My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11.16.21 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
2020's
>
2021
>
11.16.21 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2022 9:51:49 AM
Creation date
2/1/2022 10:06:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 <br />development but if the projects requires State review it will be similar to the <br />CIP State review since the city does not have any regulations regarding <br />archeological studies. <br />Council Member Baker asked Ms. Hernandez if there are any examples in <br />other cities that have added archaeological requirements for private <br />developers. She stated staff has contacted the City of San Antonio who has an <br />archaeologist on staff and has codes that reviews archaeological sites. We do <br />not have a archaeologist on staff and if interested in adding there would be a <br />need to hire a consultant to assist in the review of the code. <br />Council Member Baker would like for an archaeological survey to assist in <br />protecting the community, artifacts and enriching the history. Mayor Pro Tem <br />Scott asked about State law and if the City can add to it? Ms. Hernandez <br />stated the City of San Antonio has gone beyond what the State requires and <br />has included this within their development code. She stated San Antonio <br />begins with platting and the City has a development code that does not have <br />anything regarding archeological review. <br />Bert Lumbreras, City Manager, stated Mr. Condor provided the CIP process <br />through state law and it has to go through an application process with the <br />THC. He stated the issue is on the private side and should there be a specific <br />code to follow processes. The questions are how to explore, identify on how to <br />make it happen and what are the operational and financial implications of <br />hiring a archaeologist or contract with one. <br />Ms. Jacque Thomas, Senior Engineer stated the THC has limited authority of <br />related private development on what they can review and require. She <br />mentioned that some private developments require a federal permit under <br />Section 106. <br />Council Member Baker suggested different tiers that might not require this <br />process. <br />Mayor Hughson noted that we need to look at a balance as this can increase <br />the cost of home and we need affordable housing. She noted the desire to <br />honor our history. She also noted that there are regulations on where the <br />artifacts can go. <br />Mr. Lumbreras stated with council consensus, staff could be allowed to further <br />research different levels on private development and a plan could be brought <br />City of San Marcos Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.