City Council - Regular Meeting

call this regular meeting of the San Marcos City Council to order today is Tuesday June 16th the year is 2026 the time is 617 p.m. we apologize for the delay our 3 o'clock meeting ended late so Mr. Vino, let's see who is here.

Ms. Rodriguez? Here. Mr. Basel? Here. Ms. Garza? Here. Mary Houston?

Here.

Mr. Scott? Here. Mr. Mendoza? Here. Mr. Gonzalez? Here. We have a quorum present.

All right, and our invocation this evening is being given by Mike Holifield, the chaplain of our police department. Thank you for being here, sir.

If you'd be appropriate, please bow your head. Lord, we thank you for the blessings of this community and for the opportunity to gather here tonight. We pray for our mayor, our city council, our city manager and all who serve our city. Grant them wisdom, discernment and integrity as they make decisions that affect the lives of our citizens. Help them to lead with humility, serve with compassion and work together for the good of our community. We also pray for the citizens of our city. Help us to be good neighbors, to extend grace to one another, and to work together in a spirit of unity and respect. May we never lose sight of the values that strengthen our community and bring us together. May this meeting be marked by thoughtful discussions, mutual respect, and shared commitment to serving the people of San Marcos well. Amen.

Next is our Pledge of Allegiance.

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 the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible, Our next item is citizen comment. The city council will hear citizen comments at regular meetings, work sessions and workshops. There is a process to sign up for those of you, if you are online, when it's almost your turn, there's going to be a pop-up question and you're going to need to respond to it in order to be able to take your turn. Speakers may speak once during the citizen comment time period and may not yield time to others. If you speak now about a public hearing topic on tonight's agenda, I ask that you not repeat exactly the same comments again during the public hearing on the same topic. When it's your turn to speak, state your name for the record. For public hearings, we also need your address. You will have three minutes. When you begin speaking, the timer will be in the green. When you only have 20 seconds left, you'll see there's just yellow left and there should be a little ping sound. And when your time to speak is up, the timer is red and a bell will ring. If you hear a popping sound, step back from the microphone about that far. The mayor and council will endeavor to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner and in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. If you do any of those, you'll hear the gavel and I will ask you to leave. So this is your warning. We have 19 people signed up tonight. I will call out the names in groups of five. And if I have called your name, please be ready to approach the podium. Camille Phillips. Carla Sisk. Lisa Pruitt, Amy Meeks, Nancy Moore. I believe Carla Sisk is the only one of that group here, so step on up to the microphone, please.

Well, howdy, Mayor and Council. My name is Carla Sisk. I live in 808 El Camino Way Drive, and I'm here to talk to you about item number 22, about the naming of the road El Camino Way Drive. We have lived, and I say we, I have my dad, my husband, and two of my neighbors here with me, y'all wave. And so we have lived off of what used to be Route 1, Box 15, a long time ago, 48 years, and for the last 30 some odd off of El Camino Way Drive, it actually, the county road, dead ends at my mom and dad's house at the Pete Orchard, and then the driveway continues down to my house. Well, some apartments have been built on the other side of the fence, as you may have heard. And they have a road that comes off of 123, comes behind them in like an L shape, comes along my fence, goes down to a little cul-de-sac with nothing there. So I'm calling it the new El Camino way to nowhere. so I'm just gonna ask that y'all that y'all please so actually I want you to close your eyes real quick close your eyes imagine you're having family dinner and all of a sudden daddy starts to have a heart attack and you jump up and you call 9-1-1 and they say we're six minutes out we'll be right there to help you and you wait and it's six minutes it's seven minutes and It's 10 minutes, I'm trying to do CPR, and the ambulance can't find me because there's two roads named El Camino Way that run parallel And from eighth grade geometry, parallel lines don't connect. I know it's on the master plan for 25 or 30 years from now. In 25 or 30 years, y'all can have it. Right now, my neighbors and I, nor do we want an outlet to 123. We're a little two-lane country road not built for much more than one car and driving and walking and a horse, which is... Norris Horse Farm sometimes up and down the road. So I just ask y'all to please send it back to Planning and Zoning. They can give it another name. I've given some suggestions. My newest suggestions is Carlita's Way. Why not? So, because Carlita wants to get her way. No, but the main thing is, y'all had to inject some humor for you. The main thing is, please send it back because, you know, I want Favor, HEB, Amazon, 911, and people to be able to find us. And when two roads don't connect and they have the same name, it is confusion. And y'all don't want that, neither do I. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your service.

Our next five are Guadalupe Saranana.

I'm sorry, Mayor, is it appropriate, may I ask you to bump the agenda up?

No. Our next speaker is Guadalupe Saranana. Okay, I'll circle back. Virginia Parker, Kathy Morris, Randall Terrell is here.

Sorry, didn't see it. Good evening, council members. Again, my name's Randall Terrell. I thought I was gonna be speaking about something entirely different from what I'm about to say. Tonight, I'll tell you that I was thoroughly pleased by y'all's discussion. I know it was a pain earlier today at the work session, but y'all did exactly what I think we were hoping you to do, which is thoroughly explore those issues and wind up with and in favor of more transparency. Thank you for that. There was a lot of comment during the work session about bad information being spread around. Clearly, I'm the root of all of that, some of that, and I apologize for that. I'm working off the numbers and the information that I get in other meetings and by rumors, and I hope you'll bear with me as I'm trying to get more accurate information. Thank you for that. And then the last thing is I was asked by Virginia Parker to point out that on agenda item number 16 that it is not clear to her, at least as I understand it, that the tax breaks would go to a company that is actually providing, if I've got this right, sub, not subprime, but below market rents. They do in Austin, they don't necessarily do here. I'm not sure I've got that right. But I'm just passing that on from a quick comment. So that's all I've got for right now.

Thank you. Um, our next group is Addison Sears, Rodrigo Amaya, Gerardo Reyes, San Juana Escalante. Who is okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see that. All right. Then Addison Sears is joining us online.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. I'm here today to raise a concern about privacy and safety for apartment residences in our city. Many apartment complexes require residents to display parking permits that clearly show the name of their apartment community. These permits are visible not only in apartment parking lots, but also everywhere residents drive, including stores, work, restaurants, and public parking areas. My concern is simple. When someone can identify a person's apartment community just by looking at their windshield, it becomes easier to connect that person with where they live. I understand it is necessary for parking permits, but I do not understand why those permits need to publicly display the name of the apartment complex. There are other options available such as permit numbers, QR codes, license plate, registration systems, or other forms of identification. I'm asking the city council to consider whether this issue deserves further discussion and whether there are opportunities to encourage safer and more privacy conscious alternatives. If no immediate action is taken, I hope this concern can begin a conversation about resident privacy and safety in our community. Thank you guys.

Next, Rodrigo Amaya. Is he here? I don't see him. Gerardo Reyes was supposed to be online. Are they online?

Okay.

This is Gerardo Reyes that I'm looking for, Mr. Trevino. Are they online?

Thank you.

Okay, that's fine. Go ahead. Yeah, we'll take you one at a time. Gerardo, it's now your turn. Hello. Yes, give me one second. Yeah, we can see you and hear you really good. Perfect.

Perfect. demasiado tiempo durante una detención de tráfico en San Marcos, no se nos explicaba claramente lo que estaba ocurriendo. Como padre, preocupado por mi hijo, interviene. En ese momento, eso terminó en mi detención y más de dos meses detenido. Estar en ese I am so sorry, he can't continue no more.

I do apologize. He is literally in tears, so I do apologize for that. Mayor.

Okay, we can start your three minutes now. Would you like to do that? Okay, perfect.

Absolutely, then you just go ahead and pull over. I pull over right now. All right. I am speaking as a mother and a wife, and I want to be very direct about what my family has experienced and what is still being ignored. First, the facts, the matters. No crime occurred in the situation that led to this entire chain of the event. That is not an opinion, that is what has been confirmed. Yet despite that the consequences placed on our family have been severe, ongoing, and completely disappropriated. My husband was taken from our home and from our family, that depends on him. I am disabled and he's our primary provider. His removal didn't just affect him, This symbolized our entire household. And even after his release, the damage did not stop. We are still dealing with the financial strain, emotional trauma, and ongoing legal aftermath that should have never escalated to this point. My son is still facing charges connected to this same incident. And I need to be very clear. We are now being forced to fight to clear his name in a situation where the underlying facts do not support the criminal conduct. And what makes this even more unacceptable is how he was treated in custody. When my 17-year-old son was booked into Hays County Jail, he was brought before a judge without his shirt, a child without dignity, without basic respect, standing in front of a condition in front of a court, Why was that acceptable? Why was that considered appropriate treatment of a minor who has not committed a crime in the first place? This is not a small detail. This is dehumanizing and it raises serious questions about how this entire process was handled from the very beginning. At the same time, we are still being denied full transparency are still waiting for on the body camera footage and we're still being asked to continue showing up and continue waiting and continue trusting the process that has not been fully honest or complete with us and even more concerning we have to push and advocate repeatedly just to have acknowledged of what we now know policy violations by the officers involved were not only addressed after sustained pressure from our family and the public this is not an accountability This is a delay until it becomes unavoidable. So I need the bigger picture to be understand here. This is not just about one stop, one arrest, or one decision. This is about a father removed from home, a disabled mother left without support, and a 17-year-old son still carrying charges, trauma from how he was treated in custody. We're not asking for sympathy. We are asking for accountability, and we're asking for transparency. And we're asking why a family has been put through all this when no crime has occurred in the first place. At what point does this city acknowledge the full scope of the harm that has been done and take responsibility for correcting it? Because of this, where we stand, that has not happened yet. Thank you, and what do you think about that? Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Amy Camp. Is she on? I think she's online, too. Okay, Amy Camp. I think she's saying we can circle back, uh, Sam Ben. Okay. The next ones are Sam Benavides, Gina Fleming, crispy Polanco, Sam Young, Zachary Tindall in that order.

Good evening, Council. My name is Sam Benavidez, and I come before you this evening to uplift the Reyes family's demands for justice and transparency. Over the last few months, I have had the honor of working closely alongside Lupe and her mother, San Juana, to advocate for freedom and justice for Gerardo Reyes, who, after an unnecessary escalation and arrest by SMPD officer Haciel Cortina, spent 77 days in ICE detention. While it has been a privilege to work and organize alongside this family, it has been a horrific reminder of the harm and injustices perpetrated by this police department with little to no accountability. While we celebrate that Gerardo was finally released from the detention center just week before last, we are reminded of the insurmountable collateral consequences that families face as a result of needless arrests and detention. From continued medical issues to trauma, as you can see, to financial stress and piling legal fees that they should have never had to deal with to begin with, the snowball effects of this arrest should make each one of us deeply ashamed of the actions of this police department. While this family is deserving of significant apology and retribution from the city, the very least you can do is offer transparency into what happened that night. Because the system continues to hang these charges over Esteban's head, we have yet to see body cam footage, the police communications, correspondence from city leadership regarding this incident, and other critical documents that would offer this family a more clear and complete picture of this case. Instead, all the city has to offer is appeals to the Attorney General's office, inconsistent decisions on what to release and what not to release to the public, and a 24-hour suspension for that, in Lupe's words, is a slap in the face. While we celebrate the release and freedom, Gerardo, we continue to remind you that just because he is home does not mean that this case will simply go away. There still needs to be real accountability and real transparency. As long as this family continues struggling due to the actions of your police, we will continue amplifying their voices. I am calling on each of you to uplift their calls for transparency, justice, and for the charges against Esteban to be dropped. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gina Fleming.

Hi, I'm Gina Fleming. I wanted to speak on Ordinance 202608 about the Land Development Code, specifically about the Development Code for Data Centers. I'm glad y'all are working on this. I'm assuming your plan is to make a final decision tonight, but I still had some concerns about specific aspects about the Development Code for Data Centers. The first one is that a lower maximum decibel rating was discussed at one time, but it was dismissed because it was lower than what was required for other city businesses, and that seemed unfair, but I wanted to point out that even though it does seem that at first blush, With data centers, it's noise 24-7. And for restaurants and bars, they're not emitting that noise level 24-7. They're just doing it some of the time. So I feel a lower decibel rating is merited based on the continuous nature of the noise pollution associated with data centers that is responsible for the health effects that it causes. I also was unclear on how the indirect water use for data centers, whether that was being adequately accounted for. There was sections talking about you had to have address water use for the data centers and how much electricity we're using, but I still felt it was giving leeway for data centers to skirt the issue of how much water was being consumed by energy production. I also sent you in an email a proposal by a different city or county about including in approval a decommissioning process so that these companies don't just build a data center and when the profit is over just walk away and leave the community with a mess to clean up. Another concern I had was sale of water to other communities. If it could be made contingent, such as Kyle, it could be made contingent on those communities not having a high use water industrial project that would then be passed on to us to supply water for. And finally, I feel that San Marcos would benefit from the formation of an environmental commission such as what other communities have to be addressing all of these concerns that we don't have to just keep finding a way to piecemeal add it in. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Crispy Polanco.

Yeah, Crispy Polanco, just getting right down to it. The body cam footage from the incident on March 14th between SMPD, Gerardo Reyes and his son needs to be released. It needs to be released yesterday. It is my belief that any delay or refusal to release the body cam footage is simply to avoid making SMPD look bad because it would destroy any reason that Esteban is still facing any charges. I have been told that charges were dropped against his father, Gerardo. And continued against Esteban in order to throw a bone to the police department. I know people are going to deny that and say, oh, of course not. But nobody's stupid. And that is not justice. That is. completely antithetical to what justice actually is. So yeah, we need to release the body cam footage. Don't put Esteban on any diversion plan, because he didn't do anything wrong. But while I'm on the subject of the SMPD, I know some people are still pushing for systems like Flock, And I'm wondering if anybody's aware of the story of a man not from Florida, has never been to Florida, but was arrested and extradited to Florida from another state for a crime committed in Florida based on evidence collected through systems like FLOC. They were so strongly believed in the charges, they were moving forward to trial. for months before they finally accepted evidence showing that there was no way he could have committed the crime. And also we're being asked to trust these systems with police departments and I'm wondering if the city knew, if they were aware at the time that Chief Standridge was hired, if they were aware of some accusations he faced in his previous city about sharing personnel files with people who should not have had access to those personnel files. Is this the kind of department that we really wanna trust with systems like mass surveillance? And even if they were trustworthy, we still shouldn't trust them because they're not always gonna be the person in power. I was a little disjointed, but I kinda ran out of things to say, so I'll leave you alone.

Okay, and our next speaker is Sam Young.

Yes, I'm Sam Young. I learned a lesson today. You don't sign up for the 3 o'clock when you meant to sign up for the 6 o'clock.

Looks like you signed up for both.

Okay.

All right. The following comments are mine and represent my view of the city. Congratulations to the city on the recent CEMTEX 26 and town hall regarding the 2027 budget. There were many city staffers at both events. The events were well planned and well received, and the PowerPoint presentations were great. At the town hall, the city manager, assistant city managers, and other city employees were there to answer questions. There were good questions from the attending citizens. The downside, and this is not from the city, calls are made in citizen comments that more town halls are needed for citizen participation and questions. The two events mentioned had as many city staff as citizens. A lack of citizen participation in town halls is a negative and disappointing to those preparing for them. Now, town halls on the new city hall will probably have good attendance. All right, I like the blocker trucks for the fire department. This is money well spent as it protects the lives of first responders and the traveling puppy. Now, this may have been proposed before, but since it appears that license plate cameras are not happening, how about replacing the existing downtown cameras with real time streaming and recording cameras Even with a stronger police presence downtown from Saturday night through Sunday night, these officers could not see everything. One person could watch monitors for potential problem situations during this time, and it would help improve safety downtown. This would be beneficial for both the San Marcos police and the Texas State University police force, and the university could contribute to the cost for implementation. Regarding the city budget, in my five years in San Marcos, I have realized that San Marcos is short on money and staff is squeezed every year to balance the budget. Some people say the money spends money on frivolous items. I don't know what those items are. All I ask is go with a tight budget that meets the needs of the city and not necessarily the wants. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Zachary Tindall.

Zachary Tindall, so first I'd like to voice my support for Councilmember Amanda Rodriguez's LDC amendment pertaining to power plants and generator systems. I also want to say thanks to her, to Council, and especially to staff for all their work on this. There is, however, one thing that I would recommend changing from the draft of Amanda's amendment that I've seen, and that has to do with the electric or gas on-site generation category. I would like to see that category restricted to heavy industrial with council approved CUP. So that category is the one that deals with on-site or behind the meter power plants, as well as the large backup generators that we've been talking about that are used by large load customers. So I think there are a few reasons for restricting it more that are consistent with your previous deliberations on similar topics. First, at the last council meeting, it seemed that many of you supported the idea of restricting power plants to heavy industrial with Council CUP. Other parts of this amendment do restrict power plants serving the grid in this way, And I see no reason that behind the meter plants should not be similarly restricted. Second, the large backup generator systems used by data centers were one of the key reasons some of you chose to restrict data centers to heavy industrial. So this electric and gas onsite generation category deals with exactly these types of large generator systems. it seems only consistent to restrict this use similarly. Also regarding Mr. Baselk's point, I believe he made the point at the last meeting that these backup generators might only generate power for a fraction of a facility's normal load. I would like to point out that the Texas Utilities Code section 37.0561 subsection E, which is one of the sections amended by SB6, defines on-site backup generation facilities as those which, in the aggregate, can serve at least 50% of on-site demand. So as an example, a 375 megawatt data center, which we've seen before, their backup generators, if they meet the state definition, would be capable of producing at least 187.5 megawatts, which is two and a half times the average use of all San Marcos Utilities customers. So these are the sort of generators that we're talking about in the electric or gas onsite generation category. So to reiterate, my suggestion is that the electric or gas onsite generation be restricted to heavy industrial with a council approved CUP. That can be done by moving it into its own use category and modifying the land use matrix accordingly. Thank you.

Okay, and I'm circling back to Amy Camp who's online. I think she's ready now.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. My name is Amy Camp. Good evening, City Council, Mayor Hewson. I'm just here to, like Sam, uplift the Reyes family and everything that they're going through. I think it's very important that this city council understand the extreme fallout from the arrest of Gerardo and his son and why it's so important that we have greater accountability of our police and greater understanding that you can't just arrest people first and ask questions later. Like any arrest is going to have consequences, whether or not the charges are dismissed, or, you know, the person is found not guilty in court, you know, it's a very, very high cost. And so I would just ask the city council, one, to really listen to what the Reyes family is saying and, you know, take it into like your minds and your heart and You know, look at Gerardo and how he has been affected by 77 days in immigrant detention, something that, you know, so many people are rightfully comparing to concentration camps. We have to work together to figure out a way to end unnecessary arrests, to deescalate interactions between ordinary people and the police so that these horrible, unnecessary consequences aren't happening again. And another thing I want to say before I conclude is that it takes so much courage and it takes so much work to speak out the way that the Reyes family has done. You know, this is a lot of time and effort on their part. And I know that there are so many other people who have been harmed in this way who simply don't have that ability, who feel scared. And so it's really important to, again, realize that this is not about one family. This is not about one arrest. This is making sure this doesn't happen, period. Thank you.

Okay, that takes us to the end of our list. I'm circling back. Guadalupe Saranana. I'm sorry, I'm probably mispronouncing that. My apologies. Okay. You'll state your name.

Guadalupe Sariñana. You got it. You're a little close. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Guadalupe Sariñana. Many of you already know me because I have been here before speaking on behalf of my family. My father is Gerardo Reyes Gonzalez, the grown man that you saw crying on camera. And my brother is Esteban Reyes. It is disappointing that I have to be here again yet today, still asking for answers and accountability regarding the situation. I am here today because what happened in this case, March 14th, is unacceptable, and the way it continues to be handled reflects a serious failure of transparency and accountability in this city. My dad being home is a relief for my family, but I want to be very clear about this. His release does not erase what happened. It does not answer the questions that remain. It does not undo the harm caused, and it does not mean the situation should simply be moved on from. What is deeply concerning, and I want every council member to look at each other in y'all's faces when I say this, It's honestly very embarrassing for a city as a whole that a situation involving serious officer misconduct can continue without full public accountability. While the family impacted is left carrying the consequences every single day. We are talking about an officer, Officer Hasiel Cortina, if none of you have known. who has been found to have violated three department policies, yet instead of immediate transparency and clear answers, our family and this community have been met with delays, limited communication, and unanswered questions. So I want to ask the question that many people in this community are asking. How is it that when an officer violates multiple policies, the public is expected to wait, trust the process, and accept limited information? But if the roles were reversed and a civilian had done something similar, there would be immediate consequences in public accountability. That difference is exactly what damages trust. That is not how trust is built in a city. That is how trust is broken. A city does not lose credibility in one moment. It loses it when families are left without answers, when transparency is delayed instead of delivered, and when accountability becomes something people have to fight for instead of something that is automatically upheld. Accountability cannot depend on who is involved. Transparency cannot become slower or harder to receive when it involves those in positions of authority. The standard should be the same for everyone. My family has done everything that has been asked of us. We have been respectful. We have followed the process. We have asked for answers through the proper channels. And still, we are still waiting for basic transparency, including body camera footage and a clear understanding of what happened. And I need everyone here in this room to understand what this has felt like from our side. The people most affected are the ones who have had to keep showing up, keep asking, and keep fighting just to be heard. No family should have to fight this hard for answers. No family should have to plead for accountability after something has deeply impacted their lives. This is bigger than my family. This just concerned every person in this room because how a city responds when law enforcement is involved affects the trust every resident has in their community. Let's also make something else clear. This is not about attacking law enforcement. It's about consistency. It is about whether this city applies accountability equally or whether there are different standards depending on who is involved. Right now, from where we are sitting for months now, it does not feel equal and it hasn't been equal since this incident happened. It should not take public pressure, repeated requests, and a family standing here month after month for transparency to happen. We have been patient. We have been respectful. but patients should not be mistaken for acceptance. We are past the point of waiting without answers. This community deserves transparency, this community deserves accountability, and this community deserves leadership, willing to address this directly instead of allowing families to fight this hard just to be heard. Your time is up, I'm sorry. We will continue to speak up, continue to show up, and continue asking for accountability. Release the body camera footage. Thank you.

And... And that's everyone. So we will go next to presentations.

Ms. Trevino. Received a staff presentation on the FM 1978 Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan Progressive Design Build Project located southeast of the city and facility naming methodology.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Joe Pantau and Assistant City Manager. Over the next several months, staff will present a series of items to the city council to name and advance design and construction of the city's second wastewater treatment plant. Today, staff will provide an update on the FM 1978 water reclamation progressive design build project and brief city council on naming resolutions and a planned contract amendment that are scheduled for our July council meeting action. The proposed water reclamation facility is required to satisfy city commitments and a cost share agreement with developers to provide a new wastewater treatment plant capacity in southeastern San Marcos, which prevents proliferation of multiple smaller package plants in the area. This new facility will have adequate capacity to allow us to divert some of our existing wastewater flows to the plant. This will prolong our existing wastewater treatment plant and increase potable water conservation as the city's second source of reclaimed water. With that, I'll introduce Engineering Capital Improvements Assistant Director, Marcus Neyser, to kick off the presentation.

Thank you, good evening. Marcus Neyser, Assistant Director of Capital Improvements for the City of San Marcos. I'm here to provide an update on the FM 1978 Water Reclamation Facility Progressive Design Build Project and facility naming. The presentation will consist of project background where I'll talk about the drivers for this project. I'll give an update on the progressive design build project itself. I'll give an update on what's coming to council in July and later months this year with respect to the design build contract. I'll go over a brief schedule overview and cost overview. And then we'll shift into proposed facility naming for this second wastewater treatment plant. And also to be consistent, we'll talk about naming for the existing wastewater treatment plant and then we'll end up with questions. Okay, the driver for this project is the Regional Wastewater Services and Facilities Cost Sharing Agreement. This was approved by council in May 2024. There were multiple residential developments planning in the southern part of town south of FM 110. And to avoid multiple small package wastewater plants in each development, a plan was devised to create a regional wastewater treatment plant that would serve both the developers and have capacity for the city of San Marcos. Instead of impact fees paid for this, developers in the agreement pay a fee every year based on their share of the project, based on how many LUEs are in their development. And on the developer side, their commitments are they're providing $49 million over the next 10 years towards the funding of the project. They provided 25 acres of land for the facility, and that has been deeded over to the city. and they're gonna design and build all of the infrastructure needed for delivering the wastewater from the developments to the new facility. On the city side, we are committed to finance, permit, and construct a two million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant And we're also going to provide wastewater service in March of 2027 through interim wastewater management. And we're going to do that via pump and haul, which basically you're loading up the wastewater into tankers and taking it to the existing wastewater treatment plant until the new plant is constructed and commissioned. And we're going to deliver this project by the end of 2028. That is actually not a commitment in the agreement. That is a goal of the city to be able to save money on the pump and haul operation that's gonna be going during construction. Here's a map of the southern part of San Marcos. The vertical road there is State Highway 123. You can see FM 1978 going out to the east. There's the little light blue parcel on the right side of the exhibit, which is the wastewater treatment plant site. And then the tan areas are the developers in the cost sharing agreement. We are using an alternative delivery method which is called progressive design build. We're utilizing this to deliver the project instead of the conventional design bid build method. And the reason we're doing that is it allows to speed up the delivery of projects like this and it also helps provide price certainty. In other words, we're collaborating with the design build firm as they go through design, providing our input, and we see their cost model, which shows exactly what we're going to pay for when it comes time to approve a contract amendment. State statute requires us to hire an owner advisor to help facilitate this process, and we've done that. Okay, we're gonna be using the word reclamation a lot in the rest of the presentation. So traditional wastewater treatment plants just do that, they treat wastewater. However, our existing plant and this proposed plant are going to reclaim the water. In other words, we're gonna be able to treat it to type one reuse quality water that can be permitted with TCEQ and sold and that will help us with our conservation efforts. In other words, every gallon of reclaimed water that we use that's produced by these wastewater plants can replace a gallon of potable water that's typically used. The phasing of this project, in the first phase, which we are committed to in the agreement, it's a two million gallon per day Treatment capacity is what we need to build. This addresses the developer's needs but it also provides capacity for the city and for expansion and we're gonna be able to divert wastewater flows from the existing wastewater treatment plant service area to this new plant and defer some of the near-term improvements that are needed at that plant. The second phase, which is out there in the future, is a two million gallon per day expansion. That is slated for around 2032. And then we're able to expand all the way up to eight MGD on this 25 acre footprint. Here's a map zoomed in to the 25 acre site. You can see FM 1978 and Redwood Road to get your bearing there. The dotted line that goes out to the northeast is the treated effluent line that is going out to Cottonwood Creek. So Cottonwood Creek is the receiving body water, water of bodies that is receiving the treated effluent and which is on our TCEQ permit. Okay, previous council actions. So we hired the owner advisor and council approved that in April of 2024. And then right after that was the actual regional wastewater services facilities cost sharing agreement in May of 2024. And then last year in July, we contracted with Burns and McDonnell Engineering as our progressive design build firm. And talking about Burns and McDonald's Progressive Design Bill contract, the original contract for phase one had the scope of delivering 60% design on the treatment plant. And in doing that, you formulate the guaranteed maximum price contract amendments that you're gonna need to deliver the plant efficiently. The first proposed planned amendment is coming to council in July, and that's gonna consist of the ability to construct the pump and haul improvements, some early work, which is three main structures in the plant, and procurement of long lead equipment for the treatment plant. It also will contain the final design, taking design from 60 to final so that we can come back to council for the next amendment, which will probably be in October, for the balance of the plant. Everything else that's needed to construct the rest of the plant is gonna be in that second contract amendment. All of those contract amendments were contemplated when we approved the very first original agreement. That's how they roll out the approvals in this progressive design bill. okay let's talk about project budget it's a hundred twenty million dollar budget for the overall project, and that's broken down with the original agreement with Burns and McDonald. For 3.7 million, that's already been approved. They just delivered the 60% design. And then amendment number one we'll be bringing to council for approval in July is gonna be about 37 to 42 million. And then that second amendment for the balance of the plant will come in October for around 57 to 62 million. We also have the $3.9 million contract with our Dura Group, which is our owner advisor. They're also gonna provide construction management inspection, which is in that dollar amount. And then there's about $9 million of other items. We have to integrate this plant into an existing system, so we have projects at lift stations. We have design for interceptors to get the flows here. We're bringing in power from blue bonnet electric new water service to the plant. And we also purchased some additional right away around the 25 acre site. The schedule, if council authorizes us in July, we're going to be breaking ground in September of this year. Construction will take approximately two years. We're shooting to complete construction at the end of 2028. Okay, let's talk about facility naming. Per resolution 1997-88R, all new city facility names must be authorized by city council. And now that we're getting a second wastewater treatment plant, we must name both to distinguish the two facilities and then establish a naming methodology for future facilities. So with that in mind, we're gonna use the water reclamation method Language if I could advance the slide There we go the record we recommend using water reclamation facility Instead of wastewater treatment plant this denotes the reclamation or reuse function of this this new wastewater treatment plant Both of our treatment plants have this reclaim reuse capability for offsetting potable water use and conserving potable water. It's also recommended that we use the name of the closest major road as a descriptor. So with that, we recommend the FM 1978 Water Reclamation Facility for the new plant. And then to be consistent, we want to name the existing plant River Road Water Reclamation Facility. And that's our recommendation, those two names. If you agree, we have two resolutions queued up for July 7th council meeting to approve both of those names. If you don't agree, we'd be happy to hear your suggestions and any criteria you would like us to use to come up with names. And with that, the next steps are July 7th is gonna be a busy council meeting for this project. We're gonna have the contract amendment number one to proceed with construction and finished design. We're gonna have the two naming resolutions if council agrees with moving forward with the recommended names. And actually there's a new bullet on here for the July 7th, which is the blue bonnet electric proposal to bring power into the plant. We recently received that and I have it built into the July 7th agenda. And then in the future, on October 7th, we're gonna have the balance of the plant contract amendment. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Council, questions? I'm gonna ask for questions first, then I'll ask about the renaming. Anybody? I'm still just so thrilled we're gonna have this water reclamation facility instead of a bunch of little package plants. This is wonderful. It is great. Okay. Council. Are y'all good with the, uh, suggested names? Yes. Yes.

Okay.

See it again.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Vino. Let's go on with item two.

Receive a staff presentation on the financial report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026, and provide direction to the city manager.

I believe that's Mr. Locke who will be handling this one for us. Good to see you.

Yes. Thank you, mayor and city council, John Locke, finance director. This, uh, financial overview was presented to the finance and audit committee at the May 14th meeting. Uh, at that meeting, there was a detailed presentation provided, um, and that was included in the packet. And there was also the notes that were discussed at that meeting. were included in the packet. So looking at the summary slide, it provides the major operating funds, and it has the revenue budget, the actual revenue received for each fund, and then the percent of budget that was received as of March 31st. That same information is there for expenses with the budget, actual, and then the percent received. As you can see, all of the numbers are in green, which is good. You can see there's a legend down to the left-hand side. Anything that is within 2.5% of a three-year average will be in green. Anything that would be on watch would be yellow. And anything over 5% that we really need to watch because it's off target would be red. So everything through the midway point is good. I did want to follow up with City Council on one item. That was with hotel tax. At the last meeting, there were two hotels that were about four months behind on their hotel tax payments. That payment has been made and has been brought current. So now we're just working with them on some interest and penalties owed on the amount, but they have made the actual hotel tax payments. I'm sorry, and that concludes the presentation for the financial report.

All right, thank you. Council, any questions? Moving on to... Item three, Ms. Trevino.

Receive a staff presentation on the investment report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026, and provide direction to the city manager.

Mr. Locke.

Thank you again, Mayor and City Council. The same background information with the investment report, the detailed report was shared with the Finance and Audit Committee, and what we have on the screen right now is the detailed financial report and not the summary investment report. I think if we keep going through the slides, we may make it to the investment.

And this is the information that was summed up on that other slide that we saw before?

Yes, Mayor.

Okay, looks like we're getting, looks like we're there.

Yes. Okay, this is the investment summary as of March 31st. If you look at the far right under total, you'll see there's a total of $498 million in the city's portfolio. And then moving to the left of that amount, the enterprise funds, which is water, wastewater, electric, stormwater, resource recovery, make up $320 million of that amount. and the consolidated, which is all of the funds except for those enterprise funds, make up $178 million, the largest of which is the general fund. Within each one of those, you can see what's labeled as an asset type, and that's how much money is in the local government pools or the money markets, how much is in security, and then how much are in demand accounts, which are just the accounts that the city pays its bills from. If you move down to the middle section, I'm sorry, on the same slide, on the left-hand side, it has the current quarter average yield. And you see the total portfolio yield was 3.7%, which is above what we use as our benchmark, which is the two-year treasury. To the right of that is a rolling 12-month average yield. And the portfolio was just over 4%. which is also above the rolling two-year treasury that we use as our benchmark, which is about 3.7. All the way at the bottom, it has the total interest earned during the second quarter, it's $4.5 million, and year-to-date through March, we've generated $9.3 million of interest. And that concludes the presentation for the investments.

Any questions, comments, thoughts? Thank you very much, Mr. Locke. Thank you. And we will move on to our consent agenda. Ordinances, resolutions, and other items number four through 12 may be acted upon by one motion unless a council member wants to pull that item. If they do, then we will discuss those after the public hearings. Anybody got anything to pull? Okay, I'll accept a motion to accept.

Oh, yes, Ms. Johnson? Which one?

Poll number 10? Okay, and I'm looking for a motion to accept four through nine. Second. 11 and 12. Motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Mendoza. Ms. Trevino, I see we're push button voting.

Motion passes seven to zero.

All right. Then that takes us to item 13, first public hearing item. Ms. Trevino.

Yeah, I'm going to read 13 and 14.

Oh, I'm sorry. I had that note to myself and then didn't read it. Um, items 13 and 14 are somewhat intertwined and we're likely to discuss both of them at the same time. So Mr. Vino is going to read 13 and 14 and then Mr. Floyd will do the presentations as he sees fit. We can discuss them together. I will have to have the public hearings separate and the votes will be separate.

receive a staff presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against resolution 2026-94R, approving a request for a conditional use permit in case number CUP-25-71 to a live purpose, build student housing development for the property located at 325 North Camacho Street, authorize city staff to issue a conditional use permit consistent with this resolution, and declare an effective date and consider approval of resolution 2026-94R-14. Resolution, consider, receive this representation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against resolution 2026-95R, approving a request in case number AC-25-09 for alternative compliance to maximum building height requirements in section 4.4.3.7 of the development code, to increase that permitted building height from five to seven stories for a proposed development located at 325 North Camacho Street. Authorize city staff to issue permits consistent with this resolution and declare an effective date and consider approval of resolution 2026-95R.

Presentations.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Terry Floyd, Director of Planning and Development Services. I'm going to try to advance my own slides. So bear with me. If not, you'll hear me say next slide to Hayden. So the item before you is, yeah, Hayden, I'm gonna need you to advance the slide. The item before you today is a public hearing related to, and I'm gonna speak to both things, both an alternative compliance and a conditional use permit for purpose-built student housing at 325 North Comanche Street. And so just kind of briefly, the definition of purpose-built student housing is outlined in our land development code. And a couple of things to think about in this respect is it's, you know, we look at rent by the bed leases in both the purpose-built student housing and the conventional multifamily CD5, which is what this property is zoned. Both are allowed. The maximum number of bedrooms per unit is where the change happens. In our CD5 or legacy multifamily districts, only three bedrooms per unit are allowed. In a purpose-built student housing, that number can be set as part of the condition. And in this case, it was recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission as five. The parking requirements are 1.5 spaces per bedroom in purpose-built student housing, one space per unit by right in CD5D. Additionally, in CD5D zoning, purpose-built student housing does require a CUP just by itself. It's allowed by right. Next slide, please. So the property is approximately just under one acre. It's just located on the southwest corner of Pat Garrison Street, North Comanche Street, just south of Texas State. We'll look at that here in a moment. It is a concurrent application, as pointed out, with an alternative compliance for seven stories in height. It's not a change in the height. Both are allowed 75 feet. by right, but the applicant is asking for alternative compliance to move from five to seven stories, which we'll talk a little bit more about additionally later. Next slide, thank you. The existing zoning is CD5, character district five downtown, and the proposed use is purpose-built student housing, as I outlined. Next slide, please. So a little bit of history and kind of some context of where this is at. It's a former Pennington funeral home. Demolition permit actually hasn't been issued. It's not there. The historic structures on the site are listed as medium preservation in 325 North Comanche and 325 went through the proper processes to be demolished. Balcones Hall, purpose-built student housing, grocery, obviously, church, multifamily, and Texas State all surround the property. Uh, there, uh, next slide, please. So just kind of looking a little bit about what's been approved in the past over the couple of last couple of years, um, north and Lindsay street were approved in 2024. A CUP was approved for purpose built student housing in the, in the area outlined in red on the map. Uh, also an alternative compliance for the exact same, uh, exact same ask for a seven story building was also approved on a portion of the site and a portion of the site, uh, stated at a smaller story. And then later in 2025 at Comanche and Hutchison, a CUP was approved for the same use, a purpose-built student housing, and an alternative compliance was approved for seven-story building height, and it was built at 75 feet. Next slide, please. Yes. So in looking at some of the criteria, is outlined in Section 2.8.3.4. There are a few things that we see the proposed use, the specified location is consistent with the adopted policies in the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is not consistent with any adopted neighborhood character study for the area, and we'll touch on that just here in a moment. The proposed use may or is compatible. That's one of our criteria with and preserves the character and integrity of all the adjacent developments. That is consistent. partially met by the applicant's current application. Next slide, please. And then looking further at, yeah, some additional criteria. It does not generate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which will be hazardous or in conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the area, so it is compliant with those criteria. It does incorporate roadway traffic adjustments, traffic control devices, and as you know, all of those things come in as part of the planning process and our site permit process, so that will be evaluated then. The proposed use does incorporate features to minimize adverse effects, visual impacts, and so there are some things, some architectural features that do minimize those. And then the proposed use meets the standards for the applicable district, and that too is partially met. Next slide, please. Further evaluating criteria in section 5.1, Does the project have the ability to transition to future accommodating more diverse population? Potentially, but it is a purpose-built student housing at this point. The durability, energy efficiency, and longevity of the building? Potentially. The location of the development in relation to alternative transportation opportunities? Yes, it is there. There are a lot of sidewalks, bike lanes, and more pedestrian traffic is available there. Pedestrian opportunities, mitigation of any effects? on the adjacent property and neighborhoods, potentially, again, there's some elements there that this criteria could do. It is not compliant, though, it doesn't meet the criteria for our comprehensive plan, downtown master plan, and other adopted policies of the city. Next slide, please. In kind of thinking about those areas where it may not meet the criteria, if we look at the wording in the downtown master plan, most of the rental housing units Page 56, it outlines that most of the rental housing units in the downtown are student oriented. Additional non-student oriented rental housing options are needed. So that was one of the criteria in the downtown master plan, downtown area master plan. Additionally, looking at in order to keep up with population growth, another criterion in that or in statement, says the downtown should be one of the most dense residential areas in San Marcos. Multifamily mixed use housing types are some of the primary products and it should be marketed to all demographics, not just or primarily to students. And of course, I did want to point out the applicants are here. They also signed up to speak, so they'll be able to speak a little more about that and are here to answer questions as well for you. Next slide, please. So in looking at all of those factors together, staff is providing a neutral recommendation, and we leave this up to city council for denial, approval, or approval with conditions. To point out, the Planning and Zoning Commission did approve this with some staff recommended conditions that we'll touch on in the following slides. Last month's meeting, it was a five to four vote. Some of the topics that were touched on were parking and traffic, purpose-built student housing compared to conventional multifamily, leases available to family and incompatibility with the downtown area plan. So next slide, please. Should the council choose to recommend approval of this and approve this, here's some conditions that the council would want to consider and these were also approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So the development shall register with San Marcos Long-Term Rental Registration Program. The lease shall be made publicly available on the property's websites. These are also, just to point out, are consistent with other conditions for some of the other approvals for this property previously. Next slide, please. Additionally, the lease shall contain the text related to the student leases. That, again, was language that was in some of the previous approvals regarding the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, that when the lease for the tenant to occupy the premises shall include a late delivery provision that I'll talk a little bit about on the next slide, please. And, of course, this statement related to the tenant remaining bound if it's not delivered on time or it terminates the lease with no financial penalties and any prepaid items within 10 days. So that language, again, would be included, would be recommended if the council choose to approve this as a potential condition. Once the property receives a definitive move-in date, or I'm sorry, the tenant does, or they receive their certificate of occupancy, this condition would be removed. Next slide, please. The development also should offer both individual leases and conventional style leases where the units can be rented in their entirety. Also, the development shall comply with parking calculation of .60 spaces per bedroom, again, a condition that was in previous CUPs. The developer should not sell the property to a non-taxpaying entity for 12 years per the effective date of the conditional use permit. And in the language there, again, consistent with some of the previous conditions that were placed on properties nearby. Next slide, please. Additionally, the right-of-way will be dedicated for the cross-sections of development code remit. CUP shall expire within three years if they do not have a permit, and the development shall comply with all the other development code regulations. Talk a little bit about the packet materials that are provided. to you or for informational purposes, they're still finalizing design, and the number of bedrooms, this is one of the key ones, is limited to five, which is similar to conditions for the adjacent student built, yeah, there you go, student housing process, there you go, I'll get it spit out. CUP's previously approved. Next slide, please. So with that, I'll go ahead, Mayor, if it's okay, I'll just roll right into the alternative compliance. So in addition to the CUP to allow for the purpose-built student housing, this is being accompanied by an alternative compliance that would allow for the property to go from five stories, which it's allowed in CD 527 stories. So the existing zoning, as pointed out, is CD5. That carries within a maximum height of five stories and 75 feet. And so the two additional stories are what's being requested. The developer is not requesting to make it any taller than what it's allowed by rights, 75 feet, and we'll talk a little bit about conditions that cap that, but no additional height. Thank you, next slide. The existing conditions on the side, as we talked about earlier, still relate to different student-built housing around. There are adjacent seven-story The Cypress Apartments, formerly the Vistas, are one. There are surrounding buildings that range anywhere from five to seven stories. Next slide, please. So just some context here looking at some of the surrounding properties. As you can see, there's a little bit of everything. There's some one-story properties. some that are five, six, and even two. So it sets within that realm of when we talk about the stories and the height of what's been developed there over the years. Next slide, please. Again, just this kind of a bird's eye of an overlay. You'll notice the not approved. These are the the plans currently as they are, but they may change some, so didn't want to get out there that this is the exact product. But this gives you an idea of the scale and the massing of what that would look like on the site at seven stories per the renderings provided by the developer. Next slide, please. So you can kind of see a street view here of some of the architectural features, the setbacks, some of the step back features and other things to kind of break up that one uniform mono wall that obviously we like to see different architectural elements in our downtown area, so this kind of gives a flavor of what that is. Next slide, please. Additionally, you can see some of how the stories would relate there, and again, some of those elements of the street frontage, how that story interrelates to the five stories above that, and then the top story. Next slide, please. So with that and looking at some of the criteria for approval, again, some of these conditions are partially met. When we look at those sections in the land development code, it is partially consistent with some of our guidelines from the comprehensive plan. We talked a little bit about the downtown master plan. We'll talk a little bit more about that shortly and how this project's consistent. Again, one of the criteria is a residential project. The additional stories provide an opportunity to provide up to 10% of the project as affordable housing. It's not being committed to by the developer here. Additionally, the residential property shall provide additional stories for the opportunity to provide or include 20% as workforce housing. That's not been agreed. are not met yet by this project. The developer hasn't committed to that. And then there are additional stories that provide an opportunity for professional office or commercial space. That's not being met here in this proposal. Next slide, please. Additionally, the developer has talked some about this, but is not committed to any LEED green building. That's also a criteria. The additional stories, they also have not committed to providing any additional childcare within the facility. And the additional stories, also another criteria to provide an opportunity to add public parking. That could be determined, but that's only partially met at this in public parking or adjacent to downtown parking. And then lastly, on the, The additional stories provide an opportunity to include onsite publicly accessible space in excess of the open space requirement. They're not going above and beyond that requirement as well. Next slide, please. Additionally, in CD5, in the five downtown design context, the approved alternative, does it conform to the downtown design guidelines? Partially. And architectural elements, do they mitigate any of the effects on the adjacent properties? We do feel that it meets those criteria. Next slide, please. And so talking a little bit about the downtown area plan, we talk about the gateways, and Pat Garrison Comanche Street intersection is designated as a pedestrian gateway, and that is recommended in the downtown area plan that that gateway and that space be provided. Next slide, please. And then also looking at New Park area, it's designated the northwest of downtown area, and that the public spaces allow and accommodate that downtown growing population. That's also a recommendation in our downtown area plan.

Next slide, please.

And then of course our design manual talks about the project. It does fall within the downtown core design, so it's within that area. Next slide, please. And so in looking at that, no additional height adjacent to downtown historic districts is being recommended in the design manual. Any additional height should consider if it obscures views, but additional height above five stories is discouraged as part of our design manual. So when we look at that criteria, it's discouraged. Next slide, please.

Maybe, I'm sorry, next slide, please.

So with that recommendation, because so many of the criteria aren't met, staff is recommending denial. We'll point out again, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with some conditions we'll talk about when this was considered last month on a five to four vote. Again, in looking at this, some of the discussion topics were alternative compliance, the San Marcos Design Manual, height strategy, request for stories versus height, maximum bedroom count were all discussed as well. Next slide, please. So should the PNZ approve conditions, here are those conditions and those would be conditions that the council could consider or recommend if they wanted to approve is the development shall comply with the activation varying massing standards described in chapter four of land development code. Next slide. But also that it should include an enhanced pedestrian gateway of a publicly accessible plaza at the intersection of Pat Garrison. That was also outlined in the plan in North Comanche. that it should be equal to or greater in size in the area of the plaza that's currently shown on their plat application now. And then it should incorporate all the different amenities for bike, pump station, refills, benches, lighting, and shade canopy. Next slide, please. Additionally, the building facade facing north of Comanche shall incorporate different expression elements in the first three floors, cornices, material changes, horizontal bands, vertical wall offsets, and so forth, as shown in Attachment B. We'll talk about that shortly. The height of the building in another condition shall not exceed 75 feet. and the development shall comply with any of the other development regulations. And again, the packet materials are there for reference. Next slide, please. Additionally, this exhibit would be part of those conditions that show some of those architectural elements in the stories as outlined. So we recommend, if Council wouldn't recommend approval, these are what the Planning and Zoning Commission's conditions were that they recommended to Council. Next slide, please. And so with that, that concludes my presentation. I will point out Lauren Clanton's here. She was our case manager and can really dive into the details with you. Additionally, Andrea Villalobos, our assistant director, and the applicant is here in person, and I believe they signed up, Mayor, for some of the public comments as well. Thank you, and that does conclude my presentation.

Okay, so I'm going to open the public hearing on item 13, which is the student housing conditional use permit. And we have... Four people signed up in this order. Shannon Mattingly, Ed Theriault, Kelly Quinn, and Sam Young. And it's a public hearing, so we need name and address, please.

Good evening, Shannon Mattingly, Drenner Group, 2705 B Cave Road, Austin, Texas. Thank you for allowing me to present to you tonight. Just following up a little bit, y'all are all kind of familiar with our first phase of the project. This is phase two, which is across the street. The request before you tonight is identical to the previously approved project. The conditions are the same as what we have have previously gotten approved. The current zoning as mentioned is CD5, which does allow for student housing with a maximum of three bedrooms, parking at one space per unit, not bedroom, and then 75 feet in height, but no additional conditions are part of that current zoning. So that would just be the straight zoning on the side of CD5. The proposal before you tonight would be to allow for student housing with a maximum of five bedrooms, That would allow for an additional 80 parking spaces approximately. Also at 75 feet in height, the reason for the request is to have additional stories, not height. So as far as the downtown design context, the height would be the same with the current zoning and with the current CUP. There will, however, be all those different conditions that were mentioned by Mr. Floyd that would be part of the conditional use permit as well as the alternative compliance. Those conditions include things like not selling to the university or a non-profit for 12 years, additional park area including the downtown gateway with amenities, traditional and rent by the bedroom leases. So we would offer both of those. So if there was a family or somebody who wanted to have a different option for leasing, we would allow for a traditional lease option there. All the conditions that were previously requested by council that we agreed to on phase one are also replicated in this request. I passed out an exhibit just to kind of give you a visual of what CD5 now and what CD5 with the request with all of our conditions would look like just to kind of show you what the differences are in those. I know they were in the presentation as well that we sent in. Just wanted to hand that out again. As you can see from the exhibit, we are really trying to look at the ability to provide a better, more functional building. It's approximately the same number of bedrooms. It'll be around 300 bedrooms. the same 75 feet would be allowed, just that additional stories we would be requesting. There would be 80 additional parking spaces, enhanced amenities, as well as doing the same massing as before. One thing I wanted to mention, I know we talked a lot about what conditions are met in the criteria and what aren't, and those criteria in the design manual are specific for additional height, and since we're not going up in height, We're really just trying to get that additional parking to accommodate the project. Thank you for your time, and I'm available for questions.

Our next speaker is Ed Theriault.

Good evening. My name is Ed Theriault. My address is 120 Lakeview Circle in Lockhart. Just to add a little bit of information on the need for the project and some of the potential revenues that could be generated from the project. The estimated, property tax that would be provided just to the city of San Marcos would be around 215 to $250,000 per year once the project was completed. Permit fees, impact fees, those types of fees would be around 200K, 200,000 that would be coming into the city in those revenue classes. But the significant revenue uh, that would be coming in off the project would be around $1 million, uh, for the parking buy down that's associated with this, um, with this project, the phase one of the project had a one point about a $1.5 million, uh, parking buy down. So that's about $2.5 million just off this project that the city has available to use to target towards, um, parking. parking type projects in the downtown area. Combined with the North Lindsey project, which also was about a million dollars, there's probably about 3.5 million available to council off these projects to utilize for parking. A little bit on the need, and I know you guys know most of this, but Texas State University surpassed 44,000 students enrolled for the first time in fall of 2025. The freshman class, I think, was 9,300 or so kids. It was a record. A lot of these kids are upperclassmen. Now the university is expanding their upperclassmen programs. Master's students increased by about 33%. Doctoral enrollments increased by 70%. and international enrollments increased by about 30%. In April this year, for the spring enrollment, there were 2,908 upperclassmen on the housing waiting list at Texas State. The private sector market has not been keeping up with the demand. The university has been building, but there still is a large waiting list for the upperclassmen students. A little bit on the community engagement that we've entered into. Our clients have provided training facilities and training opportunities for the fire and police department. And they've- And your time is up. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Our next speaker is Kelly Quinn. Are they joining us online, I believe? All right.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Kelly Quinn from Emerge Here, 325 North Comanche. First, my apologies that I'm not in person. As most of, you know, this meeting was supposed to be for June 2nd, and I planned a family vacation this week last summer that I couldn't change. I think Ed and Shannon did a good job asking or explaining what we're asking for tonight and hopefully the email and the presentation helped clarify it as well. To reiterate, I'm asking for a CUP to provide a more diverse unit mix for future residents. The site's location will naturally attract primarily students. I am asking for alternative compliance to extend two partial floors to two full floors, which will accommodate the parking that is required by the CUP. I am not looking for more height. The building will be the same height, the same massing, the same residence, but with your approval, it will be a better parked, better functioning, better looking building. I'm around for any questions. Thank you for your time and service.

Our next speaker is Sam Young.

Sam Young, 232 Plain Cypress in San Marcos. I have no problem with higher quality, better design, better functionality. My only question, and this may be silly, but will there be enough growth in San Marcos property tax growth in 12 years to offset a possible sale to a non-property tax paying entity? Is that, is 12 years long enough to offset? And as important as Texas state is to San Marcos, a common complaint I hear is how much property the university has purchased and taken off the tax rolls. And based on the budget town hall, I understand that only half of the land area of San Marcos is available for property tax due to the required floodplain, city property, county property, and Texas state. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak far against or about item 13? If so, we'll need you to sign in. Anyone? Okay, I will close the public hearing on item 13, which is the student housing conditional use permit. And then I'm going to open the public hearing on item 14, which is the alternative compliance regarding the height requirement. So I'll open that one. And signed up is Shannon Mattingly, Ed Theriault, and Kelly Quinn in that order.

Mayor, we covered most of our information in the last presentation, so we'll be available for any questions that the council has. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Terrio?

The same, Mayor. Just to reiterate that there's no height variance being requested as part of this. It's only adjusting the floors within the allowed height.

Thank you.

All right. And next will be Kelly Quinn.

Kelly Quinn emerge here 325 North command sheet. Um, again, just to reiterate, I'm asking for the, or I'm sorry, I'm asking for alternative compliance. So I can meet the parking requirement of the. I can't accept the because I can't park it without the full 7 floors. Thank you around for questions.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak far against or about this 1? which is the alternative compliance regarding the height requirement. If not, I will close the public hearing. Council, we can begin discussing either one. We'll just have to vote on them separately. Anybody?

Motion to approve for discussion.

Thank you.

Second.

And was that for 13? Sure.

Yes, ma'am. Me too.

Mr. Gary, do I need to go ahead and get another motion for 14? Is that going to be?

I think we should take care of one at a time.

Well, we're discussing both because we already read both of them.

Right.

I know that's not per Robert's rules.

You can have discussion of both and just two separate votes, really, I guess.

What about motions?

I'm sorry, you can either dispense with the rules and have the discussion, but I think it's better to have a motion to approve 13. Which I do. And then go with that discussion first. Okay, council.

Questions, concerns, thoughts? This is the same.

Actually, Mayor, based on the last comment she just made about needing the alternative compliance in order to accept the CEP, can we flip-flop that and...

could I modify my motion to approve 14 since based on what she said, I can say that that was, if you would like to make that motion for withdrawal for 13 and, and make it for 14, we can do that. If that's what you would like to do, Mr. Mendoza, are you okay with that? With your second?

All right. And your discussion can overlap if they're so intertwined, you can kind of get into both areas for your discussion. Just the motions have to be separate.

Okay. Mr. Gonzalez.

So my biggest concern, I guess technically it's just clarification because I think they already said this, but as far as all the, I'm going to call them concessions, they pretty much match the last one that we had. So I know we sat up here for quite some time last time going back and forth, but so essentially it just mirrors what we asked for last time.

Yes, they match the other ones.

There you go. Mr. Floyd, was there any change in conditions at the PNZ meeting?

May I ask Ms. Clanton, our case manager, on that to answer that question, ma'am?

Thank you.

And staff can confirm a change appeared in the conditions for both the conditional use permit and the alternative compliance. For the conditional use permit, it was more administrative. An amendment wasn't involved. The phrase per unit was added to the line addressing bedrooms.

Which makes sense. Is that the only one?

Additionally, for the alternative compliance, there was a little clause added through an amendment which referenced the plat to give a sense of the size of the plaza.

But it's clarifying, not really changing anything.

Right.

All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay. Council, Mr. Gonzalez, did you have anything else?

No, ma'am. That's all I had.

Mr. Rodriguez.

Oh.

I didn't have a whole lot. I know we still have a lot of items going. I can just tell you that I appreciate Mr. Young's comments because that's exactly where I feel. I voted no the first time this came before us. I saw in the letter submitted by whom I'm assuming is the consultant of the development, and I will read... Yes, it was sent to us by Shannon Mattingly on February 16th, 2026. There's a line here that says, in preparation for our submittal, we met with the representatives of Texas State University to discuss the school's projected growth and to discuss the immediate and future housing needs of the university. Emphasis on the university. Texas state's growth has been substantial in the last five years with the projected enrollment of over 40,000 students. The representatives emphasize the need for student oriented housing within walking or biking distance. I emphasize that, uh, because to Mr. Young's points and to the points I've made last time, um, I can tell you, I serve on both of the tours committee and then main street. I'm all things downtown. And when it says that our downtown area plan, this is not consistent with it, it isn't. I also do not think that it is our responsibility as a city to build over potential housing for our people because Texas State decides to grow in a way in which doesn't feel consensual to us. Before I ran for this position, I always heard that sentiment shared by members of the community And as a graduate of Texas State, I took issue without understanding fully what they meant. And I get it now. And so I think being so explicit to say that this is for students, for students, for students, while in the remarks provided today to say, to hint as if they would allow a traditional lease that isn't students, I'm not seeing that reflected in this agreement. Um, I see the 12 years. I do believe that that's a concession, but again, 12 years to that point mentioned earlier is insufficient for me. Um, and so, yeah, I'm going to keep my vote as a no. And I understand that there's other other things included in this, but I think also we have acknowledged through our discussions about the tenant bill of rights that rent by the bedroom specific. Leases are problematic for our people and our code does not currently provide adequate protections for people who go into those types of leases. And so again, I just believe it's cart before the horse. I get the timing of it all, but yeah, I'm gonna know.

Okay. Um, I just want to say that rent by the bedroom leases in and of themselves. are okay, it's how they are administered by some landlords that are very problematic.

And please don't think that my comment was insinuating that this management is going to be replicated of what you're talking about, but again, without protections in place already, I don't wanna be banking on the fact that we just have a good one, so yeah.

But do note that they are required to offer conventional leases also. That was one of the conditions. OK. The only thing that I've got on that is that we have an apartment complex pretty much in the middle of downtown that did not apply for a purpose-built student housing CUP. and it is, I'm gonna need some people from the planning department to make sure I'm not telling anything incorrect. I believe the parlor was limited to three bedrooms because they were not purpose-built student housing, is that correct? The traditional three? I believe that's correct. Okay, so we've got a place that's more traditional type housing, and it's, from what I understand from people who have lived there, almost exclusively students. So we've, so we've got a place that people could. So I think it's, um, I would not say that these folks can't build student housing because we're wanting the other type because we have the other type and it's not, it's all students also. So I think it's going to take a while to get enough people who are interested in living downtown and there's an option for them. So that's where I am and I'm okay with the student housing on this.

Yeah, and Mayor, again, I spend a lot of time downtown, a ton of time, and I can tell you there are plenty of people in our city that wish to move downtown, myself included. The lack of affordability and options around affordability, they're not there. I watched that entire PNZ committee hearing from, when was it, the one that we're discussing that handled this item. Affordability was mentioned, as you saw, in that committee. And again, it was a similar response that I received when I brought up affordability the first time about this project. And I think the exact, I wrote down the response because it quite, it left me a little bit, let's see, I think it was Mr. Quinn that said, in terms of affordability, as for the verbatim, as for the blending of workforce, housing, and students, that creates an issue for us as well. So I'm not sure what that meant, especially followed by a claim that students are not a protected class under the definition of affordability. That was also mentioned in that. And so I do hear what you're talking about, that there are other options. But again, when you're not addressing affordability, you're not really allowing people an opportunity to have the interest and then go do something with that interest.

Well, affordability is something different when we're talking about the type of housing. That's two different things, but I'm not saying that you're wrong.

Right. And we know that it can be done if they wanted to, if it was of interest. So.

Mr. Mendoza.

Okay. First and foremost, make it very clear, I've always been against, well, I should say against, I've been hesitant on any of these projects that we have going downtown. Lindsay North, this one that we had. I can remember going back as a kid with Kona. And since I was a child, Kona neighborhood commissions.

Wait, who are you talking about? Uh, Kona council of neighborhood associations. What?

Yeah. They were, I would go to the Kona meetings with my mom.

Council of neighborhood associations.

What mayor said. We don't like acronyms here. Acronyms are, but there've been complaints, you know, it's always been San Marcos versus Texas state. They have been telling us since we had the occupancy issue a couple years ago that they are trying to keep students out of the commission. And some of the former Kona members are trying their best to keep students near campus. I've seen it campaign first time, second time. When we were running through Barrio Pascal, Rio Vista, it seems to be a common thread now where you have parents that are going and buying houses in these neighborhoods because you can get them for $200,000, $300,000, and they're turning them into rental homes for their children. That's bringing more students into the neighborhoods. That's affecting tax rate because these individuals, they do some major improvements to these homes that people around them really can't afford to keep up to. I don't like the fact that there are so many students that have come and talked to us about it that they have to rush to get to class from across town. They've also complained that they want to be around where they can go to HEB. They can go to get restaurants. We continue to say that there's not much businesses going downtown except for bars. This is another reason for people to actually go downtown and shop and to use things. We used to have pharmacies downtown. We used to have more restaurants. We seem, as a council, to be trying to go in the direction of bringing more people downtown, not just to make it a catered area for bars. We've seen the mistake done with apartment complexes that come into play, like Cheatham Flats that don't provide ANY SUBSTANCE WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING FOR THEM. IT'S JUST HERE'S SOME OPTIONS AND THE STUDENTS CHOOSE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER. WE NEED PARKING GARAGES DOWNTOWN. WE NEED THEM TO BE ABLE TO PARK UP THERE. WE CANNOT STOP WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH TEXAS STATE AND WE MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A WAITING LIST FOR PLACES DOWN HERE. I THINK THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OPTION FOR US TO HAVE BETTER PARKING. and put students near campus. That's just the way I felt since growing up here. I just want them to stay there. So I'm going to be in favor of this project with the conditions that are placed on there. So that's where I'm at.

Anyone else? I've got a couple of questions for staff. And that is, I'm still perplexed about this whole 75 feet is big enough for seven stories, but We got, we limited to five. There's still not making sense to me, but my question is, and apologies for not putting this on the message board. It was on my list. I didn't get it typed in of the other, uh, buildings that are nearby. They're five stories, six stories. Do we know how tall they are? Do we know if there's 75, if you don't, that's okay. I didn't ask you in advance and I don't expect you to know off the top of your head. I was just curious. Yeah, if we don't know for sure, it's okay.

I'm not sure we're 100% clear. The developer may actually know from some of their research if you want to direct the question to them.

If they know for sure.

What we can tell you for sure is that our buildings in relation to the buildings behind us will not appear to be taller. I can't attest to their actual height, but I do know They are taller than us, and the natural topography of our sites slope down towards Hutchinson. So we will maintain the same overall appearance, albeit the buildings behind us are likely taller than us, but optically, we look of the same height.

Right. Yeah, because the elevation changed. Okay. Mr. Theriault, do you have some?

That's basically what I was going to say. The project, the name's escaping me, but right across Pat Garrison is slightly taller on the average height than we are. I think it's 80 something feet. But then as the slope goes back up campus, the other side of their building is not as high, so it averages out.

Okay, thank you. Council, are we ready to vote? Mr. Vino, we are on 14 is the one that we're voting on right now. Just so everybody's clear, it's number 14, which is the alternative compliance for the height.

The motion passes 5-2 with Council Members Rodriguez and Garza DeCente.

All right. Then we will go to Item 13, and I will accept a motion for Item 13.

So moved. Second for approval.

Motion. Was that for approval, Mr. Gonzalez? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And motion by Mr. Gonzalez and seconded by Mr. Mendoza to approve 13. Any more thoughts, conversation? If not, we're ready to vote.

Motion passes 5-2-2 with Council Members Rodriguez and Garza DeSantis. And I'm going to say it's time for a break.

Anybody else ready for a break? Some of us are ready for a break. It is 8 o'clock. Please be back in your seats at 8.07. We have returned from our meeting. It is 8-11. We are still in the... public hearing portion of our program, and we are on item 15.

Receive a staff presentation, hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against ordinance 2026-25, amending chapter two, article three, boards, committees, and commissions, the San Marcos City Code to add a new division 23, establishing a historic preservation plan oversight committee, and amending section 2.067 of the code to allow persons to serve on the committee and another city board or commission, providing for the repeal of any conflicting provisions, provide any savings clause, and declare an effective date and consider approval of ordinance 2026-25 on the first of two readings.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, council, mayor, Alison Brake, historic preservation officer. The recently adopted historic preservation plan recommends the establishment of a permanent city council appointed historic preservation plan oversight committee as a long-term strategy, implementation strategy. The committee's purpose will be to support implementation by tracking progress made on the goals and metrics, sharing updates, coordinating programs, and advising amendments to the plan. To establish this committee, subpart A, chapter two, article three of the San Marcos City Code needs amendments. Next slide, please. Mirroring the structure and duties of the Comprehensive Plan Oversight Committee, the Historic Preservation Plan Oversight Committee is proposed to be comprised of seven members who would serve three-year terms. One of those members should be the Historic Preservation Commission Chair. From there, a Chair and Vice Chair would be nominated, much like our other city boards and commissions. The members should be residents in the city or the ETJ or they should be employed in the city and demonstrate an interest in the history of San Marcos. They should include but not be limited to representatives of key non-profit preservation groups as called out in the plan. Next slide. The oversight committee would review the progress of implementation of the plan. They would annually provide a status report to the Historic Preservation Commission and to the City Council. They should schedule and conduct two meetings annually as necessary, and if they decided that community input was needed for a matter that fell under their duties, the public comment period for that would be 30 days. Bylaws will be adopted following appointments of members, and there is a call for applications scheduled or anticipated for the fall of this year. Next slide. Staff is also proposing an amendment to Section 2.067 of the City Code to allow these people that will be serving on the Historic Preservation Plan Oversight Committee to also serve on another permanent city board or commission, and this is similar to what we've done with the Comprehensive Plan Oversight Committee, the Industrial Development Corporation Board, and the Construction Board of Appeals. Next slide. Staff recommends approval of the amendments to Subpart A, Chapter 2, Article 3, and Section 2.067 of the San Marcos City Code. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions should you have them.

Um, and first I will have open the public hearing and Mr. Vena, I don't believe we had anyone signed up. So the floor is open for anyone who wishes to speak for against or about, uh, this item. Not everybody rush up at the same time going once, twice, three times.

Second.

Close the public hearing and motion to approve for Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Mendoza. Anybody have any questions? Yes. Okay, because I have some questions and I have some amendments.

Okay. I might have a slight amendment on, I think it's, I have the old packet. It was page 578. It gets into the duties of HP POC. the section 2.37025, yes. So I wanna draw attention to subsection E. I bring this up in no way to micromanage what this committee does, or, yeah, it's a committee. But on this, when we talk about has no responsibility to advise, you have the inclusion of city council, I would ask that, I know Ms. Trevino does a good job at sending us a report of what PNZ does. It sort of has, I don't know if that's planning staff that provides that. Planning staff creates it. I appreciate that. I would hope that per this language, are we still going to be able to get things like that? I guess I'm trying to understand intent.

Yeah, we can definitely provide any kind of updates or, uh, what we call it day after report, um, from these commissions we can, or committees we can get them for HPC too.

Right. And so I figured that was going to be a non-issue. I was just, it was a point of clarification in the sense of, did we need to strike the city council to allow that just for the sake of, or, you know, if not, then it can just remain as is.

What, which item are you talking about?

Uh, subsection E when it talks about has no responsibility to advise. And again, I am not trying to, uh, Oh, specific land use decisions.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm not trying to micromanage as the council, what this does. I just wanna make sure we're being updated.

We, we can definitely provide, um, a day after report whenever we have those meetings.

Okay. Thank you. Well, actually y'all are only gonna meet twice a year. Y'all are gonna review. I, I think what we need to get is that status report. that they're going to come up with not just that day after like who voted for what motion, but real report. Cause that's what this whole oversight thing is about.

Are y'all okay then mayor? Uh, and I can ask staff this as well, but are you okay, Mary? Let's just strike city council to allow for stuff like that or anything else to council. I just feel like it would be weird.

That one is specific land use decisions. Uh, and I, I I'm okay with it.

Okay. It'll, it'll be twice a year anyway. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure we're getting information.

Okay. So here's my question. And I asked this when this was first discussed, I don't understand why we need this committee. We've got the historic preservation commission. I wouldn't want to see these two at odds in any way, which could happen. And I don't see the need for this group to begin with. I think this should be given, these duties should be given to the Historic Preservation Commission. So can somebody explain to me, other than some people from out of town thought this was a good idea, I like the idea of what they're doing, I just think it should be part of the HPC that we already have.

And I think that was why staff felt the need to include the chair for the Historic Preservation Commission as being one of the members. So six other members could be from the city, they could work in the city, they could live in the ATJ. Oh, I got amendments for that too. So I think that was the, that way, you know, the Historic Preservation Plan Oversight Committee, it was a, long-term strategy, it was the last long-term strategy for the implementation of the plan that was inside the plan itself. They will inform the HPC and then much in the same way that the Comprehensive Plan Oversight Committee informs the Planning and Zoning Commission and then that goes on to the City Council for.

Yeah, those aren't comparable though. But here's what I'm, also what I'm concerned about is Mr. Pentalion, we have an airport commission. I wouldn't want us to see, oh, we've got to have an airport master plan oversight commission in addition to the airport commission. Does the airport commission pretty much oversee what's going on with the master plan, what needs to be overseen?

They are presented with information. They are not tracking it like task by task, but certainly they do receive presentations.

But is TAP tracking it?

CIP is, yes, absolutely.

No, TAP does.

Oh, shape TAP. Yes. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Okay. So I'm, I've got some amendments that I'm going to propose, um, and we'll see where they go. But, um, I'm, I'm of the opinion in this particular case that this shall be residents. And I also think that members, uh, former members of the historic preservation commission could probably be good members. So if, if the folks in the back will put that up, please. I've got it laid out and, um, I'm going to let y'all look at these and now I'm going to do them one at a time. Okay. Whenever they get up there, uh, the first one will be on C members shall be residents of the city. And my amendment is to strike or the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. So that's my motion. And I'm looking for a second motion by me. Seconded by Mr. Scott. Are we ready to vote? Okay.

Motion passes five to two with council members Rodriguez and Garza dissent. Okay.

Uh, my next one, are y'all not finding this so we can display it? Thank you. Uh, the next one is to strike or shall be employed in the city. I'm okay. If they're employed, I just want them to be residents. So I think that was so that if they're not a resident, It's okay if they're employed in the city, correct? And they can live out of the city? Correct. That was the intent? Yes. Okay, so my amendment is to strike or shall be employed in the city. So I'm seeking a second on that one. Second. Thank you. Any comments? If not, we'll vote for the second one, or shall be employed. Because I think they should be residents. If they're employed in the city, that's great. This doesn't mean they can't. But that was a way to let people on who didn't have to be residents. So this is part of my, I think they need to be residents.

Can you expand on why you think that they need to be residents and why folks in our ETJ, that perspective you think is not appropriate here?

Does the historic preservation plan cover anything outside of the city limits?

No, ma'am.

It's just the way I feel. I mean, you disagree, but that's just where I am.

Let me ask you, I hear the intent. When you talk about though, this is subsection C, when you look at subsection B, we're putting that the member should include, be a representative of key nonprofit groups, right? Right. I feel like there should be a carve out, though. If we're asking that those nonprofit groups be included and somebody, to Ms. Garza's point, happens to live in the ETJ, that doesn't make me want them less. Their perspective is still valid. And I can think of one, Centro. Should Centro choose a representative? And we have two people that don't live in the city. They live in the ETJ.

For me, they should be residents first. And then we're looking at these different organizations. So that's where I am. That's where I'm going to stay. I share that, Mayor.

I guess what I'm trying to ask, though, is given that we're saying it should include members, I do think a carve-out is necessary to meet the intent of subsection B if that unique moment does happen. Because then we're disqualifying the very people that we're saying we want.

So if it's a city commission, I think it should be.

I'm going to make a motion to amend the amendment. I can't to please just felt against it because I agree with the intent mayor, but again, it's just being practical about, I think the, without the carve out, we're not addressing the very thing that we're talking about in the previous subsection. What do you want to amend to literally make a carve out that unless they are a representative of the identified key nonprofit groups,

Simple. I think that's separate, and I'll take that motion to amend also. And then that may negate this one. Perhaps. Yeah. But procedurally, it's in line. It's in order. State exactly what you want your amendment to be.

Unless... It is a member of the representative of the identified key nonprofit groups, something of the sort.

Right. So like, did you want that to apply back to number one also?

No, mayor. I want to vote for your amendment, but I'm amending it to add the carve out. I don't, that's why I don't want it to be a separate amendment. I want to support your amendment, but I'm just making sure that we're not, it's limited to people. That's all I'm saying. And I didn't even say those groups. I said identified nonprofit groups. Cause that may change too.

or I think there's a better way to fix this.

I will be open to a suggested wording.

I would say where it says members shall be residents of the city and then, Oh gosh, my brain's not working real well right now. Um, unless they are met, Yeah. Named by one of these groups. I'm fine with that. That's um, so that would be a better way. That's a good point. Not in agreement with it. I still think they should be right.

That's fine. That's a good point though. I'm I will, uh, yeah, that's fine.

So we would, we would vote on the amendment to the amendment, which either passes or fails.

But it's no, it's really, I'm going to say that's not in order. Because let's dispose of mine, number two, and then let's, oh, please put that back. Whoever just deleted that, you're doing a good job. Control Z. I'll just leave that, please. And let's do two, and then we can go back. and do yours.

It'll get you to the same place. Basically, you're making the carve out. So there's two ways to skin the cat.

Oh, please don't use that phrase. Oh, sorry. She's a cat lady. Sam, we forgive you. We've got two people here who can come after you. My apologies.

Mayor Baxter would not approve of that. But I do have one just clarifying question. Where it says previously mentioned groups, I think so that we're not limited to just those groups, like the key nonprofit groups.

It's not groups. It's those groups.

But it says including but not limited to.

Yeah, use the verbiage for the sake of continuity. Does that make sense?

Well, we're not talking about that one right now. Right now, we're only on item two. I'll bring it up. Okay, gotcha. Then we'll talk about that one in a minute, but we're going to vote on item two. So let's vote on item two. No. Two only. That one we're going to talk about next.

But I only want two.

I'm not convoluting this. Because I still think they should be residents.

Oh. The motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Now I will introduce, um, a motion to amend with the highlighted language to also include the verbiage from subsection B. When we talk about representative of key nonprofit groups for the sake of continuity, I want to keep that same language. That's a good point. That's my motion.

Second. That's not exactly what this says up here. Would you say that's lower so someone can type what you just said?

Yes, ma'am. Um, I think so. They might've got, I think there's just a delay.

No. Yeah. It's, we just want to copy and paste.

Let's just say groups noted above. There you go. Love that subset site to subsection. Yep. Policy mind loves that. Good job. Whoever's doing that. Yes. Okay.

That was, that was a motion by Ms. Rodriguez seconded by, did you second that? Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay. Everybody knows what we're talking about here. That means that you're either in the city, but if you're in one of these named groups, you don't have to live in the city.

Right. Because you're, you're representing the perspective of the group and those.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, so we're going to vote on that one.

I just want to name why I'm voting yes. I don't know if my, yeah, I just want to state that I'm voting yes because we could have somebody who lives in Redwood, for example, but they're devoting their whole heart and soul to working for or volunteering for one of these groups. And, you know, their whole, yeah, it has happened. So that's why.

Motion passes four to three with councilman with Mary Houston, council member Mendoza and Gonzalez.

Okay. So that passes. And then I would like to add, and I, this is who I would look to probably first is members, maybe former members of the historic preservation commission. And that's my motion looking for a second.

So when you put that, it's just naming that they may be.

I just want it so that instead of just those groups that if we're appointing someone, we will think, oh, what about somebody who was on HBC?

Okay, so it's just like prompting us to be like, this was more.

But, well, it's more people to consider. Consider, okay. No requirement.

Yes, ma'am. Is there ever a lack for committee members for that committee? Is there ever a lack of involvement on that committee? Probably not.

The issue with HPC is we've got different slots, like people who have to live in a historic neighborhood. And several years ago, we relaxed some of that because we were sometimes having trouble finding people to meet each one of those slots. And so, yeah, sometimes it's tough. This is leaving it very open, which is good. This is not putting, well, there's actually no restrictions if you're a resident. These are just suggestions. So anyway, item three, my motion seconded by Mr. Mendoza. We can vote on it.

I have a question.

Yes, sir.

But the residency requirement would still...

Yes.

Okay. So if they were a former member and they moved to Tennessee but their heart's still in Texas, they can't join this committee. Okay, cool.

Not unless they're part of one of these other groups.

That's right.

I agree. Okay.

Motion passes seven to zero.

All right. So we have a motion by Mr. Scott seconded by Mr. Mendoza. We are now voting on item 15 historic preservation plan oversight committee as amended, please.

Wait, I have another question. Just cause y'all brought it up. Can we go back to the list of exemptions?

What would a... Those aren't exemptions.

Well, exemptions to the residency requirement. What would a member of Texas State University be? I mean, could the argument be I'm an alumni of Texas State University?

That one made no sense to me. Does that mean unemployed? Does that mean somebody who's graduated? Does that mean somebody going to school there? Does that mean somebody who's thinking about it and bought a t-shirt? I don't know.

Good question. You can make another carve out. You can amend it.

I'm just asking what

I guess what did y'all have in mind when it was Texas Day because I'm thinking like maybe like a somebody who's like a expert in the field or I think of things like yeah or somebody who works for like the Meadow Center who knows like historic preservation stuff about the river I don't know like I didn't think

At that, Texas State University, throughout the plan, is mentioned as a partner in preservation. Or there's always the hope to be a better partner in preservation with the university. And so this was seen as a way to possibly get them involved and maybe both of us at the table at some point talking about preservation. Not so much meant as an alumni, per se. One of our commissioners.

Unless it's an employee, I don't see that that's going to happen. But here's the deal. This is on us when we are making appointments. I hope that we will have a number of people who will apply, and then it's up to us to choose who we feel will be the best members of this committee. It's a committee? Correct.

Committee. Right. Yeah, maybe we'll get somebody from the archives. They're all about historic preservation, but we don't know.

Or if we could just make a carve-out. The item is still up. Yeah, that's crazy. I know.

Okay, do you have an amendment, Mr. Gonzalez? You had a great question. Do you have an amendment? Okay, then it's going to be on us when we make our appointments. So let's vote on the motion as amended.

Motion passes 7-0.

All righty. And we are on to item 16. Ms. Trevino? Yes.

Hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 394.9025A of the Texas Local Government Code regarding a proposal by the Capital Area Housing Finance Corporation to issue one or more series of tax-exempt obligations in an amount not to exceed $49 million for the benefit of LDG residents. Redwood LP in connection with the conversion from the construction phase of financing to the permanent phase of financing for the existing multifamily rental housing development located at 129 Povania Court, San Marcos, Hays County, Texas, 78666, known as Redwood Apartments. Presentation.

brought before you today largely due to some changes in state law. So the capital area finance committee is in the process of converting the Redwood apartments to permanent financing. This is a transaction that was approved by the city and closed in 2020, but the property is completed and leasing and is therefore converting to this long-term permanent financing. This process will involve reissuing some of their bonds. The Texas legislature passed House Bill 21, which went into effect in May of 2025. And it requires a public hearing to be conducted by the local government, which is us, as a part of their bond reissuance process. So council's not required to take any action. We just, we have to do this as compliance state law to allow them for their bonding. So I will turn it over for a very brief presentation to Andrea Shields, who's the executive director for Capital Area Housing Finance Corporation.

Okie dokie. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Andrea Shields. I'm the Executive Director for the Capital Area Housing Finance Corporation. Mr. Floyd did a great job of giving you an overview of this. We recognize that this is sort of an odd request and that we're coming to you to hold a public hearing but take no action. And as Mr. Floyd stated, that is a new requirement under House Bill 21 that went into effect September of last year. and just requires us as part of our reissuance process on the bonds to have this public hearing be held. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? This already went through workforce housing. We did all the conditions. We did that years ago.

That's correct. This project is built, and I think it is approximately 94% occupied currently.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, anyone else wanting to speak on this item? If I didn't open the public hearing, I will open it now. Anybody close the public hearing and there is no vote. So we will be moving on to item 17.

Never going to go back to 10.

I'm sorry.

Yes, you're right. Item 10. Consider approval of resolution 2026-92R, approving an amendment to the funding agreement with Operation Triage or another nonprofit entity as designated by city council to provide an additional $100,000 for a total allocation in the amount of $600,000 from American Rescue Plan funds for the purpose of continuing a home repair and rehabilitation program to support community recovery. Authorized city manager or her designee to execute said amendment on behalf of the city and declare an effective date. Need a motion?

Second.

Motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Mendoza. You pulled this. Yes, Mayor.

So first, I just want to make it clear I have been very satisfied with the deliverables of Operation Triage. I've heard really good reviews from our neighbors. Their whole mission is very near and dear to my heart. So it was a yes, it's gonna be a yes for me. However, we did get, I got questions regarding whether this is going to help fill a gap or help address unmet needs for one of our neighbors who had expressed some issues with her prior visit. work done by another organization and so yeah I think some of our neighbors just wanted to ask if they were going to handle that project if that's how this money was going to be spent correct okay reasonable question

Hello, Mayor and Council. Hayden Meagle, Director of Administrative Services. Yes, this, and I believe we included some of that background in the agenda request form. But we've been in discussions with Operation Triage as well as the resident of 719 Center Street. And we have been working to come to a solution for that residence.

Excellent. Thank you. That's all I had. Again, I really appreciate the leadership, the work being done, and the positive reviews from our neighbors. I think it's a worthy investment and one I'm looking forward to hearing more of what they do with what we provide them and how we can... further support them.

And I'd like to just echo those comments. Operation Triage has been a great organization to work with and has added a lot, has done a lot for our community. Yes, absolutely.

I would thank you also. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else? Mr. Vania, we're going to vote.

And thank you for sticking around.

The motion passes 6-2-1 with Council Member Gonzalez-DeSenti.

Okay, so now we're going to go to item 17.

Consider approval ordinance 2026.08 on the second of two readings amending the city's development code and associated design manual to, among other things, update applicability and processes for certain development permits, update provisions concerning parkland dedication requirements, establish an operational development overlay regulating plan, to accompany zoning change requests, provide standards for new and emergency development types within the land use matrix, such as data centers, update and clarify landscaping entry mitigation requirements for new development, correct typos and inconsistencies, and update the code to reflect recent changes to state law, provide any savings costs, providing for the repeal of any conflicting provisions, and declare an effective date.

I'm looking for, there's the motion by Ms. Rodriguez. Second. And seconded by Ms. Garza. And I know there's several of us that have amendments. Ms. Rodriguez has five. I have, heck, I've lost count. Several. Oh, that's another book.

Yes, ma'am.

Are you going to do a presentation?

Yes, ma'am. I do have some slides. If you think that's helpful for you.

You go right ahead.

Okay. So good evening, Council. Andrea Villalobos, I'm the Assistant Director of Planning and Development. And I know Council has seen this item several times, but I did want to provide just a few slides to provide some information on some important topics that you all discussed at your last meeting. And so to kick us off, I wanted to just give you a recap of the May 5th City Council meeting, where City Council recommended approval of the Development Code on first reading with amendments. So to make it easy for council to see these amendments, we did a few things. So first, we created a separate memo in the packet that outlined all of the amendments. Secondly, we incorporated the amendments into the development code so you can actually see where those are. We created a yellow box around it so you could find those very easily. And then we added a note about the amendment. And then lastly, we also incorporated the amendments into the justification table that was in the council packet. Next slide. So the first topic I wanted to highlight is the Qualified Watershed Protection Plan. To give a bit more context about this plan, there were some questions on the message board and some discussion, so I just wanted to give an overview on this. So staff is proposing a few edits to the code related to Qualified Watershed Protection Plans, and they're edit 2-7 and 2-21. So in the development code currently, we have three categories of Watershed Protection Plan permits. which is often the first step that site development has to do through the process of development. We have a phase one, a phase two, and a qualified watershed protection plan permit. So these three permits generally identify the drainage, the water quality, the stormwater requirements, and they're all outlined in the code of standards. And all three of the permits are administratively approved if the code standards are met. So just to give an overview of the difference between the three types of permits. So first, a qualified watershed protection plan requires an informational meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and all other standards are viewed as part of the phase one and the phase two watershed. So that's really the only difference between a phase one and a phase two watershed protection plan and a qualified is that the qualified has that P and Z informational meeting. So what staff is proposing to do is remove the qualified watershed protection plan requirement, which entails just that added informational presentation to P&Z. I understand it sounds like we're removing an entire process, but really it's just it had a different name, and the only difference was that it required that informational meeting. So that's the amendment that we're doing. The reason we were proposing to remove the qualified watershed watershed protection plan is to streamline and shorten the development process in certain circumstances. It does not remove any water quality and environmental protective requirements by this edit. And then a phase one and in phase two, watershed protection plan are always going to be required per code and then all of the standards apply still. So on the next slide, I know there's some discussion about what this means for transparency and public access to the information that is within a qualified watershed protection plan and potentially the public not actually seeing some of that because it originally went to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So to do this, we are proposing the following internal changes. So first, staff is going to develop a qualified watershed protection plan online map viewer, and so this would allow the public to spatially locate that location of that watershed protection plan, and then find any information related to that as well. And then secondly, staff will provide a report to the Planning and Zoning Commission following the approval of a qualified watershed protection plan. So that way the PNZ also knows that one was administratively approved. And then the public can also watch that meeting or look at the packet to find that information. So in order for us to do this, no amendment is needed for us today. We can just do these two things internally. the staff amendments, I'm sorry, the staff edits just stay within the code.

Next slide.

If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt you.

I just want to pause for a moment and share my appreciation. I know I had brought this up at previous discussions. I really appreciate y'all meeting with me and coming up with a way in which we can still promote transparency, but make sure we're going about the development process. And costs aren't passed down onto our people. And so I just want to tell the public how much I appreciate working with y'all.

Great. I do have a question. There's phase one, phase two, and the qualified. Is only the qualified going to be posted, and what's the difference? Yes. As in, is there anything that the public still won't be able to see, which I guess they're not seeing now in one or two?

Right, so to answer the first part of your question, only the qualified watershed protection plan would be on that internal map viewer. the public does still have access to any information on watershed ones or twos through open records requests. So that's still going to be available.

So basically what was going to PNZ, which delayed the process, is what's going to be seen here. Correct. Thank you.

So this slide here is intended to just highlight for council and for the public who might be tuning in that we have a lot of different ways that the community can learn about development that is occurring within the city limits. So the first way is we have a permit map on our website. It's a searchable map. It displays all permits that have been submitted to the city since 2012, which is when we went online and kind of shed paper applications. It will tell you the permit number, the type, the status, the application date, and where they are. There's a tiny little snippet on the right of all the dots, so folks can go and dive into that. Secondly, we have all of our planning cases, so things like zoning or plats or conditional use permits. You can actually create an account on mgoconnect.org and you can search for those different items. Third, we have a administrative plat map, which will show you all of the plats that are approved. was the origin of our idea to create the qualified map, is that any plots that are approved administratively, the public can actually go see those, see the actual map as well. And that's anything after October 2023. It's kind of in alignment with the state law change that occurred.

I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

First of all, up there, you said .org, and that says .com, but it is .org. Yes. About the qualified watershed. Are the old ones going to be posted or just from this point forward? Just from this point forward was our intent.

So the last two I wanted to highlight is we have a Historic Interest Map, and this is also a searchable map online that displays our local historic districts, our historic landmarks, and then you can also search the results of the 2019 Historic Resources Survey, so this is another resource. And then always, public information requests can always be submitted so that a citizen or anyone can request any of our governmental information. That is the link there on our page, but we're trying to create a little more accessible resources for the community to find these things. Okay, switching to our next topic on the next slide. I wanted to cover a topic that was discussed at the May meeting in depth, which is an overview of on-premise consumption of alcohol requirements within the central business area. So there's a lot of discussion on this topic. I'm going to break it down in detail for us. So first, what is a conditional use permit? Also called a CUP for short, for on-premise consumption of alcohol. So the city has a variety of different uses that you can do on a property. One of those uses is called on-premise consumption of alcohol. And that requires a conditional use permit in most commercial zoning districts in the city limits. The use is not permitted by right, which means you can't just start doing it. You always have to receive a conditional use permit. So there's no place in the city limits that you can have on-premise consumption by right. A CEP application, if a business owner would like to have this use, they would submit an application to the city. It's reviewed in accordance with our code. And then the CEP is then considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing. Conditions are typically recommended by staff to ensure compatibility with adjoining uses. We typically have approval timeframes, sometimes noise conditions, and then site design conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission can also always add conditions during the meeting as well. And this is just, again, an overview of things within the city limits. So on the next slide, you're gonna see what's called a central business area. And for the remainder of my presentation, the remainder of these slides, I'm only talking about the central business area. And that's this map here on the right. So the central business area, called CBA for short, it's a geographical boundary located in the downtown area. Within the CBA, there is a limit on the number of conditional use permits that can be approved for on-premise consumption of alcohol. So there are two categories. The first is called a bar CUP, and the second is called an eating establishment or restaurant CUP. So two different categories. Next slide. I'm gonna break down the two categories a little bit further. So again, only talking about the central business area boundary. So a bar permit is defined as a facility that primarily sells alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption, and they may have food. They may include the sale of food. The total number of bar CUPs that you can have within the downtown CBA is 14, and we are maxed out at 14. So we cannot accept any more applications for a bar permit in the CBA. A few examples of a bar permit is Davenport, the corner of Guadalupe and MLK. Another example is Showdown over there on East Hutchison Street. But you may know that Showdown sells food and they choose to serve food. They're not required to per their permit. So switching over to eating establishments. So these are called our restaurant permits. Again, just the CBA. And they're a facility that primarily sells food and drink and may include on-premise consumption. So they're foremost a restaurant, but they're asking, hey, I'd like to have beer and wine or mixed beverages with my restaurant. And so a CUP is needed for the alcohol portion of their use, but the restaurant use itself is fine by right, it's the alcohol portion. So the total number of restaurant CEP permits in the downtown CBA is limited to 25. We currently have 16 of them, so there are availabilities for more restaurants with alcohol in the downtown CBA. Couple examples, Craft House, Toma Taco, they have restaurant permits. Next slide. Okay, so here is just a breakdown of the restaurant requirements in the CBA. So if you wanna be a restaurant and you wanna serve on-premise consumption of alcohol within the CBA, you have to meet the requirements on the slide here. And it's specific to the CBA permit holders. So there's a bunch of highlights and some underlined text here. Those are just reflecting the amendments that the council has already made that are in the code. So just know that those are the sort of changes that we've been doing here in 2026. Next slide. Okay, so switching over to the topic of mobile food trucks, but we're still talking about alcohol in the CBA. So this is a recap of the May 5th city council amendment. It's edit 541 in the code if you wanna look it up. And so council's amendment was to prevent a mobile food unit as solely a bar use within the downtown CBA boundary. So in San Marcos, we have only one example of a mobile food unit that is solely a bar use, and that's Tapville, which is shown here. And they have beer and cider on draft, and they're located at the prime outlet malls. And so if Tapville were to want to locate within the downtown CBA and request a bar CUP, assuming we had open slots, The amendment that council made in May would not allow them to. So that's what's in the code currently and it's reflected. They wouldn't be able to do that. And then the text on the right is just the language staff wrote to reflect the amendment you made in May. Next slide. So I wanna emphasize a few things about mobile food units. So first, a mobile food unit is still allowed in the downtown CBE boundary as a restaurant use. No alcohol sales, but if just a food truck wanted to come, they don't want to sell alcohol, they are a permitted use within the downtown CBA. They're just called a restaurant. So an example of a mobile food unit that serves as a restaurant is Cafe Cortado. It's at the intersection of Hutchison and North Street. They're a coffee shop, they don't serve alcohol. They're not located in the downtown CBA, but they could theoretically locate to the downtown CBA, and they would be considered the use of a restaurant. Next slide. So secondly, I want to emphasize that as written in the development code, a mobile food unit may still propose on-premise consumption of alcohol with a CUP in the downtown CBA, but they must meet the requirements of an eating establishment. Because the amendment that was made was about bars, but they do still have the option to be an eating establishment. So again, the on-premise consumption part of a food truck would still require CEP. It would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So here's a hypothetical example of this. So say a business owner wants to occupy an existing retail space within the building here on the slide. And they wanna propose an eating establishment with on-premise consumption of alcohol. That retail space probably doesn't have a formal kitchen just yet, and that would usually require a remodel permit in order to outfit the space. So that business owner could propose a food truck at the rear of the lot, which can serve as one, an incremental way to have a restaurant, because that would be the kitchen, and two, that food truck could be used to meet the eating establishment requirements related to the on-premise consumption of alcohol. And remember that is the second category I mentioned with the slide with all the different requirements. That food check allows them to meet that page with all the different requirements about an eating establishment. Again, you'd still need a CUP for the alcohol sales portion. Okay, next example on the next slide. So let's say a property owner with a vacant lot, like the one that's shown here, this is the corner of Hutchison and Guadalupe. Let's say they propose to place a mobile food unit on the property to serve as an eating establishment with on-premise consumption of alcohol. As currently reflected in the code, they could do this, and they would need a CUP for the alcohol sales portion. But the restaurant portion itself, the food truck, is allowable use. They would still need the CUP for the alcohol. And they would be under that second category of eating establishment. So same topic. I can pause here if there are any questions, actually. Yes, questions.

So if Topville added food to their menu, they could then move into downtown?

I'm sorry, could you repeat?

So we had the example of Topville, which is like an all-all. If they started serving food, they could then theoretically be moving to downtown as a food establishment.

If they started serving food and met all of the requirements on slide 11, then yes. They would have to go get a CEP, of course.

Okay, I am a bit perplexed about this one and the one before. Because when we were talking about food, uh, food unit, a mobile food unit. The whole idea was someone had a brick and mortar place to open a bar. And the whole point was it's expensive to add a kitchen and all that other stuff. And so that the mobile food truck would meet, I'm going to say the kitchen part of the restaurant bar permit. This starts out with a mobile food unit may propose, this is like it's backwards or the opposite. As you start with the food unit, the mobile food unit, and then you're looking for the other, it looks like it's the opposite from what we were talking about before. I think the end result might be the same. But this is a whole different approach from what we talked about the last time.

Yes, that's why I wanted to put it as a hypothetical that technically that could still fit under that category.

Yeah, we'll get to more during the discussion. I just wanted to clarify what we're seeing here. Okay, moving on.

Okay, let's move on to one slide down. So because there was a lot of discussion on mobile food units at our last May meeting, Staff went ahead and looked at the code to do some analysis, make sure that the text is very clear in terms of the definitions, and so that if this topic comes up in the future, it's very clear in the code where they can go, how they're defined, all of the standards. So this first, and what staff is doing is we have four recommendations for you to consider. So these are not included in the code right now, so if you like them, if they meet your intent, you need to make an amendment to the code. So this first staff recommendation here is we wanna make a clear definition for a mobile food unit. And so we propose to do this in chapter five, that's the chapter that talks about uses, and we're proposing it under the restaurant use category. So again, the reason for the amendment, which is shown there on the right, is it clarifies that a mobile food unit on a lot is considered an eating establishment. And this is also consistent with how staff has historically interpreted this. It just memorializes it in the code. So that's staff recommendation number one. Next slide. Staff recommendation number two is we want to reference this new definition from the recommendation number one I just presented within the bar section of the code. So this is just clarifying again that a mobile food unit on a lot can be considered a bar, and this is creating the example of tap fill, right? So Tapville is already working under this assumption. They're an approved CUP. This is just providing a connection over to the definition that we just created because one didn't actually exist before. So note that the council amendment that I discussed earlier that you all created to carve out in the code to prevent a mobile food unit to be a bar in the downtown CBA, that recommendation still stands. That carve out is still there. This is just talking about I'd like for the city and the staff to have a very specific section that we can go to to show that that use is permitted. Again, it just solidifies the TAP fill scenario. Next slide. So staff recommendation number three is to update the name of a mobile food unit within the mobile food court use section of the code to again just match our staff recommendation number one. We wanna call it a mobile food unit and not a mobile food trailer. In the code currently, we already have a section called Mobile Food Court that actually talks about multiple food units on one property, and we realized we didn't actually have a definition about just having one, so it's just making the text the same.

And this replaces food truck also.

Yes, ma'am.

In our terminology.

Exactly. And then staff recommendation number four is to update the name of food unit information And, sorry, we're in the accessory building section of our code. Which is.

Not in the alcohol downtown thing anymore.

Yep, just accessory building section. We had it called food truck. We're just updating it to call it mobile food unit. And then we also wanted to, we had some standards in another section of our code that talked about building types and building materials and those types of things. We just duplicated it here so that it was consistent in both sections. And we did work with our neighborhood enhancement team. They helped us out with kind of some of the definitions and looking at them with us.

I can see why you've added the two, the new two. But why is the other one, would that not apply to a mobile food unit? As far as distance requirement?

Right, the number two was a totally separate amendment in the development code, and you're just seeing it here because we copied the original text.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Okay, next slide. All right, so this is my last slide. Staff recommends approval of the Development Code and Design Manual as presented in the Council packet with the addition of those four staff amendments as presented. That concludes my presentation, and Director Terry Floyd and I are here if you have any additional questions.

Okay, Council, we've already got a motion and a second. And Ms. Villalobos, make sure, Mr. Floyd, make sure I'm saying something that's correct. The motion to approve... is what's in our packet. We started with the 325, I think. So unless we pull one of those for changing, we're adopting the change that's in here, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

That's the way I thought. I want to make sure everybody else understands it in the audience and everybody else.

Yes.

Thank you. OK.

Wait, what?

What did she say? What the approval is everything that staff has suggested that they have found. So unless we change something, we're accepting what they have. And one of the amendments that I have will kind of make clear.

Okay. So after this, we're going to do whatever.

Excellent. Okay.

And it includes all of the amendments you made. Exactly. Right.

When I said, unless we changed it, that includes those. And actually we did one. in March.

Yes, those are also within there as well. Well, you technically didn't vote on it, so we're just saying May 5th, that's the date that you voted on it, but it rolled over from the prior meeting. Oh, that's right.

Oh, I think I found one that y'all didn't have marked in the justification table.

I'll look for it, but I've got something else in the meantime. I have a question. But I get what you're saying. So there was an item in the March agenda that... in the March 31st meeting that Councilwoman Rodriguez brought up, which was regarding data centers and that failed. If a council member from the majority vote, which means they voted against it initially, wanted to revisit that item, would they have to do it before this or after this? Does it matter?

It would be during this discussion. Yeah, you could do it.

You could do it through this discussion. Yeah. Johnny Canales, take it away.

Technically, Johnny Canales doesn't take it away. He tells someone else to take it away.

I'm sorry. It's very niche, Tejano, pop culture, humor. I apologize, everybody.

Yes, yes.

Have you...

So I sent it to staff literally like two hours ago. But...

I guess so... Somebody tell us what we're talking about.

So it's a motion to amend Table 5.1 of the land use matrix to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts.

Would you say that again a little slowly?

Motion to amend Table 5.1 of the land use matrix to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts.

Prohibit.

Prohibit.

Yeah.

And this, so it was essentially the first, this was in the, um, uh, land use table. Correct.

Correct.

And I'll second. Okay. Hold on. Let me get these. Correct. Mr. Gonzalez wants to prohibit. Now here's the deal. We're, we're down to the nuts and bolts. So prohibit is a concept. I need to know exactly what we're talking about. You want to take out.

So I sent a picture.

You want the whole land development code to have that little dashes all the way across.

Correct. Okay.

And what we had done, you second. Yes. Uh, okay. So that was the one. And I'm just explaining. There we go. That, um, I had my amendment was to have this here and in heavy industrial have the C asterisk because that means it would come to us because I didn't want to miss an opportunity in case things shake out in a good way with the data centers. But y'all want to just say, nope, they can't apply. Have a good day. Go away. Correct?

Right. Correct.

OK. We've got a motion and a second.

Do you want to provide rationale or?

As far as why I changed my mind, because I mean, I think we've debated it to death.

Hold on, let me back up. Oh, Mr. Gary's not here.

Yeah, that would be helpful.

You started out, I believe, actually very correctly saying that you wanted, this was a motion to reconsider, correct?

Sure.

This was a motion that was made originally, I believe. And then it failed.

So it was a, I made the emotion in March. It failed. I want to say on a three, four vote. Right. Okay.

I mean, I don't need to reconsider.

Yeah. The motion to recon, it has to be a motion.

Um, Gary, we need you possibly. Cause I don't think the wording is exactly the same.

I'm fine. If we just vote on it. Let's see, Mr. Gary, there was a motion at a meeting prior to not allow a data center anywhere, and it failed. And then I made my motion to do the C asterisk in the heavy industrial and that passed. Mr. Gonzalez wants to talk about the prohibition across the board all along. Do we need a motion to reconsider since we're at another meeting and we're talking about the thing all over again?

Under Robert's rules, it should be at the same meeting. except if the council wants to indulge it with no objections, you're welcome to, but under Robert's rules, it would be its next meeting now. But if you do it for one, if there are any other motions that you want to bring up that to reconsider, we need to treat them the same. So we either allow all of them, even though it's not the next, the same meeting, or we don't allow them.

And since a reconsider is just a majority and you would assume that the vote would follow. I'm okay. If we just, okay.

go with it.

So we have a motion from Mr. Gonzales, seconded by Ms. Garza for this.

And I just want to make the point, though, that if there are any other motions to reconsider, I would say let's be consistent on waiving the requirements for the two.

That's why it's going to make the whole evening easier.

And I apologize. I had to step out for a second.

That's perfectly fine. Okay.

Anybody want to speak for this? I'll phrase the question so we know what yes is yes and no is no.

To vote for that would prohibit data centers anywhere in our city in any zoning category. So, and I will, yeah, we're not ready. I haven't called for the vote yet. Uh, I'm going to vote against it for the same reason I did before, as long as these are required to come before us. Um, I'd like to leave the opportunity out there. Although if anybody's thinking about bringing a data center here and they're not doing the research on us prior to it, they would be kind of silly in that, but, but they could, um, I'm holding out hope that as time goes on, that there will be, um, the technology will be better. And things will shake out. And as long as it's still up to us, yes or no, I think we should at least allow the possibility. So I'm going to vote no.

Mayor, and I also would say I would echo your sentiments on the subject. No disrespect to anybody else on council. But I do believe that that technology will probably change. And I just don't want to close the door altogether. But as data centers currently stand, Obviously, it's a pretty obvious answer.

So I actually agree, but I think that the current process with all the loopholes and reversional cards is less transparent if the technology actually changes to a point where our community is not comfortable with the data center, we can go through this very process and change the development code to allow it. That's true.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to vote yes, and I just want to say I really appreciate your leadership and revisiting this, meeting with constituents, and everything that has transpired from March to now, everything new that we've been learning about, and appreciate Councilwoman Rodriguez's courageous leadership for bringing this forward in March, and I appreciate all our neighbors for continuing to email us all the updated studies, all the updated conversations. It's a super fast-moving conversation, and I think this is gonna be good.

So much.

Right, I agree, Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Lorenzo and Amanda. Yes.

Motion passes 43 with council members, the silk Mendoza and Mary Houston.

Okay.

Next. Okay. We can all bring mine forward. This will be, I think pretty fast. This will be the one about, um, to the control room, LDC change 210, posting notices. Council, we have staff is suggesting, asking that the applicant be required for posting notices. The blue is what I want to do. Because remember, unless we change what's in the proposal, that's what's going to happen. So what I want to do is basically reject that proposal. We had a number of our folks say, please don't do this. At the time, I was thinking only of zoning. And one of the concerns that I have is we would end up spending as much time checking on it as it would to go ahead and do it. I don't care if you charge them extra for the sign. I'm good with that, because I understand that was expensive. Uh, I was actually okay with having the applicant responsible, uh, for, uh, CUPs because they're there, that's their business. They're here all the time. The zoning folks, sometimes they're from out of state or out of town. And I just wasn't sure that what we need to have done would get done. And then again, we just spend as much time checking on them. And so that is my first one is to not accept the change that was proposed. And that's my motion. And I'm looking for a second. Thank you, Mr. Mendoza, which would leave it as we're responsible for it. And we did hear from our community that said, please don't do this.

The motion passes 6-0 with council member Vesek absent. Okay. Next.

The same one. I'm having to think through this. It's still posted. It's still posting notice, correct? Comprehensive plan amendments? Yes. It's the first was zoning and this is comprehensive plan. What we used to call land use. Correct. Okay. Same reasoning. Yep. Same deal. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I made the motion. I can get a second.

Did you say you would second it? Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Vino for keeping a square. Did Matthew do it? No, he did the first one. He did the first one. You're you're correct there.

Okay. Did I, did it go there?

Oh, you know, sometimes we got to hit these things two or three times.

The motion passes six to zero with council member, the SEC absence.

Okay. Now the next one, I'm just making a notation to accept this change. We don't need to vote on this one. We'll be voting on this when we vote on the whole package. So we don't need to do this one. And item six was an encouragement to the applicant to do the signs by saying if you don't get the signs done, if they don't stay up and all those other things, it could result in a delay of your public hearing. However, this is no longer needed. So I'll make a motion for this one that's got the number six on it. I'm looking for a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mendoza. And if you all are ready to vote, we can go ahead and vote. Ms. Garza?

Oh, my gosh. I know. Hit it again.

I'm being bullied. Member Sells was always.

The motion passes 6-0 with Council Member Bissek absent. Okay.

Yeah. And the other three, just a notation that I'm suggesting that we accept these three changes so we don't need to do anything. We'll accept that when we vote on the other. So that is done. Do you all want to do the alcohol ones? This is to vote on exactly what Ms. Fialobos had provided on the slide previously. I just put it in a word document and put some vote boxes with it. So if we can get that slide up, it starts out with that page 638, which is not the page number anymore. Okay. Ms. Fialobos, if you will tell us one more time. what this one means. Is this allowing someone who's got, they're set up for a bar, to have a mobile food unit be the kitchen for them?

So this first is, this is staff amendment number one here. This is only adding a definition for mobile food unit, calling it a mobile food unit. And then number two there, use standards, is just copy and pasting standards we had within the accessory section, accessory structure section. So this is just nothing about alcohol, just giving us a definition for a mobile food unit.

Which one is the one that says they're gonna be the kitchen for a bar?

So that is not an amendment. That is something you can do right now. So my slide's explaining to you all about if a food truck, sorry, mobile food unit went downtown, was a restaurant and wanted to have alcohol, that can happen right now under this current code. That was me explaining that that can be done.

I'm gonna say the opposite of what we were talking about in the first place. And what we talked about at the alcohol CUP committee was somebody's got a building and it's it's bar. They're starting, maybe it's art was bar when they sprinted it. And now they're going to have to do restaurant bar in order to have alcohol because we don't have any more of the unrestricted permits. And so. they're looking at, oh, oh, I've got some space back here. I'll have a food, mobile food unit come in and that's going to be my eating establishment. Correct. Which one of these is that? None of these?

You do not need to make an amendment for that. That can happen today.

And how many times has that happened?

It has never happened within the downtown CBA. That we could tell based on our research.

Okay, because there's something in here about we've been allowing it since 2022, but then again, I asked, where have we been doing that? And then I think the response was, well, we haven't yet.

Yes. That was a director's interpretation where we had someone come across to say, uh, and had nothing to do with the downtown. That was just someplace else in the city.

Okay. Well, it wouldn't matter someplace else in the city because then we're not talking about the restaurant bar permits.

Correct. That was just an interpretation that a food mobile food unit equates the use of a restaurant across the city overall. And where do you buy the booze? Where do you buy the booze? If they choose to have on-premise consumption of alcohol, that would require a conditional use permit. But we have no one who is doing that now, nor that I can recall.

How do you define the premises if it's a mobile food unit?

The property that the mobile food unit is located on.

The lot?

Yes, ma'am.

That's going to be a little harder to manage if it's just stepping off the curb than when it's walls.

I think we can probably find some good conditions if that came across the board.

Okay. At a meeting of the alcohol CUP committee, we were asked, are we okay with a food truck mobile food unit? being used as, I'm going to say the kitchen because it's easier than eating establishment, the kitchen for a bar. And those present unanimously said no. So where did that go? What?

Can you repeat that one more time for me?

You had.

What date was that, Mary?

March 4th. And I don't have a vote for you, so I don't think you were there.

No, it conflicts with another committee that I was appointed to.

And I think I remember in the deal it says, do you want to prohibit, it may have said food truck, mobile food unit from meeting the, my words, kitchen part for a bar? Because we had an extensive conversation, and I'm going to use Mr. Scott again as an example, is if Mr. Scott has Gone to all the trouble and expense of buying or leasing a building. And he's either got to put that kitchen in or the owner will, in which case he's going to pay in higher rent. It's going to cost him to do that. Okay. In order to meet this restaurant part of a restaurant bar, because those are the only permits that we have. I come in next door. And we talked about this at the meeting. I come in next door, and maybe it was already a bar, so now I'm leasing it. And, oh, wait a minute, I've got to have a restaurant. Oh, I'll just get my buddy who's got a food truck, put a food truck in the back. And now Mr. Scott has spent a whole lot of money meeting that, and maybe in his position, let's say we're not next-door neighbors, he's downtown. There is no place to put a food truck. There just isn't. But me, I'm lucky I've got some backdoor parking or something, so I can put a food truck back there. And we talked about how unfair that was to the businesses that have spent the time and money in order to put in a kitchen, and that was one of the reasons why we said no. Am I correct on that, Mr. Mendoza?

Yes, but even to add on to that, almost every meeting we've had from the CU committee, staff, not just us on the committee, have mentioned that this is a loophole for bad actors to be using it. And it even seemed like the staff was Okay, we understand. I'm just pretty confused as a chair as to why this was not put on there, but the mayor is 100% correct.

So to answer your question, during the CUP committee meeting, yes, the committee wanted to not allow, and actually the back room can go to our slide just so we have a visual when we're talking about it. We can go to the slide that had a bar and eating establishment. There was a little line in the middle. Couple more back.

Because what was presented to us is do you want to prohibit this? That's the way it was presented.

Yes, because that was the direction the committee, during the meeting prior to that, you all gave us direction to sort of bring back discussion on mobile food units. Go back just a couple, well, this one can also work. Yep, here we go. So during that CUP committee meeting, we had these topics on, and we had members of our Main Street and our economic development team there, and we asked the two questions. Bar can, and the committee said no. And the city council upheld that same line of thinking. We also asked the question about, you all made an amendment as city council to prohibit a bar from being a mobile food unit in the CBA. And that's an amendment you made at the last meeting. So you all agreed, council agreed with that. So we've already done that one. You've already done that one. The second thing we asked the committee is, same question, but yes. eating establishment, can the mobile food unit be permitted to have a brick and mortar, per se, have alcohol, and the mobile food unit is what's allowing them to meet the definition of the next slide, Hayden? One slide down. Yes, the committee did not want a mobile food unit to be used to meet this definition. However, at the last meeting when it was discussed, that amendment did not pass. It wasn't in the code originally. The committee discussed that between the council meeting when we initially brought the code. We had the meeting and then you all discussed it. So we needed to make an amendment to incorporate that. At the May meeting when you all discussed it, that amendment was not approved by the full council. Right. So we did bring it to you all for consideration. It just didn't pass. And so I wanted to provide these slides just to kind of emphasize what passed and then what didn't.

Just to refresh me here.

Yeah, you went past this one pretty quick.

Yeah, I remember staff saying, hey, by the way, the CUP committee said they didn't want this.

Wait, I have a question though.

I'm trying to understand. We talked about it and we approved it on the last meeting.

No, no, no. That's the one that we were very confused on. I know what I said before we voted, but we've already had this conversation, I feel. Yeah, that's what I was. I'm trying to get clarity because I didn't know if any of these four that they brought to us was the same as the other. That's what I'm trying to make sure of. And she's saying it's not, it's different, and so I'm accepting that. So it's not one of these. But I still contend that we did not vote on it that way, but.

Ms. Villalobos' rendition of the events is what I remember. It's what I voted on. That's why I'm a bit confused. I mean, I get y'all may have, had a conversation as a committee, but at the end of the day, I feel like such a stringent prohibition should have come to council anyway. And we saw how council adjudicated that decision.

So, I mean, I hear y'all, but I was also disappointed that the information that the CUP committee had said, no, unanimously was not provided to the council. That's a whole nother issue. Okay. So,

I didn't hear the last comment.

I said that I was disappointed.

No, no, no, by my call.

I thought it was a cop-out because we did make direction.

Cop-out by whom?

By staff. Again, we made direction. No, I reject that. That's great. I reject that. Fantastic. But what I'm telling you is I felt like that because we were in the meeting, we had a discussion, and again, every meeting we've had since then has been this loophole. So I found it a bit annoying that staff was given the direction by the CFP committee of both council and... and planning and zoning that this was not a good idea because again, we had co-compliance. We had pretty much every staff department tell us this is a loophole. They've been doing it for a long time.

The reason I rejected though, Mr. Mendoza is to criticize our staff and publicly admonish them on something. When we all have the ability to request supplemental information on the message board, which me and mayor do frequently. Um, so I guess I'm just wondering when you reviewed the packet, when the information was insufficient, why the request wasn't made to allow staff the opportunity to do that.

Like the mayor said, When they presented it to us, it was not the way it was presented to us in the CUP committee. That's where the misunderstanding. Now, again, we were outvoted, but we're trying to clarify. If we're doing something so important like the CUP committee and, again, staff's telling us these things, then why staff was not supporting themselves and saying, hey, by the way, we agree. That's where the problem is.

I'm surprised that a report that it wasn't stated in the background material to counsel what the committee had decided.

Which fair merit. That's why I'm saying that we all have the ability to request supplemental information. And I know you use that frequently and I appreciate that. Hence one of the, uh, our work session item with that item that you and I discussed that's available. And that's my point is an admonishment of staff. When that opportunity is afforded to us, it feels a bit unfair. You may not like the decision that the council has at large made.

You've got your pain. I will reclaim my time. We may not like this. We're done. We're done.

Both of you. we're done because there's nothing we're going to say here. It's going to change it. So let's just, I mean, theoretically it could be brought back. What I'm saying is Rodriguez. If you would work with me, I would appreciate it.

You generally do.

And so that we're done with that. Mr. Mendoza. Yes, ma'am. So now let's go back to staff amendments. One, two, three, and four. And as I understand it, one is simply adding the definition, correct? That's correct. It's not saying that it's okay. Because, see, it's under Section 5155, Restaurant Bar.

Yes.

That's what's throwing me here.

Nothing to do with alcohol in this section. That's just a section that talks about restaurants.

Okay. So... This is what they are providing. So unless someone makes a motion to not do this, this is going to go when we vote on it because this is what's in the packet. Was this in the original packet or is this something else?

Yes, this was in the original packet. This is a section where if you like staff's language for a definition, we'll need an amendment from council to add this in. Okay.

That was what I was asking. Was this in the original list, or is this something new in the presentation today, and so in order to accept it, we are going to need a motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm looking for a motion. I have a motion for Mr. Scott. This is just a definition.

Yes, ma'am.

Anybody second it? Seconded by Ms. Rodriguez.

Man, these skills are good.

Oh, we're not blinking yet, Mr. Vino. Now we are.

The motion passes seven to zero.

I am going to ask some questions about the other in a minute. Okay, amendment two. Now remind us what this one is. This is the tap fill, correct?

Yes, so this is just connecting. Now we're within the bar section of chapter five that gives us the definition there. So this is just connecting us to the definition that you just approved a second ago. It says it's defined in section 5155B. So I would go there to see that definition.

What's the effect of this?

It allows tap fill.

Okay, so this also is going to need a motion And I'm not making it cause I'm voting against it. Did you, did you make that motion? Mr. Scott motion by Mr. Scott and seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. I've this was another one. We talked about the unfairness that somebody has gone to all the trouble to spend a lot of money on a brick and mortar and then somebody else. And I know, I know the mobile mobile units, I'm calling this mobile bar unit are not cheap either, but still.

I mean, dramatic motion passes four to three with Mary Hewson, council members, Carmen, those I dissected.

Okay, let's go to the next one. Oh, this is just updating the, uh, terminology, correct? Motion by Ms. Rodriguez to approve. Is there a second second in my Mr. Scott, you really need to have your microphone on and speaking into the microphone. Um, And Mr. Vino, I think we're ready to vote.

Motion passes seven to zero.

And the next one is also providing clarity. Correct. It's not really changing anything.

It's just adding number two.

Second. Motion by Ms. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Purcell, and we'll vote. I'm looking, nobody's got anything to say.

I was able to go back.

Okay. Let me clear it, Mayor.

Okay, go ahead.

Oh, we're doing it again? Yes.

Oh, in case you're reaching over your laptop.

Motion passes 7-0.

Okay. I'm going to ask some questions, and I did put these on the message board. If we're allowing the food truck to be the kitchen for a bar, I had a whole list of, of things are, and they, they seem to be addressed on the, uh, message board. Is there any of that that needs to go in the development code or is that just part of the processes? I know some of my distance things are gonna be covered by probably fire code, some other things.

Uh, ma'am mayor, I don't believe so. I think a lot of those revolved around where they could park and where they could be. And, and those are addressed. through different, you know, they can't park in the right of way. They can't take public parking spaces. They can't affect the parking count and requirements on those lots of which they set. They can't block any egress and so forth. So those are covered in different areas of our codes to prevent that.

And if they're going to park next door that's owned by somebody else, there's got to be the agreement, which we already use for other things.

Correct. And potentially, even depending on what they're doing, if they have a separate CUP for some other use there. they would then have to go to the P&Z for a CUP in the event of that.

Okay, and the other thing is I think that it's important for P&Z to know that this is happening when somebody's asking for a permit. Um, and I guess they're going to get notified cause y'all usually show the layout of the restaurant and all that other stuff. So they will know when they're approving this permit, correct?

Correct. The applicant has to show a site plan. It has to show like a floor plan and so forth.

Okay. So now somebody has done it the way they've always done it. No food truck involved. Okay. Something has happened and they've decided they're not going to maintain their kitchen. So now they want a mobile food unit. That's going to be a big change. Would that require another review by the Planning and Zoning Commission? And I don't know if I'm recommending it should or shouldn't, but it just seems like something that major, there should be some kind of something.

Now, I will say that in the event that they did that, one of the things we would first start out if that came to our attention is we're going to work with our neighborhood or our code compliance division to see, one, are they are they still operating under the parameters they should have as a restaurant CUP, meaning are they providing the food that they're supposed to during the hours they're supposed to, and so forth. That's gonna be the first step in that. If there's a violation, then we'll start down the violation path. Now, if there's an event where something about that condition needs to be revisited by the commission, I think we can do that, but we're gonna first and foremost see if there's any violations for their compliance with the restaurant CUP on that site.

Um, and so, uh, something that Mr. Gonzalez said last time is if the food truck moves, disappears, found a better gig in Lockhart or whatever. So now they're gone. And Mr. Gonzalez, I'm sort of quoting you saying, well, I now, I guess that the restaurant shouldn't be selling alcohol anymore because they've lost the eating establishment portion. Would that be accurate? If their alcohol permit is based on having an eating establishment and the eating establishment's gone, what happens? Oh, Mr. Gary.

Well, it's like any other restaurant. We've got some brick-and-mortar restaurants that I believe stopped. We've had some issues where they stopped selling food, and we say, well, you're out of compliance with your regulations. your permit. Okay.

And so it's just the same when somebody notices that the food truck, that that's where I'm concerned that if it's not there when, uh, the application is made. And so six months down the line, something happens and somebody decides to start using the food truck for their kitchen. How is that going to be recognized somewhere so somebody will notice when it's gone? Because we've said if they're meeting all their stuff already and they have a food truck, we're good with that. So if a food truck shows up right next to a bar, who's going to know in order to watch for this that that is now the eating establishment and it needs to stay there if the bar is gonna continue. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I do, and I think it starts with, you know, obviously with our code compliance division of the tracking they do. I will say, and Ms. Villalobos correctly pointed out to me, we do have the ability that if there's a significant change in the name of the establishment or any physical or operational change in the business that might increase its off-site impacts, that can be grounds for that conditioner used to either be revoked or revisited. So that's another component we can do. We can look at that. If that change is there, in my mind, that's an operational change. We would bring that back to the P&Z for their consideration in their CEP.

Okay. So code compliance will be notified that that food truck, I'm sorry, mobile food unit needs to be there in order for them to continue to operate, and then somebody's gonna pay attention.

We'll start that, and if they start to be found in violation, they obviously can have their CUP revoked at some point if they're not holding to the standards of the time limits and the operations they need to do to operate as a restaurant CUP with an on-premise alcohol.

Consumption should go to have food available all hours to borrow those amendments.

Yeah. Uh, that we've made. Correct.

All right.

Did you have something, Mr. Gary?

No, just like a thought I had that it might actually be easier for, for code enforcement because there ain't nothing there versus like a restaurant with the kitchen. Yeah. We have to do an inspection to see if they're actually producing the food. Well, that truck's gone. That's an easy one.

I think pretty, pretty clear. Okay. I'm thank you. And thank you council. Cause I think all this, we needed clarity on all of this, since this is something new.

Yeah. Just so that folks can reference how we fleshed it out and they need to look back.

Yeah. Um, okay. So we have finished your, your amendment, your four amendments. Is that right? Ms. And I don't think that I have any more Ms. Rodriguez. I know you do.

Yes, ma'am, if we can have staff pull it up. It shouldn't take too long. You're starting with one? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm going to go sequential. So these were posted on the LDC message board, so available for you all to review. I just want to preface, each one of these amendments stem from discussions that we had at our last meeting, not the last meeting before this, but I mean the last meeting we discussed the LDC. And I had committed at that time to dedicate time to work with staff, which again, I very much appreciate our staff. I'm growing more impressed with them by the day after learning what they do. And so, yeah, met with staff and we worked on crafting the amendments that we already discussed. So this is going to be repetitive because the language has been finalized. Just wanted to preface that. This first one gets at, we had given the example of Tantra. And so this amendment right here, you'll see highlighted the language number four. I want to be very clear about two things out of the gates.

This is... Can I have something real quick?

Yes, ma'am.

Everything that's in red there was already... provided by staff and you're just adding the part in yellow.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that clarification for the people watching.