MUELLER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION (PIAC)
OCTOBER 13, 2026: BROWNING HANGAR ITEM ("Mueller Hangar Design Update")
Unofficial transcript of the City of Austin's meeting audio, 0:47:00 to about 1:32:40.

About this transcript
- Made with automatic speech recognition, then lightly edited for obvious mishearings
  (for example "Miller" to "Mueller", "batonk" to "pétanque").
- Speaker names are identified from context, such as the Chair calling on people. Uncertain names are marked [?].
- Room audio is weak in places, especially for commissioners. [inaudible] marks gaps; [?] marks uncertain words.
- This is not an official City transcript. Check exact wording against the City's audio before quoting:
  https://www.austintexas.gov/boards-commissions/meetings/2026_45_1
- Times are positions in the City's full recording of the meeting.

======================================================================
KEY STATEMENTS (quick reference)
======================================================================
- Brian Dolezal (Banbury) [0:50:31]: at the Nov 2023 PIAC presentation there was a potential end user that would redevelop the site
  as a for-profit business "while preserving public accessibility and maintaining the Hangar structure. Unfortunately, that deal did not materialize."
- Dolezal [0:51:29]: Banbury went to the ARC for feedback "as we remain committed to securing historic designation of the Hangar as part of that redevelopment."
- Dolezal [0:52:04]: "There is no active user for the Hangar site right now."
- Dolezal [0:52:25]: if a user emerges, "we as the master developer on behalf of the City will certainly conduct community outreach," including
  commissioners, pétanque players, sword-play groups, drummers, and Mueller and surrounding neighborhoods.
- Dolezal [0:52:51]: the Hangar "was always intended to be redeveloped." "We are required under this legally binding contract between the City of Austin
  and Banbury to make the best effort possible to find an organization that will offer fair market value for this asset ... as part of a fiscal responsibility goal."
- Dolezal [0:53:13]: whoever owns it takes on maintenance; the architecture and engineering "are actually the things that make it rather expensive to maintain
  over time. And so this is the driving force of trying to find suitable commercial developers."
- Phil Ward (Michael Hsu Office of Architecture) [0:57:58]: goal is to "add some real square footage here so that this could function for multiple tenants
  and really would get a critical mass of use from various probably F&B and maybe retail functions"; a new structure "docking" to the north "and also a little
  bit through" the existing shell; smaller buildings to the south.
- Ward [0:59:25]: "We are showing here also an expansion of the parking area that's between Airport Boulevard and the Hangar."
- Ward [1:01:01]: exploring "some amount of solid" on the western (Airport Blvd) side for shade, signage, sun protection — not a full wall.
- Ward [1:02:33]: "the intention is not to fence this off, to close it off, to fully privatize the space underneath. But to find a balance between letting future
  tenants utilize that space ... as well as letting the [public use it?]."
- Ward [1:03:15]: "preserve some amount of the open space underneath the barrel vault for ... pop-up activations," music, events, farmers market extension.
- Dolezal [1:10:17]: tenants would likely welcome public use — people playing pétanque who buy food or drinks are "more customer business" — but "until we have
  a better sense of what those tenants are going to be, it's hard to know that for sure."
- Commissioner Andrew Clements [1:17:23]: "This needs to remain parkland [?]. I wrote the recommendation that this body passed calling for public access to remain,
  at least certainly for the footprint of the Hangar, and called for this presentation." Prefers not building into the current footprint.
- Dolezal [1:18:14]: "this really is just kind of a massing to see what's possible"; the building proposed inside "could be smaller than what it is today";
  due diligence on financials "is going to take a little bit of time."
- Clements [1:19:12]: questions the need for "a purely commercial development"; "we could explore conservancy, more public support"; suggests reaching out to
  the Ninety-Nines (women pilots' organization).
- Chair [1:11:02]: for newer commissioners, "some type of public easement at that site" was discussed and favored by this commission a few years ago.

======================================================================
TRANSCRIPT
======================================================================

[0:47:00–0:48:48] (End of the E. 51st Street item: Q&A and one public speaker. Mostly inaudible; omitted.)

[0:48:52] STAFF (Jill Fagan [?]): If it's OK with the commission — thank you so much for the 51st Street update. We have a staff recommendation to take the agenda items
out of order. I understand there's a significant number of people here to talk about the Hangar, and so Marrilee and I would suggest that we flip to the Hangar update
next and then take the other staff updates at the end.

[0:49:18] CHAIR JONES: Is anybody else signed up to testify on 51st Street? No? Commissioners, is there any objection if we take up the Browning Hangar? [inaudible]

[0:49:49] BRIAN DOLEZAL (Banbury): Thank you for the support. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Brian Dolezal, Vice President for Marketing and Communications,
on behalf of the Mueller project. With me this evening is Phil Ward with Michael Hsu Office of Architecture, which was hired to help the Mueller project team evaluate
the reuse possibilities of the Browning Hangar. We're going to give you brief updates regarding the Hangar. Before he gives his presentation, I have a couple of things to say.

When we last presented to the Mueller Commission back in November of 2023, we were in the early stages of — [audio drops] — historic designation, with a potential end user
that would redevelop the site into a for-profit business that would help transform the space while preserving public accessibility and maintaining the Hangar structure.
Unfortunately, that deal did not materialize.

[0:50:40] Of course, we continue to market the space and entertain various reuse opportunities for the Hangar. And we wanted to ensure that any of those groups that were
looking at the Hangar shared the same values: to preserve the special history, architecture, and engineering of the Hangar while still making it a place for the public to enjoy.

[0:51:01] While our team has been focused on a number of other fronts to complete Mueller's development — a really long obligation set by the MDA before it expires at the
end of 2027 — as we get closer to that milestone, the team has been exploring additional ideas that might make the Hangar more attractive to potential users, by exploring
additional options for the site that still allow for the Hangar's preservation.

[0:51:25] Before progressing too far into that process, we wanted to check in with the Architectural Review Committee of the Austin Historic Landmark Commission and get some
initial feedback from them on a particular approach, as we remain committed to securing historic designation of the Hangar as part of that redevelopment.

[0:51:47] So in August of this year, we shared early thoughts with the committee, and Phil is going to share essentially that presentation that we gave to the ARC with you
momentarily. But before he does that, just a couple of moments to clarify a few things for you.

[0:52:04] First, there is no active user for the Hangar site right now. The most recent meeting we had with the ARC was simply to garner feedback on an approach that we're
considering — to determine if the plan could attract more interest, while getting feedback on the viability of the historic designation, which remains very important to the project.

[0:52:25] If an active user or users emerge, we as the master developer on behalf of the City will certainly conduct community outreach. That will include stakeholders —
many of them in this room — you as commissioners, those that play pétanque, those that do the fantasy sword play, that do the drums, et cetera, as well as the Mueller and
surrounding neighborhoods.

[0:52:51] [Early on?] the Hangar was always intended to be redeveloped. We are required under this legally binding contract between the City of Austin and Banbury to make
the best effort possible to find an organization that will offer fair market value for this asset, as part of a fiscal responsibility goal.

[0:53:13] And then lastly, whatever organization ultimately owns the Hangar will take on the challenge of maintaining the Hangar. The architecture and the engineering that
everyone loves so much are actually the things that make it rather expensive to maintain over time. And so this is the driving force of trying to find suitable commercial
developers. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Phil, and he'll give you the presentation we gave to the ARC.

[0:53:42] PHIL WARD (Michael Hsu Office of Architecture): Appreciate it, Brian. Thank you, commission. My name is Phil Ward. I'm a senior associate at Michael Hsu Office of
Architecture, a local architecture firm based here in Austin. [Can you hear me OK?] We've been engaged as a member of the team with the City, looking at how to develop the
Hangar. This is actually not our first round of looking at it — we looked at it with a slightly different potential tenant at the time. Our office is getting excited, and
I hope that we can really make something special here at the Browning Hangar.

[0:54:22] Next slide. I just have a few slides at the very beginning — some historic photos, which were really where we started as part of our process of repositioning this:
what was there originally, what's significant about it, what can we really maintain and make beautiful, and how can we also reposition this for development to come in and
actually utilize and activate the space.

[0:54:37] Here's an aerial of the Hangar from quite some time ago. I think it's still important context, especially when trying to make something that really honors the history
of the site. We've gotten used to the Hangar for the last 20 years as this beautiful barrel-vaulted building, but it very much was not that for the first 60 years of its
existence. It was really much more of a utilitarian structure, pointed at the tarmac, with its back turned to Airport Boulevard, and much more part of a collection of
buildings on the site that were servicing the airport itself.

[0:55:21] A few other photos we were referencing as we were starting the massing and concept work. Here it is looking toward what would be the lake view now. A much more
closed-off shell of a building, [opaque?], with a slightly more asymmetrical form.

[0:55:42] Here it is in early construction, and maybe a bit more how we've gotten used to it in the last 20 years or so since it was redeveloped and served as a gathering
place for the farmers market and other community events.

[0:55:59] Here you can see the [saddleback?] building on the north side of the Hangar — toward the municipal building today — and the black tar roof that was on it originally.

[0:56:16] Right before the renovation, it was very much focused on serving the airport itself — a very different personality, a very different type of structure. You can see
where the building on the north side was at some point extended all the way to the western boundary. The [faded?] "Browning Hangar" text is still there. Windows and doors and
other things were cut in, ad hoc, over those first 60 years.

[0:56:57] The process of that initial renovation: you can see where the old sliding doors were pocketed to the north and south sides of the building, and the skin has been taken off.

[0:57:21] And what we're used to seeing today: this open shell. So in trying to make this really work for an end user or users, the question was how do we activate the site,
how do we make something [that works] year-round and still preserve some of that common space that we've all come to love and use — and hopefully add to it.

[0:57:44] Skip ahead a slide or two. This is where we're at right now. We went through a handful of plan options with the team, and reviewed those with the ARC and [staff?]
as we were developing them, and came to what we thought was the right blend: trying to add some real square footage here so that this could function for multiple tenants and
really get a critical mass of use from various, probably F&B, and maybe retail functions.

[0:58:12] What we're looking at is referencing the building that was to the north, and docking a new structure to the north and also a little bit through the existing
barrel-vaulted shell. In this rendering we've turned off the skin of the shell so you can see more easily what's going on underneath — it's very diagrammatic.

[0:58:37] To the south, we're referencing the old utilitarian warehouses that were just south of the building — a slight reference to what was there historically — and also
trying to make this feel more like an assemblage of buildings, not one pure, pristine shell, which is what we've gotten used to for quite a while now. Really more a cluster
of buildings around that shell that all utilize it and engage with it in different ways.

[0:59:03] The tenant layout is still very early. As Brian said, we don't have a tenant. We're trying to position this for a broad range of tenant types, but very likely some
sort of F&B activator, especially in the north, and maybe a mix of smaller tenants to the south.

[0:59:25] We are showing here also an expansion of the parking area that's between Airport Boulevard and the Hangar.

[0:59:35] Next steps for us are getting much more specific about plans, materiality, doors, circulation, restrooms. Right now we're really concerned with how utilities come
into the building, how service works, loading, [hose lay?] — all the things that make this a functioning building and not just a shell.

[1:00:03] Here's a bit of the reference I was talking about from that first historic photo. We're not trying to replicate the shell that was there, just to be clear. We're
using it as a reference as we activate the site with something new that has a connection to it — the building attached to the north being where a lot of the service and
support comes in, and a reference to the form and proportion of those buildings docking just adjacent to the Hangar.

[1:00:44] We have a few other images, all in this state right now — almost like a digital [massing] model — that we're exploring with the development team. You can see we're
exploring having some amount of solid on the western side facing Airport Boulevard. I don't think the intention is to bring it back to a full wood-slatted wall all the way to
the ground, but to add some shade and shelter, some signage, and protection from some pretty intense sun that I bet starts at about three o'clock in the afternoon and gets
under that shell.

[1:01:21] We're trying to be sensitive to how this new building engages with what we think is the shining feature here: the arched trusses and those amazing concrete footings
that are exposed. We think that could be the star of the show — between the new structure and the old, exposing all of those elements. Today you engage with it really just
through the middle; we're trying to engage the sides as well, with access to these potential future buildings to the south.

[1:01:56] [Partly inaudible:] how utilities could work, exhaust and mechanical systems [kept low?], how we can maneuver this building between the existing truss structure —
between those laminated arch beams — and engage the inside of the space underneath the barrel vault [for what] would probably be a new dining [area?].

[1:02:33] But the intention here is to keep this still engaged with community space. We want people coming with their kids and their dogs and their bikes and being allowed in
here. So the intention is not to fence this off, to close it off, to fully privatize the space underneath, but to find a balance between letting future tenants utilize that
space and let it be an activator, as well as letting the [public use it — inaudible]. It's a soft [edge?].

[1:03:02] Next slide — a few other perspectives. The furniture is very visible right now; it's very diagrammatic. [audio drops] ...spaces, and making sure we preserve some
amount of the open space underneath the barrel vault for pop-up activations, things like that — maybe music, maybe events, maybe an extension of the farmers market.

[1:03:38] Another view looking from the south: the cluster of three buildings. Lots of thoughts about what that could be — maybe one or two tenants take over more of those; it
may not be three or four individual tenants — and how it could engage with the trail and park.

[1:04:03] Coming from the south into the Hangar itself, [we're] peeling back a little of the roof that comes all the way down, [so] you can [pass] between those concrete
[footings] [inaudible] and see through the barrel vault to the lake — a welcoming reception.

[1:04:41] And this is some of that layering of space between the existing trusses, the footings, and these new layers. We really don't imagine trying to make the new
additions look like they were always there; [we'd] play with the materiality.

[1:05:08] Also, trying to introduce more landscape, especially to the south, which right now is porta-potties and loading and other things — [making it] an extension of the
park that filters through the southern end of the Hangar itself. Still not worked out.

[1:05:40] I think that's it. Thank you all for your time.

[1:05:49] DOLEZAL: Before we take questions, I just want to remind you again: this is very, very early in the process. If you have a lot of "what about" questions, we'll try to
answer from a massing standpoint, but there are still a lot of unknowns.

[1:06:11] CHAIR JONES: Commissioners, any questions? Rick.

[1:06:19] COMMISSIONER RICK KRIVONIAK [?]: [Partly inaudible.] I'm trying to figure out the representation of the side wall. Some of it looks like it's open. Is that purely
your graphic way of letting us see through it — is it going to be solid? I like the idea of it being more louvered.

[1:06:51] WARD: I think there's a balance we're trying to find. Restoring it to its earlier enclosure — it doesn't function the same way anymore. Some memory of the wood slats
that were there before, but leaving them open so breezes can still come through. It's not so closed off. [buzzing]

[1:07:13] KRIVONIAK [?]: [Partly inaudible.] From the lakeside, the image — when you go through, you have this image of it as it is now. The shape is just so stunningly
beautiful. The City's Historic Landmark Commission, the architecture review group — are they OK with you building a structure inside of the [Hangar]?

[1:07:45] WARD: Nothing's been finalized or approved, but we have met with them. [Partly inaudible: they reviewed several options,] including ones that were a little more invasive.

[1:08:09] KRIVONIAK [?]: It seems intrusive to that just beautiful shape to me, but I get it. Obviously we don't know who the tenant's going to be at all. I'm assuming there
will be a need for a kitchen facility and restrooms. The restrooms — they need those now. [inaudible] ...the purity of that form.

[1:08:41] WARD: We looked at that in some of the renderings — you can see we're pushing the massing back behind that first row [of arches], so you see the arch terminate on
both sides; it's not hidden behind another structure.

[1:09:01] [COMMISSIONER, unidentified]: Is that taking away part of the roof? [Reply inaudible.]

[1:09:22] [COMMISSIONER, unidentified]: Can I ask a couple of questions? Maybe this is more for Brian. Is the thought to [build it on spec] to entice people, or is this more to
show people what could be there?
DOLEZAL: It's a good question, and we don't know the answer to that yet.
[COMMISSIONER]: And the other question — you may not have answers — there was some discussion [about public access] through the middle, underneath. You've mentioned making it
available to the public, obviously as a public-facing business likely. But there was a thought that maybe — [buzzing / inaudible]

[1:10:17] DOLEZAL: Yeah, that's definitely a possibility. But until we know what the end user or users are going to be — right now, based on this concept, it might be multiple
users — I would imagine even the tenant we were looking at previously was very interested in having other uses, even the people who are playing pétanque or doing [other
activities]. If they're there and they're enjoying a food or beverage item while they're there, that's more customer business for those tenants. So it's possible the tenants
we get would definitely want to have more of a public use. But until we have a better sense of what those tenants are going to be, it's hard to know that for sure.

[1:11:02] CHAIR JONES: That certainly helps. And for the newer commissioners: the general concept of some type of public easement at that site was discussed at this commission,
and [there was] favorability [at] the meeting. It's been a few years, but the idea was kicking around. Commissioners, other questions? Kathy, any questions? Oh, I'm sorry —

[1:11:29] COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER JACKSON [?] (the Chair later refers to "Commissioner Jackson's point"): No problem, thank you. And thanks, Phil and Brian — this is really
exciting to see. A couple of thoughts. On Rick's point about that north elevation and the introduction of the commercial building within: one exploration that could be
really helpful is the notion of storefront — public-facing — and that being a bit of a [glass?] jewel box within. Studies throughout the day of how that box within could
visually go away, so you just read people silhouetted, and the sky-lit space beyond — that could be a way to bridge the past with the future.

[1:12:21] Another thing, as you study this: [audio drops] the ratio of rentable, conditioned square footage to adjacencies that are also functional for F&B or commercial. It's
interesting to use time as the fourth dimension — how this thing has a pulse that expands at certain times of the day, the week, the year, and at other times retracts — and
thinking about that as a squishy middle between what is purely civic and what is "civic light" and "commercial light." That could work well for the pro forma of the future
businesses, but also be really effective for the community to carry on in the way it's been used for the past two decades.

[1:13:32] COMMISSIONER CORKY HILLIARD [?] (the Chair summarizes "Commissioner [Hilliard]"): First of all, Phil, thank you; Brian, thank you. We've talked about this for a long
time, many, many [meetings]. I'm really happy about many big elements being included here, particularly the public [access]. [Largely inaudible from here.] Historically, in
the design of Mueller, there were many entries ... that area where the Hangar and Mueller Central are is the introduction to Mueller for so many people ... I want that whole
area to be the welcoming center of Mueller. What happens with the Hangar is so [important] ... the relationship with Mueller Central ... that's the first impression many
people have. It is Mueller, it is East Austin, it is a citywide regional attraction ... [inaudible] ... I just see it as a bigger deal than that.

[1:16:43] CHAIR JONES: To summarize, it sounds like what you're talking about, Commissioner [Hilliard], is the idea of the Hangar, Mueller Central, and Lake Park as its own
district. It needs to be respected as a major point of entry for the community. Of course there are several throughout Mueller, and [we want to] make sure the Windsor Park
folks feel invited, [and] JJ Seabrook, et cetera — but because it's close to I-35, [inaudible].

[1:17:23] COMMISSIONER ANDREW CLEMENTS: Great improvement over what I saw in 2019 — I saw the glass box, restaurant, spotlights. I don't think there's a need for downtown
Mueller to jump across the lake. This needs to remain parkland [?]. I wrote the recommendation that this body passed calling for public access to remain, at least certainly
for the footprint of the Hangar, and called for this presentation, which I'm not sure we would have gotten if I didn't call for it. Has there been a study of the square
footage that's needed? Because I had also wondered about development [at] the front of the Hangar, [so an] addition [could] handle the commercial. That's just my opinion —
not building into the current footprint.

[1:18:14] DOLEZAL: As part of our next steps, we are doing a lot of due diligence. As I mentioned, this is really just a massing to see what's possible. I don't want to speak
for Phil, but the building that's proposed, from a massing standpoint, inside the building could be smaller than what it is today. We're doing a lot of due diligence — on all
the financials — to see what's possible, and that's going to take a little bit of time. We're exploring the idea of multiple tenants, and if it is multiple tenants, can they
share restroom facilities, kitchen space, dining areas? Especially to Commissioner Jackson's point, from a timing standpoint: some tenants may have more of a morning
activation, some midday, some more weekend. So how does all that work? [inaudible]

[1:19:12] CLEMENTS [?]: I kind of wonder about the need for it to be a purely commercial development. I think we could explore a conservancy, more public support — and people
are going to speak to that. And the Ninety-Nines, the women pilots' group that has a history here, could be reached out to. I just think there are so many opportunities to
reach out [in] ways to make it more [inaudible].

[1:19:50] CHAIR JONES: Thank you. [To staff:] Do we have [the sign-ups]? They'll sit and then people will come up to provide testimony. OK. Jeff is our first. Come right on up, Jeff.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC TESTIMONY

[1:20:31] JEFF (Hangar user): Good evening, Chair Jones and commissioners. My name is Jeff. I'm one of the many people who use the Browning Hangar. Thank you to Banbury
for sharing this design. I think it totally misunderstands the nature of the Hangar and what makes it great. [I have] very serious reservations about these designs, and I
think it is a huge mistake to turn the Browning Hangar into just another shopping mall.

Commissioners, thank you especially for your 2024 recommendations. You asked Council to consider protecting public access by covenant or easement, and to begin covenant
changes protecting it permanently, even if the Hangar is commercially owned. We've taken this to Council too. We met with Council Member Qadri's office and keep encouraging
people to write, but we haven't gotten on the Council agenda yet. A recommendation from this commission carries far more weight with Council than anything we say. And time
is running out.

Banbury's intentions may be excellent, but without written protections a future owner can turn the Hangar into a beer garden, a parking lot, even a car wash, and no one can
stop it. Good intentions aren't enough. We need real protections in writing, in place now.

To help, we've prepared a one-page draft. You have it in your hand. It doesn't choose an owner or oppose commercial use. It simply asks that any sale or lease protect five
things: the Hangar and the grounds around it stay open to the public; no purchase is required to use the Hangar; there are guaranteed public hours; the protections bind every
future owner, tenant, and operator; and Council approval is required before any of these protections can be reduced. As far as we know, nothing in writing today would stop
the Hangar from being sold or leased without these protections.

So we're asking two things. First, since a recommendation has to come from this commission, we ask that a commissioner bring this forward as an action item on November 10th.
Second, please ask City staff three questions — I'll send them to you by email later: Who owns this site? What approvals remain before a sale or lease? And what's the last
point at which the City can still require public-access protections on its own, before it needs the buyer's or developer's agreement?

For years we've been told the public would have a say in the Hangar's future. Right now, we can't see how the public takes part. We'd like to know which decisions are still
open and how our voice will be heard before they're made. Thank you for your service and your time.

CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Jeff.

[1:23:43] PETE [surname inaudible] (largely inaudible): ...In the last few years we've discussed the Hangar and its [issues] in great detail, so I'm not going to rehash the
majority. We really want to thank you for listening and considering all the issues over that time, and especially for your previous recommendations to City Council that the
Hangar remain an open, accessible community [space], [protected] from commercial interests that would restrict access and profit only a few. [inaudible] ...we appreciate the
wisdom in these previous recommendations, and hope you too appreciate the wisdom in [keeping them]. Thank you again for everything.

CHAIR JONES: Thank you, Pete. Next is Michael [Kaufman].

[1:25:24] MICHAEL KAUFMAN: Hello, everybody. My name is Michael Kaufman. I've been coming to the Hangar for the last 20 years, and I've been in Austin since the '80s. I think
the Hangar is an incredible structure. In warm weather, the sun is not in it; the little breeze from the lake comes in and makes it really comfortable in there. And there's a
lot that goes on: [sword fighting?], kids' birthday parties, a lot of people eat there, people have a little picnic, there are gatherings, bands that [come to] practice,
comedians that come and do comedy, there's a game of pétanque that's played [there]. There's just a lot going on. I've been all over the country — I'm a musician, I've been
touring — and I have never seen a structure like that in any city. I think it's a historical structure and it should be left just like it is. [inaudible] I don't like the
way [the design] looks. There's a lot that goes on there — why change it? [inaudible] That's pretty much what I've got to say. I think it should stay like it is, because it's
very, very cool. [To someone:] You've never been there? You should hang out. Check it out. Thank you all.

CHAIR JONES: Thank you. Next up is — Kimberly, and after Kimberly, [inaudible].

[1:27:18] KIMBERLY [surname not stated]: This is my first meeting. I've been playing pétanque at the Hangar for the last few years — [many] hours a week. It's so much fun.
People don't know what it is; we introduce people to it. [I've been] all over the country playing in tournaments. A lot of cities have pétanque courts now, and this is ours,
here in Austin. We have like 50 members. Everybody comes all the time. Friday afternoons, Saturday afternoons, there are so many people out walking, there are bands, the
whole grass is filled up, there are the volleyball people all around the lake, and there's all of us in the Hangar. You have all those restaurants over there and so many
little boutiques and all these things going on in Mueller — but this is different, and I don't think you should turn it into a retail space.

As a pétanque club, everybody that comes, comes like four times a week. That's what we do. And pétanque is growing — it's like soccer: nobody played soccer in the US and now
it's huge. Pétanque is played in every country, and now it's growing here. I went to Portland — there are a lot of cities where they play a tournament every month. And we
started having tournaments at the Hangar. I love it so much, and I don't want to lose it. We started going to other parks around Austin to find a place where we could play,
and I see all these empty baseball diamonds and all these areas the city built for other sports. [Buzzer.] Sorry, I didn't know I had 60 seconds. But I think the Hangar is
the best place for pétanque. We've had people from all over Texas come for little tournaments. Thank you.

CHAIR JONES: Next up is [inaudible], and after that, [inaudible].

[1:29:56] BONNIE [COPE?]: Most of you know me. I've lived here 14 years. When we look at the Hangar — I'm listening, and I don't have a prepared [statement]. Maybe we need to
look at what's missing before we decide what's going on. There's an affordability factor. There are our seniors. And so I think some of these things really need to be looked
at before we say we're going to [change] even around this space, much less change what's inside the space. Thank you.

[1:30:57] SPEAKER WITH A FRENCH ACCENT [name inaudible] (partly inaudible): I'm extremely happy about this. I've [played] pétanque there for 12 years. [Our] club in Austin —
we have more than 50 people, [up to] 70 people [at events]. ...It's historic. And — can you hear my accent? I'm French. In the USA you don't have many historic places. I see
the picture from before [the] 1920s... Why do we want to destroy this and make a shopping [mall]? If we lose this place... In France, 17 million people play. In the United
States we are growing. It will be gorgeous. We want to hold national tournaments, regional tournaments [here]. There are 57 clubs in the USA. Thank you very much for letting
me speak.

[1:32:35] CHAIR JONES: That concludes all of the public testimony on this topic. [inaudible] If there's no objection, we'll continue to go out of order — [the Financial
Services staff update on the Control Tower].

[1:33:00 onward: Control Tower item (AT&T cell antennas on the tower) — not transcribed here; it's outside the Hangar item.]