Item 14: SMART Terminal Development Agreement

[COSM_Admin]

Receive a Staff presentation, hold discussion, and consider approval, by motion, initiating a review of the development agreement, providing direction on topics for discussion with the developer, and authorizing negotiations with Franklin Mountain San Marcos I, LP, if desired, to amend the SMART Terminal Development Agreement.

 

[JHughson]

On the grid comparing code to dev agr 1 and dev agr 2, we have 70% Increased TSS Removal - what is the standard %?

For the requests that are not on pages 467-469, I see staff has marked them with red boxes and numbers relating to that request. Thank you..
Do these match exactly (such as Commissioner Theriot's request) or do we need to consider differences?
If so, please list.
Are there any requests that are in addition to pages 467-469?

Does anything in 6.2.3.5 apply, since the Dev Agr has the 2.03, Impervious Cover section? If so, please provide details.
Section 6.2.3.5 Mitigation and Exceptions
A. Mitigation. The following is permissible with adequate mitigation that replaces lost water quality benefits:
1. Impervious cover limitations may be exceeded in a buffer zone for land with a gradient of less than 15 percent outside the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and 20 percent within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone; and
2. Water quality and/or buffer zones may be reclaimed.
Mitigation shall consist of meeting a Total Suspended Solid (TSS) removal requirement or increase in TSS removal requirement for the site or portion of the site as determined adequate by the Responsible Official.

 

[JHughson]

For the attorney, if we decide at the meeting, during this discussion, that the process will not take as long as we thought at the last meeting, can we consider changing the postponed date of July 3 to an earlier date?

 

[COSM_Admin]

Responses provided by Amanda Hernandez, Director of Planning & Development Services & Richard Reynosa, Assistant Director of Engineering :
On the grid comparing code to dev agr 1 and dev agr 2, we have 70% Increased TSS Removal - what is the standard %? From Richard
The Development Code under section 6.1.4.1 only requires TSS Removal in the Environmental Protection Zones as follows:
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone/ San Marcos River Corridor – 89%
Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone and Contributing Zone within the Transition Zone – 85%
San Marcos River Protection Zone – 80%.

Outside of these zones TSS Removal has only been required when proposing to reclaim Water Quality or Buffer Zones associated with a tributary with a drainage area of 50 acres or more or within floodplain at 5 acres or more. The mitigation of reclaiming these Water Quality or Buffer zones have a required 70% TSS Removal.

For the requests that are not on pages 467-469, I see staff has marked them with red boxes and numbers relating to that request. Thank you..
Do these match exactly (such as Commissioner Theriot's request) or do we need to consider differences? The numbers are only provided to show a connection from the comments to the presentation
If so, please list.
Are there any requests that are in addition to pages 467-469? No

Does anything in 6.2.3.5 apply, since the Dev Agr has the 2.03, Impervious Cover section? If so, please provide details. From Richard
Section 6.2.3.5 does apply, however because of Section 2.01 and 2.02 in the development agreement they have already agreed to higher standards for the development overall. The City’s Land Development Code only requires these standards in Environmental Protection Zones or within the drainage area of the reclaimed Water Quality/Buffer Zones. They have agreed to apply these treatment levels across the entire development exceeding the requirements of Section 6.2.3.5.

For the attorney, if we decide at the meeting, during this discussion, that the process will not take as long as we thought at the last meeting, can we consider changing the postponed date of July 3 to an earlier date?
Response provided by Amanda Hernandez, Director of Planning & Development Services:
Right now, we are in the 90-day window where another notice would not be necessary for first reading.

On its current track, July 3rd will not be a public hearing for 1st reading and we would send notices and hold a public hearing for 2nd reading.

If the 1st reading is moved up, and final action occurs on or before July 3rd – no additional notice will be necessary.