPORTATION.
UH, AND ALL THE SECOND ITEM IS THE A T D BILL, UH, HOUSE BILL 32 58.
THE, THE ITEM ON THE, UH, 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, UH, ARE, UH, ON THE MOVE.
UH, AND THEN THE LARGER BILL THAT EXTENDS THE STATE HIGHWAY
[00:55:01]
FUNDING THAT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS STATEWIDE THROUGH PROP ONE.THIS EXTENDS THE SUNSET, UH, DEADLINE, UH, FOR THAT PROP ONE FUNDING HAS PASSED FULLY PASSED THE SENATE NOW AND MOVES OVER TO THE HOUSE.
AND SOME QUICKLY, SOME CITY ISSUES, SOME PREEMPT PREEMPTION BILLS THAT ARE MOVING.
HOUSE BILL 38 99 IS THE ONE THAT RELATES TO INTER CITY COMMERCE.
UH, BUSINESSES THAT DO, UH, COMMERCE IN MULTIPLE CITIES IN TEXAS, CITIES WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM REGULATING THEM IN ANY WAY, UH, UNLESS THERE IS A UNIQUELY LOCAL CONCERN THAT HAS PA PASSED THE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, UH, AS HAS A BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT WHAT, UH, QUOTE UNQUOTE DUAL LICENSING, MEANING CITIES COULD NOT LICENSE CERTAIN PROFESSIONS IF THE STATE DOES, UH, THAT WAS PASSED OUT A COMMITTEE AND PUT ON THE LOCAL CALENDAR.
AND THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF YOUR CONSENT AGENDA.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE'S A LOCAL CALENDAR AND THERE'S A CALENDARS COMMITTEE, AND THERE'S A GENERAL CALENDARS COMMITTEE.
WHEN SOMETHING'S PUT ON LOCAL, IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONTROVERSIAL AND, AND, UH, MORE PROCEDURAL, WHEREAS THE GENERAL CALENDARS WILL HOLD BILLS UP.
THAT, THAT THE COMMITTEE DISAGREES WITH.
THAT 1209 WAS KICKED OFF OF THE LOCAL, UM, CALENDAR YESTERDAY, 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, UH, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY ORDINANCES IN THE E T J UNLESS WE HAVE EXPRESSED PERMISSION FROM THE STATE, UH, TO IMPLEMENT THEM.
SO THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IN A WHOLE SERIES OF WAYS.
NOT, UH, THE LEAST OF WHICH ARE OUR MILITARY PROTECTIONS AND OUR WATER QUALITY ORDINANCES.
UH, SPEAKING OF MILITARY PROTECTION, AND I GUESS SENATOR CAMPBELL LEFT, THAT'S THE SENATE BILL 4 22 THAT WOULD PROHIBIT FEES AND FINES IN AREAS THAT SAY NO TO ANNEXATION.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH OR ALL SESSION ABOUT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE MILITARY BUFFER AREAS THAT WERE CREATED BY THE ANNEXATION BILL.
LAST SESSION, UH, WE HAD LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM, UH, MULTIPLE GENERALS FROM THE TEXAS COMMANDERS COUNCIL, FROM ALL THREE MEMBERS, UH, CHAIRS OF OUR, UH, MILITARY TRANSFORMATION TASK FORCE, INCLUDING COUNCILMAN PERRY, COMMISSIONER WOLF, AND THE CHAMBER PRESIDENT RICHARD PEREZ.
UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE ALL THAT, UH, THE SENATOR WAS UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF OUR AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND, AND AN EFFORT ON THE SENATE FLOOR TO AMEND IT AND FIX THAT BILL FOR US.
SO THE BILL MOVES OVER TO THE HOUSE NOW WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS AGAIN OF ENSURING THAT THOSE MILITARY PROTECTIONS ARE NOT UNDONE BY THAT BILL.
UH, THE CABLE FRANCHISING BILL IS THE SAME STATUS THAT IT WAS LAST TIME I REPORTED.
H P 35 35 IS SITTING IN CALENDARS COMMITTEE WAITING TO GET TO THE, UH, FLOOR FOR A VOTE.
THE SENATE BILL HAS MADE IT THROUGH THE SENATE AND IS COMING BEHIND IT NOW, UH, THROUGH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND THEN ON THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES FRONT.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY AS CITIES HAVE PROTESTED, UH, 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, AND WE'D LIKE TO CURB THAT.
AND SO HOUSE BILL 2 81 HAS, UH, WHICH AND SENATE BILL 29, WHICH IN DIFFERENT WAYS WOULD PROHIBIT ANY EXPENDITURE BY OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON, UH, LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.
HAVE, UH, 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, UH, UH, LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE, UH, LEGISLATION IN FUTURE SESSIONS.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, ANDY WAS UP AT THE CAPITOL YESTERDAY TESTIFYING ON TWO OF A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS THAT, UH, TAKE AIM AT THE SANCTUARY CITIES BILL 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, ENFORCE, OR ENDORSE A, UH, ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS COOPERATING AND ENFORCING WITH, UH, FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.
THE ENDORSEMENT PROVISION HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN BY FEDERAL COURTS AS BEING, UH, TOO UNFAIR TO ELECTED OFFICIALS.
UH, 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 CITY'S BILL.
UH, WE ON, ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARE IN A CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW WITH THE STATEWIDE FIRE ASSOCIATION WITH THE T M L RISK POOL AND OTHERS ON, UH, SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE TO THE WORKERS' COMP PROCESS FOR FIREFIGHTERS WHO, UH, GET CANCER.
UH, IN FACT, WE HAVE AN 1130 CALL, UH, THIS MORNING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE ON THE ALAMO FRONT.
THE HOUSE BILL HAS NOT MOVED THE
[01:00:01]
BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT, UH, THE MOVING OF THE SENATE.AND TWO OTHER BILLS HAVE BEEN HEARD THAT, UM, DON'T TAKE DIRECT AIM AT THE ALAMO, BUT WOULD HAVE EFFECT NONETHELESS.
THE HOUSE BILL 5 83 AND SENATE BILL 1663 WOULD PROHIBIT CITIES FROM MOVING ANY MONUMENTS FROM REMOVING, RELOCATING, ALTERING ANY MONUMENTS THAT ARE 40 YEARS OR OLDER AND LESS THAN 40 YEARS AND MORE THAN 20 YEARS, IT'D BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC VOTE.
I TESTIFIED ON THAT BILL AND GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE HENRY B. GONZALEZ STATUE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF OUR CONVENTION CENTER BEFORE THE EXPANSION.
UM, WE'VE SINCE MOVED THAT STATUE INTO THE CONVENTION CENTER AND CLEANED IT UP AND, AND IT HAS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED THIS BILL WOULD PROHIBIT THAT AND WOULD'VE EFFECTIVELY, UH, BLOCKED PORTIONS OF THE CIVIC PARK AND HEMISPHERE PARK EXPANSION, UH, THAT WERE PART OF THE CONVE, UH, RELATED TO THE CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT.
THE SHORT TERM RENTALS BILL, I PUT IT UP HERE JUST BECAUSE SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT IT.
IT, IT ALLOWS JUST ABOUT 95% OF OUR ORDINANCE.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEWIDE REALTORS ARE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO IT.
THEY DO NOT LIKE THE DENSITY PROVISION, FEEL LIKE ANY PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD, WHETHER THEY LIVE THERE OR NOT, SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
UH, 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.
THANK YOU TO, OKAY, THANK YOU, UH, JEFF FOR YOUR, UH, SUMMARY TODAY.
I SAW SENATOR CAMPBELL HERE TODAY.
I, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION SHE WAS HERE TO DISCUSS SSB 4 22, TALK ABOUT THE PEELING BACK OF IMPORTANT MILITARY PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN WITH HER HELP.
IS THAT NOT THE CASE? I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS HERE FOR.
I THINK IT MIGHT'VE BEEN THE PRIOR CONVERSATION.
BUT I, I, YOU AND I HAVE MET WITH HER AND EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS AND, UM, UNFORTUNATELY, EVERY ITERATION OF THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, SO WE'RE GONNA WORK ON IT ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
UM, WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
UM, AND THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE OUR COUNSEL.
UM, MAYOR EHRENBERG AND OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JACK M.
WELL, UM, YESTERDAY AT THE CAP AT THE CAPITOL, I, UH, I WAS ALSO THERE.
AND, UH, THERE WERE SOME ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE STATE AFFAIRS, UH, COMMITTEE THAT DEALT WITH A CERTAIN ISSUE THAT Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
UH, BUT YOU NEED NOT WORRY, I'M NOT, I WON'T EVEN MENTION THE WORD CHICK-FIL-A.
UH, THAT'S AFTER ALL MS. GONZALEZ WORDS.
THAT'S AN UNIMPORTANT, UH, RESTAURANT RIGHT NOW.
SO, UH, BUT, UH, THERE WAS, 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, UM, OBSERVING THE TESTIMONY AT THAT STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE ABOUT, I GUESS AT LEAST A HUNDRED PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON CERTAIN ISSUES THAT, THAT, UH, UH, RESULTED FROM THE DELIBERATIONS THAT Y'ALL HAD ABOUT A CERTAIN UNIMPORTANT CHICKEN RESTAURANT, YOU SEE.
AND, UH, THE, UH, MY GOODNESS THAT THEY, QUITE A FEW SPOKE ON THAT.
AND, AND IT WAS LED BY, UH, AN ORGANIZATION CALLED TEXAS VALUES, UH, HEADED BY, BY MR. JONATHAN SIGNS, AND THAT THEY WERE, 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, THAT, UH, IS HAVING RAMIFICATIONS ALL AROUND THE NATION.
IN FACT, UM, HERE'S SOME OF THE GUIDELINES THAT, OF THE LEGISLATION THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
JUST, UH, UH, THIS AS LATEST THIS MORNING, YOU SEE? YES.
UM, BLOW THAT UP, MR. IT SAYS, TEXAS VALUES ACTION SAYS, SAVE THE UNIMPORTANT CHICKEN RESTAURANT BILLS THERE.
FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT, UH, F A D A, HB 31 72.
AND I'M, 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.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS THERE, ET CETERA, ET ET CETERA.
IT SAYS, THE OTHER ONE WHO HAS A COMPANION BILL IS FREE TO BELIEVE ACT HOUSE BILL 10 35.
IT ENSURES THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PUNISH INDIVIDUALS, RELIGIOUS GROUPS, BUSINESSES, MEDICAL PROVIDERS, WEDDING VENDORS, AND STATE EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY'RE
[01:05:01]
SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON MARRIAGE AND HUMAN SEXUALITY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.RETURN THE CAMERA IF YOU WOULD.
IN FACT, UH, THE, UM, TEXAS VALUES ALSO HELD A BIG RALLY.
AND IN THAT RALLY, A NUMBER OF SIGNS WERE, WERE PRESENTED.
IT SAID, BASICALLY THAT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
IT SAYS, UH, WHEN YOU REMEMBER THAT SIGN SAYS, COME AND TAKE IT.
WELL, THIS TIME INSTEAD OF A CANON, THEY HAD THE, THE BIBLE THERE.
SO YEAH, THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.
WE HAVE A GROUP SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK TIME.
AND I NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM THE CLERK.
UM, THIS APPEARS TO BE A GROUP, BUT THEY'RE ONLY SIGNED UP AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
UM, THEY'RE SIGNED UP AS A GROUP.
THANK YOU, UH, MAYOR AND, UM, CITY COUNCIL.
UH, WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND, UM, ABOUT THE BILLS SB 15 AND THOSE REPACKAGED AS SB 15.
UH, TODAY HERE WE HAVE STANDING WITH US, UH, MEMBERS FROM MOVE, TEXAS, MEMBERS FROM TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT, UH, THE I B E W LOCAL 60 A F L C I O UNITE HERE, THE YOUNG ACTIVE LABOR LEADERS AND THE ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER.
UH, WE ALL TOGETHER ARE HERE TODAY TO STAND UP FOR THE CIVIL AND WORKPLACE RIGHTS OF SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS.
AND WE ALSO WANNA STAND FOR LOCAL CONTROL HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, SB 15.
AND EACH OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN REPACKAGED AS SB 15, AND INCLUDING SSB 27 85, SB 20, SE 24 86, UH, SB 24 87 24 88, ERODE THE VERY 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 TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS AND ENSURE THAT YOU ALL, AS OUR REPRESENTATIVES, CAN ACTUALLY REPRESENT US.
AND SO OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, UH, 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.
SB 15, ALL OF THESE LOCAL PREEMPTION BILLS, ALL THE MANY VERSIONS OF THEM.
IT MEANS THAT WE'RE WEAKENING OUR RIGHTS.
IT MEANS THAT WE'RE WEAKENING THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES ACROSS THE STATE.
AND IT MEANS THE REMOVAL OF WATER BREAKS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN DALLAS.
AND IT ALSO MEANS TAKING AWAY PAID SICK TIME FROM THOUSANDS OF HARDWORKING FAMILIES.
BUT IT ALSO MEANS WE WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THESE RIGHTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
LET ME EXPAND ON, UH, THE ISSUE OF THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING NOT L G B T Q COMMUNITIES AT RISK, UH, MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S L G B T Q ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAVE INDICATED THEY WANNA EXPAND OUR N D O ORDINANCE INTO THE PRIVATE BUSINESSES, INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
SO TO MAKE SURE THAT ACROSS THE CITY WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON GENDER OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND OTHER CITIES, INCLUDING DALLAS, EL PASO, AND AUSTIN ALREADY ENSURE THIS.
THESE BILLS ATTACKING LOCAL CONTROL PUTS EACH OF THESE, EACH OF THESE LAWS IN DANGER.
AND IT ALSO PUTS THE L G B T COMMUNITY IN A VERY VULNERABLE POSITION FOR BEING DISCRIMINATED ON THE JOB.
ADDITIONALLY, COUNCILMAN CASAR FROM AUSTIN, UH, WHEN WE WENT TO AUSTIN, UH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN ACTUALLY SENT THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER TO STAND AGAINST THE PREEMPTION BILLS.
UH, DALLAS, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL KNOW THIS NEXT WEEK, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE, UH, A VOTE, UH, TO ENSURE PAID SICK TIME ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND SO WHAT WE WANNA ASK YOU HERE IS WE WANT YOU TO STAND WITH OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ARE ENSURING RIGHTS FOR THEIR LOCAL RESIDENTS.
AND THE WAY FORWARD IS FOR US TO STAND TOGETHER AS CITIES BECAUSE WE NEED TO ENSURE AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS HERE, UM, IN, IN OUR LOCAL CITIES.
AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF WE DON'T STAND TOGETHER AS CITIES, THE STATE IS GONNA TAKE MORE AND MORE AWAY FROM US EVERY LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
AND THIS YEAR, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING THEIR BEST TO TAKE A LOT OF RIGHTS AWAY FROM OUR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.
SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO MAKE A CLEAR STATEMENT TODAY, OPPOSE BILLS LIKE
[01:10:01]
SSB 15, UH, LIKE SB 24 85 THROUGH 24 88, THE ONES THAT ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR LOCAL CONTROL.AND WE ARE ASKING YOU TO OPPOSE THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS AND TO STAND UP, DEFEND PAID SICK TIME, 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 YOU DO.
AND I HOPE YOU DO VOTE TO STAND UP FOR THE LAWS THAT WE PASS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
AND, UH, THANK YOU TO THE, UH, FOLKS WHO ARE HERE WITH, UH, WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE AND JOLENE ESPECIALLY.
'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE FEELING A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER, BUT YOU CAME IN TO TO SPEAK, UH, TODAY.
WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF WALK THROUGH WHAT I THINK IS A, TO BE CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING THAT I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND, WHICH WAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US, UH, TO TAKE A CLEAR POSITION BY TAKING A CLEAR VOTE, UH, AS A FULL BODY.
AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, AS CHAIR OF THE I G R, I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH, UH, THE PREVIOUS CHAIR OF THE I G R.
AND THERE WAS A CERTAIN PROCESS FOR US DEALING WITH ISSUES LIKE THE ONE THAT, UH, I'M GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY, NAMELY A PREEMPTION BILL THAT WOULD GO AFTER AN ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED IN AUGUST.
AND IN THE PAST, MOST ITEMS WERE NOT LISTED FOR ACTION WHEN WE GOT LEGISLATIVE UPDATES.
THIS IS THE ONE SORT OF COMMITTEE WHERE EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, NOT ONLY BY BEING INVITED TO, UH, OUR I G R COMMITTEE, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO THE FULL COUNCIL, AND IT'S PRESENTED TO THE FULL COUNCIL, LEADING UP TO A LOT OF CHANGES THAT HAPPEN THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
UH, BUT WHAT WE DO IS WE GIVE, UH, OUR CITY STAFF, JEFF COYLE AND CARLOS AND THE TEAM UP IN AUSTIN, UH, CHRISTINE DIRECTION THROUGH OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
UH, THAT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA HAS VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT, UH, I KNOW JEFF WILL HAVE AT THE READY IF WE NEED TO USE IT.
VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE OPPOSE ANY BILLS, UH, THAT WOULD UNDO OR PREEMPT LAWS THAT WE HAVE PASSED HERE.
AND THE, THE, THE, THE ONE I WANNA SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT IS, IS THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED IN AUGUST.
AND IT'S UNIQUE IN ITS FRAMING IN MY MIND, AND NECESSITATES A SORT OF FULL BODIED, UH, COUNCIL VOTE BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE PASSED.
IT'S BEEN BACKED BY, IN THIS CASE, 80,000 VERIFIED PETITION SIGNATURES FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND 144,000, UH, 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, 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 I G R 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, UH, CLEARLY THEY GO, THEY'RE GOING AFTER SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PASSED IN AUSTIN.
AND, AND IT, IT MAKES A STATEMENT ABOUT THIS BODY, UH, 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 INTO PREEMPT BILLS IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER THAT IS THE NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UH, YOU NAME IT.
IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT HERE, TOBACCO 21, UH, THEY WILL LIKELY GO AFTER IT IN AUSTIN.
AND THE QUESTION FOR US IS IF WE WILL STAND UP FOR ANY BILL THAT'S A PREEMPTION.
AND THAT'S THE, THE MOTION I'D LIKE TO MAKE SPECIFICALLY AROUND, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED IN AUGUST WITH THE, THE SIGNING OF A NUMBER OF PETITIONS GATHERED BY THE WORKING TEXANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE.
SO, UH, AT THIS TIME, MAYOR, I MAY, 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 SSB 24 87, SSB 15, AND HB 1654, THAT WOULD UNDO AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL.
AND THAT FURTHER ERO ERODE LOCAL CONTROL.
THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR, UM, COUNCILMAN, CAN YOU, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION? ARE YOU ASKING FOR SPECIFIC, UM, POSITIONS TO BE TAKEN ON SPECIFIC BILLS? ARE YOU ASKING FOR SOMETHING TO BE ADDED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA? THANKS FOR THE QUESTION, MAYOR.
NO, I'M NOT ADDING FOR ANYTHING TO BE ADDED TO, UH, THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
UH, WHAT I'M CLEARLY ASKING FOR IS JUST A POSITION ON A SPECIFIC BILL THAT WOULD, UM, I'LL, I'LL READ THE MOTION AGAIN.
UH, 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, THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, SB 24 87, SSB 15, AND HB 1654, UH, THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PAID
[01:15:01]
SICK LEAVE POSITION.THAT AND, AND OUR VOTE IN AUGUST THAT WOULD UNDO AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL.
THAT, AND THAT FURTHER ERODE LOCAL CONTROL.
I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT THE VERY FIRST ONES YOU SPOKE ABOUT, UH, THE EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, PAID SICK LEAVE.
UH, ALL OF THESE, UH, DO ANY OF THESE IMPOSE A RESTRICTION ON THE CITY, CREATING AGREEMENTS WITH BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH US THAT WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, NOT ALLOW US TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, WE WANT YOU TO INCLUDE PAID SICK LEAVE, OR WE WANT YOU TO INCLUDE CERTAIN BENEFITS.
IS THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CITY FROM HAVING THAT KIND OF AN AGREEMENT AND FROM BUSINESSES VOLUNTARILY, UH, SIGNING SUCH AGREEMENTS WITH US? OKAY.
HELLO, COUNCILMAN, UH, EDWARD GRUMAN WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, 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 MANDATED OR REGULATORY SCHEME, UH, REQUIREMENT ON THOSE, UH, VENDORS.
IT WOULD BE A NEGOTIATED ITEM IN A CONTRACT, AND THEREFORE ANY BREACH OF THAT CONTRACT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH AN ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
SO IT'S NOT MANDATED OR REGULATED BY THE CITY.
SO IT, IT, IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN STILL CONTINUE HAVING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON OUR CONTRACTS.
THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
UM, SO, UH, I GUESS MY QUESTIONS ARE FOR, UM, UH, FOR, OH MY GOODNESS.
UM, SO COULD YOU JUST, I KNOW THAT THERE'S, THINGS ARE MOVING FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, I GUESS THERE'S STILL TIME TO TAKE A POSITION AND, UM, STATE OUR CASE.
I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE KIND OF MOVING BY THE DAY.
IN FACT, I'M ALMOST SURPRISED THAT IT HADN'T COME UP ALREADY.
UH, THERE ARE, THERE IS STILL TIME.
THE, UH, THE SENATE BILLS HAVE PASSED, THE SENATE HAVE NOT, UH, BEEN HEARD YET IN THE HOUSE.
SO WHEN THOSE FOUR BILLS THAT EMERGED FROM SB 15 ARE HEARD IN THE HOUSE, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO REGISTER A POSITION ON THOSE BILLS AND, AND, OR, UH, SEND A WITNESS UP AND TESTIFY.
WHAT WE DID ON THE, IN THE FIRST ROUND IN THE SENATE WAS REGISTER ON THE BILL, AND, UH, AND THEN SUBMITTED A WRITTEN, UH, HISTORY OF HOW THE PAID SICK LEAVE CAME ABOUT AND WHAT THE EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY LOCALLY IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION.
SO I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THE, UH, PAID SICK LEAVE INTERNALLY.
UH, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE, UM, THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO US, UH, IN THE FORM OF A REFERENDUM.
WE DECIDED TO ADOPT IT AS AN ORDINANCE, UM, KNOWING THAT IN SIX MONTHS WE COULD MAKE SOME ALTER ALTERATIONS SO THAT IT'S MORE, UM, SPECIFIC TO SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE I'M, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS ONE THAT WAS USED IN AUSTIN, UH, AND THAT PERHAPS IN SAN ANTONIO, WE COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
UH, I KNOW AS, UM, MY POSITION, UH, AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WAS THAT BUSINESSES WANT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE RULES, BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM, UH, THEN, AND WE ARE THEN PUNISHED FOR NOT FOLLOWING THEM, UH, THAT CREATES A HUGE PROBLEM.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT I, I I, I BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT PERFECT.
I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT INTERNALLY.
UM, HOWEVER, I, UH, THIS IS, UM, 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, UM, TIMELY OR, OR, UH, MORE SENSITIVE TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN PARTICULAR.
I KNOW I DID A QUICK COUNT, UM, UH, IN MY DISTRICT JUST BASED ON THE MAJOR
[01:20:01]
CORRIDORS, AND THERE ARE OVER 900 SMALL BUSINESSES IN DISTRICT FIVE JUST ON THE CORRIDORS.SO IT'S HUGE OUTREACH THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE, BUT I ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT AS A COUNCIL, WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH ALWAYS PROTECTING LOCAL CONTROL.
SO, UM, UH, I WOULD SUPPORT THE COUNCILMEN ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, I JUST, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE SO LATE IN THE GAME TO START WEIGHING IN ON THIS ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S JUST A, A LOT OF INDECISION ON THE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED.
SO I WOULD, UM, I THINK YOU NEED DIRECTION FROM ME TO PROCEED AND, AND I WOULD, UM, SUPPORT THAT.
COUNCILMAN GONZALEZ, COUNCILMAN BROADCAST.
UH, JEFF, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND THEN MAYBE IF COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, SALANI CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND TOO, FROM HIS POSITION ON ITEMS THAT ARE UNDER, UH, LITIGATION, LIKE THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUE, RIGHT? IT'S UP IN THE THIRD COURT, UM, 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 OFFERED LOCAL CONTROL.
I'M NOT, THE, THE DEBATE FOR ME IS NOT LOCAL CONTROL PIECE.
UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT ITEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE MOVING THROUGH A CHAIN OF LEGAL ISSUES.
HOW THE, I, YOU KNOW, HOW THE CHAIR OF THE I G R SEES THAT IF WE'RE COMING OUT AND ADVOCATING FOR SOMETHING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE TOO, THAT WE'RE UP THERE FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY IN THE COURT SYSTEM THAT'S BEING CHALLENGED AND MOST LIKELY WILL BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE STATE.
I MEAN, HOW, HOW WOULD, HOW DOES ALL THOSE LEGAL THINGS WORK IN YOUR CALCULUS? AND IT, IT ISN'T A, UH, AN ALL OR NOTHING SORT OF PROPOSITION THERE, 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, IT OFTEN INTERVENES WITH THE LEGAL PROCESS BECAUSE IT, IT CREATES THE NEW LAW AROUND IT.
IN THIS CASE, UH, THAT WAS ONE OF
THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL, UH, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A THUNDERSTORM BAGGER.
UM, THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL, 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 WAS BECAUSE IT, IT WAS, IT HAD BEEN STRUCK DOWN.
UH, AUSTIN'S ORDINANCE HAD BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN THEIR COURT, UH, AND WE HAD THE LOCAL COMMITTEE HERE WORKING ON, UH, IMPLEMENTATION AND MODIFICATION.
AND SO WITH THOSE TWO THINGS, WE SAID, WHY DON'T WE WATCH THE PROCESS AND GO FORWARD UP.
I, I JUST, I HOPEFULLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN, IT, IT IS VERY MUCH A CASE BY CASE IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND WHAT THE STAT 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, UH, APPLY TO US, I MEAN, IT'S STILL OUT THERE IN TERMS OF A COURT READING THAT DECISION.
UH, 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 IS TRYING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE INTENDED.
SO, UH, WITH ALL THAT, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW OUR FOCUS IS ON THE BILLS BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THEN, JEFF, YOUR POSITION IS STILL NEUTRALITY.
WELL, WE, WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE.
WHAT'S YOUR BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TODAY, BASED ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S MOTION, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE, WE NEED THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL.
UH, WE TAKE THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL UP TO AUSTIN, BUT YOU ALSO ALWAYS BRING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, NOT, I HADN'T TAKEN THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE MOTION.
WHAT IS THE STAFF'S RECOMME RECOMME RECOMMENDED POSITION ON THIS NOW? I MEAN, DOES STILL STAND AS YOUR RECOMMENDED POSITION? UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T, WE HADN'T BROUGHT A RECOMMENDATION TERMS OF THE MOTION.
WELL, NO, WE, THE POSITION, THE POSITION THAT WE'VE TAKEN THUS FAR AS WHAT STANDS NOW, THAT'S UNTIL WE'RE TOLD OTHERWISE.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE TAKING UP.
ERIC HAS A CLARIFYING, LET ME ADD IN.
SOT TODAY'S ITEM IS A BRIEFING IMPOSSIBLE ACTION.
IT, OUR, OUR, OUR DIRECTION IS THE LAST ORDER OF THE COUNCIL.
SO, OKAY, THE LAST ORDER WE RECEIVED WAS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.
IF THAT CHANGES BASED ON COUNCILMAN SAL'S MOTION OR ANOTHER MOTION, THEN THAT'LL BE THE NEW ORDER WE, WE UNDERTAKE.
MY, MY CONCERN, AGAIN, JUST THE, THE, THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THINGS THAT ARE BEING CHALLENGED LIKE THAT, LIKE LOCAL CONTROL'S IMPORTANT.
UM, WE DON'T WANT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO WANT YOUR OWN ABILITY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL YOUR OWN COMMUNITY, RIGHT? HOW, WHAT THE LAWS WE'RE PASSING THOSE THINGS.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU GET OUT OF THAT BANDWIDTH AND THINGS BEGIN TO GET CHALLENGED, RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU STEP OUTTA THE LANE OR THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL, THAT THOSE ARE THE EDGES THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT WE DO THINGS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY GONNA GET STRUCK DOWN IN THE EXPOSURE TO THE CITY FOR THAT.
I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE LEGAL EXPOSURE STUFF THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT IS,
[01:25:01]
UH, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, DEFEATED AT A STATEWIDE LEVEL.SO LOCAL CONTROL IS NOT OMNIPOTENT.
LIKE, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ALL ENCOMPASSING.
LIKE THE THING ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL IS YES, WE, WE AGREE, WE WANNA CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY.
HOWEVER, MUNICIPALITIES AND PEOPLE, PERIOD, WE MAY MAKE DECISIONS THAT STEP OUTSIDE OF OUR BOUNDARY THAT ARE AND, AND VIOLATE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, IN WHICH CASE LOCAL CONTROL WILL NOT APPLY.
SO IT'S THOSE EDGES THAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT.
AND, UM, AND THANK YOU FOR JUST KIND OF TELLING ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
AND, UM, I CAN PUT JUST A LITTLE FINER POINT WHAT, WHAT YOU SAID A SECOND AGO THAT STATE LAW CREATES CITIES WE'RE, AND WE'RE HOME RULE CITIES.
SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY, OBVIOUSLY, TO PASS ORDINANCE.
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY HERE TO PASS ORDINANCES THAT YOU SEE ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN STATE LAW SUPERSEDES AND THERE'S A STATE FRAMEWORK CREATED THAT WE EITHER HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN, OR THAT TELLS US WE MAY NOT ENGAGE IN THAT AREA.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, WE CONSTANTLY USE THE WORD PREEMPTION, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE STATE IS SPEAKING AND HERE'S WHAT THE STATE IS.
AND, AND, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO THAT'S, THESE BILLS WOULD DO THAT.
THEY WOULD SAY YOU CITIES SHALL NOT REGULATE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THOSE AREAS.
UM, THE FIRST THING I WANNA MENTION IS THAT, UM, JEFF COYLE MUST BE OPERATING WITH A LOT OF CAFFEINE IN HIM RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I, I KNOW JEFF, THAT YOU'VE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF DAYS UP THERE.
IT'S MEGAN AND MEGAN TEAM THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN PUTTING, Y'ALL HAVE BEEN PUTTING A LOT OF MILES ON YOUR CARS.
AND THAT YOU'RE COMING HOME, UH, LOOKING RAGGED SOMETIMES.
I SAW YOU YESTERDAY, JEFF, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE RIDDEN HARD AND PUT UP WET.
UH, AND IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR HARD WORK IS NOT LOST ON ME.
UM, THE SECOND THING I, I WANNA POINT OUT IS THAT, UM, 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.
UM, I THINK PAID SICK LEAVE IS AN IMPORTANT GOAL TOWARDS WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD WORK.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT LOCAL CONTROL IS VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE STATE HAS TAKEN OUT ITS VERY SHARP KNIVES AND HAS BEEN MAKING RUNS AT, UM, LESSENING, UH, THE ABILITY FOR CITIES TO CONTROL THEIR OWN LOCAL AFFAIRS.
UM, AND ANY, EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF CITIES LIKE US HAVING LESS AND LESS CONTROL OVER, UH, OUR DESTINIES.
THAT SAID, UH, WHEN I VOTED, UH, FOR THIS ORDINANCE, I, I DID SO, UM, MAKING VERY CAREFUL COMMENTS THAT I, I THINK NEED TO BE REMEMBERED, RIGHT? UM, THAT, AND I WARNED EVERYBODY THAT THIS WAS GONNA GET CHALLENGED IN COURT AND THERE WERE GOING TO BE BILLS.
UM, AND THAT THE CHALLENGES WERE GONNA BE BASED ON TWO THINGS.
ONE, A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE, UM, THAT, AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS CITIES WILL NOT PASS OR ENFORCE ORDINANCES THAT CONTRADICT WHAT THE STATE HAS ALREADY SET IN PLACE.
AND THEN THE TEXAS LABOR CODE SETS OUT THOSE, THOSE LAWS, AND THEY SAY, WE, AND ONLY WE ARE IN CHARGE OF WAGES AND WHAT PEOPLE PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES.
I HAVE YET TO MEET, UH, A CREDIBLE WAGE IN OUR LAWYER WHO DISAGREES THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED FROM THIS.
THAT SAID, WE STILL PASS THE ORDINANCE AND IT'S OUR, IT'S OUR ORDINANCE.
AND AS PREDICTED ON THAT DAY, THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS RULED 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 GONNA HAND US A DECISION THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE PREEMPTED.
NOW, THIS LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT I'M TORTURING ALL OF YOU WITH, UH, 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, UH, ISSUE, HOWEVER, AND THIS ORDINANCE TESTS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE STAND UP FOR ALL ORDINANCES THAT WERE PASSED.
I, 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. SAL, UH, COUNCILMAN SALDANA AND MYSELF.
TWO DUDES IN A ROOM GETTING A BRIEFING FROM JEFF COYLE.
YOU MEAN THE LAST I G R MEETING? AND THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO QUORUM, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
RIGHT? YEAH, I, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO A, A MEETING WITH TWO GUYS, GETTING A BRIEFING FROM JEFF COYLE DOES NOT MAKE A COMMITTEE MEETING.
AND A DECISION THAT COMES OUT OF THAT ROOM DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A REFERRAL UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
[01:30:01]
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 UNANIMITY AND CONSENSUS, BECAUSE I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAT REQUIRES UNANIMITY AND CONSENSUS THAN OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
BECAUSE JEFF, WHEN YOU GO UP THERE AND YOU START AD YOU KNOW, ADVOCATING FOR CERTAIN, UH, CHANGES, UM, OR PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES, YOU'RE GONNA GET ASKED.
SO THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND IF YOU ARE 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 WHO OPPOSE THIS.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITY A LITTLE HARDER? IT COMPLICATES THINGS FOR SURE.
MY POSITION OR CARLOS PO POSITION OR MEGAN'S POSITION, WE'RE UP THERE REPRESENTING THE CITY AS A BODY AS A WHOLE, AND THE COUNCIL AS A BODY.
AND SO, YES, CLARITY ON THE POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE UP THERE IS IMPORTANT AND VERY HELPFUL.
RIGHT? 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 WANNA MAKE SURE TO ARM YOU WITH CREDIBLE, UM, UH, FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE COUNCIL ARGUMENTS, RIGHT? IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE, I MEAN, JUST JUDGING FROM THE COMMENTS, YOU'RE GONNA GET A DIVIDED COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR, UM, A, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A POSITION TO TAKE AT IN AUSTIN.
AND JEFF, YOU, YOU'RE NOT GONNA LIE TO THESE FOLKS IN AUSTIN.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TELL 'EM IF ASKED.
TECHNICALLY, CONGRESSMAN, YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S A DIVIDED COUNCIL, RIGHT? AND, UM, THAT JUST DILUTES YOUR MESSAGE.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT YOU HAVE TO SELL UP THERE IS CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE ARE SENDING YOU UP TO DO.
RIGHT? I THINK THAT WE'RE SETTING A REALLY BAD PRECEDENT BY HAVING PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH.
BUT EVEN WORSE, BY NOT REFINING THIS AT A COMMITTEE.
AND THEN EVEN WORSE, BY PRETENDING THAT THE LAST COMMITTEE IS THE ONE OR THE LAST ATTEMPTED COMMITTEE MEETING IS WHERE WE DID THAT WORK.
AND SO, UM, YOU'RE GONNA GET A NO VOTE FROM ME TODAY.
JEFF, THE LAST MEETING, COMMITTEE MEETING I G R THAT WE TOOK A VOTE ON, WHEN WAS THAT COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE TOOK A VOTE ON, ON, ON THIS ISSUE? WHETHER WE DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ISSUE? WE, THE, THE COMMITTEE APPROVED THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA LAST FALL, AND THEN IT WENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL.
UH, THERE ARE OFTEN ITEMS THAT COME, UH, THE NUANCES OF LEGISLATION THAT, UH, MAY NOT FALL NEATLY INTO THE BOXES OF THE PROGRAM.
SO WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH YOU, I BELIEVE, AT THE, BE AT THE MEETING AT THE, AT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY, AND TO SAY, THESE BILLS ARE COMING, HERE'S WHAT WE RECOMMEND WE DO.
ALTHOUGH A VOTE WAS NOT TAKEN, UH, MEMBERS SPOKE UP AND, AND GAVE US A CONSENSUS, UH, APPROVAL OF THAT RECOMMENDATION.
SO, WHO, WHO HAD, WHO AT THE MEETING AGREED WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION? WELL, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN, I WANNA SPEAK FOR, FOR YOU ALL IN YOUR POSITIONS.
I KNOW THAT THE, UH, THE CHAIRMAN WAS CLEAR THAT HE WANTED TO OPPOSE IT.
I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN PALAI SAID THAT AS 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, UH, OPPOSED TO US OPPOSING PREEMPTION AND, UM, I, I DON'T THINK THE MAYOR WAS NOT AT THE MEETING.
AND NO, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE GOT, I THINK.
WEREN'T YOU AT THAT MEETING ALSO? YEAH.
AND WERE YOU, UH, I'M, I'M, I'M ADDRESSING, UH, COUNCILWOMAN.
WELL, AND I REMEMBER THAT MEETING VERY WELL, AND WE, WE AGREED TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, STAY NEUTRAL.
UM, AFTER THAT, THERE WERE SOME LETTERS SENT TO THE CAPITOL.
UM, CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH LETTERS GOT SENT OUT TO THE CAPITOL? UH, I, I SAW A DRAFT LETTER THAT WAS NOT SIGNED BY EVERYBODY, SO I'M NOT SURE FORMALLY WHEN, WHEN WENT UP.
I THINK THE CHAIRMAN HAS COMMUNICATED THAT HE HAS, HAS SENT A LETTER CONVEYING HIS POSITION.
BUT, BUT I'M, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE SPEAKING FOR ALL OF YOU AND YOUR POSITIONS ON THIS.
I'D, I'D MUCH PREFER YOU, YOU TELL US.
YEAH, I, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF LETTERS SENT, UH, TO THE CAPITOL ABOUT THIS.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME DISAGREEMENT, WHICH IS FINE.
[01:35:01]
ABSOLUTELY WE CAN BRING THOSE DECISIONS HERE TO COUNCIL AND TO DISCUSS IT AND EVEN OVERRIDE THE COMMITTEES.WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO THAT ON OCCASION HERE.
UM, 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.
UM, BUT HERE WE FIND OURSELVES WITH SOMEONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THE COMMITTEE, BRINGING IT TO THE FULL COUNCIL.
UM, YES, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE.
I VOTED AGAINST THAT ORDINANCE, UM, 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.
UM, I GOT A LETTER HERE FROM THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL, ANOTHER ONE FROM THE SOUTH SAN ANTONIO CHAMBER, SAN ANTONIO APARTMENT 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, UH, THAT ISN'T THIS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM RIGHT NOW? THIS PARTICULAR PAID SICKLY THERE, THERE'S A LAWSUIT ON THE AUSTIN, AND WHERE IS THAT RIGHT NOW? THIS IN THEIR CIRCUIT.
ANDY, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER? UH, UH, COUNCILMAN, UH, AS, AS WE NOTED, THE, UH, WAS IT, I THINK THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, UH, RULED THAT IT WAS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS, UH, ASKED THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, AND THAT'S WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND WHEN, WHEN DO WE EXPECT THAT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT? WELL, FIRST THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO REVIEW IT.
UH, THERE MIGHT BE A REQUEST FOR A BRIEFING ON THE MERITS THAT'S UP TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.
UH, I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH, THAT IF I HAD TO GUESS, YOU WILL HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT YES, INDEED IT IS PREEMPTED OR, UH, EVERYBODY IN THE STATE WILL GET PAID SICK LEAVE.
SO, UM, MY SENSE IS THE STATE LEG, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE LAWSUIT PERTAINS TO INTERPRETATION OF A STATE LAW.
IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TAKES AWAY ANY UNCERTAINTY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I WOULD THINK THAT THAT LITIGATION THEN WOULD BE, WOULD BE PUT TO A HALT.
SO, BUT IT'S BEING, BEING REVIEWED BOTH THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE LEGISLATIVE, THERE'S CURRENTLY A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW IT.
AND AGAIN, THAT'LL TAKE SOME TIME FOR THEM TO GET SOME INFORMATION ON THAT.
WELL, AGAIN, THE, UH, COMMITTEE ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.
HERE WE ARE BRINGING SOMETHING BACK UP AGAIN, THAT IS, THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL.
WE, WE HAVE INDICATORS OUT THERE THAT THIS IS GONNA BE STUCK, 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, I'M STILL FIRMLY ENTRENCHED TO STAY WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM.
AND, UH, I HOPE THAT THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE READ THESE LETTERS.
I THINK EVERYBODY HAS GOTTEN THESE LETTERS, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, THAT, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN OUT THERE BY OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE ARE BECOMING AN ANTI-BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL WITH THE THINGS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE PASSING OR TRYING TO PASS HERE AT THIS COUNCIL.
SO, I'M, I'M, UH, AGAIN, STICKING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT Y'ALL MADE, JEFF AND I, I APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMATION.
UH, 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, UH, MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
COUNCILMAN HALL, AND THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I THINK, UH, I ALIGN WITH, UH, COUNCILMAN ELIAS ON, ON, ON MY POSITION.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD DISAGREE WITH, UH, COUNCILMAN ELIAS ON IS, IS
[01:40:01]
THAT ONCE THIS BODY SPEAKS, WHETHER DIVIDED OR NOT, THAT'S THE VOICE OF THIS BODY.AND SO, EVEN IF IT'S 65, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE VOICE OF THIS BODY.
I MAY BE AGREE IN AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH IT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONCE WE VOTE, THAT BECOMES OUR VOICE.
AND SAME THING ON, ON THIS OR ANY OTHER, OTHER ITEM.
AND SO, UM, NOW I DO AGREE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEND INDIVIDUAL LETTERS, BUT IF IT WERE ME SENDING A LETTER TO A LEGISLATOR OR, OR WHOEVER, I WOULD MAKE VERY CLEAR THAT, THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS SPOKEN.
I MAY BE A DISSENTING OPINION ON IT, UH, AND THIS IS WHAT MY OPINION IS.
UM, BUT I WOULD MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO MENTION THAT POINT.
UM, I SUPPORT THE MOTION PROPOSED BY, BY COUNCILMAN, UH, SALANA.
UM, I DID RECEIVE LETTERS FROM, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR SHARING THOSE, UH, THOSE LETTERS AND THOSE THOUGHTS.
AND, UH, 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, UH, 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.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I STILL SUPPORT, UH, THE ORDINANCE THAT, THAT WE ADOPTED.
IT CAME TO US WITH OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SIGNATURES.
UH, I, I VOTED TO ADOPT IT, AS OPPOSED TO SENDING IT TO THE BALLOT.
UM, WELL, A, BECAUSE WE WERE, I'D SEEN INFORMATION THAT SHOWED IT WOULD'VE PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY, UH, IF PLACED ON THE BALLOT.
BUT SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE SOONER WE ADOPTED IT, THE SOONER WE COULD MODIFY IT TO MEET, UH, LOCAL, UH, LOCAL CONDITIONS TO TAILOR IT FOR, FOR OUR OWN, UH, COMMUNITY.
UM, I STILL STAND BY THAT VOTE THAT I TOOK.
AND BECAUSE THE STATE IS, UH, DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD UNDO OUR VOTE, I, I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD OPPOSE THAT.
UM, EVEN IF I'M NOT ON THE I G R COMMITTEE, I ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THIS AT THE COUNCIL DIOCESE.
UM, I ALSO THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONCERNING ITEMS IN THAT BILL OR IN THAT SET OF BILLS.
UH, SOME OF THEM WERE MENTIONED BY THE CITIZENS WHO SPOKE EARLIER REGARDING, UH, THINGS LIKE WATER BREAKS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.
UH, I, 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.
UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR JEFF.
CAN YOU TELL ME, UH, WHERE THE, UH, N D O IS ON THIS? I, UH, IN THIS SET OF BILLS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, THE N D O ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED.
HOWEVER, UH, ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY OTHER CITIES MAY BE.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE RIGHT SUMMARY.
UH, THE, THE BILLS TO RECAP, UH, RELATE TO PRIVATE EMPLOYERS LEAVE BENEFITS SCHEDULING AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS.
OUR N D O DOES NOT ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
WE HAVE A FAIR, UH, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY HIRING CLAUSE IN OUR N D O RELATED TO THE CITY'S HIRING.
UH, IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PRIVATE EMPLOYERS HIRING, OTHER THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, CONTRACTS THAT WE MIGHT ENTER INTO WITH ENTITIES.
UH, SO THE, THE TWO DO NOT INTERSECT.
OTHER CITIES, NDOS ARE DIFFERENT AND DO SPEAK TO THE HIRING PRACTICES OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO, UH, IN THOSE CASES, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, PREEMPTING THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCE.
AUSTIN IS, UH, DEFINITELY ONE OF THEM.
AND I BELIEVE, UH, DALLAS HAS OPPOSED THE BILLS FOR THAT REASON, NOT FOR THE PAID SICK LEAVE PIECE.
UM, THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY, UH, FOR ME, IT'S A VERY, UH, COMPLICATED AND, UM, UH, EM EMOTIONAL ECONOMIC, UM, 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, UH, COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING.
AND TO BE CLEAR, SO JEFF, UM, THE, THE I G R COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE DID HAVE, WHICH I DID AGREE TO AT THAT TIME,
[01:45:01]
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.I DID BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE POINTS THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BELA BROUGHT UP IS BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF THE, UM, AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THEN CREATING A, THE COMMISSION.
WHAT DAY WAS THAT AGAIN? WHEN, WHEN WAS THAT? WHAT AM I, RIGHT, MEGAN? I THINK IT WAS MONTHS, THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY.
RIGHT? WE, WE DIDN'T START THE WEEKLY, THIS WAS BEFORE WE WERE STARTED THE WEEKLY LEDGE UPDATE.
SO IT WAS A STANDING MEETING, I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS SOME TIME AGO.
AND ACTUALLY WHEN THAT ALSO HAPPENED, IT WAS SOME TIME AGO.
AND IT WAS ALSO BEFORE THE FEEDBACK, ALL OF THE, UM, BEFORE THAT BILL WAS BROKEN UP INTO THE FOUR THAT IT IS NOW.
IT WAS SET FOR A HEARING THAT WEEK, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD THE DISCUSSION.
AND SO ONE OF THE CHANGES IS BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN UP INTO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BILLS THAT HAVE MOVED FORWARD.
AND I WILL SAY THIS HAS BEEN, UH, AND I KNOW MAYOR, YOU SAID THAT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS, THIS MOTION.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN, UH, 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 IN ON STATE ISSUES.
THE, UH, THE CITIES DON'T LIKE WHEN THE STATE COMES IN AND MESSES UP WITH, UM, 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 THAT 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 NINE TO TWO VOTE, IS THAT CORRECT? WITH THE, I DON'T HAVE THAT IN CREATE THE ORDINANCE.
YOU HAD, SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE VOTE COUNT IN FRONT OF ME FROM, I BELIEVE IT WAS NINE TO TWO.
SO I BELIEVE IT WAS, IT WAS THAT, THAT WE DID NOT MOVE, THAT WE DID MOVE THE PAID SICK LEAVE ORDINANCE FORWARD, UH, FOR MANY REASONS.
AND PEOPLE DID IT FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS.
SO IT'S TRYING TO BRING ALL OF THAT.
AND THEN ALSO WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SOME DIALOGUE 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? WELL, IT ALLOWED US TO LAY OUT FOR THEM WHAT THE, THE BACKGROUND IS ON OUR ORDINANCE.
THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DID.
WE, WE REGISTERED ON THE BILL, MEANING YOU'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION, BUT NOT SAYING DO THIS OR DO THAT.
AND WE PRE PRESENTED THE, UH, 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.
AND SO WHEN YOU TALKED, WHEN YOU HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR LEGISLATORS MM-HMM.
HAS THAT BEEN HELPFUL FOR THEM OR HAVE THEY GIVEN COMMENT OF SAYING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? UH, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHAT SIDE OF THE ISSUE THEY'RE ON.
THERE ARE MEMBERS WHO WANT US TO TAKE A POSITION ON EITHER SIDE.
UM, AND WHEN I'VE EXPLAINED TO THEM WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, THE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS ONGOING CONVERSATION AT COUNCIL, UH, AND, UH, UH, IN FACT, WHEN REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL'S BILL CAME UP LAST MONDAY, I TOLD HIM THAT, UH, WE STILL HADN'T HAD ANY CHANGE IN OUR, IN OUR PROCESS YET, BUT THERE'S BEEN AN ONGOING CONVERSATION AT COUNCIL.
AND HE SAID, WELL, IN THAT CASE, DON'T REGISTER AT ALL.
AND SO WE, WE DIDN'T, UH, FOR THAT BILL, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS DIRECTION, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT, UM, WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH ALL OF YOU.
NOW, IF AS A BODY, YOU, YOU ALL TELL US ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER TO TAKE THAT, THAT'S VERY CLEAR.
AND WE'LL, WE, WE WILL GO DO THAT.
SO I, I ALSO WANTED TO SHARE IT WITH MY COLLEAGUES TOO, WHERE I AM ON, ON THIS AND LOOKING AT THIS TOO, BECAUSE ONE, WE DO WANNA PROVIDE THAT HEALTH BENEFITS AND THAT, UM, OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL WORKERS.
WE, WE HOPE THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN.
UM, BUT WE ALSO, AS WAS UH, MENTIONED IN SOME CONVERSATIONS, UM, PATCHWORK AND HOW WE TALK ALSO ABOUT CONSISTENCY.
AND IF THERE IS NO, IF THERE IS A PATCHWORK THAT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? BUT THEN ALSO, UM, KNOWING THAT PAID SICK LEAVE IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
I'M ALSO THINKING ABOUT MY SMALL BUSINESS MEMBERS IN DISTRICT THREE THAT MAY HAVE 15, THAT MAY HAVE 20, UM, WORKERS IN THEIR COMMUNITY, OR EVEN 30, BUT THAT PAID SICK LEAVE MAY THEN BREAK THEM AS A, AS A SMALL BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO WHERE IS THE BALANCE THERE? WHERE IS THE ALIGNMENT THERE? UM, I WANT TO TRY AND FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE.
AND I'M, I'M GRASPING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE AND HOW TO GET TO THAT HAPPY MEDIUM HERE.
[01:50:01]
SO I'M WONDERING, UM, IF WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH A, UH, MAYBE ANDY, THIS IS FOR YOU, IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A RESOLUTION OR AS WE TALK ABOUT I G R IN THE FUTURE AND MAKING CHANGES, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, I THINK IN OUR, UM, I G R AGENDA, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN NOT JUST, UM, WE CAN LOOK AT DOING A PROCESS OF NEEDING A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF JUST A, A MAJORITY VOTE? UH, COUNCILMAN, UH, TO DO THAT? I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, UH, THAT'S NOT REQUIRED.I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE HAD THE COUNCIL IS FREE TO, UH, HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM.
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL WOULD, WOULD AGREE TO I, AND I THINK THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, BUT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE AS AN ORDINANCE.
THE OPPOSITE OF GOOD IS NOT BAD.
AND THIS, THIS BODY WAS NOT INDIFFERENT WHEN IT VOTED FOR PAID SICK LEAVE.
UM, I WANNA THANK, UH, RAY FOR, FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
AND I, AND I, I THINK I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT COUNCILMAN HALL SAID.
WE'VE DECIDED, UM, ON, ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS, THIS BODY WAS NOT INDIFFERENT.
ULTIMATELY, THIS COUNCIL, WHEN THEY DECIDES SOMETHING IS THE FINAL SAY WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT COMMITTEES AND OTHER GROUPS.
WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.
SO I JUST WANNA THANK COUNCILMAN SALANI FOR BRINGING THIS BACK.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE BASIS IN WHICH, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING THE STAND AND IT'S, WE CANNOT REMAIN INDIFFERENT.
UH, THAT'S THE SAME, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S THE OTHER WORD FOR NEUTRAL.
UM, AS, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, I ABSOLUTELY, I HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF THOSE LETTERS.
AND, 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 'EM 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.
AND I'LL JUST, UH, SORT OF CLOSE UP BY, BY SAYING THAT I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ HAD THIS RIGHT? WE'RE, WE'RE NOT RE-LITIGATING THE MERITS OF, UH, PAID SICK LEAVE.
WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE LITIGATED THAT IT WAS A, IT WAS A NINE TO TWO VOTE IN IN AUGUST.
SO WHAT WE'RE LITIGATING TODAY IS THE QUESTION OF IS A NINE TO TWO TWO VOTE BY THIS COUNCIL, A 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, THE, THE MOTION IS FOR.
UM, SO WE, WE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN, IN, IN AN I G R COMMITTEE, AND FRANKLY WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE SAID, THEN, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THEN, THIS IS A DECISION WE'VE BEEN CLEARLY LAID OUT WITH A NINE TO TWO VOTE.
AND I SHOULD SAY TO YOU, WHILE YOU WANT A NEUTRAL POSITION, WE ARE, WE'RE NOT NEUTRAL BASED ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IS CLEAR AROUND LOCAL CONTROL.
UH, SO THIS IS A QUESTION OF, OF NOT RE-LITIGATING A A THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY'S ASPECT ON THIS OR EVEN THE, THE, THE WORKERS' RIGHTS COMMUNITY ASPECT OF THIS.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT DISCUSSION.
THIS IS A QUESTION OF LOCAL CONTROL AND A POSITION OF PREEMPTION ON THIS BILL.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THE GREAT THING IS, WE'RE ALL GONNA VOTE AND THERE'LL BE A POSITION AT THE END OF THIS, AND THERE WILL BE LESS CONFUSION FOR JEFF, UH, GOING FORWARD IN AFTER WE TAKE THIS VOTE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE SORT OF BOTTOM LINE HERE.
THIS IS A QUESTION OF PREEMPTION AND LOCAL CONTROL.
UM, I'LL JUST START, AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UH, FIRST IN, IN A CITY THAT IS, UM, RANKED AMONG THE TOP GROWING, UM, ECONOMIES, METROS IN THE NATION, I REJECT THE NOTION THAT WE ARE ANTI-BUSINESS 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 IN NATIONAL AVERAGE, REJECT THE NOTION THAT WE'RE ANTI-WORKER.
WE, WE DELIBERATE VERY, UH, THOUGHTFULLY ABOUT ISSUES TO PROTECT WORKERS, BUT ALSO ENSURE THAT OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY GROWS.
SO LET ME START BY WHERE WE, 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, UH, THAT HAD BEEN TREAT PRE-DRAFT WITHOUT COMMUNITY INPUT, WITHOUT BUSINESS INPUT, WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND WORKERS AND BUSINESSES COMING
[01:55:01]
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, UM, REJECT IT ALL TOGETHER.
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 HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO.
SO MEANWHILE, WE'VE SEEN SIMILAR LEGISLATION PREEMPTIVELY ATTACKED 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 I G R AGENDA TO DO SO, UH, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT CONTEXT, I THINK IS AN IRRESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN.
SO LEMME JUST TELL YOU WHERE I AM ON THIS.
I, I BELIEVE AS COUNCILMAN PALA 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 QUESTIONS, JEFF.
UM, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE OF PAID SICK LEAVE AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY TO, TO REGULATE IT.
UM, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR BILLS.
ONE OF THEM IS OUR, OUR, UM, OMNIBUS POSITION TO PROTECT OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE MAKING ABILITY, SOMETHING WHICH ALL OF US HAVE SPENT A NUMBER OF HOURS WORKING WITH OUR LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT, UH, BOTH INTERCITY BUT ALSO STANDING ALONE SOMETIMES IS SAN ANTONIO TO PROTECT OUR SELF-GOVERNANCE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
UM, SO TO BE CLEAR, OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA DOES HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE TO PROTECT OUR SELF-GOVERNING AUTHORITY.
ONE OF THE SIX, AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE THIS AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED, 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 AND UNIQUE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND ALSO, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT VALUES OF TEXAS, BUT ALSO IN SAN ANTONIO IS NON-DISCRIMINATION.
AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UM, IN FACT, ONE OF THE FIRST ACTIONS THAT ME AND MY COLLEAGUES TOOK TOGETHER AS A BODY WAS TO ESTABLISH A NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE.
AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA SPECIFIC TO NON-DISCRIMINATION, TO PROTECT OUR ORDINANCE AND ALSO TO PROTECT OUR ABILITY, UH, TO MODIFY THAT ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD.
IS THAT LANGUAGE STILL IN THE AGENDA? YES.
IT'S ABOUT, UH, MAINTAINING THE, UH, COMPETITIVENESS OF THE CITY AND THE STATE ON A NATIONAL SCALE TO OPPOSE DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PUT US IN A, UH, UH, COMPROMISED POSITION WHEN, WHEN COMPETING FOR BUSINESS AND SO FORTH.
BUT YES, AND, AND THE N D O ITSELF, AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS LONG SINCE BEEN PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED AND IN PLACE HERE WOULD FALL UNDER THAT LOCAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, UM, UH, PRIORITY MENTIONED FROM BEFORE.
SO IF THERE WAS A BILL, IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN BILLS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACK OUR N D O AND WE'VE REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO WELL, AND, AND I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN SALDANA AND, AND MY COLLEAGUES HERE ON THE DAIS, THAT THAT IS AN UNCOMPROMISING POSITION.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE, AND WE ALSO HAVE TO PROTECT OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY IT AS THE, AS AS CHANGES PERMIT.
UM, AND SO I, I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK SPECIFIC ABOUT THE BILLS THAT WERE MENTIONED.
UH, SB 15 WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, HAVE A, HAD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE PROTECTING AND EXEMPTING NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES IN CITIES.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT HAD A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION? YES.
UM, IN THE ABUNDANT WISDOM, I SAY THAT SARCASTICALLY OF OUR LEGISLATURE, THEY REMOVE THAT EXEMPTION FROM THIS, UH, PREEMPTION OR, OR, OR FROM THE, UH, SICK LEAVE PREEMPTION BILL.
THERE'S A, WHEN A BILL GETS HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME IN COMMITTEE, 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.
SO THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE OF SENATE BILL 15 PULLED THAT NON-DISCRIMINATION LANGUAGE OUT, AND, AND THAT CREATED, UH, MANY OTHER OPPONENTS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THE PAID SICK LEAVE ISSUE.
[02:00:01]
SB 15, RIGHT.WHICH WAS SINCE BROKEN UP INTO THE FOUR BILLS MENTIONED.
AND GO AHEAD AND SAY, 'CAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE NON-DISCRIMINATION, I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE NON-DISCRIMINATION EXEMPTION, SSB 15 STALLED.
IT NEVER CAME UP FOR A VOTE IN THE SENATE.
SO THE SPONSOR OF THAT BILL, SENATOR BRANDON CREIGHTON, UH, HIT, HIT, BROKE IT UP INTO FOUR PIECES.
IT STILL DOES NOT HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION, BUT HE IS ATTACHED EACH PIECE INDIVIDUALLY.
AND HIS ARGUMENT ON THE SENATE FLOOR WAS THE BILLS ARE NOW SO NARROW THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT, UH, NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF GROUPS WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT.
AND THE PAID SICK LEAVE PORTION OF THAT BILL WAS ALREADY PASSED OUTTA SENATE.
UH, OF THE FOUR, UH, 24 87 IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH LEAVE.
AND, AND THAT PASSED, ALL FOUR OF THEM HAVE PASSED.
SO OUR POSITION ON SSB 24 87 WOULD BE MOOT.
OUR POSITION ON S WELL, NO, BECAUSE IT'LL MOVE OVER TO THE HOUSE NOW.
SO THE HOUSE SIDE DOES RETAIN THE EXEMPTION LANGUAGE FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION.
THE HOUSE BILL DOES, YOU'RE RIGHT.
UH, HB 16 34, 16 54 DOES CONTAIN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE SIX WEEKS OUT, SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL, I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THOSE SENT, THOSE FOUR SENATE BILLS WILL GET REFERRED TO A HOUSE COMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS WILL BEGIN THERE.
WELL, MY POSITION ON, 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 DRAFT SOMETHING IMPLEMENTABLE IF WE STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY, BECAUSE OUR CITY COUNCIL, I THINK THOUGHTFULLY DID THAT.
WE SHOULD 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, UM, ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS, UH, SOME FOLKS, UH, POLITICIANS WHO ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE THIS COMMUNITY, UH, WITH REGARD TO STRIPPING AWAY NON-DISCRIMINATION, NOT JUST IN THIS SESSION, BUT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS.
AND THAT WE NEED TO SEND A VERY STRONG MESSAGE THAT WE OPPOSE THE, UH, REMOVAL OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCES FROM OUR CITY AND OTHER CITIES.
BUT WITH REGARD TO THE PAID SICK LEAVE, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT THE COURT AND THE LEGISLATURE HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO DECIDE.
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO TAKE A POSITION BEYOND NEUTRAL ON THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS.
AND AT THIS POINT, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, FOR THE ADDITION OF THAT, UH, OR, OR EXCUSE ME, THE CHANGING OF THE POSITION ON THOSE PARTICULAR BILLS, UH, OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN SALANA.
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.
OKAY, WE MOVE NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 10.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS AN ORDINANCE AND ORDINANCES ON BEHALF OF SASS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THROUGH NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF INTEREST IN 28 PERMANENT PARCELS.
INTEND, TEMPORARY PARCELS OF LAND SUFFICIENT FOR PROJECT PURPOSES OF PRIVATELY OWNED RAIL PROPERTY, AND DECLARING THE PROJECTS TO BE PUBLIC USE PROJECTS AND A PUBLIC NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITIONS.
I MOVE THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AUTHORIZED THE USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PRIVATELY OWNED REAL PROPERTY FOR A 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.
THE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INTERESTS LOCATED IN SAN ANTONIO, BEAR COUNTY, TEXAS CITY COUNCIL.
DISTRICTS FOUR, SIX, AND 10 ARE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING.
A IS LEON CREEK, W DASH ONE, NEW CITY BLOCKS 1 3 9 4 2 1 3 9 5 1 1 5 3 2.
ITEM B W SIX, WHICH IS HIGHWAY 90, NEW CITY BLOCKS 1, 3 9, 7, 5, 1, 5, 6, 5, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 8, 1, 5, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 0, 2, 1, 5, 2, 9, 9, 1, 5, 2, 8, 6, 1, 5, 2, 8, 5, 1, 5, 6, 0, 2, 1, 5, 5, 8, 9, 1 5, 6, 0 0 1 6 5 28, 1 6 5 31 1 3 9 51 1 3 9 62.
[02:05:01]
E FOUR, WHICH IS THE VERDE AREA.NEW CITY BLOCKS 1 7 3 6 5 1 7 7 2 6 1 7 7 2 8.
THESE PROPERTIES ARE DEPICTED IN THE OVERALL PROJECT DRAWING MAP AND ATTACHED IN EXHIBIT A, TWO OF EACH RESPECTIVE ORDINANCE ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THIS MOTION.
OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ITEMS 10, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT BRINGS US TO OUR, UH, WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE DO ALSO HAVE A CITY MANAGER'S REPORT, UM, AND A 2:00 PM ZONING SESSION.
AND I DO HAVE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AFTER THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.
UM, MAY IS HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH, AND, UH, I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT, UM, SHANNON MILLER AND, UH, 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.
UH, WE'LL HAVE AN OFFICIAL KICKOFF PARTY, UH, ON MAY 2ND FOR PRESERVATION MONTH AT THEIR STORE, CREST BUILDING DOWNTOWN.
UM, ALSO WE'VE GOT THE AMAZING PRESERVATION RACE THAT'LL BE DOWNTOWN ON SATURDAY, MAY 4TH, AND THE AMAZING PRESERVATION RACE FOR KIDS AT THE, UH, SAN ANTONIO ZOO ON SATURDAY, MAY 18TH.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THE FINAL EVENT WILL BE THE, UH, SECOND EVENT, UH, THE SECOND THE, THE ANNUAL REHAB AROUND.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I SAID THAT RIGHT.
THAT WAS POSTPONED FROM LAST WEEK, UH, DUE TO RAIN.
IT'S SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, MAY 11TH AND WILL BE IN THE, UH, MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT.
G***O MATERIALS IS THE TITLE SPONSOR, AND IT'S A CON, A REALLY CONCERTED EFFORT FROM A NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS, OVER HUNDRED HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS TO HELP, UH, REHAB, UH, HOMES IN THE AREA.
UH, A FULL LISTING, UH, IS OF THE EVENTS AND SPONSORS IS@SAPRESERVATION.COM, AND WE'RE PASSING OUT PRINTED MATERIAL FOR YOU AS WELL.
UH, LASTLY, AND JUST REAL QUICK, UH, THIS FRIDAY IS THEA SETTER, BO'S LAST DAY WITH THE CITY.
MANY OF YOU KNOW HER WITH HER WORK, UH, AT, UH, G P A, UH, AND YOUR OFFICES ON PRESS RELEASES AND, AND DEALING WITH THE MEDIA.
UH, THEA IS GONNA GO TO THE HEMISPHERE PARK AREA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHERE I'M SURE SHE'S GOING TO BE BORED 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY EXCITING WORKING FOR THE CITY.
BUT WE WISH, UH, THEO WELL, AND, UH, YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK, UH, THEO, UM, ANYTIME YOU WANT.
APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR WORK OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.
THEA, DO YOU HAVE A, UM, DO YOU HAVE A FINAL STATEMENT? THEA
UM, I'M GLAD THAT I WON'T BE TOO FAR AWAY.
I'LL STILL BE PART OF THE FAMILY.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND, UM, KEEP DOING THE GOOD WORK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT WORK.
THE, UH, COUNCILMAN COUNCILWOMAN VIA GRANT.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UM, I'M EXCITED ABOUT PRESERVATION MONTH.
I'M VERY HAPPY IT'S GOING TO BE IN DISTRICT THREE.
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU SHANNON, AND ALL OF YOUR TEAM, AND GLAD WE'RE GONNA HIGHLIGHT EVERY, UH, SO MANY LEGACY BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY.
AND THEN I'M SO SAD TO SEE THEA GO.
BUT, UH, WE KNOW IT'S TO BETTER, BIGGER, AND BETTER THING, SO CONGRATULATIONS.
UM, THE BRAIN DRAIN IS TOO HARD FOR ME TO HANDLE.
NOW, THE, UH, I I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S NEXT, UH, VIA CONGRATS.
UH, I'M, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU, UH, SUCCEED SPECTACULARLY OUT THERE, AND H PARK'S LUCKY TO HAVE YOU.
WE'RE GONNA MISS YOU, THEA, BUT WE'LL SEE YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
IT'S BEEN GREAT WORKING WITH YOU.
UM, I DO HAVE A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT.
UM, ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IS NOW TURNING, UM, 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]
ALRIGHT, MAYOR, MAD JUST YOU HAVE A BEFORE.UM, I AM CELEBRATING THE, UH, 29TH ANNIVERSARY OF MY 39TH BIRTHDAY.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ALSO AT 2:00 PM ZONING MEETING.
UH, THE TIME IS NOW 11:26 AM 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 5 5 0 7 1 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND TO DELIBERATE OR DISCUSS THE ITEMS POSTED FOR THE APRIL 17TH FEE SESSION, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0 8 7, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE PURCHASE EXCHANGE LEASE, OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0 7 2 REAL PROPERTY LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0.071.
CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY IN LITIGATION MATTERS INVOLVING THE CITY PENDING, CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR, AND OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5 5 1 0.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.
WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL ZONING AGENDA.
THE TIME IS 2:06 PM 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 CONSIDERATION ITEMS Z ONE Z TWO, Z SEVEN, P TWO, AND Z 12, Z 13 AND Z 14.
AND PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT Z 10 HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED TODAY.
THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS FROM WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'LL, UH, ASK OUR AV TEAM TO ROLL THE TRANSLATION VIDEO.
UM, AGAIN, WE HAVE ITEMS Z ONE, Z TWO, Z SEVEN, P TWO, Z 12, Z 13, AND Z 14 FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS, UH, REMAINING ON CONSENT THAT MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA.
ALRIGHT, 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.
WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR NURENBERG, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD.
A FEW ITEMS I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA ZONING.
A FEW THAT JUST KIND OF JUST, JUST, UH, JUMP OUT AT YOU THERE.
Z UM, Z 13 IN MR. BROCK HOUSE'S DISTRICT.
THE, UH, THIS ONE HAS A NUMBER OF RED FLAGS HERE, SIR.
THE, BOTH THE ZONING STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION HAVE SAID NO TO IT.
THEY SUGGEST WE DENY IT BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT, UM, COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENTS, COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THE STAFF HAS NOTED ADVERSE IMPACTS AND THERE'LL BE MORE TRAFFIC, MORE NOISE, AND, UH, AND THE CABLE WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ALSO OPPOSES IT, SIR.
UH, BUT, UM, I GUESS WHAT IS BIGGEST NOTICE IS THAT, UM, THIS THING HAS BEEN DELAYED.
WELL, I THINK THIS MAKES ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES NOW, SIR.
YES, WE KNOW YOU CAN DELAY IT, UH, INFINITELY MANY TIMES, BUT THERE COMES A POINT WHERE THIS THING JUST BECOMES, UH, CRAZY AND INQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW JUST WHY, WHAT YOUR GAME PLAN IS AS FAR AS
IT'S GOT SO MANY, SO MANY HOLES IN IT HERE, UNLESS YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO WEAR PEOPLE DOWN ON IT THERE.
UM, THEN Z 12 AND, AND, AND MISS GONZALEZ'S DISTRICT YES.
THE STAFF ZONING STAFF SAID NO TO IT BECAUSE OF THE, UM, THE AD ADVERSE INCOMPATIBLE USES AGAIN, IN THE RE IN THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL AREA.
IT, IT, THE, UM, IT'S NOT EQUIPPED FOR COMMERCIAL.
[02:15:01]
THE, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT EQUIPPED FOR THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.IT IS NOISE, AIR POLLUTION, NUISANCES, UH, ALL KINDS OF THINGS THERE.
AND SOME, THE RESIDENTS, UH, ASSOCIATION SUB, UH, OPPOSES IT.
WEST SIDE RESIDENCE RESIDENTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OPPOSES IT.
SO MAYBE YOU'D WANNA SAY NO TO THIS ONE.
UM, MS. GONZALEZ, THE, UM, AND, UH, AND LET'S SEE, THE, AND MS. UM, SANDOVAL'S DISTRICT.
THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER ONE THERE.
THE STAFF SUGGESTED DENIAL IN 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.
AND BECAUSE, AND CONSTANTLY THEY, THE STAFF HAS NOTED, UH, TR TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONCERNS.
THIS IS RIGHT ON MANITO STREET, RIGHT NEAR ST.
MRS. MRS. SANDOVAL, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.
AND THEN ELSEWHERE ON THE, ON THE, UH, THE AGENDA WE WE'RE IN, UM, ONCE AGAIN, MR. MR. GONZALEZ, YOU HAVE, HAVE A BAR
OH, I CAN SAY SO MANY SCANDALS.
SUSAN DEVIN SPEAKING ON ITEM Z FOUR.
YOU, YOU DON'T WANT THE TIME? NO, THAT'S OKAY.
UH, ROSE HILL SPEAKING ON Z SIX, ALSO ON CONSENT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
UH, MY NAME IS ROSE HILL, PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT, HILL ALLIANCE.
DEAR ASSOCIATION, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM SIX.
UH, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE AGAIN, FOLLOWED OUR PROCESS IN, UH, MEETING WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT.
AND, UH, WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
I THINK THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THEM AND, UH, WE WELCOME THEM TO OUR COMMUNITY AND THEIR NEW PACKAGING PROB UH, UH, FACILITY THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING IN GOVERNMENT HILL.
AND, UH, WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
REBECCA CILLO, FOLLOWED BY KEITH PIKE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND STAFF.
I'M HERE, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HILLIARD CLINIC, WHICH IS JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED, UH, APPLICANT ZONING CHANGE.
BECAUSE WE ARE WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, OF THE NEW DESIGNATION.
WE FEEL THAT IT'S A, IT'S AN UPGRADE TO THE FACILITIES AND IT'S ALSO AN UPGRADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE BEEN A, A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROMISE ZONE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, PROGRAM IN, IN THE PLANS, AND WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT.
KEITH PIKE, FOLLOWED BY MIKE CAMERON.
UH, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND I WANTED TO THANK THE GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE FOR THEIR SUPPORT.
UH, WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP MEETING, UH, PROCESS, AND GOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE THERE.
AND ALSO THE HELP FROM THE, UH, ZONING DEPARTMENT WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE SLIGHTLY CHANGE THE ZONING SO IT WOULD FIT MORE INTO THE FUTURE PLANS OF THE AREA.
AND, UH, JUST WANTED TO THANK ALL THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT IN THIS PROCESS.
MAYOR, UH, MY NAME IS MIKE CAMERON, CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.
UM, I'M SPEAKING BEHALF OF OUR COMPANY, WHICH IS, UH, DEVIL'S RIVER DISTILLERY.
THIS IS A SMALL MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE PLAN TO SPEND, UH, A LOT OF MONEY IMPROVING IT.
AND, UH, WANTED TO GIVE ASSURANCES TO ANYONE HERE THAT WE ARE, UH, PROMISED 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, UH, TOURISM.
WE'RE GONNA EMPLOY APPROXIMATELY 20 PEOPLE IN OUR COMPANY.
THOSE ARE NEW JOBS TO SAN ANTONIO.
AND, UH, SO JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE MIGHT HAVE.
RAMON RENTERIA SPEAKING ON Z NINE.
IS MR. RENTERIA HERE? YOU'RE PASSING.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT ZONING AGENDA.
THAT'S ALL ITEMS SAVED FOR Z ONE, Z TWO, Z SEVEN, P TWO, Z 12, Z 13, AND Z 14.
[02:20:02]
PLEASE VOTE.MOTION CARRIES ITEMS. EXCUSE ME.
ITEM Z ONE Z ONE IS FROM Z ONE, I'M SORRY.
C ONE TO C ONE HHL LOCATED AT 800 WEST RUSSELL PLACE, STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
NOTICES MAILED SEVEN IN FAVOR TO OPPOSED ALTAVISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT AND PROPERTY OWNERS AND OPPOSE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST.
THEREFORE, THE RE UH, THIS WILL REQUIRE NINE VOTES TO PASS.
UM, AND I WANT TO THANK, UH,
THIS IS, UM, AS YOU HEARD, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE A, A SUPER MAJORITY, BUT WE FEEL IT'S THE RIGHT THING.
UH, IT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF, OF PROVIDING, UH, COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, UH, AND SO THEREFORE, A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM Z.
THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z ONE.
WE DO HAVE CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THERESA NINO, FOLLOWED BY SUSAN BEVIN.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, MY NAME IS
UM, AS THE COUNCILMAN SAID, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR OVER A YEAR ON TRYING TO PRESERVE THESE PROPERTIES.
UH, THEY ARE HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
UH, THEY HAVE SOME VERY INTERESTING STORIES.
UM, WE ARE LOCATED BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND DOWNTOWN, AND SO IT'S A VERY DESIRABLE LOCATION, AND WE KNOW THAT AS SAN ANTONIO GROWS, UM, MANY PEOPLE WILL BE INTERESTED IN OUR HOMES.
AND SO I THANK COUNCILMAN TREVINO FOR HELPING US PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, HELPING US KEEP OUR HOMES, AND, UM, AND HOPE TO WORK WITH YOU ALSO IN THE FUTURE TO DO SO AS WELL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR COUNCIL.
THE SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY SUPPORTS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR 800 WEST RUSSELL IN THE ALT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
THIS CIRCA 1920 CRAFTSMAN STYLE BUNGALOW MEETS THREE OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA NECESSARY TO QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
THE ORIGINAL OWNER, MARY DHE, IS SIGNIFICANT FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF THE STREETCAR ROUTE TO ALTA VISTA.
THE HOUSE AND BODIES DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE AND IS AN ESTABLISHED VISUAL FEATURE ON THE CORNER OF THE NORTH FLORIST CORRIDOR.
LEADING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION WOULD NOT ONLY ENABLE THE OWNER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TAX INCENTIVES, BUT WOULD HELP PRESERVE A BUILDING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO ALT VISTA'S ELIGIBILITY AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM C ONE.
ITEM Z TWO Z TWO IS FROM MF 33 TO MF 33 HL LOCATED AT 25 11 NORTH FLORIDA STREET.
STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THREE OPPOSED ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED, THEREFORE, THIS WILL REQUIRE NINE VOTES TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM Z.
TWO THERESA NINO, FOLLOWED BY SUSAN BEVIN.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS, UM, IS CALLED FOURSQUARE, AND IT IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOW LOOKING FOR, UH, TO HAVING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS, UH, MIDDLE HOUSING OR THE MISSING MIDDLE.
UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ARE IN A VERY DESIRABLE LOCATION.
WE ARE SAN PEDRO SPRINGS PARK IS RIGHT, UH, IN ALTA VISTA, AND THAT IS THE, UM, BIRTHPLACE OF SAN ANTONIO.
UM, SO AGAIN, THIS HOUSING IS, UH, VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT.
SUSAN BEVIN, SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY SUPPORTS THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 25 11 NORTH FLORES, WHICH PREDATES
[02:25:01]
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 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SINCE 1921, MEETS THREE CRITERIA NECESSARY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
IN ADDITION TO CRITERIA ONE IN 13 IDENTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THIS STRUCTURE ALSO MEETS CRITERION SEVEN.
THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF THIS HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 2,500 BLOCK OF NORTH FLORES MAKES IT WORTHY OF PRESERVATION AS AN ESTABLISHED OR FAMILIAR VISUAL FEATURE ALONG THIS 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 MULTI-HOUSING, UH, MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WITHIN THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WOULD ALSO STRENGTHEN THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THE COLLECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES NEAR THE CORNER OF NORTH FLORES AND WEST RUSSELL, WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO ALTA VISTA'S OVERALL ELIGIBILITY AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU ESA AND ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AS WELL AS MS. BEVIN TODAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, SHE, SHE LISTED OFF SOME OF THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION.
AND I'LL, I WANNA READ ONE THAT I THINK IS, IS ALSO, UM, AS IMPORTANT, IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT.
IT'S, IT, IT BEARS AN IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DISTINCTIVE STRUCTURES, SITES, OR AREAS, EITHER AS A, 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.
UM, AGAIN, THE ISSUE HERE IS ABOUT, UH, PROVIDING SOME LEVEL OF PROTECTION AND PRES PRESERVATION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, WE, WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, THAT, THAT THIS IS AN EFFORT TO, TO PROVIDE THAT.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
WE JUST WANNA PROMOTE THE, THE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE REQUESTING.
THEREFORE, I MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM Z TWO.
OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z TWO.
ITEM Z SEVEN C SEVEN IS FROM C TWO TO C TWO CD WITH A CONDITIONAL USE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES.
FULL SERVICE AT 49 18 RIGSBY AVENUE.
STAFF AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SOLID SCREEN FENCING ALONG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND USES NO TEMPORARY SIGNS, PENANCE FLAGS OR WIND WAIVER SIGNS.
AND THE EASTERN TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT GROUP IS IN SUPPORT.
OKAY, THERE ARE SEVERAL CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO, TO SPEAK ON ITEMS. OH, EXCUSE ME.
C SEVEN HAS NO CITIZEN SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
APOLOGIZE, UH, COUNCILMAN GRO.
UM, I WANNA THANK THE ZONING, UH, OUR ZONING COMMISSIONER, JOY MCGEE, AND THE EASTERN TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT GROUP FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE FOR THEIR INPUT ON THESE CONDITIONS.
UM, I WILL ALSO BE INCLUDING AN NA AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO NON-ALCOHOL CELLS.
SO WITH THAT, I MOTION TO APPROVE AS C TWO NA C D FOR MOTOR VEHICLE CELLS WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED.
OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM Z SEVEN WITH CONDITIONS AS STATED, PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES ITEMS P TWO AND Z 12 P TWO AND Z 12.
THE GUADALUPE WEST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY MIXED USE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FROM R FOUR AND C TWO N A TO I D Z FOR AN OFFICE AUTO TRUCK REPAIR AND USELESS PERMITTED IN C TWO P AND R FOUR, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SOUTHWEST OF COLIMA STREET AND SOUTH ZAMORA STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
45 NOTICES MAILED THREE IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS AN AMENDMENT AND I, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS
[02:30:01]
ITEM.WE'VE GOT SEVERAL CITIZENS TO, TO SPEAK.
SO SHOULD WE HIT THE CITIZENS FIRST? WE CAN DO THE CITIZENS FIRST AND WE CAN ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UH, AMEND PRIOR TO THE MOTION.
SO FIRST WE HAVE, UH, AMELIA VALDEZ AND SHE'LL BE FOLLOWED BY NA.
UH, MY NAME IS AMELIA VALDES AND I RESIDE AT 1635 TUI, UH, BORN AND RAISED IN, UM, THE WEST SIDE AND A PART OF DISTRICT FIVE.
AS YOU SEE, THERE IS A, UM, MAP ON THE, ON THE SCREEN, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION.
UH, CERTAIN AREAS THAT ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO THE AUTO REPAIRS.
UM, AND THEY RESIDE ALONG, UM, GUADALUPE AND ALONG, UM, WEST COMMERCE IN BUENA VISTA, UH, INCLUDING ON SMO, WHICH IS 1 0 0 1 SMO, WHERE, UM, MR. CHICO HAS HIS, UM, AUTO REPAIR.
ALSO, THERE'S ANOTHER AUTO REPAIR IN THAT AREA ALSO.
SO WE RESPECT THE AUTO RE AUTO REPAIR SHOPS.
WE, THEY HAVE FOUR TO FIVE STAR RATING AND WE'VE ALWAYS RESPECTED THEM AS AN ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT.
WE ALSO WANNA BE RESPECTED AS FAR AS US GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS.
WE'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST THREE YEARS, AND WE WANT OUR VOICES HEARD ACCORDING TO OUR OBJECTIVES FOR THE ASSOCIATION.
ENHANCING THE WELLBEING OF OUR COMMUNITY IS ONE AND DIPPING IN A SENSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG MEMBERS AS WELL AS OTHERS WHO AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THIS CASE AND WE INSIST ON BEING HEARD AND OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD, AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME.
AND THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THAT OUR ASSOCIATION HAS NEVER HAD A VOICE.
OUR WEST SIDE HAS NEVER HAD A VOICE, SO WE WANT THAT TO BE, UH, RESPECTED.
I'VE BEEN A PART OF DISTRICT FIVE ACTUALLY.
I HELPED, UH, COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY GONZALEZ, UH, AS A PART OF A PILOT PROGRAM FOR C P S AND WE ACTUALLY, UH, HAD SOME LIGHTING IN SOME OF THE SPACES THAT WE NEEDED AND WE HELPED WITH THAT, UH, AS A, JUST A, A CONSTITUENT.
SO, UH, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITY, GUADALUPE COMMUNITY PLAN, I KNOW THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION IS, IS NEED TO BE HEARD.
AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT AS A PRESIDENT OF THIS ASSOCIATION THAT I BRING FOREFRONT TO THE FOREFRONT IS THE VOICES OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAT HAS BEEN GONE WITHOUT NOT BEING HEARD FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE AGAIN, UM, YOUR, YOUR TIME TODAY TO HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO WORK, UH, TOGETHER.
I'M GIVING MY TIME TO TONY GARCIA.
UM, NEXT WE'LL HAVE MARIANNE HERNANDEZ.
I'M ALSO GIVING MY TIME TO GARCIA.
SO MR. GARCIA, TONY GARCIA, YOU'RE UP NEXT.
GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST WEST EDGE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION.
THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE HAS MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, BROWN OR NORTHEAST OVER NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO FIND COMMON GROUND FOR THIS ZONING APPLICATION FROM OCTOBER, 2018 WHEN THE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS MOVED FROM A POSITION OF COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO A POSITION OF CONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION UNTIL EARLIER THIS WEEK.
THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE MET WITH THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BROWN AND NORTHEAST ON TUESDAY, APRIL 16TH AT CASA DE QUINTOS.
AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, THERE WAS A FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROWN AND NORTHEAST AND HISTORIC WEST SIDE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD FULLY SUPPORT THE ZONING APPLICATION IF THREE ELEMENTS
[02:35:01]
WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.ITEM ONE WAS TO ADD A FIVE FOOT DEEP BUFFER LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE THE FENCE AND ALONG 125 FEET BUSINESS PROPERTY LINE ON SAN PATRIZIO STREET.
ITEM TWO WAS TO ADD A FIVE FOOT DEEP BUFFER LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE THE FENCE AND ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON KALIMA STREET.
AND THE LAST ITEM WAS TO ADD LANDSCAPE ISLAND ON SA ZUMO IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING OFFICE STRUCTURE.
REGRETTABLY, HISTORIC WEST SIDE RECEIVED AN AMENDMENT SITE PLAN LATER IN THE WEEK THAT WHICH DID NOT REFLECT THE MUTUALLY AGREED TWO ITEMS. WE THANK THE APPLICANT FOR AGREEING TO ITEM TWO AND THREE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM ITEM ONE, WAS NOT ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AMENDED SITE PLAN DELETED THE BUFFER LANDSCAPE AND ALSO ADDED AN ENTRANCE ON SAN PATRIZIO STREET, WHICH IS NOT ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION.
I REQUESTED THE BROWN AND NORTHEAST HONOR THEIR AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE WITH HISTORIC WEST SIDE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 16TH AND REVISE THE SITE PLAN.
PLEASE NOTE THAT REVISING THE SITE PLAN WILL MEET SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE GUADALUPE WEST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AND SECTION 35 DASH 4 21 OF THE U D C WHERE THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING LANDS, ESPECIALLY SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, IS MINIMIZED BY ADDING THE BUFFERING LANDSCAPE.
THE AESTHETIC IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF KALIMA STREET AND SAN PATRICIA 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 RELATED NUISANCE.
NUISANCE CAN, WOULD BE CONTAINED WITH WITHIN THESE BUFFER LANDSCAPES.
FURTHERMORE, 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 TRANSITIONS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS AND SURROUNDING HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS WE SEE IN THIS APPLICATION.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE 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 TO ONE THAT CONTRIBUTES, CONTRIBUTES TO MORE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE IS ALSO WILLING TO MEET WITH THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE BUFFER LANDSCAPES TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS SITE.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC WESTSIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION REGARDING THESE BUFFER ZONE.
IT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF THE WATER LUPE WESTSIDE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SA TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I BELIEVE THE HISTORIC WESTSIDE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION WOULD THEN FULLY SUPPORT THE ZONING APPLICATION IF THESE BUFFER ZONES WOULD ADD IT TO THE SITE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
NEXT WE HAVE ERMA HOFFMAN HOFFMAN AND SHE'LL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER ON P TWO Z 12.
UM, ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION AND WE APPRECIATE COMING TOGETHER.
UM, YES, FOR THE PAST WE HAVE HAD SIX MEETINGS WITH, UH, MS. MCDONALD FROM BROWN AND ASSOCIATES AND UM, WE HAVE HAD FRUITFUL MEETINGS, UH, UP TO LAST TUESDAY.
UH, WE ALL AGREED, SAT AROUND THE TABLE FACE TO FACE AND CAME WITH, UH, THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE NEEDED FOR MR. CHICO'S, UH, MECHANIC SHOP.
WE HAVE ALSO MET MR. CHIKO AND HIS FAMILY.
UM, THE, UH, THE PROBLEM WAS, WAS WHEN THE EMAIL OF THE PLAN WAS SENT LATER THERE WERE CHANGES THAT SURPRISED ALL THE ASSOCIATION.
BUT I AM GRATEFUL TO SAY THAT WITHIN THE LAST 15 OR 20 MINUTES THERE HAVE BEEN SOME VERY PRODUCTIVE CHANGES AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH MR. CHIKO AND, UH, AND HIS FAMILY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I WILL STOP THERE AND SAY I AM, UH, THAT WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER AND, UH, WORK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SO DO WE WANNA GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO THE CONDITIONS AND THEN WE'LL TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT.
CAROLINE MCDONALD WITH BROWN ORTIZ,
[02:40:01]
UH, ONE 12 EAST PECAN.I WAS HOPING TO SUBMIT THIS BEFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPOKE, UM, AS MR. GARCIA WITH MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE REST OF HISTORIC WEST SIDE STATED.
WE DID HAVE SOME, UH, VERY BENEFICIAL CONVERSATIONS, UH, AND WE ARE AGREEING TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS AND CONCRETE APPROACH ALONG SAN PATRIZIO AND ESTABLISHING THE FIVE FOOT BUFFER AS PER THEIR REQUEST.
SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY RESPECT OR REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, MS. MCDONALD, COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ.
SO, UM, I JUST, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS.
UM, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THOUGH, UH, 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.
UM, CAN YOU ADDRESS THOSE TWO ISSUES THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE, UM, BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS REGARDING THOSE? 'CAUSE THOSE ARE PRETTY COMMON WITH, UH, A AUTO BODY SHOP.
UH, OR RATHER THERE'S NOT AN AUTO BODY.
UM, PRETTY COMMON COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIRST, UH, MR. CHICO HAS OPERATED AT THIS, UH, LOCATION SINCE 2007 AND THERE WAS A MECHANIC SHOP THERE WHEN HE PURCHASED IT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WAS THERE BEFORE HE PURCHASED IT? YES, I BELIEVE 15 TO 20 YEARS BEFORE THAT.
SO, I MEAN, UH, IT'S, IT'S, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE IN MY LIFETIME.
SO YES, HE'S BEEN THERE, UH, SINCE 2007 AND HAD BEEN PRESENT THERE PREVIOUSLY.
UM, HE DOES, UM, COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS AS, UH, FAR AS, UM, 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 THE MATERIALS, UH, THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN MENTIONED.
UM, AND AS FAR AS SOUND GOES, HE DOES OPERATE FROM EIGHT SIX MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
UM, BUT WE DO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF CHRISTIE COULD SHOW THIS MAP, WE DO HAVE SUPPORT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
WE GOT 11 SIGNATURES, UM, THAT HAVE LIVED THERE FOR A WHILE NOW.
UM, AND THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, FRIENDLY, UH, NEIGHBORS AND THEY DO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
SO I THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES.
AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE WERE LOTS OF MEETINGS.
I DID HAVE MY STAFF ATTENDING, UH, MANY OF THOSE AS WELL REGARDING SOME LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING AND UM, THOSE KIND OF ISSUES.
AND SO ALL THOSE WERE ADDRESSED.
UM, I, I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE WAS JUST SOME LAST MINUTE TWEAKS THAT WERE, UH, ITEM OF CONTENTION AND SO YOU ADDRESSED THOSE.
AND SO WE, AGAIN, TO RESTATE, WE ELIMINATED THE ACCESS AND THE CONCRETE APPROACH ALONG SAN PATRICIO, WHICH WAS THE POINT OF CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE SPEAKING OF.
AND WE HAVE ADDED THE FIVE FOOT BUFFER ALONG SAN PATRICIO AND COLIMA STREET, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL VEGETATION ON ZAR ZAMORA, WHICH IS REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT I JUST, UH, SUBMITTED.
I THINK THAT, I THINK IT HAS BEEN A NICE EXAMPLE OF WORKING TOGETHER, UM, WITH A COMMUNITY.
THEY ARE A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SO, UM, THEY'VE BEEN, UH, FORMALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MAYBE ONLY IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.
SO, UM, WE APPRECIATE THEIR WORK, UH, AND I THINK WE HAVE A, A GOOD COMPROMISE HERE.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION TO SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.
WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM Z 13, Z 13 REZONING FROM R SIX TO C TWO A LOCATED AT 2311 WESTWARD DRIVES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR SIX CD CONDITIONAL USE FOR A NON-COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ZONING.
20 NOTICES MAILED ZERO IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED CABLE.
WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED.
UH, COUNCILMAN BROCK HOUSE, I MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO MAY 2ND.
ALRIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND TO CONTINUE, PLEASE VOTE.
[02:45:02]
FINAL ITEM Z 14 Z 14 REZONING FROM R FIVE TO R FIVE CD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH NO MORE THAN 16 RESIDENTS.LOCATED AT 46 18 MANITOU DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH NO MORE THAN 12, UH, RESIDENTS.
WE DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
I'M SORRY, I JUST, I FAILED TO MENTION SOMETHING.
ZERO IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL INVITE, UH, ESDA MENDOZA AND MR. MENDOZA.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCILMAN.
MY NAME IS EZRA MENDOZA, OWNER OF MENDOZA ASSISTED LIVING.
TODAY I'M HERE TO THANK ALL THE DISTRICTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO AND ALSO PERSONALLY THANK ANNA SAND, FRANK RAMIREZ, ROBERT SIPES, AND THE REST OF THE TEAM FROM DISTRICT SEVEN 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 MET FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL MY RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MENDOZA FOR WORKING WITH US AND BEING SO COLLABORATIVE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU SPOKE WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA.
YOU RECEIVED SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT AS WELL AS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM, UM, ST.
LUKE'S OR A SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT FROM ST.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, YOUR DILIGENCE ON THAT.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS FOR ASSISTED LIVING FOR 12 RESIDENTS.
AS A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH CONDITIONS.
THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS ON ZONING.
AND THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.