City Council - Regular Meeting

Awesome. Good morning. We have a quorum present in the Planning Commission.

All right. So at this point, we're actually going to move into public comment for anything on the Planning Commission agenda. Heather, do you have any public comment on the Planning Commission?

Yes, sir. Dearmond Campbell.

My office is at 909 Caddo Street here in San Angelo. I just have some documents that I provided. They were emailed out around the end of March, beginning of April, and it just outlines some proposals and building standards for the upcoming projects of the data center that's being proposed. The reason I wanted to speak on this is because it's kind of disappointing to this date. Haven't heard a word from anyone regarding this issue and considering that we actually build these centers and are a community partner here. we thought that maybe someone would have reached out considering all of the issues that are surrounding this. So I'm just trying to bring this to y'all's attention to show that there are community partners out there that are trying to bring solutions and actually have a dialogue about this. And hopefully, maybe the council planning commission or even the county commissioners who this has also been sent to would reach out to an entity that's actually building these. and is part of the community and has negotiated standards that have helped the community as well as the workers. Because I think through all of this, what is being missed is the actual labor side, the workers that these projects affect, and the lives that I've seen changed by them. as well as the benefits that I've seen communities been able to get through these projects as far as money put in the school system, volunteer fire departments getting new vehicles, all of these things that can be brought up as well as not using our resources. which we have very little of. But these are the standards that can bring those protections, and I just hope that someone within the city or planning commission would actually be willing to talk to a community partner that builds these projects. Thank you.

Heather next.

Michelle Grooms-Reed.

GOOD MORNING. Planning Commission, City Council members, the Mayor, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to share the NAACP's perspective on data center development and what a fair community center approach must include. First, data is the infrastructure of the modern economy, but like highways and factories before it, the benefits and burdens of data centers are not distributed equally. Our stance is simple. No community should be a sacrifice zone for someone else's prosperity. If data centers are coming, they must come with enforceable protections and shared benefits. We urge the Council and the Planning Commission to adopt the following commitments before approving any new facility. environmental and health protections. Implement strict limits on noise, diesel backup, generator usage, and construction impacts. Require 24-7 air and noise monitoring with public dashboards and automatic corrective actions when thresholds are exceeded. Protect local water supplies, prohibit withdrawals during drought stages, disclose annual water use, and require high efficiency or air-cooled systems where feasible. Clean energy and climate accountability. Mandate 100% additional local and regional clean energy procurement tied to actual data center load. Set transparent time-bound emission targets. with third party verification and public reporting. Economic equity. Require community benefits agreements negotiated with credible neighborhood and civil rights groups, not just city staff, covering workforce training, apprenticeships, and pathways to permanent family sustaining jobs. Establish binding targets for local hiring. Fair wage standards and at least 25 to 30% participation by minority and women-owned businesses in construction and operations contracts with quarterly disclosures. Land use and community safeguards. Prioritizing sitting away from homes and schools. Apply buffer zones, setbacks, truck route restrictions. CAPTURE A FAIR SHARE OF VALUE PILOTS, IMPACT FEES DEDICATED TO HOUSING, STABILIZATION, SCHOOL RESOURCES, AND SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORTS, AND EFFECT ERASM. TRANSPARENCY AND ENFORCEMENT REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE OF WATER, ENERGY, EMISSION PROFILES, EMERGENCY PLANS, AND GRID INTERCONNECTION STUDIES. INCLUDE CLAWBACK PENALTIES IF PROMISES AREN'T MET, BENEFICIAL GUARANTEE, AND NOT ASPIRATION. Thank you for allowing me this time. Thank you, Michelle.

Next.

Karen Best.

Good morning. I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Karen Hesse-Smith for pulling together a group of citizens who reside in the Santa Rita area to speak at MHMR about what the effects of these changes to zoning for residential would mean with regard to our community. As some of you probably know, there's been a great amount of concern about development of new housing in and around the Santa Rita area, most specifically housing that has gone up on Sherwood Way or Beauregard having to do with right across or close to the THE WALMART, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WALMART. THAT SEEMS TO BE A VERY BIG CHANGE FROM WHAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN OF SORTS WAS THAT WE ALL UNDERSTOOD TO BE FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF COMING INTO THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND WHAT PEOPLE WOULD SEE. NOW THERE ARE TEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS THERE PAINTED BLACK with single parking spaces for these residents that enter onto a very busy commercial street and in an area where people are transporting their kids back and forth to either Cornerstone or Central. So we're not quite sure what the plan is, but we were most gracious to her for bringing us together to discuss what our opportunities were to organize as a neighborhood to protect the rest of our neighborhood. When I had the opportunity to speak to the planning department about what these changes would mean to zoning in my neighborhood, I have a piece of property located on South Bishop. There is a lot or a block directly across the street from me in that 400 block that has three what I would call derelict looking houses, but they are not mine to judge. And I asked what this would mean for those three homes if a similar variance were granted. It would mean that 30 homes could go up right there on those three lots. That is a block and a half from Santa Rita Elementary. And so these are significant changes. that can happen to our neighborhoods. When I go to luncheon, I'm vocal about these things. And so people will go, hey, what do you think about this? And I'll go, did you realize right there on Live Oak, 30 houses can go up where three currently stand. They go, you need to fight that. Well, actually, you know, we all need to fight that. But luckily, we were represented by a councilwoman who also believes we have an opportunity to do something that will help protect our neighborhood. But I don't know what happens to the other neighborhoods. Do we all have to form neighborhood coalitions to keep the sanctity of our RS1 or the sanctity of a neighborhood that allows you to get out and walk the street and walk your dog and go to the park and do the things we like to do, the places where we invested in? I don't know about y'all, but I think Santa Rita is perfectly imperfect, and I kind of like to keep it that way. Thank you.

Thank you, Karen. Next. All right, with that, we're going to wrap up public comment. We'll move right into the joint meeting agenda. I will go to item A, first reading and public hearing of ordinances amending chapter 12 planning and development exhibit A zoning ordinance regarding the creation of a new residential district as follows. Item 1, amending Article 3, Use Regulations, Section 303, Residential District Intent Statements. Item 2, amending Article 3, Use Regulations, Section 313, Use Table. Item 3, amending Article 3, Use Regulations, Section 314, Residential Structure Types. And Item 4, amending Article 5, General Development Standards, Section 501, Residential District Standards, presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Erin Vernoy.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council, Commissioner Davis, and Planning Commissioners. Thank you all for being here this morning. This morning we are going to talk about some residential updates, some of what we are calling from staff as Band-Aids and from our committee that worked on this project, our Band-Aids to our residential ordinance to allow some home growth in areas. First, I'd like to also say thank you to the folks that worked on that committee. Ray Lineberry was our staff lead. She did a great job of putting this together, doing the research, checking out other cities, checking out what it is that San Angelo needs and wants. And she did a great job in working with that committee. And I really thank you for those volunteers that came forward and worked through those things. I also want to say thank you to COSA DC, current staff and former staff, as well as COSA DC's board that pushed through on doing a resintel study in 2019, as well as 2024, that tells us twice now what our community needs for housing based on our income, based on our location within Texas, based on our economy and what's going on. And so these changes are are in some ways mirrors of this, but we'll talk about that more in depth. The study is asking us to do much more than what we're doing today. Today is the middle of the road trying to get an alignment of what we can expect growth for our community. So with that, we'll start moving forward. So the Residential Housing Study, it was an evaluation of our supply and demand with the context of economic conditions and trends for housing. It was a housing study, housing only. What's the magnitude and nature of all the demand and types of housing we need? And what were their conclusions on the overall opportunities for builders, developers, so that we can pursue and fulfill current and future needs for housing? These are the seven items, I think there's seven, there may be eight items that they said. Number one, and you've seen this across the country, is legalize and support middle housing across all residential zone. In other terms, that means get rid of RS1 zoning. We are not doing that. We are keeping our RS1 and our RS3 zoning exactly like they've been. That's not changing at all. We're adding opportunities for a couple of other RS1 districts, RS1 style, that are smaller lots, narrower lots, and whether that be in new development or infill development, and we'll get to those details. Reform zoning standards to unlock more buildable land. That's where we're changing lot sizes, that we're not so restrictive that you must have a certain size lot to build on. Remove excess parking mandates. We're not doing that in... housing district except for one and we'll get to that there's one district that we're minimizing the housing requirement from two parking spaces to one parking space and we'll talk about that streamline permitting review and entitlement processes that is a work in progress We're doing that with our software. We're doing that with staff training. We've talked a number of times about the infill program and how do we help fund that in different ways and how do we keep funding that in ways that help buildable lots come forward. Ensure fair, transparent, and affordable development costs. I think we do work on that every single budget year. What is it going to cost? What are we going to have in our ordinances, our fees, so that developers, builders know what it's going to cost to do something? align infrastructure investment and housing development. That's our capital improvement plan and program, and we work on that every year. We know with the comprehensive plan, that's going to be looked at and say, how can we do this better so that we can really target where those infrastructure needs are and that housing development's going to be and support an ecosystem of incremental developers. That means small developers. We're not talking 500 homes at a time. We're talking small developers building three or four houses here in the area, building small RM1, that's true low-rise multifamily in areas that are needed, that are by schools, that are by heavy commercial corridors. That is where you look at your multifamily housing to be. in the middle of your neighborhood, and I'll show some maps in a few minutes, that's where your RS1, your RS2, and RS3 should be. As you get closer to higher roads, bigger infrastructure, bigger water lines, bigger sewer lines, you can support more people, so you have higher density in those areas. In the middle of the neighborhood, you have lower density because your infrastructure doesn't support a higher density. So the housing study, and we're talking about housing, they said you need entry-level homes or starter homes. That's what you need. And it is very difficult to build those. You talk to any builder, it is hard to build something that size on a lot that we have today because the cost of the lot and the infrastructure into the lot, the cost of materials to get to that lot, the cost of subcontractors to come in, And a lot of people don't want a big lot anymore. Not all. There are still people that are very traditional, like myself, that love an RS1 home and want a large lot and want to maintain that. As I get older, maybe that changes. Maybe I downsize to a smaller house, smaller lot. But we need smaller end, mid-range, and upper end of that 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. Those are still considered starter homes, and, of course, those are things that families need. You know, you start needing families. Whether you're young, you've got families that are coming through. They need to have a little more space. They really do. The greatest demand in our community on both of these studies is price points of $175,000 to $225,000 and rentals from $875,000 to $1,300,000. I think you'd be pushed really, really hard to find a... a rental property that you want to stay in with your kids at some of those price points in our community today. And that's due to the lack of options, the lack of space, the lack of number of rentals that we have. Housing is the same way. We have a lot of good housing in our community, but we just don't have a lot in that 175 to 225 that, whether it's desirable neighborhood, desirable school, desirable lot, whatever it may be, it's very difficult to get there. This is from our San Angelo Association of Realtors. It's just a simple graph showing the cost of houses from 2015 to 2025. This is a page within the housing study booklet. If you see the blue line, That is the $100,000 to roughly $160,000 price homes. What you see in 2015, there were a number of those. That was the peak of those. They kind of go up. And then you start seeing about 2020 when COVID hits and all of the housing comes forward and people are looking to come to Texas. that blue line starts going down. And if you start seeing the pink, red, and kind of brownish line, 2015, they're lower and then they start going up. That's just simply the cost of houses, and that's the cost of infrastructure to put in if you're building new streets, new water lines, new sewer lines. THAT MAKES THOSE HOUSES COST MORE. SO PART OF OUR PLAN IS AN OPTION FOR NEW BUILDERS TO SAY, OKAY, INSTEAD OF 50-FOOT LOTS, IF YOU WANT, DOWN TO 35-FOOT, YOU CAN DO THAT. AND MAYBE YOU CAN PUT IN MORE LOTS PER BLOCK AND SPREAD THAT COST OUT OVER THE NUMBER OF HOMES ALONG THAT BLOCK. Yes, that makes houses a little more dense, a little closer together. You still have the five-foot setbacks on either side per building code, but the zoning ordinance says you are not mandated to have a 50-foot lot. So our development process, very similar to every city in the country. You go through pre-development meetings. You meet with the pre-development team. You talk about things before you start doing them. Am I going to be legal to do this? Am I OK doing this? And our builders, developers do a good job of coming and asking. We go through the zoning and subdivision, and that's engineering and planning. And you talk about zoning. Well, that's also an engineering thing, because we have to evaluate, do we have the capacity to zone a piece of property, RM1 or RM2? Do we have the infrastructure to support that? If we don't, we should not be making that recommendation to Planning Commission, and we should not make that recommendation to City Council. We have to evaluate that infrastructure. It's very important to our community, because Infrastructure is our lifeblood. If we don't have the right streets, the right water, the right sewage, we can't move forward as a community. And planning is a big piece of that as well. Building application checklist. Go through your site plan. Does it actually fit on your site? Do you have something odd going on? Get your building permit and then your certificate of occupancy. So let's go through some maps. Obviously this is a large map of our community. It even shows some of the ETJ areas around THE YELLOW AREAS ARE WHAT'S CONSIDERED IN OUR VISION PLAN IS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN 2003, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SUPPORT ALL OF THE RS AND RM STYLE HOUSING. So that's where you see different areas of town. That yellow covers a lot of area. I've got some zoom-ins in just a minute, so you'll be able to look through those things. So that's where we have a challenge with, all right, well, does an RM1 fit here? Does an RS6 fit here? Does an RS3? We look at what we call the transect from this green on the outside, which is ranch and estate. We have some of that within the community. And then you have that going through all the way down to your RM2, which is your high-rise multifamily. We have a few spots of that. So where do those things need to be? You see our corridors. They're very highlighted in red. That's commercial. That's where our big corridors are. You see our downtown in purple. You see our industrial, our northeast section that's industrial. It has been that way since 2003. We're still growing in that way. Here we do some zoom-ins. This is on the north side of town. You can see the fairgrounds and Lakeview. Those are institutional sites. But you see that sea of neighborhood. You see Chadburn Arc through there. You see Armstrong go through there. You see the intersections of 50th with the neighborhood center vision plan. Now you start adding the transportation pieces to that. All right, well, where are these major roads that are going through here? And that tells us, as planners, where does housing need to be and what type of housing needs to be by what type of roads. So each one of those colors of roads from the red and the purple being the highest volume, highest probably speed, down to the blue and light blue that are the collectors, collecting folks out of the neighborhoods, getting them back to those things so they can get to work and around. It doesn't show local roads. So that's where if you're doing some zoning on a local road, we need to be very cognizant of, all right, this is a local road. What does that support through our zoning? Here's some of the south side. Again, you see the loop that comes through there. You see Knickerbocker. You see all the commercial sites, and then you see the neighborhoods mixed in, and then you see along some of those major intersections, there's an anticipation of commercial and growth. Now, I want you all to be very observant and look at the orange. That orange is RM1. RM1 today allows almost every structure type of house. And that can be problematic from a single family house all the way to a low rise multifamily. And so it is the catch all zoning. And so you'll see pockets of this zoning. Well, we have made decisions in the past that RM1 also allows short-term rentals by right. They don't have to go through a conditional use process. Well, through the zoning stuff that we're doing today, we'll roll that back, that RM1 is truly low-rise multifamily. You won't be able to build a single-family house in there by itself. You'll have to do low-rise multifamily. We have enough RS districts with the three that we're adding that builders, developers have a way to build a single family house or other style of structures. But you can see on our south side, when we offered that zoning in 2003, developers took advantage of it. But if you go and drive by those neighborhoods, that's a lot of townhouses, which is really RS3. It's a lot of single-family houses, which is RS1, or some version of RS4 or RS5, which are newly proposed, and is really not functioning as a low-rise multifamily. Some of them are, but not all of them. Now we get down to even the granular level. You start seeing the roads. You start seeing, all right, how do these zoning districts back up to each other? How does a floodplain come in to impact this area? Those are the things that we have to go through on a very daily basis. That's Putnam, not Putnam, Pulliam. And then I think that's Harris there going east and west and then Bell Street going north and south. And you can see Old 67 where there was a commercial along the way and neighborhoods that have built in around. Then you get down to even lot sizes. This is just in the north side of town. That's Bowie on the right. I think that's 29th there, the red line on the south. And you start seeing those lot sizes. We know from the history of San Angelo and just about any other town, big lots break up over time. They may take decades. But we have to give that opportunity to our property owners if they want to break up their large lots and have more housing. That's advantageous to every property taxpayer in San Angelo. Because those places, all of our services are going by right now today. Police, fire, animal services, code enforcement. all of the things that the city provides and does, they're going by those lots. If we have the opportunity and those properties want the opportunity, to do more density, it is beneficial for our community as a whole. And that is part of the goal of what our housing study says is you need more density because you have too many liabilities sitting out there. The more we expand, the more difficult it is to provide services. We have to add fire stations. We have to add police officers. We have to add animal services officers. And those all cost money. And so we have to balance that through this. This is an opportunity through planning to give property owners an option, not a mandated rezoning to them, not a rezoning for anyone else, but an option if they chose to. And we have to look, all right, is it close to that minor collector and that should be a little higher density or it's further back in the neighborhood and that really should stay an RS1, an RS3, something like that, that stays a single family house in that nature. So the purpose of the group was to come through and find some updates, modification of some residential zoning districts, how do we provide some flexibility for our builders, how do we, Add entry-level housing for our workforce. That is the biggest need, that our workforce needs housing here, so we have a workforce here, so when our economic development folks recruit a business or go to recruit a business, yeah, we have the workforce here. We have the people here in town that are ready to work for your company. And the low-rise multifamily options integrated somewhere around the traditional neighborhoods. The goals was to identify the opportunities, find flexibility, modify some districts, and support the implementation by delivering some clear user-friendly standards consistent with our current comprehensive plan for consideration to here at Planning Commission and the City Council. So updates in Section 303, that is our residential district intent statements. That's where we've gone through and we've written this is the intent of that zoning district. That's what we believe is the intent, and we've added RS4, RS5, RS6, and a new RM1. So those are the four things that we're adding. The one thing that we are modifying is current RM1s will be a RM1 legacy. So they have vested rights for their zoning district currently. We're not taking those away. We're just changing them to RM1L, and they get to keep their vested rights. If they want to come and rezone, then that's the decision they make. We are not pushing that on them. Section 313 is the use table, updating where household living can be. Section 314 is the structure types. We're realigning the structure type with the proper zoning. We had some zonings that allowed lots of different structure types, and that's very difficult for developers and continuity and consistency of development, and even for ourselves. I was keeping track of, all right, where did that zero lot line start? And OK, this lot at the end can't be a zero lot line anymore. Now what do we do with that blank lot at the end? And then Section 501 is the residential design standards. This is where we add the districts. We remove the FAR or the floor area ratio, and we'll talk about that. We adjust some setbacks. We adjust the lot size dimensions, and we address double frontage issues. These are all things that came up in the discussions with the committee and brought the ideas forward to what we have today presented to Planning Commission and City Council. This is a big, big, messy thing. So you see all the red. Those are the changes. You see there's a few little specks of black in there, some numbers that didn't change. That's a very big matrix of how do you determine what type of housing needs to go where. So on the right side of the screen, with manufactured multifamily, that's higher density. The more you go to the left, that's lower density. Most of our housing is in that RS1 category, which is okay. We're not saying that's bad. We just know that we need to offer some other options. You can see the three right in the middle, RS4, RS5, and RS6. Those are the ones that we're adding. You can see RM1L is the one right next to them that is staying the same, and you can see all the different things that are in there. and then RM1 beside it, you can say, okay, well, we took those things out of the true RM1, which is a low rise multifamily. Let's look at a cleaner version. There, that's a little cleaner. So again, left side, lower density, that transect goes across, it starts getting higher and higher density. The higher density you go, you should be closer to major collectors, arterial roads, commercial hubs, those types of things. So ranch and estate, R&E, think of Butler Farms. There's not any commercial around there. They have large lots. RS1, that's your traditional neighborhood, like Santa Rita, like Bentwood. RS3, that's your townhouses, twin homes, and zero lot lines, all similar structure types. RS4 is a brand new district that is allowed for any development in our community if they come forward with a rezoning request. It has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet as opposed to the 5,000 in RS1, but it also has a maximum of 5,500. You see that it has a narrower, and I don't know if this will work on here, but we're going to try it. It has a narrower lot at 35 feet compared to a traditional RS-1 that's 50 feet. So smaller lot, narrower lot gives the option for new builds to be more dense if they choose to. We're not making them do that, but they can choose that. They could choose RS-1 for their new builds if they chose to. Again, we have the minimum size yards and things like that. RS-5 is dedicated to the HUD-designated infill areas. So we gave a little bit less lot size of 2,500, but a little bit more maximum lot size of 6,000. And again, we have a minimum lot width of 35. They could go up to 50, 100 wide lot if they chose to. This would be for those areas that are in the infill. And then RS6, we do not have a current zoning that talks about triplexes and quadruplexes. So we've always pushed them to RM1. Well, they really kind of fit more in an RS style. So we created one for quadruplexes and triplexes, but I want to show down here this number 16. That's the maximum density per acre. So they have to have an acre lot for a triplex and quadruplex to have at least 16 units. If they have less than that, then they can't have up to 16 units. They have to have less. So that's about density. Your RM1s, your true multifamily stuff, you can see their density is 25 units per acre. When you get to high rise, you can do 35 units per acre, those type of things. And of course, your manufactured homes, whether that's a manufactured home park or a manufactured home subdivision, they don't really have, their density is 10 per acre right now. I just want that to be clear that our RS6, while we believe some of those smaller lots, corner lots that have been platted big in the past, they might fit a good triplex on there because they might fit that size. You'll see that style in a lot of communities that you have higher density towards the end of the streets and at the middle of the blocks you have your traditional RS1. This is just talking about the width and the setbacks. Again, you can see the 100 foot depth, that's usually standard. 50 foot wide, that's a 5,000 square foot lot on the left, that's your traditional RS1. RS4 would allow this 35 foot. with a 15-foot setback in the front and a 10-foot setback in the back. We also gave the option to developers that choose to put in alleyways that they could have a little bit closer house to the front so that they have enough room to park in the back. And same if they don't have an alleyway, scoot the house back and still allow for parking in the front. We're San Angelo. We love big vehicles. I drive a big vehicle. And we want to make sure that they fit and are not sticking out in the right of way or in the street so that people can pass on the streets. You can see on the right side we talk about FAR. So if we have our current FAR is 40% of the lot you can have your house on. But we also have setbacks. We also have a height restriction. And we looked at... many, many other ordinances. And we couldn't find another one that used FAR. That is a 1980s term. And so we think we should progress and our setbacks control the size of the house. And so that's what we're proposing today. Again, here's some of the other things that you could do. If you were to do that 35 by 60, that gets you that smaller lot size, you've got a buildable space of about 1,000 square feet. If you were at 80% FAR, you could have 1,600, which means a two-story. But we're proposing to have no FAR so you could get up to right at a 2,100, 2,500 square foot property. Floor area ratio, again, it talks about how much structure can you have on the property. Obviously, this is the old style of planning, and we're trying to move forward with allowing flexibility for designers and home builders so that they can actually design something that's not always a front-facing garage, something that's a little more appealing than just a garage facing the street and this little bit of entryway. How do they find a way to do that? Some of them have asked, we really want to design better homes. We want our neighborhoods to look better. And so we have to have the rules to allow that to happen. And so that's what we believe we're bringing forward. Here's some of the designs that we currently have going on. These are zero lot line homes, very good style, 1800 square feet, 40 foot lot, 100 foot depth. You can see on the inset over here on the side that obviously they take up a lot of the space, but they have alleyway parking. They still have enough room. They have a garage. They have a smaller yard. We've had these since the 80s and a lot of people like them. More and more are being built and so we like that style of development it allows for density Other people's likes more standard single-family homes, and that's okay. We're not trying to restrict that we want that to continue as well Our structure types Again, this is where we really cleaned up. What structure types can go into what zoning district? The biggest change in there is really right here, RM. You see that it allowed all of those structure types where we're taking out those top ones in there. We're still allowing a twin home townhome, but the other style that we had, we're not allowing those in there. We're really looking for a multifamily style zoning district. This is where I do mention that RS4, they would have a minimum of one parking space, and RS5, those are the two smaller lot sizes that would allow for one parking space, whether that's in a garage, in a carport, or just the driveway that they have that's still on their property, as opposed to two parking spaces. When we do RM zoning in our current ordinance, depending on if you're doing RM1 or RM2 and how many bedrooms there are, you actually get a reduction in parking that's been that way since 2003 because not everybody in apartments has two vehicles per living space. Some do, but not all. And so they get maybe it's a 1.5 parking per apartment or 1.75. And so we believe with the smaller size homes, with those entry-level homes, there's one parking space, and then we do have on-street parking in our community that is allowed to be used.

I'm going to take a quick drink real quick. Excuse me.

So this is a sheet that's in the packet that talks about those structures. And then the last thing I have to present on the housing stuff, and I know you guys will have some questions and discussion, is double frontage lots. It used to be the number one reason people would go for a variance to our zoning board of adjustment. And so if that's the number one reason and you're seeing over a five-year period, you're seeing 100-plus cases for that, then that means your ordinance is wrong. You need to change your ordinance. That's what we're doing. We talked about it with the committee, and we talked about basically the side yard that is determined by the developer, not city staff, saying you must have a side yard over here and a front yard over here. We're letting the developer do that. It's their design. It's their product. Let's let them do that. The side yard would be a minimum of 10 feet. If you have more than 10 feet of right-of-way, then you could come forward with a variance and try to get that a little closer to the property line to maximize your lot space. So what does that mean? This is a fairly new development off of Twin Mountain. You can see that these corner lots that don't have an alleyway behind them, that's called a double frontage, and so they're wider. And again, you see the lots adjacent, they're more narrow. Well, if we're really trying to impact affordability, And we go through and do the traffic analysis and the study of how many crashes do we have at these types of lots. It doesn't prove up that we need to have that much space. So we're saying if you've got your house face Blair, then you could have a 10-foot side yard plus that 5-foot right away. So you're still 15 feet back from the curb. If you turned it the other way, you'd have a 25 foot here and you'd have 15 feet back from Blair. But as I turn that off, you see every one of those corners has a double fringe lot. And for new development that may choose not to put in an alleyway because of the cost, we're eating up a little bit more cost by saying, well, there's six lots right there in that area that are bigger than... because of a double frontage rule that we give variances to all the time. So why don't we change the ordinance to allow still some safety, still some setback, but not as much as a 25-foot setback, roll that back to a 10-foot setback on that side yard. With that, I do have our recommendations from city staff to adopt these new sections in Zoning Article 3, Section 303, the residential district intent statements, Section 313, the use table, Section 314, the structure types, and Section 501, the residential design standards. So now, Mayor, we have the time now for either discussion with staff or if you choose to do public comment, it's y'all's discretion of which way you'd like to move forward at this moment with these recommendations.

I think what we've discussed is we'll let Planning Commission discuss and ask you questions, then we'll bring it to the council, and then we'll go to public comment. Is that all right, Brandon? Legal? Cool. So if Planning Commission has anything they want to ask, now is the time.

Okay, as far as the planning staff, does anyone have any direct questions for Aaron in regards to the items that he just discussed? I think a question that I think a lot of the citizens will have as far as STRs, you know, originally in the RM1 zoning, they were kind of a free-for-all. So where would you say our STRs are going to fall within our new zoning?

Within our new zoning, again, we've changed that RM1 that would allow them by right, but there's not going to be future single-family style houses built there. The RS districts will still require and the R&E district will still require a conditional use process that goes to Planning Commission. We send the notice out. It still has to be 500 feet from another STR and still has to be 500 feet from a school. And so any of the RS districts still have to meet that threshold. And it is about getting citizen support or citizens saying, no, we don't want that here in our neighborhood. And that gives the discretion to the planning commission to make that decision. That decision could be appealed to the city council, but that's where short-term rentals would fall on this spectrum. Okay.

Thank you, Aaron. Any other questions from the Planning Commission?

Aaron, while she's brought that up about STRs, where does that fall to STRs in reference to the legacy zoning?

So they would still retain that vested right. They would still be allowed. So those won't be changing. So we know that can be maybe problematic because they're allowed by right. But then we still do an audit on all STRs. They still have to be paying their hotel occupancy tax. They do have to do all those things every year that we're checking on them. that those are still some checks and balances for those areas. And they're still, you know, if there are complaints, our code enforcement officers will go and check up on that. We have an officer dedicated to go and check those things. So we feel like we're still covered. I do think in future years as we move forward, that's a discussion for us to look at after the comprehensive plan. And as we redo some of our ordinances, does that still make sense for those areas? But that's not today.

Right. Well, Aaron, I appreciate that. But I think once we get done with today, for those people that do STRs and for those that don't, maybe we make a checklist just so they know where they are allowed and where they aren't. Yes, sir. I get lots of phone calls and questions. Am I allowed one here, one there? And if you just had a quick checklist that somebody could go to on our website, just here's what zones you're allowing. And maybe if you do an overlay, it would be a little too complicated. Yes. I wish I would be a little bit more definitive and specific on that one just to help people out in the future.

Yes, sir. We'd be happy to do that.

Planning Commission, any other questions for Aaron?

With that, we'll open it up. I'll start down here with you, Tommy.

No, sir. Do you want to take public comment first? Sure.

Do you want to put that right here or let him comment after both of them?

Okay. Okay.

So you want to let them comment on that and then come back on, because we're going to ask the same questions.

If there's any public comment on it right now, is there?

Rocky Templin.

Good morning. Rocky Templin, single member of District 6. I want to thank Aaron, Ray, and Austin for six months of hard work. Well done job. It looks great. I think we're going to eliminate some ZBA stuff and some planning stuff and a whole bunch of stuff. I do have one question on 501B5. In the past, there has been some plats that have slipped through. The required easements on a patio home shall be shown on a final plat. If required easements are not shown on the final plats of lots of zero lot line homes, then easements shall be created by means of replant. or a separate legal instrument filed with the clerk of Tombring County. In the past, a lot of those have slipped through where that has not been done. And therefore, the homeowner beside it, they kind of get into a little battle with each other. Well, like, you can't come in my yard. You can't paint your house. You can't tear up my plants. You can't do stuff like that. So I think it's pretty critical to make sure in the future that when these plants get somebody builds a patio home on an RM1 or RS3 or RS4, that they have to replant or they have to file a document showing that there is a two-foot and a four-foot perpetual easement in that lot for that neighbor. Thank you.

Thank you, Rocky. Do we have another, Heather? Okay. With that, we'll finish up the public comment for the Planning Commission. Now we'll move to questions from council. I'll start over here with you, Mr. Hebert.

Carports. You didn't call them out specifically. Is that another day, another discussion? I know that has been a huge question in many areas around town. Does that fit in anything that we're talking about at this very moment?

No, let's leave open structures and carports for another day.

Okay, all right. That's what I figured your answer would be, but I thought I'd go ahead and ask. You alluded to this. Costs, or maybe cost for services that are inherent in... the fact that you own property in the city, you said police drive by, fire drive by, animal services drives by. Did you have the operations people look at this? I'm not sure it would make a lot of difference, but it could in terms of future costs. Something I think that we need to begin, and maybe we have been, we are, if we have been, we haven't been talking about it much, but pay attention, not just for next year or three years, five years, but 10, 15, 20, 30 years down the road, those costs go up to the city over time. Is that something that was a part of this analysis that we have the capacity to do those things? today, which then may or may not be true in the future. But is that something you looked at?

Yes, we did look at that. What are our future costs? What are our future liabilities? Which is why it's advantageous for the infill development to continue. Through our comprehensive plan, we're going to get to be able to do a deeper dive and really look at what are our infrastructure liabilities. If we grow in certain areas, what does it cost us to put a new fire station? What do we need to do with our policing? It's going to look at those costs as increments as they keep going up and how does our property taxes get impacted by that if they're limited as well. What do we do to provide the service level that we can for our citizens? So that will be a big part of our comprehensive plan, and it was beginning of looking at these and saying, all right, the smaller lots that we have that make sense, not by just, okay, every 10 feet you try to put a little skinny house in. What makes sense for our community so that it doesn't dramatically change the nature of neighborhoods? that we can provide some density in some areas.

Okay, thanks. I guess I got beeped out there, so. Thank you, Harry. I'll be quiet.

I think there was a lot of those 80s references in there, so. Harry, do you have anything you'd like to comment on?

Not a whole lot. I want to reiterate what Rocky said. We've been discussing this for a long time, and I know there's a lot of work went into this. both by planning staff, the commission, and the people in the community that were part of this. So I want to say thank you. But I also want to say, follow up on one thing that Councilman Hebert said. I want to make sure this summer, early fall, we start looking at car parts.

Patrick?

Patrick?

Good morning, Aaron.

Good morning, sir.

On the setbacks. Yes, sir. I think we talked about 10 feet, 25 feet, things like that. Is that going to be from the right-of-way or is that from the lot line? Is that from the easement? What's that from?

It is always from the property line.

Okay.

So there's always a new development where we have a very good established right of way. Usually it's five feet on either side for local roads. It's more for bigger roads. And so that's established through the platting process. In older parts of town, as decades go on, people forget where that property line is. And usually surveys come out when properties change hands. Surveyors come out and say, all right, here's your property line. It's interesting to know that in most of our older areas, we have like 15-foot right-of-ways, things like that. And so we do occasionally get variances to say, I would like to bring my house forward, which we think is smarter because you don't have to do as much in those areas for a driveway to pave all the way back another 25 feet. So in some of these areas, you can see here on this screen, where is it at? Now I can't see it. So there it is, minimum front yard. So R&E, big lots, 40 feet. RS1 used to be 25. We're moving that to 20 to give them a little bit more space, a little less paving cost if you have a driveway from the front. RS2 also moving to 20. These two right here, it does depend on if you have an alleyway. And so you might be at 15 at the front or you might be at 18 to 20 at the front if you're going to park a vehicle in the front. And so we look at that at the platting stage and the site plan stage. And then, of course, the more dense you go, then you probably actually have some... Areas that make sense that parking is different and again the rs5 was an rs4 is is we're proposing one parking space per private on your private property and then rs6 you've got an 18 foot front yard for those triplex and Quadruplexes before and then most of their parking while all their parking is going to be on their property and having a drive aisle around So with those right ways easements and things we should not have an issue with

even with these smaller lots going forward, if we have to come in and redo the infrastructure, add infrastructure, things like that. That's what I'm worried about. We tell them to do that, and then down the road it's like, okay, now they're in our way and we've got an issue that's going to cost lots of money.

Agreed. I think that is something we've been very cognizant of. That's why we had engineering services as part of the group to help guide us on that area because it's not just our infrastructure. It's those third-party infrastructure folks that are coming through. And as we all know, over time we forget that maybe that first five feet is really – Right-of-way and you see somebody come and dig it in your yard that really makes you scratch your head a little bit Say what's going on? As you'll see coming forward in our land development subdivision ordinance There'll be a little bit of discussion about right-of-way in there And I think that might address some of your concerns in the new areas But again, we have a lot of established areas and so we are we are trying to be very Cognizant of that when we look at these site plans

On the parking, you mentioned that having one lot or one space and then they can use on-street parking, but will these smaller, narrower lots not kind of take that out as well?

Well, with a 35-foot wide lot, you have to have 18 feet for a parking space length, if you will. And if you have a 20-foot driveway, which would be very odd if you're going to have a 20-foot driveway and just one parking space, that's going to satisfy two parking spaces. We believe that if you're going to a 10-foot wide and an 18-foot parking space for a vehicle, you've got 28 feet there. You still have room on either side of your property that... There's a little bit of space that you're not taking up all of that parking space. Now, people may own more than two vehicles, and we recognize that. That's not unusual in most of our neighborhoods today that there's families and things. And so we hope over time that families are able to get to a larger lot, larger home, We know that that can be a challenge in different areas, but that's where we try to maintain a minimum street width so that emergency services can still get through. There are times that we may have to choose to say, all right, there's no parking on a certain side, and we have to make a decision knowing that up front. When a rezoning request comes forward, what is that parking gonna do to that street? We need to know that and make that recommendation properly to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the City Council.

That was going to be my next question, because I know we've already discussed that some with the builders and developers about if they would go to smaller streets that allow more and things like that. So I guess that's all being looked at. Do we think that's going to be an issue? I mean, when we have the smaller streets, we have to cut some of these smaller zonings off for that reason?

Possibly. They may not be the best idea for smaller streets, depending on where they're located. If your streets are only 20 feet and we're not making you widen it, it may not be the best idea to get a bunch of small lots in there and a lot more traffic on there. Or if that's what you want, it may justify, all right, well, then you need to improve the street to a certain minimum standard so that you can do those smaller lots in there. As far as new streets coming forward, again, we'll talk about that in the next item. And we did think about that with that subcommittee of, all right, how does parking impact our roads?

Okay. The variances, you talked about the 10-foot setbacks, and y'all had the variances requested several times, and I appreciate y'all, like, when you see that multiple times, like, okay, maybe this is an us issue, not a them issue, so let's look into it. Can you explain it a little bit more to me? I guess I'm a little confused on visual guys, so I know you showed the pictures, but do you have, like, can you give me, like, there was a house right here, and then now it's 10 feet closer, so that allows that lot to be smaller, or what exactly is that helping out?

Yeah, so let's take this lot right here. The developer or builder would have the option to say, I want my front yard to this street, street A, or to this street, street B. Now, we know all of these are going to street B. We know all of these front yards are to street A. they may choose one or the other. So whatever they choose as their front yard, that's a 25 foot or 20 foot setback, depending on what their zoning district is, but that's their bigger setback. And then the side that would be what we would traditionally call a side yard, because it's the side of the house, they would be allowed to be 10 feet from their property line so that they could still fit a regular-sized home there, and it would shrink those lots. You're not having to have two 25-foot front yards. Now, most builder developers are going to choose on a lot like this based on their house design. They're probably going to put the front yard facing Street B. They may have a side garage over here that comes in off of side A, but they're able to then pull into that garage, still have plenty of yard space for their family.

I guess for the traffic part of it, we've looked at the safety and that should still be plenty.

Yes. You still have to maintain the 30-foot site triangle at the front corner as people pull up to that intersection so that they can see. The biggest challenge we have is not really structures. It's fences that get built out all the way to the property line. Okay, that might be a front yard. Is that okay? Well, maybe we need to look at the fencing side. usually in neighborhoods you're able to go and see everywhere. And you think about then, compare it to some of our commercial areas, and particularly, say, downtown, that, yes, we have four-way stops in some areas, but most commercial buildings are built right to the property line because their front yard may be set back, but they're built right to the property line. If you're at a corner, that's even harder to see than in a neighborhood.

And then on... So we've talked about density, things like that, and I know this came up a little bit a while back on planning. Like one of the public comment earlier, we talked about there's three houses there and this would allow, say, 30. But is that not already, basically that same density not allowed if they were to convert to current, some of our current zero lot line standards?

So it depends on the density, yes. Based on each, I'm trying to get direct to the right slide. So right now... This bottom line right now is showing no maximum density right there. And that's really because all of these structure styles are single family houses. You couldn't have more than one house on those. Now RS2, you could have two. And so I want to give that a caveat. You could have two. So that is why, and you'll see in almost every zoning district, there's no maximum density for units per acre on the RSs. Now, we did choose to do that for the quadruplex and the triplexes, but R5, R4, R3, R1, and even R and E are designed to have one living unit. not multiple living units there. So that's why we don't have a maximum density. Now, the smallest you could get, if you're in infill, is 2,500 square feet for a lot. If you're in other places that are not infill, it's 3,000. So it really does depend on what your current lot size is and how many houses can you fit that's at 3,000 square feet. And it's not the house size, but the lot size. Right.

That's all I've got. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, staff.

Patrick asked all my questions.

That's awesome. Mary, you got a question?

Erin, just back on that short-term rental, is it the way it's going to stand or be until we get that like that checklist, is it essentially just conditional use is what they would apply for right now?

Yes, ma'am. In any of the RS districts, that's our standard today is that you must apply for a conditional use to move forward with a short-term rental.

So just blanket on all of it. Yes, ma'am.

What will that checklist do? Just help those that are seeking to... I think it helps identify areas that are allowed by right and what areas are a conditional use process. It may make it a little more clear. What it won't do is it will not give them the definitive yes or no, because we have to check to see if there's an existing short-term rental for the conditional use or how close is it to a school. Now, I think we're working on getting much more sophisticated to get those types of maps, But it does take staff time and ability to have those things up to date and current all the time because we don't want to make an oops and say, oh, well, we've allowed one too close to a school. That's a bad thing. So we want to make sure that those folks are still coming to us and communicating with us so we can give them the full process before they decide to invest in a property and say, well, that's going to be my short-term rental.

Until we get just like an area, its own new development, then I really like that just because there is such a hot and cold way people feel about these things. And so it just does require, I think, an extra set of eyes. So I'm glad that we're still going to be looking at that on a per case basis. Patrick brought a good point on the parking and all. Mm-hmm. Especially like in Santa Rita, they just have a smaller area. What if they park on the yard or if there's a side piece? I know I've had several in my district, and as long as they had like chat or something besides, it doesn't have to be concrete or asphalt or anything, but as long as they had like an area, but where are we going to stand on that if we have extra folks? Okay.

Well, new development, that you're creating a new driveway, a new house, a new something, it has to be paved parking. That's in the zoning ordinance. The other items of existing, that kind of is dealt with code enforcement and how they look at paved parking. We have a definition in the zoning ordinance. They have one. There are some options and alternatives that they can go through and ask for, like you said, the chat or other parking surfaces. But for the zoning ordinance, if it's new development, it must be paved. Okay.

Good deal. I think we kind of had some overlapping questions there. Yes. And I know Rudy stays pretty busy. He does. Calling up on that. Okay. No, that helps a great deal. It's going to take a little bit, especially for me, to let all this kind of soak in and then almost need like a pop quiz thing for it to – But I really appreciate, Aaron, what y'all have done with this. You've been hit from a lot of different angles, coming at it from many different viewpoints. And what's high priority for some of us is not... Yeah, it can be. It's very subjective. But I appreciate what you've done, Ray and Aaron, and the rest of your staff. Austin, excuse me. The rest of your staff. You've had a lot of things come at you. But I feel... Much relieved overall that this does add a lot of clarity and hopefully it'll take some of the heat off of y'all every question, every building and all. And as long as our builders are. in agreement, you know, they're the ones putting them in.

Yes.

So having their input and listening to that is, that means a great deal and all. So I really appreciate it personally. Thank you, Erin. Thank you.

And I also say that also homeowners, property owners, neighborhoods, just as Ms. Karen Best said, they should be looking and listening, what's coming to my neighborhood? What is that vacant lot across the way? What does that mean? So that they are very informed and understand. Because I think it is a give and take on both sides. It's not just builders, developers. It's what really fits in the neighborhood? What makes sense here? So I think that's important to keep in mind too.

You know, and you start getting to the age where you... What my viewpoint is, it's not going to be what the next generation is. So we're all trying to look into how do we get away, not just to get away with something, but how to make that fit what we want. And I think is that in the Santa Rita dealer, are you going over like a conservation overlay? Is that going to help with some of those?

I think there's some discussions about that going on in the neighborhood about what are some options for them. We're happy to discuss any options with any neighborhoods or any individuals even of what are these impacts really are for them, what are the impacts of doing something like a conservation district or something like that, which is kind of trying to basically protect the size and form and the nature of a neighborhood.

Well, and like in Santa Rita, you've got such a hodgepodge of the historical part. You do. And speaking with Karen yesterday, you know, that really doesn't happen in Southland or the Bluffs or anything, you know, things like that. No deep research. Right, yes. So it's almost like it takes a village to decipher all these and make sure that we do it the right way. Yes, ma'am. Again, you've taken on a big project, and you've delivered, and this will make it a lot better moving forward. So thanks again.

With no more further comments from Council, Brittany, we'll look for you to get a motion, a first, and a second from your group. Would that be correct, Brandi? Planning?

Yeah, full vote from Planning Commission and then- Before we open up public comment?

Well, I didn't know if there was another one after Council.

Okay, okay. Okay, so from the Planning Commission, I'll look for a discussion or make a motion for approval.

I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion from Lyndon, second from Liz. All in favor from Planning? Aye. So motion passes 5-0. From planning, we'll hand back to council.

Okay, council will look for a motion. I have a first from Mary. I've got a second from Patrick. Is there any public comment, additional public comment? With that said, we'll look to take a vote. All in favor of item A, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Item A passes 6-0. We'll move into item B, first reading and a public hearing of ordinances amending chapter 12, planning and development exhibit C, land development and subdivision ordinance as follows. One, amending chapter 10, construction standards and specifications. Section three, widths and graphic specifications to reduce required street widths. And number two, amending chapter nine, land development and subdivision design policies. Section five, sidewalks, subsection D, where sidewalks are required, to change and specify where sidewalks are required. Presentation made by Senior Planner Austin Reed.

Thank you, and good morning everyone. Austin Reed, Planning and Development Administrator. Today I'm going to be talking a little bit about some changes to our LDSO, or Land Development and Subdivision Ordinance. This came to you as a discussion item a couple of months ago. We've really received some good support since then, so a lot of this may seem familiar. for those of you who aren't aware the land development and subdivision ordinance is what people go through when they're subdividing their property or developing it in a major way it also controls how and where the city gets its infrastructure and so kind of the purpose of this whole thing was to research and discuss changes that could promote affordability and consistency what we actually did was form a committee just like with the residential committee that we just talked about within this committee we had developers city staff and appointed officials from across our different boards and commissions They met on a monthly basis from August of last year until February of this year. We also presented some of these discussions along the way at City Council, Planning Commission, and Development Task Force. The goals that we laid out for this committee were to first promote affordable development through revised standards. We also wanted to simplify development through consistency within our own ordinance. And finally, as a result of the other two, we hoped to promote affordable housing and infill. A little more specific, our objectives or really our approach was first to find items that could be outdated, unnecessary, complicated. And then we looked at some solutions by talking with our committee and seeing what other communities were doing as well. Finally, we worked to draft amendments and bring them to the Planning Commission and the City Council. And that's, of course, where we are today. So to answer the question of how to make development more affordable, first you have to look at some of the factors that actually drive land development costs. And that can include things like labor, materials, water, sewer, and stormwater. And really those are things that the city doesn't have great control over waiving or reducing. Something that we did identify early on in the process is streets as an area that we can improve upon. One thing that we heard from others that we found to be true in our committee is that San Angelo can have very wide streets in some areas. If you take a look at what other cities are requiring for a new local road, it's kind of a spectrum that starts at 30 feet and works its way upwards. San Angelo is at the far end of that spectrum requiring 40 feet for a new local road. I've also included here a table showing plat variance data from the year 2020 through August of 2025. And this is just showing you how often our plat standards are being varied and how often People are requesting to have them varied. And so as you can see, that's happening at a pretty high rate. And that can sometimes indicate the need for a change. Really the core of what we looked at within this committee was two tables within our land development and subdivision ordinance. This first one controls right-of-way widths. We had gone back and forth on adjusting this. We looked at standardizing it at some point or adjusting some of the measurements, but really at the end of the day what we heard is that the amount of right-of-way that we required to be dedicated isn't usually a barrier to development. It doesn't typically restrict our developers, so we didn't really feel the need to change it at the end of the day. That being said, we did still clear up some of the language in here. The columns, we made sure that they refer to new streets and existing streets, just kind of clarifying that language. We also got rid of the local rural street designation as it wasn't really used. This next table actually controls the paving widths of our streets. This is where a lot of our discussion was. You can see we again cleared up the language in those same columns. A new local street before we required 40 feet or 36 feet with the sidewalk. We have just brought that down to a flat 36 feet. I think that's the lowest that we were comfortable going. Existing local streets, on the other hand, within our presentation today, it says 20 feet within the designated infill area. There was some deliberation back and forth on that. It's in the presentation because that's where the committee tended to land. But we have heard from other city departments, such as fire and engineering, that the 26 feet might not be adjusted. It probably shouldn't be adjusted. So you can take that into account with your decision today. New minor collector streets, we kind of gave the same treatment as new local streets. Before it was 48 feet or 40 feet with a sidewalk. We've just brought that down to a flat 40 feet. Really, these two road designations were the only ones that we found to be excessive. The higher road classifications were pretty par for the course. So that's all on the roads. One other thing we did look at was our sidewalks. There was some confusion about how and where those were being required and how we were measuring things, so we hope to clarify that with this. They are no longer required near commercial developments and churches, but they are still required within 300 feet of schools and parks, now more specifically measured as a direct path along a budding street right-of-way from the nearest point of the new development. So hopefully that will allow us to be more consistent. And that's really all I had. Our recommendation for you today is to adopt two amendments to those two sections that we talked about, the first one being for the right-of-way and street widths, and then the second one being for the sidewalks. Do you guys have any questions for me? We'll start with planning first. Austin. Sure.

Open up for questions for Austin from the Planning Commission. Candy, any thoughts or questions?

Austin, can you go back and clarify on the existing street width? You said something about the 26 feet, the requirement there.

Right, 26 feet I think is the minimum that our fire department likes to see just for access with fire trucks back and forth. We wouldn't allow that to be everywhere. If we did go to a 20-feet minimum, in no case should a variance be granted for less than 20 feet. We just kind of want to be more consistent in the way that we grant variances and the minimum road widths that we allow. Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions from the planning staff or planning commission? All right. Austin, again, just like we thanked Aaron, you guys spent a lot of time on this. We've seen over the years a lot of cases coming up with disagreements on sidewalks due to cost and road width. So again, thank you for your attention to this. So with that, we'll close questions from the planning commission and hand it back to the council.

All right. So, Austin, first thing I want to do, Ms. Albert touched on it very clearly there. When it comes to the infill area and we're working with an existing overlay, sometimes the public safety concern is, Ken, if there's a vehicle parked there, can we get a fire truck by? Can we do that? So are we looking at 20? Are we feeling 26 on this? I mean, the end goal is public safety. Right. Regardless of what somebody's griping about. Public safety is our number one concern.

Yeah, the 20 foot was within this presentation because it's where the committee last landed, but we have had more discussion with other city departments. At this time, unless you think the 20 feet is acceptable, it's probably more safe to keep the 26 foot minimum in place.

Is 26 existing?

26, yes. 26 is for existing streets. That's what is in our ordinance today.

Okay.

Cool. That's it for questions for me.

Tommy? Harry? Patrick? What? No? Okay. Karen? Awesome. Mary?

I just want to make sure on the 20 feet, we're going to decline that and keep it at 26? Yes, ma'am.

Right. I might make sure that you include that in your motion.

Any further questions from council? No further questions. We'll kick it back to you, Britt. You need to do, you want to go ahead and do public comment now? All right, let's go ahead and open it up for public comment. Is there any public comment listed?

Rocky Templin.

Rocky, come on down. And Rocky has declined.

Okay, that's all.

With that, we'll roll it back to you, Brittany, to get a motion first and second.

Hold on. OK. So with that being said and no public comment, we're going to open up for commission to ask any discussion or make a motion for approval.

I'd like to make a motion to approve as presented. but to change and ensure that it's 26 feet.

Okay, so motion from Linden on local street, but on the entire presentation other than local street being kept at 26 feet instead of reducing to 20, correct? Correct. Okay.

I'll second that.

Okay, so motion from Linden, second from Candy. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Perfect. Motion passes 5-0 from planning.

We'll roll up to the council. So we have an existing motion on the floor to approve as presented and maintain the 26 foot on the street width. Anyway, I'll look for a motion from up here.

I'll make the motion.

I have a first from Karen. Second. Second from Mary. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Well, none opposed. Item passes 6-0. All right, we'll move on to item C. First reading of public hearing of ordinances amending chapter 12, planning and development exhibit A zoning ordinance regarding mobile food units as follows. One, amending article four, specific use standards, section 419, mobile food units. Number two, amending article three, use regulations, section 313, use table. Number three, amending Article 2, Development Review, Section 211, Historic District Overlay Zone. And number four, amending Article 2, Development Review, Section 212, River Corridor District Overlay Zone. downtown district overlay zone, and cultural district overlay zone. Presentation made by Aaron Vannoy. Aaron, you're on. Thank you, Mayor.

Again, Aaron Vannoy, Director of Planning and Development Services. This came to us from the mobile food group that they've been asking to maybe get a little more flexibility on where they can go to serve food as their small business the other thing that's happening is at the state level the state legislature has said okay local jurisdictions on the health permit you no longer will oversee mobile food units so in our zoning ordinance which is separate from the the health department we also had some time restraints that were like okay well IF THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO COME TO THE CITY FOR A PERMIT, THE CHANCES OF US KNOWING THEM AT A TEMPORARY EVENT, A THREE-DAY EVENT, WEEKEND EVENT, THEY'RE NOT EVER GOING TO COME TO US. AND SO WE HAVE SOME ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT REALLY JUST DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THAT OUT. So that's really kind of what we're trying to look at for that first stage. In the residential areas, those RS areas that we were talking about earlier, that we would allow mobile food units up to six hours in a 24-hour period. They would be allowed up to three times per year on a private piece of property, not right-of-way, but on a private piece of property. And so that could be, is that too much? Is that not enough? They really want to say, hey, we get asked to cater parties at homes. Can we go and do that? How do we do that without it just being, OK, every weekend you've got Aaron's barbecue truck out there at the corner of the street. All right, how do we do that for our small businesses but still protect our neighborhoods? um and so if they look at going over that three times per year they have to get a they have to come to city council and get a special permit like they do any other type of event maybe somebody's doing a block party this is their third time to be in the area let's get a special permit to do that block party And then we also looked at parks areas because many of them are zoned RS district and parks. And so we put that responsibility, if you will, on the mobile food unit as well as the parks director. If they have a communication and the parks director says, yes, it's okay for you to come to this park and here's your designated parking space, they should be able to do that without having to come to zoning to ask for permission. So we put that in there so they can go to the parks director and get that written permission. So that's kind of the residential side is allowing them into residential areas. They would be restricted for six hours in a 24-hour period. three times per year. More than that, they need to come to you guys for permission. Commercial areas, they're already allowed by right in commercial areas. we would remove that if they could only locate for three consecutive days or they had to be by their commissary. We're taking that out because the state doesn't care where they're located. The state's going to say they have to be mobile no matter what. Well, then we don't want to have something that says, okay, you have to be there for three days or this. So we're just taking that language out. The one area that I think we should have some more discussion on or at least discuss this today is currently in commercial areas. The right-of-way separation is 100 feet from where a mobile food can park in a right-of-way compared to an established restaurant or food permit establishment. There was proposals to go all the way down to 50 feet. I know our downtown area, I think, is very strong on they would like to keep the 100 feet. City staff was okay, well, what about a compromise at 75 feet? And I think there's maybe some mobile food folks here today. I'm not sure if they signed up for public comment, but they are looking to serve folks that are probably outside the serving window of, what am I trying to say? Outside the window of what a restaurant would serve. Like when they close at nine o'clock, 10 o'clock, they would be serving late night, particularly in our downtown area. That gets tricky. Their concerns are the amount of trash and debris that's left behind. Maybe just the general condition that they come back and say if maybe somebody had a grease spill, did somebody actually clean that up? Or because, hey, it's out on the sidewalk, they jet. And so there's some challenges there of what that looks like and what that means for what brick and mortars have to take care of compared to mobile foods. We know that mobile food units in our community, they start out as small businesses that way, and then they can turn into brick and mortar. We've seen that, and we've proved that up. So we want to continue to try to support them in some ways, but we have to find the right way. So that distance in the right-of-way, we're not talking private property to private property. We're talking in the right-of-way. Should it stay at 100? Does it get shrank to 75? Or is there something different? So keep that in your mind as you formulate some of your questions. It is pretty universal, even talking with the schools and the charter schools, that they would allow. Currently, it's not allowed to have mobile food units on those campuses, but they need them in certain campuses in certain situations. So I don't see why our zoning should prevent them. So we're going to allow them. And then if they're in the right-of-way, they have to be 50 feet back observing the residential requirements and things like that. The section 211 and 212, those are our design districts, our historic and then our river corridor, cultural, downtown districts. There's a clause in there that says that if you're a mobile unit, you need to come to us for permission. Well, the idea behind our design districts are protect the integrity of the architecture and the design of those places. A mobile unit that's there for three days is not going to affect that. So we're asking to remove that piece out of there. Because more than likely, they're not going to come and see us anyway. We'll never know they were here that weekend. They'll come in, they'll do their serving for the event, and away they go. And then the last thing that we've had is that we've had some inquiries about mobile food parks. We don't have really any regulations for mobile food parks, but we wanted to be fair on where can they go, how can they operate, what are the minimum standards we would need. We looked at these things. We talked with them with the mobile food unit folks, and they went through these things and said, okay, this looks good to us. We can do these things if we wanted to do a mobile food park. And I do think that's something that's going to happen for our community, and I think our citizens actually want that to happen at some point too. Primary use in the, primarily the commercial districts like neighborhood commercial, general commercial, general commercial, heavy commercial, and light manufacturing, they could have a mobile food park. Private property, they go and they set up, they do these things there. They have an on-site manager. They have restrooms. If they sold alcohol, they'd have to meet the TABC and the proper zoning for that. If they're outside the central business district, they'd have to provide parking. They comply with our normal noise, signage, and lighting requirements. They comply with floodplain development so that they're not in a floodway or a bad flood zone that they're able to get out of. And then just your standard site development requirements. And so that's something that we've added as a new section under that section 419. With those things, the city staff does have these recommendations to adopt these different sections, which is section 419, which is amending the mobile food units, making those amendments. On the use table, allowing them in the residential areas, which is section 313. And then the two design districts removing the language that they have to be reviewed if they're here three days or less. If they do happen to go and park on a property and they're going to use that for their building, they would still go through the Design and Historic Review Commission. But if they're just a temporary, we would not have any oversight of what they come and do for that weekend. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions for you guys.

Liz and I have the same question.

Yeah, Erin, I had a question with regards to the schools. Obviously, I think it's a great option for the schools to have these mobile food trucks, but I'm just curious about the consent process. Obviously, you know, I would hope there'd be a higher threshold of consent background checks or whatever goes into that by allowing these trucks on school premises, what's that look like?

We would let the school district handle that. We're just allowing the land use to potentially allow it. The school district would have control of whether they would allow a specific unit of some kind to come on, whether they did background checks or whatever their process was.

So, Aaron, on the mobile food park, how are you determining the parking requirements? Is it by how many units are on it, how large the land is? How does that work?

Well, we're really going by what our established restaurants do, and it's how many seats. Like if they do outdoor seating, they do like some little area that they have outdoor seatings. How many parking spaces do they need? Are they set up as a drive-through that they have them lined up and you can drive through and they walk the food out to you? And so we are wanting to make sure that they have adequate parking, and if they have event space also, so maybe they do a food park and they have some event space, picnic tables, you know, something like that. They have an outdoor stage that somebody plays some acoustic music. We are looking at all of those things combined, and that's usually one space per four seats, and so that's what we're looking for as far as patrons that are coming to the site.

Okay. And then as far as in parks, I guess I know you mentioned it's up to the park director, but is this something that there can be more than one unit or is there any regulation on that again? Is there going to be any screening? from the parks director on the units that are allowed there, similar to the schools?

I believe there would be screening from the parks director. Now, it may not be to the same criteria as the schools, but it is based more on what the events that are going on and why a mobile food unit would go there. Some of our parks already have contracts with food vendors, and so they may not be appropriate for other mobile food units to go there, but that would be something that our parks director would do. Again, this is just the land use giving them the ability. Right now, technically, because most of them are zoned RS districts, they're not allowed at all. This at least gives them the opportunity to ask to the parks director to say, hey, we would like to come because you've got some type of event this weekend to set up in that park.

Okay. Is there any other questions from planning commission? I think just really quick, can we go back and just discuss a little bit on the serving outside of the operating hours and the 100-foot commercial by established restaurants, changing that to 75? So are we talking about those hand-in-hand or? Yes.

I think that would be if we were to maybe lower the 100 feet that we had, okay, then they could only serve for certain hours. The hard part is there's still nothing there that, I mean, I really do believe our mobile food units do everything they can to keep their sites clean. It's the challenge of when they have customers that walk, you know, another half a block down and they decide to throw their trash and debris on the ground as opposed to a receptacle. They don't have great control of that because it's just difficult where a brick and mortar space does. Sure. And so that is a challenge for that. But that, I think, comes back to our civic pride and our downtown pride. If it's in our downtown, what is it that we really want our patrons, our citizens, our friends that are coming to see us, hey, go pick that up. Put that in the trash.

So in the downtown corridor, are we looking at doing more benches, more trash receptacles if we're allowing food trucks, especially operating at later hours in the evening?

I think that's a discussion to be had. At this time, that has not been something that's been on the item. Obviously, as we're doing the Chadburn project, there's going to be more spaces available. coming north, but I think that's something to discuss to see if that's a cooperation between different parties that may want to provide more trash receptacles or benches or things like that.

Okay. Thank you, Aaron. If there's no further questions from planning, then we will open up for public comment or pass?

Let's just go ahead and move it up here.

Okay, sir. Perfect.

So, Aaron, I'll start off on this point. Number one, we talked about permissions. So we want to look back at what fits our constituents. Sometimes people on a Thursday or Friday think, you know, it would be great, I've got a birthday party, if I could get a mobile food truck here. Walk me through the permission process and how long that takes.

Well, currently it's a very labor's process. These ordinances are designed to reduce that, that it would allow certain things by right. They would not have to come to planning or health to say, can I go and do that? We would remove those permissions. It would then go to like our standard issues with any of our neighborhoods is it's a complaint basis. And then we would follow up to find out what's going on, how things are going. But currently you have to go through a site plan process. You have to go through a permanent, I would say many times, The mobile food unit does not know until maybe the day of or the day before whether they have real permission to go and do things. And they're a small business, and they're trying to plan ahead, buy food, get enough staff for whatever it is, and they're just going to go do it, and we understand that. And so our goal is to try, how do we roll back some of those barriers

restrictions if you will so that they can go do things it's simple it's just an at-risk permission if you feel as good as right and if you get a complaint after that you're going to have to deal with the i think say the punishment on the back end but i do think that will help out a ton of parents and people that are looking in and i'll even roll this back to the school you'll never know when like last night we lost power to you know several thousand people but long story short if that shuts something down that sure opens up some opportunity to help people serve Yes. I appreciate that. One thing I would talk about the trash, people that I have spoken with, do the mobile food trucks have an on-site, do they carry a trash receptacle with them that has to be on-site, not only for their personal use, but for their customers?

I believe that is correct. That's a health department rule. Now, that's moving to the state, and so the oversight is going to be the state, but yes, that's always been kind of the rule.

Well, and I would point out, if that was our decision, we would make that today, that they would have a trash receptacle on-site for customers.

Yes, we could add that to the ordinance and the

Well, if it's governed by state, let's not get this too cloudy. Let's not put too much noise in it. All right, with that, I'll open it up to the council. This time, Mary, I'll start with you.

Karen? Your presentation indicates that the serving of alcohol beverages would be permitted in a mobile food park. Yes. So what governs a mobile food unit that is not in a mobile food park?

So if it's not in a mobile food park... Are they allowed to serve alcoholic beverages? It would be up to the zoning district that they're in. If they are like a... If they're there permanently, and I'll say that as a caveat, if they're just a short-term or just a, hey, I'm just there for six days, we would have to really look at that to see what's allowed under the current rules. Now, TABC... ACTUALLY REGULATES MOST OF THAT, BUT OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW WHERE ALCOHOL CAN BE SOLD FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION, AND THEN THERE'S THE, WHAT WE WOULD COMMONLY CALL AS PACKAGE STORES, WHERE YOU CAN BUY IT, PICK IT UP, TAKE IT, AND CONSUME IT OTHER PLACES. AND SO, I don't know of one currently in our community that does sell alcohol. I know there are other communities in the state of Texas that that's allowed based on their zoning. Our zoning would imply that if you're at a food park and you're fairly permanent, you would be allowed to do that. So we didn't want to put a restriction in here saying, no, you couldn't do that. You've got to follow the TABC and follow the zoning. Those that are truly mobile, that are moving around all the time, that is a good question. It does not address here, but I think it's addressed through our zoning, and we would have to look at our alcohol distance rules with, you know, with regards to schools and things like that.

What about distance rules for existing restaurants? Does that reflect back on that conversation that the Planning Commission Chair and Liz brought up about distance?

Well, I think that goes back to, you know, if you're private property, private property, and you have the right zoning and you can get your TABC license, you can do that. If we, with this distance here, do we say in the right of way, if you're there in the right zoning, are you allowed to do that?

Is there any conversation with existing restaurant owners about this very thing? Would that be problematic?

I'm not aware of any... direct discussions about the alcohol part of that. I know there's been direct discussions about the distance, and maybe Monica Ramos with downtown San Angelo is with us this morning. She might have some insight on that, but I have not had any direct conversations about the alcohol piece.

Okay. Patrick? Can you tell me why we removed, what was it, D1? the three days?

Yes, because the state says that you're supposed to be mobile every single day. You're supposed to move every single day as a mobile food unit. We put that in there because we were having questions about the design areas back in 2019 when those things got changed. They wanted to see all the mobile food units that were, whether they were temporary or permanent. I believe we just need to look at the ones that are permanent. Those that are mobile, they may never even come to us. They may come to us from Ballinger or from somewhere from Lubbock. We'll never even know they were here that weekend. So putting a restriction on them saying, well, you have to stay there for three days, that may not be practical to do. I mean, it may be there and it's just one of those unenforced things, so why do we have it in there?

Okay. Along with that, we talk about the permission on a complaint basis, basically. Now that they're regulated by the state, pretty much only, even if we get a complaint, they'll probably be on a weekend. I mean, there's really nothing we can do to them, right? I mean, am I wrong on that?

Well, I think it depends on location, what the complaint is. If this was in a residential area and it was at a birthday party, someone's going to know it was at property A, and we have somewhere to go and talk and, all right, who did you have, where are they from, and do some follow-up. If they're at an event on a weekend, we'll probably, like you said, we'll never be able to do very much enforcement unless we talk to the event folks that did that. But if they're just a mobile unit that comes in for a weekend and stops out at Lake Nasworthy for a little while, we'll probably never know.

Well, the residential ones are the ones I'm kind of worried about because if they are causing a problem for the neighborhood, I mean, what... Yeah, I mean, I guess is that a police issue at that point? They can try to go do something and we have those ordinances in place? We do have those ordinances.

I mean, because we can't take their permit away, we have nothing to... We do have those ordinances, but if they're violating zoning ordinance, we still have the same process to go through to deal with a violation of the zoning ordinance. I would encourage, just like I have in years past when I was over code and over animal services in another city is... We ask our citizens, if you have a complaint, we need you to collect evidence. If you don't have evidence, then we can't help you as best we can. So if they're able to get a license plate, things like that, we can work with that side. Now, I think the reality is we don't have that many offenders. We really don't. But again, there's always an opportunity for someone to act different than what we would expect.

PERSONALLY ON THAT ONE, I KNOW YOU'LL HAVE IN YOUR PERMANENT SPARTAN BASICALLY A what do you call it, an admin permit, something where it's very simple. They just basically fill it out so you kind of know they're there, what's going on, and we have that evidence from them. I would like to see that on the residential side. If they're going to be on the residential side, I don't want the burdensome of all the stuff you all have had to go through, but if there's not a quicker process we can do that we know somebody's there, so if somebody calls on it and says, yep, we know they're there, they're going to be gone tomorrow, their permit's good for the next 12 hours or whatever. I would personally like to see something like that on that just so we do have some protection for the residences around it.

Okay.

On the mobile food parks, it's four or more, correct?

Yes.

What is the reason that it's four? That seems like a lot.

Looking at the ordinances around the state, that was really the trigger point of saying, all right, they're not just hanging out here at this, say, strip center that they allowed them to come out, but they really are just a mobile food park that then they need to start developing so that they have They have this customer base that's coming. They need to have restrooms. They need to have parking. They need to be treated as an actual business site, not just a temporary thing that happened this weekend.

Does that... Are any weekend events affected, like when people have several come in for that, or is that a different process? That's a different process. And then on the restaurants, I'm going to... probably defer to the bigger distance because those restaurants paid a lot of money to be where they're at, and they pay property taxes, and they've had to keep their building up, and they've had to do a lot to be where they're at. So to let somebody come in that doesn't have near as many restrictions, near as much control, and again, like we talked about, it's not their fault if people walk down the street and throw their trash out. But they're just... I don't know if there's as much of a benefit to the city as the brick and mortars are that they employ more people, they pay property taxes, they have those controls. They do a lot more for more people, in my opinion. And it costs them a lot more money to operate. I love that we have some. There's several reasons that we need mobile food trucks. And it is a lot cheaper to operate, so they can get going that way. So I'm for it, but I'd probably defer to the longer distance on that. Let those restaurants have the ability to to get what they've paid a lot of money for. I think that's all I've got. Thank you.

I want to clarify something Patrick brought up, like the three days. So they don't operate between the hours of 1030 p.m. and, I mean, 1030 p.m. and 7 a.m. So if we're looking at this going forward, Patrick, three days on the residential, are you saying you want them to... have a permit or I'm trying to make sure we have included what you've talked there and I don't know if I'm quite clear.

Yes, in my opinion, a simple permit that planning can come up with it. I mean, even if it's just they have just had to fill it out and they can print off their own paper saying, yes, like y'all approved it. I'm going to be here this day, this hour. It's according to this.

Basically, they've registered to say they could go into a residential district at this property to serve food on day X. Yeah, something where we have something showing that they're in there.

They can have proof to say, you know, if somebody comes up and says yes, like I know, that person still can file a complaint. But instead of just allowing them to do it all they want to and we have to get a bunch of complaints to even know that they were there.

Would another way to say that is if you're planning on being there more than three days, you need to come get a temporary permit?

Well, I need to clarify with Mr. Keeley. Are you asking if they're going into a residential district, you want to know each time they go in?

Bingo.

It's really different than a temporary event. And I also believe that our health department won't be issuing temporary event permits any longer because the state's like, there's no such thing as a, you're all the same. If you have a state permit to serve food, this would be the land use of, all right, we're giving you permission to go and serve your food in that zoning district. And I think that's what you're asking for is, is there a record of Aaron's mobile food unit went into property A in that residential district to serve food?

I am. I think it goes back to the residences having a kind of Having their ability to have a quiet area for their residents, right? So I'm all for business. I'm all for mobile food trucks being able to go serve people that are wanting it and needing it. I just want to make sure that we have a way to know this going on and can regulate it since now the state's kind of taking control. This gives us something to say, yes, if you go on a resident, we know about it. We can just kind of help control a little better.

Would that fall under the 12-hour limit if they could be in one spot?

Yes, in the residential section, that'd be the six hours and a 24-hour. They'd be able to come in and serve there. Our challenge will be, and it is today, is they have to come to us. voluntarily. They had a reason to when there was a health permit. They wanted their health permit. Now they just go and order one off online for the state and go wherever they want to. So they may never come and see us. And then it is truly just an enforcement issue of, all right, now we've got to send out Rudy's team to go and chase them.

Well, and so in that case, if we get a complaint, we can say, yeah, they didn't file one, we could go shut them down right then, right, if it's an issue?

Potentially, yes. I think there's some processes to go through there, but yes, potentially. I don't think we can shut them down for a health reason, and so the question is, is this a zoning violation, and what is the mechanism to solve a zoning issue? And that's usually not an immediate shutdown. So I don't want to give that impression that it's an immediate shutdown because of a zoning violation necessarily. That may take a little more effort than just a normal investigation.

Okay, hearing?

So I wasn't going to say a whole lot until Patrick started. One of the things that concerns me with what Patrick's trying to do is just most of these food trucks are probably going to go in on a Saturday or a Sunday. And you really don't have any recourse until they're done with that particular party. So I'd hate to put a lot more work on the staff trying to get some type of zoning permit to allow them to go in there. I understand that we've got some of these streets are pretty narrow. You put a food truck on my street, and you probably couldn't get down it. So there's got to be some way to control it, but I don't know that controlling it through the planning staff is the right thing to do. I struggle on that. I also do agree with Patrick, though. I like to keep the 100-foot line. separation between the restaurant and that. A good portion of these restaurants are in my district, and so I want to fight for the brick and mortar right now. That's it.

Mr. Hebert? I think, Patrick, I think your issue is an enforcement conundrum that would be very difficult to deal with and solve. I think what I hear your request is you're dealing on good faith that they're going to say, I'm going to do this. We don't have any control over whether they're going to tell us they're going to do it or not. So I think... I would rather defer to whatever mechanisms are at our disposal if that occurs rather than creating them having to, I don't know how we make them, fell out a piece of paper to say I'm going to do this. How would you make them do that to let you know that they're going to be there?

Well, y'all are referring to saying that there is no mechanism. Mine at least is saying we're asking for you to do the right thing. Y'all are just saying we're not worried about it unless there's a bunch of complaints. I mean, I think that's what I'm hearing the difference. I'm saying at least we put that out there so that they have the ones that want to be good stewards say, yeah, I'll go fill out and get my permit and we're good to go. I want to make sure I stay here. I want to stay in town. I want to be able to serve. A bunch of residences.

But no penalty if, in fact, they don't fill it out, but they abide by the rules.

Well, I'm saying we need a penalty.

Well, I think therein lies the problem.

Yeah, so violation of the zoning regulations that we're talking about today would be a code enforcement issue, so they would get a citation for violations. As far as the health side, shutting them down, that's one thing that's through the state. I don't think we would be able to do that through zoning. It's just citation, and that's trying to stop doing whatever conduct that they're violating. I think we have that as far as the six hours in a 24-hour period we say that's no more than three times per year so if we're getting complaints and we find out they do the fourth time then it's a citation for a violation of that and then subsection B says unless approved by City Council via special permit so that's the permit process where they'd be coming to you guys to get that approval

Well, the citation is fine. To me, it seems like they could go out the first time if there was an issue and give them a citation the first day instead of, okay, we've got to wait until they come out four times, and then we'll give them a citation.

That seems to be the difference. What kind of violation are we talking about? Are we talking about noise violations? That's all things that we have codes on that we could cite them the first time, but it's outside this zoning code. That's our noise ordinance and things like that.

Okay.

So what we'll kick back to planning right now is, and this may be something that needs to be brought up later, but we're going to move this forward. We've got a lot of time. What I hear the consensus on the council is to come back, but we want to maintain the 100-foot distance. Would that be correct? Yes. Patrick, Mary, everybody wants to maintain the 100-foot distance.

May I ask a question? Sure. Okay. So I understand the 100 foot during operating hours, but, you know, let's say a typical business downtown closes at 9 p.m. Is there a way that we can put that after a typical food establishment closes, then you could do it in 75 foot? Is that possible or is that too hard to regulate?

I do think you run into a regulation challenge. And while I see the logic in that, what I also see in the logic for enforcement is if you have a standard, you have a standard, and it's around the clock. Fair enough. I mean, that's an easier way for city staff to interpret and say, okay, well, was he here at 9.05 or was he here at 8.55?

And that can change with the restaurant's hours, too.

Yeah, and it doesn't mean, you know, the restaurant may give permission, and then it's okay.

That's what I was going to ask. So the restaurant can give permission for somebody to be there closer than that 100 feet.

Now, you may have other restaurants, and so you have multiple to deal with.

Right.

But, I mean, we don't want to prevent that either.

Yeah. But, yeah, if they're both willing to, then it's like, yeah, I close at 9. You feel free to come at 9. Here's your written permission. Correct. From my restaurant, at least. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

Perfect.

Thanks for that clarification.

All right, Brittany. So we'll kick it back to you. The only thing we'd like to maintain is the 100-foot distance.

Okay. Are we doing any public comment?

We've got some public comment here, Heather. Okay.

Rocky Templin.

Oh, and Rocky has waved it one more time.

All right. Monica Ramos.

We should make him come up anyway.

Hello. Good morning, council. Good morning, planning commission. Monica Ramos, director of downtown San Angelo. The ordinance for downtown really should not change. I don't see a problem with it with the way it is as it stands right now. It should remain the same for downtown. After speaking with all of the business, all the restaurant owners in downtown, there were several legitimate concerns that arose regarding food vendors, food truck vendors in our downtown district. Increased litter and waste, as Aaron mentioned. That's something that, yes, from my experience with hosting events, food trucks do clean around their area. But what about the customers that come and have a plate of nachos and they walk up the street and they drop it face down on the sidewalk? Colored liquids, the napkins, the forks, the cups. That's something to think about. And this is why these food operations that have been... Investing in our downtown are concerned with what would happen with having the food trucks parked wherever within our downtown. The limited access to public restrooms is already a thing for downtown. So this just puts a bigger strain on the retail and restaurant businesses within our downtown. There's, of course, noise pollution, the smells and odors that come from the food trucks that are a big concern that can affect not just the businesses but also the environment and people walking around in downtown and enjoying their time. Food trucks can take up multiple parking spots. That's a major concern for many of the food establishments. And then, yes, the financial investment that the brick and mortars put in. They're both small businesses. However, one is established. One is long-term. One does have bigger operating costs than the other. So that's something to think about if the difference is there. Okay. And then the businesses also with the economy, there's already a bit of a struggle going on and the change in customer spending habits. And so this is something to think about that we really wouldn't want to come in and put a bigger struggle on top of that by having mobile food vendors within the downtown district to impact those businesses. So keeping the ordinance as is where they can still come in and they can still come in during community events, which is really primarily where I see a lot of the food vendors enjoying what they do is coming to events basically because they're around a large community impact where people are coming to the event.

It's not where they're

spread out and they may or may not get traffic, an event is the main way for a food vendor to get traffic. So again, just keeping the ordinance as it is rather than effectively affecting the established businesses. So I would like to keep that 100-foot rule. I respect that. And there's a bit of a double standard as well in the food truck park as well.

Thank you, Monica. Thank you. Any more public comment, Heather? With that, Brittany, we'll kick it down to you to get a motion.

Okay, I'll open up for motion or further discussion within the Planning Commission.

I guess I have a question first for Erin regarding what we just heard about downtown and keeping that ordinance the same. Is the only change the recommended 75 foot? Is that the only change?

Yes, ma'am. That's the only recommended change in a commercial area. Okay. And section 212, correct? Correct. In Section 419 is the distance. Okay. So that's the distance of saying is it 100 feet or 75 or some different distance. Section 211 and 212 are the design districts of if a mobile food unit is using a brick and mortar building, they would have to go to DHRC. But if they're just a mobile for an event, they would not have to go.

Thank you. And, Erin, one more question. Sorry, and this might be silly, but let's say, you know, again, we're operating under the 100 foot, and that's 100 foot from brick and mortar, not 100 foot from, like, let's say two trucks parked downtown next to each other. Correct.

That's from the established restaurant.

Is there a distance in a non-event setting that they have to be from each other? Currently, no.

If they're in the right-of-way, they have to park legally, so they have to fit into a parking space. Okay. All right, thank you.

Any other comments, questions, or motion?

I will make a motion to approve as presented but to keep it 100 feet.

Okay, motion from Linda to approve as staff presented, other than not reducing our footage to 75, keeping it at 100. Correct.

Do I have a second? I'll second.

Second from Liz. All in favor? Aye. Okay, motion passes from Planning 5-0. Pass it back to you, Tom.

OK, we'll take this. We'll reaffirm what planning has said. We'll maintain as presented. And we will go with the 100 foot. Keep that consistent with that. We'll look for a motion. Can I get a motion? Mary? Mary stepped out. I don't know. She snuck out on us. Probably several want to do that. All right, we'll look for a motion. So moved. I have a first from Harry Thomas. A second from Tommy Hebert. We've concluded public comment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

Item passes five to one. With that, we will look for an adjournment. Brittany, if you will conclude the Planning Commission.

Do we have any administrative issues that we need to discuss? It's 5-1. It's 5-1. Oh, sorry. Just looking at the agenda, do we have any follow-up or administrative issues before we close?

That's on you all. No, ma'am, we do not.

Okay, perfect. In that case, then I'll ask for a motion for adjournment from Planning Commission. I'll make a motion to adjourn. First from Lyndon, second from Candy. Planning Commission adjourns.

We'll roll that up to council. All those in, if I can take a motion. First from Tommy and a second from Harry. All those in favor say aye. This planning part in council is adjourned. We will take a 10-minute recess while we reset the dais. And we will start back again at, let's say, 1045. Just legal.

Just legal. Pull anything you want.

Where is legal? Do we have to have an attorney?

Brandon? It's game time.

Yeah, we're going to whoop.

All right, everyone, it is 1047 on May 19th. We'll call the meeting to order. First thing we'll do is we're going to start off with our prayer and pledges, and we're going to be led today by Councilman Hebert.

Y'all would bow in prayer with me? Dear God, we thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We thank you for another day of life. guide our deliberations today. Let them be pleasing to you. We also want to always ask for your protection of those that have chosen to protect us, whoever and wherever they might be. And I pray these things in your name. Amen.

Amen. Would you join me in the pledges? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. We've got some proclamations to read this morning. First one I'd like to do is the Texas Trust Credit Union Day. So we get anybody with Texas Trust to come on up to the front. Texas Trust Credit Union celebrated its 90th anniversary on May 1, 2026, marking nine decades of people helping people in steadfast commitment to the financial well-being of its members. Texas Trust officially became a vital part of the San Angelo community through its acquisition of Qualtrust Credit Union and has since deepened its local roots by expanding its footprint and investing in the city's growth through the remodeling of an existing facility and construction of a new state-of-the-art branch. The credit union has embraced the unique spirit of San Angelo by participating in the Sheep Spectacular public art project proudly displaying iconic sheep statues at its local branches to celebrate our city's heritage and culture. Texas Trust has also proven to be a dedicated partner in education providing critical financial support through scholarships and partnerships with Angelo State University and Howard College, ensuring local students have the resources to achieve their academic dreams. The credit union spirit of generosity extends to our most vulnerable neighbors through consistent financial and in-kind contributions to the Concho Valley Regional Food Bank and dedicated support for the local Toys for Tots campaign every December. From its humble beginnings in 1936 to becoming a premier financial institution with over $2 billion in assets, Texas Trust has remained committed to the values of integrity, service, and community reinvestment. Texas Trust Credit Union has been nationally recognized as one of America's best regional credit unions for 2026 by Newsweek, earning a prestigious four-star rating based on an independent study of financial health, digital reputation, and member surveys from over 140,000 respondents. On May 1st, 2026, Texas Trust Credit Union commemorated this historic 90th anniversary milestone with celebrations across all its branches, honoring the members and communities that have fueled its success. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, the Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim May 1st, 2026 as Texas Trust Credit Union Day. in San Angelo, Texas and encourage all citizens to join me in recognizing Texas Trust for 90 years of excellence and thanking them for their continued devotion to the prosperity and culture of the Concho Valley.

We're always grateful to be able to serve our communities and give back in any way we can. We dedicate a lot of money to ASU nursing program and SASD and Howard trying to give back to those who are going to be here in generations to come. And we'll be here to support them as well. Thank you, guys.

Let's get a picture here. If anybody's here with the Texas Southwest Council of Scouting American Day, Devin, you got the crew?

Line up over here.

One of the first troops in the region was organized in San Angelo in 1911, and in the years to follow, others formed in Sonora, Brady, and Del Rio, prompting the establishment of the Concho Valley and Southwest Texas Councils in 1926. The two groups merged a decade later, and in 2012, this organization was renamed the Texas Southwest Council to better reflect its represented area, which spans more than 24 counties. Since its inception, the Texas Southwest Council has produced more than 3,500 Eagle Scouts and it has provided countless young people with invaluable life skills and outdoor experiences, including such locations as Camp Solmeyer. Many other initiatives, including STEM programs, service projects, and leadership opportunities. The inclusion of girls into this organization has helped it better serve all youth in the region. To commemorate its anniversary, the council is hosting a variety of community events throughout the year, among them a campfire celebration complete with s'mores. Go, Devin. Over the past century, the Texas Southwest Council has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to promoting character development, leadership training, and outdoor expertise, making a positive impact in the lives of generations of young Texans and strengthening communities across the region. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim May 20th, 2026 as Texas Southwest Council of Scouting America Day in San Angelo, Texas, and encourage all citizens to recognize and celebrate the positive impact the organization has made in our community and throughout West Texas. Debbie, you want to say some words?

For 100 years, the local council has served a lot of youth. And in 2025, we've served over nearly 1,000 youth in San Angelo and our 24 counties. And we had a great celebration. And many of y'all in the room were there just a few weeks ago. And we're having a lot of fun for our 100th anniversary. Look pretty young for our age. But we're lots of fun, and thank you for having us. Appreciate it.

Larry Miller, anyone here with the Memorial Day proclamation, please come up to the front. For more than two centuries, Americans have been called on to defend the founding ideals of our freedom and democracy. This Memorial Day, a grateful nation once again remembers the proud patriots that made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty's blessings. From the opening days of the American Revolution to the turmoil of the Civil War, World War I and World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the Southwest Asian War to today's Operation Epic Fury, and throughout the world, our women and men of the American military have built a tradition of honorable and faithful service. As we observe Memorial Day this May 25th, we remember the more than 1 million Americans who have died to preserve our freedoms, the more than 140,000 citizens who have been held as prisoners of war, and all of those who have been declared and remain missing in action to this day. Even today, all who wear the uniform of the United States of America are serving at a critical time in history. and each has answered the call to serve our great nation on the front lines of freedom. On this Memorial Day, we honor all of our fallen soldiers, their commitment to our country, and the legacy of patriotism and sacrifice. In giving their lives in the cause of freedom, these heroes have protected and inspired all Americans. In respect of their devotion to the United States of America, Congress, by joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for lasting world peace. Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3 p.m. on that day as a time for all Americans to observe National Moment of Remembrance. Therefore, I, Tom Thompson, the Mayor of the City of San Angelo, Texas, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim May 25, 2026, as Memorial Day. In San Angelo, I also ask that all San Angelo citizens observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time on Memorial Day, in a tribute to our valiant fallen heroes. JJ, Larry, somebody going to? JJ. JJ. JJ has it. Awesome.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. As Mayor Thompson has pointed out, over one million heroes have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms and liberty that our country enjoys today. This long line of the most valiant begins with those brave Minutemen that died fighting in defiance to the British Redcoats at the Battle of Lexington. and unfortunately continues on just a few weeks ago with the death of Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt and her fellow KC-135 crew members that perished during Operation Epic Fury. Our wish this Memorial Day is that you and your family members certainly enjoy this National Day of Remembrance to the very fullest. But at least take a few moments, hopefully around 3 o'clock, to think about and maybe say a prayer or two for our fallen heroes. Maybe a family member or even one of our hometown heroes from here in San Angelo, like Oscar Juarez and Charles Krim, who lost their lives in Vietnam. Or for Walter Irwin and James Martin, two Navy crew members, both from San Angelo, whose mortal remains are today and forever entombed on the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor. or pay a visit to Belvedere's Cemetery and view the hundreds of tiny flags adorning the gravestones of our finest from every one of our wars since World War I. I'd like to end this piece by slightly rewriting a famous quote from General George Patton. Let us mourn the brave women and men who died, but let us also thank God Almighty that such heroes lived. Thank you very much.

Alright, you're good with it. Absolutely.

Mr. Weiss. Oh, he's not liking it at all. I can tell it. Well, absolutely.

You want to hang out here with us for just a moment?

In 2026, the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of its founding, marking a historic milestone in our nation's history in celebrating the enduring principles of democracy and public service. Organizations including the American Planning Association, National League of Cities, Government Finance Officers Association, National Association of Counties, International City County Management Association, and National Association of Regional Councils have joined together in commemorating this historic milestone by celebrating the vital role of local government and the individuals who serve their communities. As part of the America 250 celebration, Local Gov 250 and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Government Champions 250 initiative to recognize outstanding public servants from across the nation whose dedication, innovation, and leadership exemplify the spirit of democracy at the doorstep. In recognition of his exemplary service, steadfast leadership, and meaningful contributions to local government and the community of San Angelo, Rick Weiss has been named one of the nation's 250 government champions. Rick Weiss's commitment to public service reflects the highest ideals of professionalism, civic responsibility, and dedication to improving the quality of life for the citizens of San Angelo. Now, therefore, I, Tom Thompson, the mayor of the city of San Angelo, on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize Rick Weiss as a 250 government champion for his dedication, leadership, and commitment to the city of San Angelo and its citizens. But that's not all. Daniel is going to talk a little bit about the merits of what gets this to Rick.

I've had the honor of working with Rick now going on 14 years. And I want to share a quick story with you. We do the budget every year. We walk in, and the budget group is there, and they have the folders laid out for all of us. And the folder for Rick always reads, Quality of Life Rick. That's what Rick does. He's so focused. We know that he's going to go into every budget. He's going to fight for any project and every project that he feels that it's really going to improve the quality of life for our organization. This is who he is. You can see a lot of what he's done in our community around us. I want to read this as well. This is what was submitted. This is a summary of the things that Rick has done. It reads, It is with great pleasure that we submit a proposal nominating Rick Wise for recognition as a 250 government champion. We believe that Rick is deserving of one of the best choices as a government champion 250 through his illustrious 31-year career in local government, he has demonstrated a commitment to public service and tireless contributions in preserving and enhancing city assets for economic development and cultural enjoyment. Rick's expertise in planning and visionary skills contributed to reviving the Concho River, a once dying and collapsing river winding through downtown and the heart of the city, into a vibrant 10 miles of river frontage that features many plazas, public art displays, and water features. The river revitalization garnered the Concho River a designation as a great place in Texas. and was one of the five great public spaces in the nation designated by the American Planning Association. Rick's passion for culture is exemplified in the $16 million renovation of the 1920s City Auditorium into its once upon a time ornate grandeur. His determination and drive to revitalize the city's downtown area resulted in bringing live to an ailing Main Street and making Chadburn Street the artistic epicenter and helped earn San Angelo designation as a visual arts capital of Texas. Above all and with honor, we nominate Rick for his humility, leadership, and fairness. He's made a lasting positive change for the community and for the thousands of people who frequent these places every year. And Rick, Rick is a true public hero. He stands here. I guarantee he's hating this right now because he never wants that recognition. That's his humility, though. I can tell you, though, with ICMA, International City Manager Association, there's over 13,000 member groups. And the mayor read some of them a while ago. Over 13,000 member groups. And you multiply that by how many individuals are in those member groups. It's an absolute honor that Rick was recognized as one of the top 250 members from all of those organizations. So Rick, congratulations. Buddy, this is so well deserved, sir.

I'm without words, but thank you for the recognition. But I do have a few words. And really, that is that this is not for me. I have been blessed to work with amazing people throughout this city, specifically the ones closest, Sandra and Carl and Al. and Aaron and Bob, but all of the volunteers and people who work for this city are amazing. San Angelo is above and beyond be the best place in the world to work and be best people. It's not only city employees. You hear that about the citizens all the time. So thank you. It's the people that make this place, not me. Thank you for allowing me to work with you. Appreciate it. Thanks.

Congratulations. Don't forget your proclamation here, Mr. White. At 1109, we'll move into public comment. Members of the public may raise issues or concerns not listed on the regular agenda during this time. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order they signed in. When speaking, citizens must speak from the podium, address all comments to the dais, begin by stating your name and address or single member district number, and limit your remarks to three minutes or less. Heather, first public comment.

Steve Elenius. Yes.

Mayor, Councilmember Steve Elanious, President and CEO of the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce, 418 West Avenue B. I want to commend you guys as leaders in terms of how you've been dealing with the data center issue. I think it's not been easy, but I think you've leaned into the hard conversations around water and sound, which I want to commend you for, because some folks want to avoid those conversations, and you see that happening in a lot of communities throughout Texas. And so I think you're doing a fantastic job in terms of addressing that. The other thing is I've been doing this for quite a while. I've done a lot of deals where I've seen the wheels come off and the wheels go back on and the wheels come off on the deals. I will tell you this deal isn't done. There are factors that are driving decisions that are going to be beyond San Angelo's control. the finance markets, the customer service base in terms of what's looking at this, the regulatory environment is changing as we speak. And so there are going to be decisions made that are going to be made outside of anything that you can do. So I want to commend you for trying to find that path forward on this issue. The second thing I want to mention is the city only has two revenue, basic two revenue sources. That's property taxes and sales taxes. And currently, San Angel has one of the highest property tax rates in the state of Texas at 79.5 cents. And that is a challenge for the taxpayers, the local taxpayers in this community. Residents pay 68% of that tax burden. And that is a tremendous burden that's placed on local taxpayers. My banker friends remind me that I don't have a revenue problem, I don't have an expense problem, I have a revenue problem. And I think the city is kind of faced with that same challenge. The city, and I want to commend the city staff and you as elected officials because you've done a fantastic job of trying to be as efficient as you can with the property tax money that you receive in making the city successful. But unfortunately, I think we're coming to that tipping point when we are going to have to have serious conversations about cuts and services. The only way that that can be offset is if we get new investment in San Angelo. And if you notice, I'm not talking about increase in value assessment on taxes, but new investment coming into the community. If we can do that as policymakers, you will have the opportunity to return tax money back to the taxpayers and put it in the taxpayers' pocket. That's a great success story as elected officials. We just honored Rick Wise. We're fortunate to have great city employees, fire and police. These folks have sacrificed to serve our community, to protect and serve. They did not take a vow of poverty. So thank you very much. Thank you, Steve.

Shana Hill.

Shana Hill, Keep St. Angelo Beautiful Coordinator, 301 West Beauregard. Good morning, Mayor, City Manager, and Council Members. I wanted to take a moment to share some exciting updates regarding Keep St. Angelo Beautiful and our community engagement efforts. First, I'm proud to report that our April Action Day was a tremendous success. We had 262 volunteers come together from across our community to help clean and beautify St. Angelo. Thanks to their hard work and dedication, we removed nearly a half a ton of litter from our streets, parks, and public spaces in just a couple of hours. Events like this continue to show the pride our residents have in the community and what we can accomplish when people come together for a common purpose. We are incredibly grateful to all the volunteers and partners who helped make the event possible. i also want to make everyone aware of our upcoming household hazardous waste event taking place on saturday june 13th at 8 a.m at the coliseum this event gives residents of tom green county an opportunity to responsibly dispose of items that should never end up in our landfill waterways or neighborhoods Accepted materials will include household hazardous waste, e-waste, document shredding, used oil and automotive fluids, plastic bags, and we will also be offering proper retirement of both U.S. and Texas flags. This event is an important service for our community because it helps protect public health, keeps harmful materials out of our environment, and provides residents with a safe and convenient disposal option. We encourage everyone to help spread the word and participate. Together, we can continue making San Angelo a cleaner, safer, and more beautiful place to live. Thank you for your continued support.

Thank you, Shannon.

Thank you. Allie Devereaux.

Good afternoon. I feel like the writing should be on the wall at this point. It seems the majority of people really do not want data center development in San Angelo. No matter what the financial gain might be, and I'm not going to speak about technicalities today. I'm growing weary of talking about setbacks or what Skybox is going to do to try to mitigate the noise pollution, the light pollution, the air pollution, the water pollution, the chaos. We all know that Regulations and standards have been rolled back across the board at the federal level to fast track AI development. And I don't know how you've been convinced that these aren't issues while the evidence is crystal clear all around you. But the reasons that many people don't want this actually go deeper than these technicalities. Technocracy involves a framework to replace the market economy with a system of centralized resource allocation. It dissolves private property rights, it advocates for the collective management of all resources, and it envisions the distribution of goods and services through centralized planning and state-subsidized monopolies. The technocracy is not building data centers so that we can do social media or store our pictures. Genetic engineering, information technology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and cognitive science are all converging to supply the tools and methods for managing human populations. Are you familiar with the term bio-digital convergence? I think you might want to look into that. Technocracy implements social control through comprehensive data collection, algorithmic decision-making, biometric tracking, and universal surveillance, forming the infrastructure for enforcing compliance, influencing social behavior, and engineering consent. What is driving this agenda is a secular religion centered on technology. It is a belief system that demands adherence to an authority of experts and compliance with technical prescriptions and minimizes all other sources of meaning, whether that's philosophy, faith, truth, art, nature, or liberty, while elevating the pursuit of progress as the highest good. And with the rate that this agenda is unfolding across the country, San Angelo would be vastly more positioned as a desirable destination and place to live if it made the bold move to not build any data centers. Consider the benefits that would arise from making our community a haven and a refuge from this insanity that is invading every corner of our state. Vote no for data centers, and you will become heroes. Vote yes, and I think you're going to regret it. for possibly the rest of your lives. Thank you.

Karen McGinnis.

Ladies and gentlemen, My name is Karen McGinnis. I live at 5225 Oak Grove Boulevard. I have to begin by apologizing to pigs and pig farmers everywhere. I love bacon, sausage, ham, ribs, and if you've heard me speak before, you know why I say that. I'm not going to belabor The legitimate issues that I believe have been raised in this chamber many times concerning data centers, noise pollution, air pollution, the use of water, the lack of really the infrastructure in our city to support those. Today I want to talk about perception. You know, when you look out at this crowd of people, I'm not sure what you see. I know from experience that people who come from California, actually people who come, fellow Texans who come from Dallas and Houston, they don't see Armani suits, and they don't see designer dresses, and they certainly don't see men who have $100 haircuts. That isn't to say that our residents can't afford that. Many of them can. It's just not who we are. We don't dress like them. We don't talk like them. We don't think like them. And so their perception of us is often that we're just a bunch of local yokels. And so what I would say to that is you don't survive and thrive in West Texas without some smarts. Now, your constituents have raised some legitimate, pointed, pertinent questions about these data centers. And we have yet, in my opinion, to get even one straightforward, definitive answer. From our perspective, you're the people who should have been asking these questions in the first place, and they should have been answered before these folks got their toe in the door. This is a $16 billion project, which has been in the works since 2024. So from our perspective, We're wondering when you took your oath of office and said you were going to look out for our best interest, did you mean it? Or is it your best interest? Sorry, I wasn't able to finish my comments, but I thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Heather?

Anna Bartosh?

Good morning, Council, Mayor. Anna Bartosz, single member District 1. Again, first time I've actually talked on the data center because I didn't know what I thought about them. But since then, I've done a little bit of thinking and listening to everybody else speak. Yes, there's so many things. I think they're more appropriately called surveillance centers, not data centers, so there's that. Then, of course, the water. And one thing I'm really concerned about, I know that the President has come out and said that they should have their generator, but will they? The recent storm of Erie, I think, where we experienced a lot of blackouts, our electrical grid is not up to snuff. The Texas grid is not, nor is the U.S. grid. And so what kind of demands is this going to be putting on our electrical grid? Are we going to be seeing blackouts again? And then also water, we're always on the edge of a drought here, so there's that. And then the associated battery centers that are going to be coming in with them. These are lithium batteries. How do you put out, if there's a fire there, how do you put it out? I mean, I don't know. You guys may have electrical cars. I don't want to park by one in case they catch on fire because there's no way to put it out. So think about the associated battery centers that are coming in with these surveillance centers. If there's a fire there, what kind of... what's going to happen with that? And will the insurance companies then insure homes that are close to these battery centers? If there's a school nearby, will the insurance company insure that? There are things that need to be thought about prior to saying, yes, come on in, we're welcoming you. And I don't know what the city of San Angelo is getting out of the centers that are coming. What's in it for us? I know it's a lot outgo for us, but what's in it for us? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Anna. Next.

China Young.

Hello, Mayor and Council, China Young member, resident of SMD4. So I've provided you all with a folder containing materials related to the proposed data center developments, including a draft moratorium ordinance for your consideration. I ask that you review it carefully and consider placing it on your June 2nd agenda. If the council believes that revisions are needed before adopting it, then I request a fully transparent public workshop that includes council, city staff, and citizen volunteers selected through an open process, not individuals chosen based on their proximity to industries or transactions that could benefit from these projects. Also included in your folders are petition signatures collected by the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition both online and in person from residents and extended community members supporting a moratorium on these projects. I removed signatures from outside of an 80 mile radius even though many came from communities like Midland and Big Spring that share regional water interests with us. But even with those removed, this represents substantial public support for pausing data center and battery storage development until the long-term impacts are fully understood. Over the past several weeks, these conversations have expanded far beyond San Angelo. Communities across Texas and across the country are now confronting these same concerns involving water use, infrastructure strain, and long-term economic risk. And infrastructure isn't just essential utilities, it also includes police department resources needed to address a massive influx of workers that we anticipate during the construction period. It also includes fire department response capabilities in the event of a fire emergency that could result in a mass evacuation without appropriate planning in place. Citizens all over the U.S. are organizing because they believe local governments are moving too quickly on these projects with consequences that could last for decades. What's becoming increasingly evident is that this is another economic bubble that is destined to burst. This industry is moving at a pace that regulators and even material suppliers are struggling to keep up with. I personally believe we are witnessing the beginning of this burst in real time. And this is exactly why a pause is a reasonable and necessary act. A moratorium provides time to evaluate risks, ensure the community is protected before irreversible decisions are made. And in fact, the Texas Department of Agriculture publicly called for a statewide moratorium just yesterday. This council inherited a serious lack of trust between local government and the public. You have the opportunity to change that. For the future of San Angelo and the generations to come, choose caution, choose transparency, choose community collaboration over commitments that cannot be undone. Thank you. Thank you, Janet.

Number seven, Jaton Giese.

Hello. District 5. I know y'all talked about zoning not relating to our water, but I hope that everyone will come to their senses on the subject of water. We've talked about many valid issues and details this morning, our planning. It seemed to be for the betterment of the citizens. We recognize Mr. Weiss for his efforts, quality of life. Y'all are supposed to be looking out for our city. Please explain how our city is going to be the exception to the rule, how your citizens' water and electric bills aren't going to increase, how we are going to have enough water. We are already seeding in surrounding areas to get more rain. How the used water is going to come clean. Show us a Texas city that is happy with having a data center and hasn't had these issues. I think y'all are in, I think, I think y'all think y'all are in control of this. Are y'all prepared for the legal battles, the expense, the time when things don't go as planned? How are you going to pay for the legal battles? Do we have an environmental attorney or experts on staff? How about the legal staff that it'll take to collect the tax, the tax landfall that you believe is going to happen? As soon as the value is placed on the data center, you know they will dispute it, right? It's part of their plan. How is San Angelo going to be the exception? The water is very important, yep, and it's not my biggest concern. How can we say with a straight face that we are not playing the role of a sellout by building these data centers and installing block cameras for the constant monitoring of our lives? Do items K and L on the agenda require camera installations or pay for cameras with those grants? It's not the government or any third party's business as to what we're doing every single second of our lives. I've heard it's to keep up with China. Have you seen how few they have in comparison to us? There's no way we need this many data centers in every town. We're being lied to again. I urge you all to pass on contributing to this system of control. Thank you.

Thank you, J'Ton.

Yes.

I said thank you.

And Zane Willard.

Good morning. Can you hear me? There you go. Good morning, Marion City Council. My name is Zane Willard, and I am here to support the approval of the data center project because I believe this is one of the most important economic opportunities San Angelo has seen in decades. Thank you all for your all's openness. Thank you all for the amount of commentary people have had to had to put up out here. This project is not just about one company or one piece of land. It's about strengthening the financial security future of our entire community. A project of this size brings construction jobs, long-term technical, maintenance, operation, and support jobs after completion for decades to come. It creates work for local contractors, suppliers, restaurants, hotels, electricians, plumbers, concrete crews, service companies, and small businesses throughout our entire city. But beyond jobs, the biggest impact is our tax base. St. Angelo has major institutions that provide tremendous value to our community but do not fully contribute to the tax base. Projects like this help balance that reality by bringing in significant taxable investment that can support our city services, infrastructure, police, fire departments, city staff, roads, parks, and future growth. A stronger tax base also helps support our schools, which is important to our community. When a community grows responsibly with major private investment, it creates more long-term financial stability and opportunity for future generations. This is the kind of project that gives a city momentum. It sends a message that San Angelo is open for business, competitive, forward-thinking, and willing to invest in its future instead of standing still while other cities grow around us. No project is perfect. Questions should absolutely be asked. but opportunities of this scale do not come around often. I believe this project positions St. Angelus for stronger finances, better services, more opportunities, and long-term stability for our community. Thank you all for your service, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Zane.

That concludes public comment.

All right. With that, we will wrap up public comment. We will move into the consent agenda. With that, I'll start with you this time, Mr. Hebert. Nothing to pull. Nothing to pull. Harry?

Nothing to pull.

Patrick? Item G. Okay. Patrick has pulled G. Karen?

Item B.

Item B. Okay. B is in Bravo.

B is in Bravo.

Mary?

No, sir.

All right. So we'll look to.

And item 5N.

5N. That's right. You told me to pull that one. Yeah, we got to pull in. All right, so we'll look to approve all items except B, G, and item N. I'll look for a motion. I have a first from Harry. I have a second from Tommy Hebert. Any public comment on the remaining items excluding B, G, and N? With no public comment, we'll look for a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? All consent items except B, G, and N are approved 6-0. With that, we'll move into item B. Consider granting a 2.967-acre supplement easement and right-of-way to AEP Texas for the Red Creek Transmission Project and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Sarah, you're on.

Good morning.

Hi, I'm Zeph Mendoza, interim city engineer. To speak on this, me and Sarah have been working on this item with AEP.

And does this agenda item have any bearing whatsoever on the proposed data center development?

Right now, this is solely the purpose of working with an easement of their existing utility infrastructure that they have there that's crossing across our property that the city owns.

So that's a no or a yes?

That's the information that we have.

We have no other information past that. This does not. This is a transmission line that's in South San Angelo over the South Concho River. And so it's existing infrastructure that's already there. They're bringing in new infrastructure for new poles, things like that. And this is on the transmission side, not the distribution side. This is, again, this has nothing to do with the Red Creek substation that is up on the northeast sector.

Thank you, Mike. Maintenance and upgrades.

Upgrades. They're upgrading their poles and their lines. Correct.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.

Any other questions? With that, I'll look for a motion. Karen?

Motion to approve item B. I have a first from Karen.

Second from Mary Coffey. Any public comment on item B? Heather? Heather, any public comment will be all right with all that. Done, I'll look, take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes 6-0. We'll move down to item G, consider awarding WU-06-26, excuse me, caustic soda to PVSDX chemicals for one year with four one-year extensions and authorizing city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Danielle, you're on. I think Patrick.

Good morning, Mayor, Council, Danielle Ricks, Assistant Director of Water Utilities. Thank you for pulling this item. We certainly understand your concerns about the different bids that came in. We think that if we go back out to bid with maybe some tweaks to those specs, we could get that more competitive bid. So if you all want to go ahead and just reject the bids, we can go back out and do that.

Perfect. Yeah, that was the impression I was, is that we have the time. Let's go back. So I move that we reject the bid.

All right, so let's see if there's any other questions. What would you tweak on this? We deal with it. Patrick, it's a good pull. I mean, we deal with this nearly every year.

Yeah, we could either extend that day allowance for the delivery, or we could award it to multiple vendors. That way we have that flexibility that if someone can't deliver in time, we can go with the other one. So we'll discuss internally and figure out which one maybe works best.

Awesome. I needed to understand. All right. Patrick, your motion.

Mayor, just because of the way we phrased this, consider awarding. Yeah. You'll notice that E and F, we have it worded of rejecting the bids. I wonder if we ought to bring this back next time as rejecting all bids to make that clear and give proper notice for it, and then we can re-bid it out. You just want to move the table? Yeah. I think that would be better. Do we have time for that? Yeah. Okay.

All right. So I have a motion to table from Patrick. Can I get a second? Got a second from Karen. Any public comment? With none on that, the motion to table item G. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item G is tabled, 6-0. Now we're going to move and pull item N. Consider approving various board nominations, design and historic commission, Susan Mertz, mayor, to an unexpired term ending September 2027. Public Arts Commission, UKOU. I'm going to go ahead and read all of it, or do you just want me to read that whole thing? That's fine. Go ahead. In SMD 2 to a first full term ending April 2028, Laura Huckabee SMD 3 to a first term ending April 2028, Park Commission Eva Horton at large to an unexpired term ending January 2027. Heather, I believe you have a notification on Ms. Merckx.

Yes, so at this time, Ms. Mertz needs to pull her application. She found a conflict in her personal schedule, so she will not be able to serve on DHRC at this time, so it will only be approving the Public Art Commission and Park Commission nominations here.

Right. Any questions from counsel?

No questions, but I would like to say I think this was a really great idea to move this to consent instead of at the end of the meeting. Don't say that.

Because that was my idea. Don't let that out.

I know. Good idea. Thank you.

Anyway, so we'll move to I'll make a motion to approve item N except remove Susan Mertz nomination. Can I get a second? Second. I have a first and a second. Any public comment?

None.

With no public comment, we'll look for a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item N passes 6-0. We'll move into the regular agenda. Comments regarding items on the regular agenda may be made by the public when each item is discussed as outlined above. To participate, please sign in with the city clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. Speakers will be called on in the order they are signed in. Comments are limited to less than three minutes. Applicants, proponents, and appellants are exempt from the time limit above and instead must limit their remarks to less than five minutes. Item A, consider approving TIPS contract 23010402 in the amount of $428,304.72 with CC3 Construction Consultants of Abilene, Texas for the repair and replacement of two hangar roofs with funding sourced from the airport fund balance and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute all related documents. Presentation made by Airport Director Justin Fletcher.

Good morning, Mayor, Council. Justin Fletcher, airport director. This agenda item is the repair of two hangar roofs out at the airport, specifically the South Skyline Hangar and also Rangers Paint Hangar. Both facilities are in critical need of attention. Every time we get severe weather that comes through the airport, we get significant water damage to the point where it's affecting the productivity of our tenants. And if you dig into the lease agreements, the airport has an obligation to maintain the structure of the facility, namely the roof. So that's our obligation to maintain. So we solicited three bids from three different contractors. CC3 Construction submitted a proposal for the repair of both facilities. $428,304.72. So we're going to fund this through airport operating funds and allocating $149,899 from airport fund balance. That will keep our fund balance well above the 90-day threshold. after this project is completed. So airport staff would recommend that the council approves TIPS contract 23010402 with CC3 construction in the amount of $428,304.72. All right.

We'll open this up to the dice. Tommy, any questions?

No questions.

Harry? I move. Well, let's let everybody else. Anybody else got any questions? No questions. Patrick?

Justin, on house roofs, right, you have insurance, and then if it's damaged, you go to that. Do we just self-insure these? What's the kind of process with that?

This is part of the city's self-insurance. Perfect.

Thank you. With that, since the airport, I'll make a motion. Can I get a second?

I second.

Thank you. I have a second for Patrick. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? No. With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All of those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes 6-0. Thank you. Thank you, Fletcher. Moving to item B, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for ROW 26-01, a request to abandon a portion of Waco Street, South Block 55 Hatcher Edition and front lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 being 0.182 acres. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director, Aaron Benoit.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Aaron Vannoy, Director of Planning and Development Services. Thank you again, Council and Mr. Valenzuela. We do have – this property is going to look fairly familiar to you. We can see it right up here along what would be Waco Street if it was built out. We did a rezoning for that area to Neighborhood Commercial a few months back. The collective area that we're abandoning is this area right in here. And you'll see that on a slide in just a moment. But it is on the extension of Waco Street. It is in District 2, Mr. Joseph and in the Bluffs neighborhood. We did send out our required notices to the area that we would be abandoning this area to see if we got any comments back on it. We have not received any for or against at this time. This is the area about almost 8,000 square feet. Their plan is to come back and replant that into one lot and create a commercial lot there, a retail store that will be there. This did go in front of the Planning Commission in April. They did approve with a 6-0 vote. Staff recommend approval, and we have our three standard comments for when we abandon right-of-way, that they absorb the property with a replat, they pay the assessment fees, and then they record the quick claim deed at the county. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Let's start out. Tommy, Harry, Patrick. Karen? Well, that one seems pretty cut and dry there. I'll look for a motion. So moved. I have a first from Harry. Second. I have a second from Tommy Hebert. Any public comment on item B? No. With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? With no nays, item B passes 6-0. And I am missing a page, so we'll go to C. Item C, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for ROW 26-02, a request to abandon 48,423 square feet of right-of-way, being 18th Street bypass between 18th and North Post Street. Presentation made by Planning and Services Director Aaron Benoit.

Yes, thank you again. So this is coming from the Baptist Memorial Center that's here just to the south of this right-of-way that you can see was created as what we call the 18th Street Bypass. 18th Street is right there. This is Post Street, and we bypassed it at some point in the history back there. What we have determined with working with engineering operations and with Baptist Memorial is that that street and functionality there is really not needed. It's really not pertinent to us and for us to continue to maintain it is not in the best interest of the city. We did look at infrastructure and other things. This really kind of came to us as they were replatting this area and how do we improve some things on Poe Street and trying to give them some better options for drainage. And there's a culvert right in that area to help some things out as well. stormwater moves to the south and to the east, trying to get to the East Angelo Draw. This is in the Pawland area, District Number 4, Mr. Patrick Keeley. It's just right at 1.1 acres, and it is just a request to abandon that street. We did send out our notices. We did have two of the properties to the north that opposed. They were unsure of what was going on after we have discussed it with them as well as Baptist has discussed with them. They have the opportunity to buy their incremental half of that right-of-way if they choose to. They've also talked with Baptist Memorial about getting access through there with an access easement if necessary. They do actually have access to Post Street and to 18th, so it's not like they're losing access, driveway access. They do have that availability. This is just a closer shot. You can kind of see there. They do have driveway there. They're actually working on doing a driveway there. This property here, which actually kind of lives in that area right there, their parking is back here and they have landscaping in this area. So there's not a natural spot right now for a driveway unless they tore up some of their landscaping. That's kind of a decision, but there is the opportunity that they might be able to do a driveway there that connects back in this area here. You can see here on this image, you can just barely see that there's that dotted line that kind of goes right up to the pavement area, and then a perpendicular line to that right there. And so these three pieces, so they would have the opportunity to purchase those, and they would have the opportunity, if these northern pieces do not happen to be bought within the 12-month period, or there's a negotiation with Baptist Memorial with those property owners, they can actually retain those pieces at that time and work through the access easement. This did go in front of our planning commission in April. They did recommend an approval of 6-0, and staff also recommends approval, and we have our three standard conditions on there. The one condition that you will see here that's slightly different is number two. We normally give a 12-month period. In this case, since we do have some independent property owners, We want to make sure that they have enough time to come back and actually replat if that takes that full 12 months to negotiate any kind of access easements or something like that with the properties to the north. Cool. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Patrick, you're SMD, so I'll let you tee this up.

So us abandoning it, they'll have their opportunity to buy it. If they don't, it reverts back to Baptist Memorial? Yes, sir. Do we know what their plan is with it?

Their plan is to purchase that and then replant these properties along here so they've got a little more space back there. That's going to allow them to help clean up this 18th Street with a curb and gutter and help channelize some of that drainage to come down and around. and with their replat, improved portions of Poe in this southern area. That's a better design and better flow of traffic and stormwater for this area than what we have today.

As far as I go, yeah, to me, I've driven it many times. It's not heavily used. There's a couple in that area. You can see the other ones there. So I like the changes y'all made to allow the homeowners to try to get the opportunity to get them back if they can, give them that opportunity. So I'm good with it. Thank you.

Any further questions from the council? All that, Patrick, I'll look for a motion. Patrick has a first. I got a second from Karen Hesse-Smith. Any public comment? With no public comment, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of item C say aye. Any opposed? With no opposed, item C passes 6-0. Moving to item D, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance for Z26-04 request for a zone change from General Heavy Commercial Zoning District to General Commercial Zoning District located at 1212 North Chadburn Street. Presentation made by Planning and Development Services Director Aaron Benoit.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a proposal that's coming to us due to the tiers policies. When you have this CGCH zoning, the tiers policy says you need to pick one to move forward, so they're moving forward with the general commercial. This is in the Reagan neighborhood. It's a small parcel here right at .23 acres in District 3, Mr. Harry Thomas, and they are going from general commercial, heavy commercial, to just simply the general commercial zoning district. You can see here, this is Neighborhood Center. You have heavier commercial here just to the south, but we do have the Neighborhood Center there, and that's mainly because the neighborhood back to the east, you see where that RS-2 kind of comes in there. They actually do own those two lots there, but they're not rezoning them at this time. They are just doing the rezoning on these two lots. They look to do a restaurant or an eating establishment. They may have some indoor-outdoor stuff there going on, and so They're looking also to the tiers board coming up in the future for funding for some renovation and some expansion of the structures on that property. We did send out our notices for both of those lots. We have not received anything in favor or against at this time. This is one of the structures that they plan on keeping. You notice the other structure over here was demolished over the last few years, but they would really like to bring that property back to life. They've got good driveway access already, and so we'd like to see some revitalization there if we can. With that, this is go to the Planning Commission on April the 20th. Their recommendation is approval with a 6-0 vote, and city staff does recommend approval from CGCH to the General Commercial Zoning District. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Harry, this is Middle York District.

It is, and I think this is a great improvement of what they're planning on doing this. You know, we're just changing the zoning so that we can, they can attract some tiers money, so... Move to approve.

Let's see if there's any other questions on the council.

I got a first from Harry Thomas. I have a second from Patrick Keeley. Is there any public comment, Heather? With no public comment, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item D passes 6-0. Now let's move to item E, second reading of ordinances to adopt land use regulations for data centers through a conditional use process within the light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing zoning districts by amending chapter 12, planning and development, exhibit A, zoning ordinance as follows. One, amendments article three, use regulations section 313 use table, and two, amending article four, specific use standards created by a new section 430 data centers presentation made by planning and services development director, Aaron Benoit.

Thank you again, Mayor. I just want to remind everyone, and the mayor read it, this is our second reading and second public hearing on this. So it's not a full presentation. I brought back the suggestions, the changes that was recommended by council at the last council meeting. This is just kind of the recap that we're going to a conditional use process for those properties that are currently light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing. We are adopting definitions and design guidelines that impact noise, site plan, things like that. We are adding a Section 430 that is design-specific for data centers, amending Section 313, which is our use table, to add the letter A for... Or for... Excuse me, adding the letter C for conditional use in light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing, and adopting the... THE LANDSCAPE SPECIES RECOMMENDATIONS. SO HERE WE HAVE A PROPOSED SITE POTENTIALLY SHOWING A 300-FOOT SEPARATION. THIS IS AGAIN THAT ZOOMED OUT LOOK. WE SHOWED 200-FOOT LAST TIME BUT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY COUNCIL WAS TO GO TO 300-FOOT. We actually then zoomed in and let me back up one. This is right here on this spot right there. You can see the dirt road that comes in. There's a residence right there so we thought that would be a good spot to zoom in. This is what a 300 foot separation looks like from that property line. Now we also then compared that to a 500 foot. And so that's 200 foot additional because that was a question at the time. Right now the city staff and city council said let's do 300 feet, which is right there. 300 feet is, you know, end zone to end zone on a football field. 500 feet would add those end zones and then some. So 300 feet buffer between there. Fencing, one of the questions was about fencing, about requiring opaque fencing. And so we put in the fencing section so that it was very clear to any developer or prospect that was coming through that opaque fencing is required where adjacent to property is an RS type zoning district or an RM1 zoning district. or a plan development with the RS districts or the RM1 base zoning districts. So it covers all of those. If I recall the conversation correctly, we were not as concerned about ranch and estate, so R&E, or RM2. It was these zoning districts. And so that's what we put in there. That's the direct quote from the ordinance for the fencing. Noise, we did have that discussion about noise all the way from the standard noise, the loud noises to that low frequency, that constant kind of hum or what I call the bass drums that you kind of hear or the diesel engine that's just kind of a constant type of noise to bring that all down to the 55 decibels. So that is what we have in our ordinance today is to recommend the 55 decibels. And then we talked about rainwater and stormwater. In the zoning ordinance, we're dealing with the rainwater and stormwater. We're going to allow our utilities ordinance to deal with graywater the proper way that they deal with that. And so we are requiring to reduce the potable water uses, that they shall incorporate rainwater or stormwater collection systems. They capture the water and may be used to satisfy some or all landscape irrigation needs and must be isolated from the potable water system. It means that there's no cross connections with the potable water sections. Again, all systems need to meet the building codes, plumbing codes, and any other environmental regulations and utility standards for those systems that they would put for rainwater and stormwater capture. With that, the city staff does have the recommendations with those updates to adopt the ordinance changes to Section 430, amending Section 313, as well as adopting Appendix A. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

So, Aaron, this is a second reading and taking into three things we did not move forward and we addressed all three, correct?

I believe that is correct.

Okay. With that, I'll open it up to the highest. Any questions? We'll start over here. Tommy? None, sir. Harry? No.

Patrick? Now that we've added RM1L, do we need to have that in here, RM1, RM1L? No.

We will make that amendment just to be sure. But yes, we can make that amendment. And I would just make that if you happen to make the motion that we add that RM1L for the fencing section for sure, or any section that deals with residential, in my opinion.

I will say, and I know I've talked to the staff a little bit about it, I did go look at actual data centers with 300 feet setbacks. I'm glad we went 300. I thought it was a really good number. The residents I talked to that live close, they did not have any gripes about that. There were plenty of other gripes, but it was not about that, the setback, the view, any of that. They didn't say anything about that. It was construction and other things. So I think 300 was a great number to stay with. The decibels, the ones I went around, if I could hear anything from it, it was over 55. It was right around the 59 to 61 mark. So I think 55 was a great number to go down to as well. So I applaud all of us and y'all for getting those on there. From what I've physically seen myself, those are – livable numbers from all around from what I've seen and the people that I talk to that live close to them. So good job on that. Thank you. Karen?

Three questions. I think at the last meeting, there were mention was made of the possibility of hiring third-party on-site inspectors and bill back to a potential developer so that we have the highest qualifications on-site to answer citizens' concerns on an ongoing basis as build-out is conducted. Where are we with that?

Are we talking about while the facility is under construction?

Yes, I think yes, because the concern was that we may not have locally available inspectors qualified at that level. Yeah.

We do have provisions in our current ordinances to allow companies to choose third-party inspection that they pay for independently for that. They still would give us those reports on those things. We didn't make it part of the zoning ordinance since it deals more with the site plan stuff. um but on the construction side we certainly have that ability um i think that's a decision we'll have to make in the future of if we see big projects come in how we manage that with all big projects so that we are still making sure that we're satisfying our our needs of the community with inspections and permit review could we consider capping build out

In other words, cap build out by square foot per year to scale progress to a pace that doesn't overwhelm our community. We've heard repeatedly from concerned citizens that it could affect rent prices, it could affect housing prices, it could affect all manner of things that we have to deal with every day that are quality of life issues, congestion, restaurant pricing, escalating crime, and so forth. Just wondering if that might be an option, having, like Patrick, taken a drive to see some other projects underway. They're quite unbelievable in their scale. So is that something that we could consider?

looking at what zoning can actually impact and again we're looking at land use it allows us to do bulk of building number of buildings and things like that it does not really give us the ability to regulate the speed or process of the construction of how many structures you can go at a time that's usually limited by resources of some kind whether that's labor materials subcontractors, so I looked through a number of the ordinances that we looked at all the way from within our state to out of our state this weekend to see if that is something that can be placed in there. I didn't see that in any of the others, so I'm not fully sure I can answer it 100%, but I don't think zoning is the appropriate place for that. I think that might be a different mechanism of how do you Slow the influx or the speed of the construction. How do you do that? Now, we've usually not had big construction projects like this, so it is slowed by those other factors, not by some regulation. And I don't know that Mr. Dyson has had any chance to look at anything like that, so I don't expect him to have any concrete answers either.

Can I ask Shane to explain to the room what he explained to me yesterday, I guess, about there's something already kind of inbuilt every six months, how the development may progress?

Yeah, and a lot of times, as we've talked with these development companies that we've talked to in trying to research and gain as much knowledge about this as we can, Most of their build out is, you know, they'll start one building and then six months later they'll start another one. The Abilene project was a bit different in how their approach was when they took it as they had a different directive, had other different funding sources as well. But most of these projects take a very strategic build out over time. They said just due to the you know, due to the site layout, you know, if we're restricted to 300 acres, we can't build six buildings at once. There's not enough room for the capacity of that. So they have to take a very strategic approach into how they build these. And so they'll start a building, and then six months later they'll start building number two. Maybe. Maybe. And then as building number one is finished, They will they will start on building number three and take it in that that type of a phased approach and most of the time land restrictions is their biggest issue is how they how they build out. Like I said, Everybody we've talked to that Abilene was a different project and a different build. They were trying to build as much of it as fast as they could. As much of it as fast as they could, so it was a little different approach than what the majority of these developers, data center developers, it's a different approach.

I think we're learning from what's happening elsewhere as these ordinances get written. How do our regulations compare statewide?

I feel very confident in saying that we will have the most robust zoning ordinance moving forward for data centers within our state. We are very complimentary to other data center ordinances around the country. I do feel like even the utility ordinances that are coming forward here in the next few items will also be very robust for our part of the world in trying to protect what are items that are important to us in West Texas. So I feel very confident that we have a very robust zoning ordinance moving forward.

Last question, what happens if a project like this is developed to either side of city-owned land but not within the city limits? Are those properties regulated?

They are not regulated by any zoning ordinance. They may be regulated by the EPA and TCEQ on certain things, but they would not be regulated as we are proposing for items that are within the city limits.

Thank you. May I ask a quick question? Sure.

Patrick? Hey, Aaron, real quick. On construction streets they use, things like that, do we have anything that says you can't use this, what do you call them, local street, but you have to use an arterial or collector or things like that? Do we have something like that in place?

We do have that, and our operations department brought that forward a few years ago. They do have those things. Now, as you start getting closer to the county, there's county roads and there's different rules there. Right. More than likely, we'll have to go through the subdivision process, which then that kind of tells us where we need other roads. But, yes, we do have something in place and able to enforce that on how they're utilizing our local streets within the city limits.

Good. I mean, that was one of the residents I talked to. That was their biggest deal is it was a small street. They had to use it first until they got to where they could use the other side of it. Then it was a big highway, and they never noticed anymore. And they actually had a flagger standing at the front of their street that says, nope, that way. Yeah. That was one of their biggest concerns was just coming down their small street. Perfect. Thank you. Ms. Mary?

I just wanted to clarify something. It seems like early on, and Shane, correct me if I'm wrong, but we've said all along that you'd build one building complete, then build a second one, and all, you know, for multiple reasons. Number one, to... not have so many, you know, 5,000 workers every day, you know, flooding in. We're talking 100, 200. So doing that on the six buildings, it is going to take a while. I don't know. The six months might be too much or too less. I mean, we're not restricted by – that was more of an example, correct? Not like every six months?

Correct. That was a typical example of their development process. It can change with their end users and their requirements as well. It can – there's a lot of things that can affect that project schedule as they move along. But again, that's their typical, typically that's how they move along and how they time out their projects as best they can. I would think phase one, from my understanding, looking at this emergent project, as you look at it from phase one, they're talking about a four- to five-year build-out for the initial five to six buildings, and again, it's depending on end users and available electricity and those type things as well. So there's a lot of moving parts in that as to how fast they will build one out.

Sure. Well, and to the... I think everyone, probably the whole world, has learned what not to do. When you look at the enabling, it's just an overwhelming deal. Knowing that we've learned from that and do this not as fast. Like you say, we went over these ordinances yesterday, that thick of them, and that's a very A lot of restrictions, and there's not really any wiggle room on that. This may not be the right time to ask a couple of questions on the infrastructure. Is that off of this ordinance?

I'll let Brandon make the call. Are you talking about the water and wastewater?

No, just getting ready for all the not necessarily equipment, but all the upgrades to that infrastructure to even get it to where they can, that that's not something that we're on the hook or the taxpayers on the hook from.

I mean, it sounds like maybe you're talking about the city deal through the 380 agreement, and that wouldn't be an appropriate topic here, but... Well, I was talking about the electrical more than anything.

Okay. But that's fine. I mean... It all kind of runs together. Where do you stop one topic on this thing and then start the other?

Our subdivision ordinance will, when that is triggered, then we look at how that land is divided, roadways, water, sewer. We have those discussions at that time with the developer. Obviously in the state of Texas, and we don't own the utility of electric here, so that would be a separate discussion with that utility provider.

Yeah, that's whoever in AEP. Yes, ma'am. Okay, well, that helps me on that. Thank you.

So we look like we have moving forward with everything as presented, correct? Patrick, go ahead and make the motion and make sure you get included what you want.

I'll make the motion that we approve with amending RM1 to also have RM1L in that amendment. Can I get a second?

I have a first from Patrick and a second from Harry Thomas. Any public comment, Heather?

Yes, Christine Munsell.

My name is Christine Munsell, and I live in District 2. A large AI data center operates 24-7, producing continuous mechanical noise, vibration, and artificial nighttime lighting. Across the country, residents living near large data centers report chronic low-frequency humming, sleep disruption, headaches, dizziness stress anxiety and vibration that penetrates homes even at night the concern is not occasional disturbance the concern is constant exposure and humans are not the only species affected pets such as dogs and cats hear frequencies humans cannot hear chronic exposure to industrial noise and vibration may contribute to anxiety hyper vigilance disrupted sleep, agitation and altered behavior, and stress-related illnesses. Livestock, wildlife, and native species are also vulnerable. Research already shows that continuous industrial operations, including noise and artificial nighttime lighting, disrupt feeding behavior, reproduction, migration, navigation, predator detection, and natural sleep cycles. Livestock and native wildlife affected in this region include but are not limited to horses, cattle, sheep and goats, chickens and domestic fowl, deer, rabbits, coyotes and foxes, bobcats, raccoons, opossums, bats, frogs, amphibians, native bees, moths and other pollinating insects. As noted, potential impacts may include chronic stress response, disrupted feeding and nighttime behavior, heightened startle reactions, reproductive and behavioral disruptions. Migratory and native bird populations are especially vulnerable to artificial nighttime lighting and continuous industrial noise. Species affected in this region include, but are not limited to, scissor-tailed flycatchers, mockingbirds, painted buntings, hummingbirds, barn swallows, meadowlarks, herons, and egrets, hawks and owls, quail, ducks, and waterfowl connected to the Concho River corridor. Potential impacts on bird populations include disorientation during nighttime migration, altered migration routes, increased collision risk, disrupted nesting, feeding, and communication. Owls and bats are particularly vulnerable because they rely heavily on sound for hunting and navigation. Therefore, before further approving the Skybox Data Center, I am asking the city to declare a moratorium then require wildlife impact studies, nighttime lighting studies, and low frequency studies, noise studies conducted by qualified third parties. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more public comment, Heather?

China Young.

China Young.

Hello again, Mayor and Council, Chyna Young, SMD4 resident. So, I mean, obviously I'm here representing the voices of moratorium. There's obviously a ton of people that are just outright against this development. I, though, want to take a moment to acknowledge the work that has been done on these particular guidelines because I have been very active in helping to create them. I have attended planning commission meetings. I've spoken there. We have sent emails. Many of my data center team coalition members have also been a part of those conversations. And what is being presented right now is very, very much in alignment with where we started. So I just really appreciate that and I want to express my gratitude for that and that this kind of workshopping is kind of what I was alluding to when I bring up the moratorium workshop or other kinds of ways that we might be able to engage citizens and city staff and council and commission members and all of those individuals that are all involved seem to be working kind of in silos and very separated conversations. And we only kind of have this one way discussion that we get to have at these kinds of meetings. So I just, again, appreciate that. And there was something else I was going to say about it. I guess that's it for now. I'm going to be sad that I forgot what the other thing I was going to say.

You'll have plenty more opportunity.

I will take as many as I can. And yeah, thank you very much. Thank you, China.

Any more public comment? All right, we have a first from Patrick, a second from Harry Thomas. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? With no opposed, item E passes 6-0. Move to item F, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance to adopt data center regulations for wastewater discharge in the San Angelo Code of Ordinances by amending Chapter 11 Utilities, Article 1101, Water and Sewer Systems, Division 3, Sewer Service, Part 3, Discharges in the Sewer System, Section 11.02.122, prohibited discharges by adding subsection C, data center discharges, presentation made by Water Director John Kaufman. John, you're on.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, Mr. Valenzuela. Good afternoon. It is afternoon. I'm here to talk about a proposed ordinance concerning a data center wastewater management. If enacted, this ordinance would apply to all future data centers that would be constructed within city limits. Thank you. If enacted, this ordinance would apply to all future data centers that would be constructed within the city limits.

Okay, thank you.

Yes. All discharges of spent cooling water and domestic wastewater under this ordinance must flow through a sewer pipe to the city's wastewater or water reclamation plant for treatment. All wastewater data center discharges will be monitored periodically or as needed for common contaminants we see coming into a water reclamation facility. This is something we normally do. If needed, industrial pretreatment will be required and penalties will be applied as provided in Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances. The discharge of hazardous chemicals will not be allowed. Let me walk you through some of the key items in this particular ordinance. This ordinance defines what a discharge event is, as you see. It defines a planned discharge event. It also defines what an emergency discharge event is. Sampling and laboratory verification of treated discharge must be completed prior to each discharge event. This would be conducted by city staff. Records of discharge volumes, analytical results, and discharge dates must be maintained for at least three years and provided to the director of water utilities upon request. Planned discharge events require written notification to the Director of Water Utilities at least 72 hours prior to discharge. Emergency discharge events must be reported to the Director of Water Utilities within four hours of occurrence. And written incidental report must be submitted within seven days detailing the discharge volume. Analytical results and corrective actions taken. The Director of Water Utilities retains authority to establish discharge flow limits and additional operational requirements as necessary to protect the city's sanitary sewer infrastructure and ensure compliance with applicable industrial pretreatment standards. Cooling fluid discharges must comply with all industrial discharge requirements within Chapter 11 of the Utilities for the San Angelo Code of Ordinances as amended. And I might point out that all city ordinances must comply with EPA and TCEQ guidelines. And with that, I wouldn't entertain any questions that you might have.

John, I'll start us off here. We're strictly talking about the wastewater here.

Yes, sir.

When they discharge, they actually go into a holding tank, correct? And then have to get permission?

I have been told by Skybox that that is their general practice, but if we would need to, we would also require that so that we don't overload the wastewater system with whatever's in the water that we would have to contend with. We don't want to take a slug of it too fast, necessarily. It depends upon how much water and what the chemistry is.

Well, from looking at what you just discussed, you're very restrictive on what they have, notification they have to give to us, and going through there, there was a lot of public comment over the past year, year and a half, talking about wastewater and sewer, and as this developed, I would say we've probably developed some of the most comprehensive discharge protective for the citizens that we have in the city limits. I'm very impressed with that. The only thing that I had a question about was if I understood their first comment, they discharged into a holding tank, and then after they clean and get permission, then it comes further in. So there's several hours and time periods and maybe a couple days before it comes in our system. Is that correct?

That would be correct in that situation. That's correct.

OK, cool. I'll open it up to the dais for questions. Start with you, Tommy.

Flip back to your first slide there, John, if you don't mind, please, sir. I'm sorry. I guess the second slide where it was one, two, three. Thank you. That one right there. Yes, sir. Those discharges, I think you alluded to this, but just for my clarification, those discharges are we have to report those discharges to TCEQ. and EPA, is there oversight on these discharges once they have been discharged that we've got to say we've had this event, here's the data that we collected on the chemistry of this, or is that just something that we test locally, keep those records, and then on some systematic basis forward those records to TCEQ?

We would keep those records ourselves. What we are required to do is maintain discharge records with what comes out of the water reclamation facility as discharge requirements. We report that annually to TCEQ, and we have to meet certain effluent limitations, and so that's what we report.

Okay.

We just might need to make sure that whatever... they discharge and give to us that we can handle it at the wastewater plant so that we can always be in compliance with our discharge requirements by TCEQ.

And I assume, back to Tom's question and point in that holding tank, that's in fact when we would, I'll say, test that quality before we ultimately put it into our wastewater pipeline.

Yes, sir.

Okay, good. Thank you. That's mine for right now, Tom.

Harry? Between John and Tommy, I think they've answered all my questions. I just want to make sure that, you know, the water is good going into the wastewater system.

Okay. John, go to the slide of what elements, chemicals might be in there that we're monitoring for.

Oh, the other way.

Sorry about that. All right. Sorry about that.

I feel like I'm in a loop. I'm in a data center loop.

I'm getting ahead of myself. Always. Apologize. I got fat fingers here. Other way. Here we go. There we go. All right. Sorry about that. The chemicals.

We have items here, chemicals that we're going to monitor for periodically. Some of these wouldn't even be in here correctly, like PFAS in anything that would be in here. But people have brought that up. So I ask that be included. It's irrelevant, but the point of it is we are going to monitor for it anyway. So the expansion and the extent that we're going to look for is not only items on a list, it's items that are not on a list, and we're going to expand our search and monitoring process to include those. And I want to comment, y'all, and say thank you for including that on there, because that one gets a lot of questions, and I think it's used incorrectly, but in this, I'm glad we just have it in there to make sure everybody knows we test for it. All right, Patrick?

On that same slide, it says we'll be monitored periodically or as needed. Then we talk about the industrial pretreatment. While it seems like Skybox Emergent plans on putting it in holding tanks for future ones, if they don't have that same process, do we need something in here that says before their very first discharge we are to sample it and make sure it's good? and then after that as needed periodically. Does that make sense the way I'm asking that?

That makes perfect sense. We can certainly do that.

OK. That's the only thing I would see is, yeah, especially before any discharge, let's make sure we check them. And then if they are in line, then it can be periodically or a monitoring system or whatever. I'm good with that. But that's my only question or concern.

You bet.

Karen?

I agree with Patrick. John, may I please see the final slide?

The final slide.

Sounds like a game show, doesn't it?

That one, okay. Yes, sir.

So, per number seven, we are assuming, of course, that a storage tank for emergency discharge events is of sufficient capacity to accommodate a terrible surprise.

Yes, it would need to be of sufficient size to handle probably the volume of water.

And what might corrective actions include, and are there penalties on the operator? What might those be?

Well, we would know in advance what chemicals they're going to be putting into the water. We're going to know that through the application process, so we can anticipate if industrial treatment is going to be needed. That would be one thing. In terms of monitoring, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to assess what all that is. And if they hold it, then we can certainly account for it. And then we can assess how much water is coming and what the loading is of that particular chemical. If it's Skybox, they're telling us that they would probably be adding propylene glycol, which is a coolant. Just so that you know, propylene glycol It's not ethylene glycol like in your radiator. Propylene glycol is a food additive. It's also used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. But it does carry with it a high BOD, biochemical oxidation demand. And we wouldn't want to overload our system with too much BOD. It'd be kind of like giving your kid a lot of cotton candy to eat before dinner. He won't end up eating his dinner like he's supposed to. Well, the same thing happens to the bugs at the wastewater plant. We don't want to overload it with too much sugar, if you will, so that they continue to eat their dinner, which is what they're supposed to do. It's just my simple analogy for that. We don't want to upset the stomach, if you will.

Also thank Karen on just to chime in a little bit on that. I think the only the way that it would take multiple catastrophic failures of a system out there before we would see an emergency discharge into our system. And that's what we're worried about is the emergency discharge into our system. So while not necessarily penalties per se is a fine or something like that, but we would want to ensure that when they do submit any details to us that they also submit a remediation plan as to how they're going to correct the situation, correct the action plan, how they're going to correct it and keep this from happening again in the future. If we do continue, and we saw multiple infractions of this where they were having over and over again emergency discharges, we would, more than likely, we would turn their water off until they got that corrected.

You did ask a question.

And that's kind of the situation is that... If you're going to continue to be a bad actor and not play by the rules, then you're not going to get our water anymore.

And just to add to that about the penalty, there is no penalty in this subsection C, but in general chapter 11 for violations, there is a penalty provision that would apply because this new section is within that.

That was the point I was going to make. There are penalty clauses in there. We can talk about volumes in the next discussion.

Yes, sir.

It would be kind of premature at this point, but yes.

Thank you, all three, for clarifying. Thank you.

I don't think Karen asked a question she doesn't know, but anyway. Are you done? Mary?

I'm glad I went last because all my questions have been answered as we went through, so thank you.

Awesome. With that, I'll look for a motion. So moved. I have a first from Harry. I'll second. Any public comment? Okay, with no public comment on item F, we'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Item passes 6-0. Moving to our final agenda item, first reading and public hearing of an ordinance to adopt data center regulations for water use in San Angelo code of ordinances by amending chapter 11, utilities article 11.02 water and sewer systems division two water service by adding section 11.02.043 data center presentation made by water utilities director, John Kaufman.

Again, thank you, Mayor Thompson, council, and Mr. Valenzuela. We're here this afternoon to talk about proposed ordinance concerning data center water supply. If enacted, this ordinance would apply to all future data centers that would be constructed within the city limits. Now this presentation will address these key questions that you see before you and more. Danielle Ricks, who's with me, will walk you through each question. Then I'm going to talk you through the proposed ordinance itself and show how the ordinance would work using Skybox Emergent as an example. I'm going to turn it over to Danielle. She's going to walk you through the answers to the key questions.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. We wanted to start the presentation by briefly going over the units of measure, that volumes of water we usually talk about, and so just refresh our memories. The first is an acre feet, and that is 325,851 gallons. Then there's millions of gallons, which of course is 1 million gallons, but it's also 3.0689 acre feet. And then billion gallons, 1 billion gallons or 1,000 million gallons, and that's 3,068.88 acre feet. With that, we wanted to talk about where the city gets its water. We have both surface water and groundwater sources. The surface water comes from O.H. Ivy Reservoir, which is about 40 miles east of San Angelo, as well as our local Twin Buttes Reservoir in South Concho River. The groundwater comes from the Hickory Aquifer, which is located near Brady, approximately 60 miles southeast of San Angelo. How much water does the city have? From each of these sources, we have water rights that allow us so much water each year. The Concho River in Twin Buttes allows us up to 12,000 acre feet per year. The OH Ivy is 16,000 acre feet per year by our contract. The groundwater storage, the Hickory Aquifer, we currently have 10,000 acre feet per year. And then in the future, that will bump up to 12,000 acre feet per year. And then, of course, we're also working towards developing indirect potable reuse to increase our water supply per portfolio. How much water does the city use? So this is our total total metered water usage. We report this every year to the Texas Water Development Board and they audit us on these numbers. So what we did here is we averaged 2024, which was a relatively drier year in 2025, which is relatively wetter, took those averages. So for the domestic use, which includes all single family, all multifamily, that was 2.8855 billion gallons, or 2,850 85.5 million gallons. Institutional use, which is hospitals, schools, government, that was 724.9 million gallons. Commercial use, 585.6 million gallons. Industrial use, 120.7 million gallons. So the average total was 4.3167 billion gallons, or 4,316.7 million gallons. And just to note, this was the metered usage. We actually divert a little over 5 billion gallons each year, and some of that water is used in the surface water, groundwater treatment processes, and then some is lost to leaks, main breaks, and then hydrant flushing and testing. This last slide is just a list of the top 13, I believe, water users for 2025 and how much they used in that year. And with that, I'm going to pass it back to Joan.

I'm going to come back to this particular slide a little bit later in my discussion, but I thought I'd kind of focus on it just for the moment. What the ordinance does is it provides for a maximum cooling of water of volume allowed for data center. It doesn't allow a data center to come in and dictate how much water they're going to get. We're going to dictate it to them. That's key. That's very important so that we're in control of what goes on and not them. So the proposed ordinance provides that a data center must employ a closed-loop cooling system, no evaporative cooling, just a closed loop. The initial cooling fill volume must not exceed eight gallons per square foot of gross building area. The initial fill must occur within 12 months of receiving the certificate of occupancy. The scheduled maintenance refill of spent cooling water cannot be more frequent than once every three years with 30 days written notice. Draining must comply with TCEQ requirements and other applicable law. Routine makeup water must not exceed six percent of the total volume of cooling water each year There's some exempt uses And those exempt uses you see right here, fire suppression, construction of water, site landscaping, and of course implicit in all of this is normal indoor use, domestic use for restrooms and sinks and so forth. If an exceedance of cooling water use occurs, the data center operator must provide 48 hour notification. The city manager must approve or deny the request within five business days. An exception for this requirement occurs if there's an emergency provided that written notice to the water utilities director is given within 72 hours of that occurrence. Let me walk you through this example. With these criteria, this would be the maximum allowed of water used that we would allow a data center to have, and we're going to use the Skybox Emergent as an example. With these assumptions, there would be a maximum of nine buildings. That's the nine that they've told us about. Each building would have a total square footage of 400,000 square feet. Each building would be two-story structures with 200,000 square foot footprint. Each building constructed sequentially, as Shane had just described, with a six-month staggered start dates and filled with cooling water one at a time. With these assumptions and with the criteria I just laid out for you, the maximum volume of cooling water per building would be 3.2 million gallons, as you see here. a simple equation. 400,000 square feet times eight gallons per square foot is 3.2 million gallons. So the maximum volume of water for nine buildings at build out, maximum again, nine times 3.2 million gallons, is 28,800,000 gallons of cooling water for the total of nine buildings. The maximum volume, therefore, of cooling water demand per year would be as you see near the bottom. The maximum refill three buildings per year, because there's nine buildings, three times 3.2 million gallons is 9,600,000 gallons per year. The maximum makeup water each year would be 6% of the total of 28,800,000 gallons or 1.728 million gallons per year. So the maximum total water, cooling water allowed per year would be the sum of those numbers, or 11,328,000 gallons per year. That's less than one day's average use in this city. Any questions on what I just described? Okay. Let's go back to that slide that we just reviewed when I got back up again. How much water would that be relative to the other high water users in the city? I inserted that here in yellow. They would come in just below Double J Lamb and, excuse me, Angelo State University just above Double J Lamb in terms of water use per year. They'd come in at 11.33% million gallons, maximum allowed. Now how would that compare with the prior numbers that Danielle showed you in terms of our usage in the city average over the last couple of years? If we add a data center in as we just described here in this example, maximum amount of water The industrial use would climb from 132 million gallons from 120.7 million gallons. So the total maximum allowed with a skybox example would be included would be 4.328 billion gallons versus the current 4.316 billion gallons. So if we look at a comparison of the total metered water usage for 2024 and 2025, the maximum annual skybox emergent usage again would be 11.328 million gallons. The total city metered usage is 4.3167 billion gallons, a factor of difference of 1,000. So the ratio of 11.328 to 4.3167 billion gallons is 0.26% of the total annual water use in this city. So the comparison to a landscape irrigation, if we take the soccer field here on Glenna Street, this is something we irrigate every year. If we apply one inch of irrigation water over 32 acres, which is common, that's 868,937 gallons. If we irrigate one inch 16 times a year, that's 13,902,992 gallons. I know we irrigate actually more than that per year, but that's more than what we're talking about, and that's just for our irrigation of our soccer fields in the city. I just kind of thought I'd throw that out there for perspective. So with that, I would entertain any questions that you have.

John, very good presentation. Water is our most precious resource. Everybody's heard us say that for years. We started this with the Ford Ranch and I will say San Angelo will never stop our continued pursuit and protection of our water resources. I do want to go back and note that double J land plan is no longer in business, so it's almost the same usage. So our net usage may not even change at all from what we've got so. I want to say that this restriction is probably the most comprehensive thing to water. regulatory steps you can make. And it puts a definite period on the sentence where this is exactly how much water that they can use. They may not use this much water, but this is the max they can. I have seen in tons of screenshots and everything else talking about water. And I want all the constituents and everybody to know, we heard you. We don't agree with some numbers that are being put out there. These are the final numbers. that we will allow in protection for San Angelo. And with that, I'll flip it open. I'll start with you, Tommy.

Thank you, sir. This is repetition. I realize that, but I just want to, for my assurance, reassurance, this applies only to a data center that would come into the city. I do have a concern, and this is where the real question is, We've got some pretty big water users on that list. No, you can pull it up, that's fine. But what if we get the opportunity for another business entity to come into the city of San Angelo that uses in the, let's go to the middle of the list there between the yellow shown and then up to the middle, we've got 57 million gallons, we've got 64 million. Are we gonna turn those businesses down and say, no, you can only use the 11.33 million?

It's a wonderful question. I think we have to take every entity that would approach us for becoming a member of our community on a case-by-case basis and see how it fits with our water availability and other requirements that we might have. I assume you're talking about an industrial.

I'm talking about industrial commercial. Yes, absolutely.

I think we have to look at each one individually based on their merits and their water demand.

So we are not putting a stamp on saying if you're going to use more than $11.33 million, we won't even talk to you. We're not saying that if we adopt this ordinance.

No, this only applies to data centers.

This is only data centers.

This is only data centers.

Okay, okay.

So this puts a governor on it. It's like a 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. You can't go over that.

Okay, but we're not saying that to any of – we're going to then, I guess you would say, negotiate with other businesses if they need more than $11.33 million. This only applies to the data centers. That is correct. Okay, okay. Okay, for that point, I'm going to put a period there, Mayor, because I could go on, but others have questions too, so I'm going to stop right there.

That was a very good point. I think we have to look at the message we're sending to those people looking at us for economic development and say this titles and all. I'm just going to echo what you just said. This is a case-by-case basis. Don't let this scare you if you're looking at us for an economic development. This is, I would say, safety by design. That's exactly what this is. Harry?

John, would you please go to the last slide?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

He's getting pretty good at handling the slides.

I'm better at it now.

The ratio, I want to make this comment because sometimes people see 2.6% and think 26%. That's .26 of 1%. Well, it's .26%. Yes, sir. .0026. If you have 100 and one out of those 100 is

You've got a quarter of that one. So this is slightly more than a quarter of a percent.

Yes, sir. The other item that I wanted some clarification on is one where the city manager, the emergency discharge, and the city manager has to get that report.

Yes, sir, right here.

Yes. Shall approve or deny the request within five business days? I would ask... and I don't know how we do this because I won't be here when the first building is complete. But I would like the city manager to have that conversation, not for approval from this dais, but that conversation with the people that are up here at the next council meeting. I don't know how you want to write that, but these folks up here should know about that Whether you do it, I don't know how you do it, but the bottom line is whoever's sitting in this position here and whoever's sitting in these two positions over here won't be here, but I think the rest of these people need to know when you have that request for coming to the city manager within five business days.

I think we could just add a report to council of any city manager approvals. I think that's good.

I would like to see that.

All right.

That's all I have.

Thank you. Patrick? One slide back. How do we determine what they're using for exempt uses?

Well, we're going to know that through the application process. We're going to have a full design on their fire suppression system. We're going to know how much construction water they're going to need. It's probably we're going to give them a hydrant meter to use and use water out of a hydrant. And then we're going to go through the landscaping requirements that they're going to have. And then we're going to know exactly or approximately how many people they're going to have per building. So we're going to have an assessment of how many toilets they have and how many sinks they have. And we're going to have a pretty good idea what that's going to be.

Would it be slipper to just have them do two meters, one for their system and then one for everything else?

We could do that.

I mean, for both sides, it seemed like it would be easy to be, A, transparent on how much they're using for their cooling system, and then, B, that way they're not having to figure out exactly their numbers for landscaping. Correct.

We can work with them as they start with any development of any building or anything like that. A lot of times they'll come in with a request for whether it's a – construction meter or however they want to move forward that way. And then, too, as they start putting in individual buildings, we can work with them to make sure that they are putting one meter that's strictly for their cooling systems versus one meter that is going to be regular daily usage and landscape. However that needs to work, we can definitely work with them on that as well, too. Especially when we're talking about cross contamination, back flows, those type of issues, I think it would be more wise to probably have those two separated as well. So we'll work with them as we move forward into that.

I might add with the AMI metering system that we operate with now, we can monitor how much people use each hour.

They even spoke about making a live notification, didn't they, Patrick, when they talked about putting up live usage that you could go to a website and look at? Yeah, they've been very open about that.

I want to be fair to both sides. A, it helps us be transparent, and B, it helps them be able to use their daily usage and not have to, you know, if they're close on these numbers. Because we actually, I don't know how many people caught it, we've actually went down from 15 on our original estimate to say, you know what, let's make it go down to eight. Everything we've done to me has been more restrictive and better for our community. So I just want to note that, too, that y'all even went down to that. So like Tom said, this is what the max they could use, not even what they may use. They may use less than this. So if we can just have that metering, that just helps both sides, it seems like. Absolutely. That way they don't have to worry about anything.

We can easily accomplish that.

Karen?

John, is this the first time the city of San Angelo has ever put guardrails on water use for any business or other entity?

It's the first time that I'm aware of.

We've never restricted any user?

Well, we have our drought ordinance, but that would apply to everybody in the community in our drought situation. But in terms of just normal water usage, this is the first one that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Mary?

Well, just to expand on what you made me think of something, Karen, just because we haven't doesn't mean we ought to or should or is this going to become a standard policy, do you think? Or just a few, you know, we ask a few questions more to any industry that's coming to town. If this, I mean, I guess it could be, but do you see this might be a necessary interview question, if you will,

I think any industry that would come to town that is a potential large water user, I think we need to ask some serious questions about how much water they need and how they plan to use it and how we plan to handle the wastewater flows and what are opportunities to conserve water.

Good deal. I think that makes everyone aware and more conscientious about our use and the savings. Thank you, John. I appreciate it.

Any further questions? Tommy, you mentioned at the first you might come back with more questions.

No, Karen got my last, my other question. We've never done this before. All right. To any business.

So to throw an audible in here, should we go ahead and listen to public comment first? All right, we'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. Heather?

China, yeah.

Hello again, China SMD4 resident. So water is not just a utility, it is part of our survival infrastructure. As her poster says, water is life and it is finite. In fact, it is so valuable it's now on the stock market. The proposed ordinances discuss provisions that demonstrate that these facilities are expected to place significant and continuous demands on our regional water supply. Before this council moves forward with proposed data center development, residents deserve a full understanding of the cumulative water demand, including potential drought impacts, emergency draw scenarios, and long-term sustainability risks associated with the projects. I also want to address a question I previously raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Why is potable water prioritized for machines while access to the same water is restricted, I'm sorry, while access to this same water for living things, our citizens, our livestock, and even our landscapes, continue to face restriction and increasing costs? San Angelo residents already pay extra for drinkable water. Many households pay for municipal water services and then pay again to make that water safe and usable for drinking and cooking, whether that's through reverse osmosis systems, filtration systems, or just purchasing additional water from the store. So in practice, many families are already paying for water twice. Other drought prone cities across the United States including Chandler and Mesa, Arizona and Las Vegas have prioritized reclaimed water first for industrial projects with potable water reserved only as a backup. If those communities recognize the importance of protecting drinkable water supplies, why can we not do the same here? These unanswered questions further support the need for a moratorium on data center developments. We need more time to properly evaluate long-term water security, drought resilience, emergency cooling demands, and the cumulative regional impacts that these developments may create before further project acceleration occurs. And I remembered the last thing I was gonna say at my last comment. So it was having to do with the negotiation of those guidelines gave me hope that this can continue with water as well. So I hope that we can continue to have these conversations I urge you to not pass this ordinance. Let us do some more construction on it. Let us work together on creating some more, even more restrictive guidelines, because again, water is finite and it is life. Thank you.

Thank you, China. All right, so that completes public comment on this agenda item. So at this point, we'll look to take a motion. I will make the first motion to approve as presented. I have a second from Harry Thomas. We've already taken public comment. We'll take a vote. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Item passes 6-0. With that, we'll move into, we won't move into closed section. There's no more agenda items. Follow-up and administrative issues. Since there's nothing executive, the announcements are always covered. Is there any future agenda items anybody wants to bring up? Ms. Caron?

Lots of citizens have asked. Some of us have asked for information regarding the economic reasons for even considering this type of project, and we've discussed that with finance and with Tina. Could we look forward to seeing those reports in the very near future? It would help us make an informed decision.

That would be great.

Cool.

Patrick? Patrick? Along those lines, I would like to see us start working on a committee to prepare for data centers in general, whether it's city, whether it's county, whether it brings in influx of workers. A committee that included people from Coastal D.C., county commissioners, developers, street engineers, data center companies, our housing authorities, just a generic committee to start looking at these, what effects they've had on other towns, and how we can prepare for the influx of the traffic. And if we have the data center companies that have built them and the engineers from there, then we can kind of see the scope of work, so like Abilene they think is three, four times the scope of work of anything around here. So maybe we don't have to prepare for that level, but we can find some of these others on our scope that we can prepare for and see what we need street-wise, housing-wise, et cetera.

Right, got that. So we'll have to limit that to where we have jurisdiction, but absolutely.

Anything else? I'd just follow up with what Patrick said. If you did look at the last... Amount of houses that are already on the market today from the Realtors Association, they got 530, I think, was the figure I saw last week. So if we have 300 to 400 people coming in here and every one of them bought a house, I don't think we're going to have a problem. But I think we need to get ahead of the curve.

Amen. Any other future agenda items? You've got your finger on the button there, Karen.

Patrick's idea, could we acknowledge the citizen requests and consider a citizen member of that conversation, that board?

As we are just researching it right now, we're giving that to the assistant city managers to tee up, absolutely. With that, is everybody done? I'll take a first from Tommy Hebert. And a second from Harry Thomas. All those in favor of concluding today's meeting say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Close this meeting 6-0 at 1 o'clock.