Receive a Staff presentation and hold a public hearing to receive comments for or against Resolution 2026-14R, approving the City of San Marcos Historic Preservation Plan; and declaring an effective date.
Item 09: City of San Marcos Historic Preservation Plan
- Thread starter COSM_Admin
- Start date
- Status
JHughson
CoSM Members
What did this plan cost?
Total?
A lot of this document is generic and template/boilerplate. Could be found in any plan. And probably is. No question, just a statement.
In the ARF, it states "...with no local designations honoring Indigenous, Hispanic or Latino communities, women, or the LGBTQ community" What happened to the Neighborhood Enhancement project of the signage at several (I think 4) of our early, primarily Hispanic, neighborhoods? Lots of time and energy was expending this worthwhile project.
Doesn't our Women's Hall of Fame (begun in 1984 and continues to induct women every year) count for something? And there are over 100 women of multiple ethnicities and ages honored.
What about the mural at city hall Celebrating Indigenous Cultures? https://sanmarcostx.gov/4232/Newest-San-Marcos-Mural-Celebrates-Indig
What about the project at the river near Ramon Lucio park (the tile murals).
Did we ask our own staff about this before proclaiming we have done nothing?
What about the museum inside of Centro Cultural Hispano de San Marcos? What about Centro itself?
I see a reference to the "Sacred Springs Powwow" in the document, looks like there is something. There are a number of references to Centro Cultural...and others so why the does the ARF include info that isn't complementary to our town and that is not correct, given the info in the document?
Now for the memo dated 1/27/2026 that address more public and stakeholder comments.
Glad to see my corrections are being made. Not sure what might be "stylistic" about them.
From Ryan Patrick Perkins:
First, the plan needs prioritization. San Marcos already has known high-priority resources and areas, and the community is actively asking for direction on what the City will protect first and why. The plan should clearly identify which districts, corridors, and individual properties are the City’s top preservation priorities for the next one to three years, and what actions will be taken for each. This is especially important given immediate and foreseeable development pressures and public policy decisions underway. As drafted, the plan doesn’t provide a clear, ranked list or a phased sequence that helps staff and Council understand what comes first, what comes next, and what can wait.
• Currently Addressed: The Implementation Matrix details the steps the City can take to implement the Solutions identified in Chapter 5 (Goals); see pp. 157-178. Requests for a detailed, prioritized annual or multi-year work program exceed the executed scope and will be developed post-adoption through staff and Historic Preservation Commission work planning, and the Historic Preservation Plan Oversight Committee.
This doesn't seem addressed to me. Ryan is seeking SPECIFICS and the plan has some template/boilerplate info about processes and how to make those determinations. These are not the same.
Mr. Perkins second concern is similar. He is seeking SPECIFICS and the plan just has a process to make those decisions. What the plan has is OK, but it doesn't address his concern for SPECIFICS NOW.
As for is third concern, we paid consultants for assistance. Why not close the loop and provide sample forms? So much of this document is template/boilerplate surely the consultant has those forms. Why pay for "Implementation" assistance (do we plan to do that?) when we have paid for this?
And my observations on Mr. Perkins additional questions is pretty much the same.
Example: If I ask for directions to a particular restaurant, a response of "this is how you drive a car, this is is how to fill it up with fuel, this is where to get an oil change." doesn't get me to the restaurant before dinnertime.
So when is implementation planned? And will we engage any consultants again? Perhaps different consultants for a different, perhaps more complete perspective?
Total?
A lot of this document is generic and template/boilerplate. Could be found in any plan. And probably is. No question, just a statement.
In the ARF, it states "...with no local designations honoring Indigenous, Hispanic or Latino communities, women, or the LGBTQ community" What happened to the Neighborhood Enhancement project of the signage at several (I think 4) of our early, primarily Hispanic, neighborhoods? Lots of time and energy was expending this worthwhile project.
Doesn't our Women's Hall of Fame (begun in 1984 and continues to induct women every year) count for something? And there are over 100 women of multiple ethnicities and ages honored.
What about the mural at city hall Celebrating Indigenous Cultures? https://sanmarcostx.gov/4232/Newest-San-Marcos-Mural-Celebrates-Indig
What about the project at the river near Ramon Lucio park (the tile murals).
Did we ask our own staff about this before proclaiming we have done nothing?
What about the museum inside of Centro Cultural Hispano de San Marcos? What about Centro itself?
I see a reference to the "Sacred Springs Powwow" in the document, looks like there is something. There are a number of references to Centro Cultural...and others so why the does the ARF include info that isn't complementary to our town and that is not correct, given the info in the document?
Now for the memo dated 1/27/2026 that address more public and stakeholder comments.
Glad to see my corrections are being made. Not sure what might be "stylistic" about them.
From Ryan Patrick Perkins:
First, the plan needs prioritization. San Marcos already has known high-priority resources and areas, and the community is actively asking for direction on what the City will protect first and why. The plan should clearly identify which districts, corridors, and individual properties are the City’s top preservation priorities for the next one to three years, and what actions will be taken for each. This is especially important given immediate and foreseeable development pressures and public policy decisions underway. As drafted, the plan doesn’t provide a clear, ranked list or a phased sequence that helps staff and Council understand what comes first, what comes next, and what can wait.
• Currently Addressed: The Implementation Matrix details the steps the City can take to implement the Solutions identified in Chapter 5 (Goals); see pp. 157-178. Requests for a detailed, prioritized annual or multi-year work program exceed the executed scope and will be developed post-adoption through staff and Historic Preservation Commission work planning, and the Historic Preservation Plan Oversight Committee.
This doesn't seem addressed to me. Ryan is seeking SPECIFICS and the plan has some template/boilerplate info about processes and how to make those determinations. These are not the same.
Mr. Perkins second concern is similar. He is seeking SPECIFICS and the plan just has a process to make those decisions. What the plan has is OK, but it doesn't address his concern for SPECIFICS NOW.
As for is third concern, we paid consultants for assistance. Why not close the loop and provide sample forms? So much of this document is template/boilerplate surely the consultant has those forms. Why pay for "Implementation" assistance (do we plan to do that?) when we have paid for this?
And my observations on Mr. Perkins additional questions is pretty much the same.
Example: If I ask for directions to a particular restaurant, a response of "this is how you drive a car, this is is how to fill it up with fuel, this is where to get an oil change." doesn't get me to the restaurant before dinnertime.
So when is implementation planned? And will we engage any consultants again? Perhaps different consultants for a different, perhaps more complete perspective?
Response provided by Terry Floyd, Director of Planning & Development Services:
- Status