Loading...
PZ 05-06-2026 Agenda with Associated Documents          MEETING AGENDA Planning & Zoning Commission REGULAR SESSION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION May 6, 2026                                    HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 CITY OF SCHERTZ CORE VALUES Do the right thing Do the best you can Treat others the way you want to be treated Work cooperatively as a team    AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold the regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at the City Council Chambers. In lieu of attending the meeting in person, residents will have the opportunity to watch the meeting via live stream on the City's YouTube Channel.        1.CALL TO ORDER   2.SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED   3.HEARING OF RESIDENTS This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the Planning and Zoning Commission. Each person should fill out the Speaker’s register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than three (3) minutes. Discussion by the Commission of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and/or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered.   4.CONSENT AGENDA:   A.Minutes for the April 1, 2026 Regular Meeting.      5.PUBLIC HEARING: Planning & Zoning                                   May 6, 2026 Page 1 of 3  5.PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing related to zone change requests, specific use permit requests, and Unified Development Code Amendments within this agenda. The public hearing will be opened to receive a report from staff, the applicant, the adjoining property owners affected by the applicant’s request, and any other interested persons. Upon completion, the public hearing will be closed. The Commission will discuss and consider the application, and may request additional information from staff or the applicant, if required. After deliberation, the Commission is asked to consider and act upon the following requests and make a recommendation to the City Council if necessary.   A.PLZC20260028 -  Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 2.1 acres of land from Pre-Development District (PRE) to General Business District (GB), generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr, also known as a portion of Bexar County Property Identification Number 1103267, City of Schertz, Texas.    B.PLSPU20260030 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 2.1 acres of land, generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr, also known as a portion of Bexar County Property Identification Number 1103267, City of Schertz, Texas.    C.PLZC20260101 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 0.2 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed Use District (MSMU), known as 502 Main Street, specifically known as Guadalupe Property Identification Number 67753, City of Schertz, Texas.    D.PLZC20260109 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 0.4 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed Use District (MSMU), known as 506 Main St. and 508 Main St., specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Numbers 32859 and 32861, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas.    6.REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:   A.Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda    B.Announcements by Commissioners  City and community events attended and to be attended Continuing education events attended and to be attended   C.Announcements by City Staff.  City and community events attended and to be attended.   7.INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS- NO DISCUSSION TO OCCUR   A.Current Projects and City Council Status Update Planning & Zoning                                   May 6, 2026 Page 2 of 3  A.Current Projects and City Council Status Update      8.ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING     CERTIFICATION I, Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner, of the City of Schertz, Texas, do hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards on this the 29th day of April, 2026 at 12:00 p.m., which is a place readily accessible to the public at all times and that said notice was posted in accordance with chapter 551, Texas Government Code.  Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by the Schertz Planning & Zoning Commission was removed from the official bulletin board on _____day of _______________, 2026. _______________title:_____________ This facility is accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. If you require special assistance or have a request for sign interpretative services or other services please call 619-1030 at least 24 hours in advance of meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Schertz reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. Executive Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City’s legal counsel and presence of any subject in any Executive Session portion of the agenda constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel for the governmental body and constitutes an opinion by the attorney that the items discussed therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering available opinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda with the intent to meet all elements necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted by all participants in reliance on this opinion.  Planning & Zoning                                   May 6, 2026 Page 3 of 3  PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 4 A   TO:Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY:Sarah Rodriguez, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT:Minutes for the April 1, 2026 Regular Meeting.   Attachments Draft Minutes for the April 1, 2026 Regular Meeting D R A F T PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES April 1, 2026 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on April 1, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. Present: Clayton Wallace, Chair; Patrick McMaster, Vice Chair; Glen Outlaw, Commissioner; Francisco Velazquez, Commissioner; David Hughes, Commissioner; Sonya Loredo-Reyes, Commissioner; Sean Grady, Commissioner Absent: Roderick Hector, Commissioner; Tamara Brown, Commissioner Staff present: Lesa Wood, Director of Planning & Community Development; Emily Delgado, Planning Manager; Sarah Rodriguez, Administrative Assistant             1.CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wallace called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM   2.SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Commissioner Sonya Loredo-Reyes and Commissioner Sean Grady were seated as alternates.   3.HEARING OF RESIDENTS This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the Planning and Zoning Commission. Each person should fill out the Speaker’s register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than three (3) minutes. Discussion by the Commission of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and/or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. There were no residents who spoke.   4.CONSENT AGENDA:   A.Minutes for the February 4, 2026, Regular Meeting. There was a discussion regarding a correction needed on item 4A in the minutes from February 4, 2026.    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw approved with correction to February 4, 2026, minutes, seconded by Commissioner David Hughes  Vote: 7 - 0 Passed   5.ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION:   A.PLVAR20260065 Sign Waiver- Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on Lot 2, Block 1 of the Schertz Station Subdivision, approximately 1.84 acres of land located at 18636 IH 35N, more specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Number 203789. Mrs. Delgado gave a presentation on PLVAR20260065. Britney Christy, the applicant, gave a presentation. There was a lengthy discussion held by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission took three separate actions on PLVAR20260065, acting on each UDC Section waiver request individually.    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw to deny a waiver request in relation to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.10, Freestanding Signs- Maximum Area, seconded by Commissioner Francisco Velazquez  Vote: 7 - 0 Passed    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw to approve a waiver request in relation to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.4 General Requirement, Subsection A. Permit Required, seconded by Vice Chair Patrick McMaster  Vote: 6 - 1 Passed  NAY: Chair Clayton Wallace    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw to approve waiver request in relation to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.6 Prohibited Signs, Subsection K. Off-Premise Signs, seconded by Vice Chair Patrick McMaster  Vote: 4 - 3 Passed  NAY: Chair Clayton Wallace  Commissioner Francisco Velazquez  Commissioner Sonya Loredo-Reyes   B.PLVAR20260066 Sign Waiver- Consider and act upon a request for a waiver in relation to a freestanding ground sign on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Schertz Station Subdivision, approximately 3.04 acres of land located at 18406 IH 35N, more specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Number 203794. Mrs. Delgado gave a presentation on PLVAR20260066. Applicant Britney Christy was present, but no presentation was given. There was a lengthy discussion held by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission took two separate actions on PLVAR20260066, acting on each UDC Section waiver request individually.    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw to deny a waiver request in relation to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.10 Freestanding Signs- Maximum Area, seconded by Vice Chair Patrick McMaster  Vote: 7 - 0 Passed    Motioned by Commissioner Glen Outlaw to approve a waiver request in relation to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.6 Prohibited Signs, Subsection K. Off-Premise Signs, seconded by Vice Chair Patrick McMaster  Vote: 4 - 3 Passed  NAY: Chair Clayton Wallace  Commissioner Francisco Velazquez  Commissioner Sonya Loredo-Reyes   6.REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:   A.Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda No request were made by the Commissioners.   B.Announcements by Commissioners City and community events attended and to be attended Continuing education events attended and to be attended The following announcements were made by Commissioners: Chairman Wallace announced the departure of Commissioner Judy Goldick and thanked her for the time she spent on the Commission. Commissioner Outlaw announced his appreciation to the Chairman, the Interview Committee, and the City Council for another two-year term.   C.Announcements by City Staff. City and community events attended and to be attended. City Staff made no announcements.   7.INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS- NO DISCUSSION TO OCCUR   A.Current Projects and City Council Status Update   8.ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING Chairman Wallace adjourned the regular meeting at 7:17 PM.   ____________________________________ Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission ______________________________ Recording Secretary, City of Schertz PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 5 A   TO:Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY:Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner SUBJECT:PLZC20260028 -  Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 2.1 acres of land from Pre-Development District (PRE) to General Business District (GB), generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr, also known as a portion of Bexar County Property Identification Number 1103267, City of Schertz, Texas.  BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 2.1 acres of land from Pre-Development District (PRE) to General Business District (GB). The subject property is currently unplatted and undeveloped. The specific use permit request PLSPU20260030 is accompanying this zone change application.  On April 23, 2026, six (6) public hearing notices were mailed to the surrounding property owners within a 200-foot boundary of the subject property. At the time of the staff report, zero (0) responses in favor, zero (0) responses neutral, and zero (0) responses in opposition were received. A public hearing notice will be published in the “San Antonio Express” before the City Council hearing. The applicant placed two notification signs on the subject property.  Subject Property:   Zoning Land Use Existing Pre-Development District (PRE)Undeveloped Proposed General Business District (GB)Commercial Development Adjacent Properties:    Zoning Land Use North  Right-of-Way  Ray Corbett Dr South  Pre-Development District (PRE) Undeveloped East  Pre-Development District (PRE) Undeveloped West  Right-of-Way  FM 1518 Zoning: Table 21.5.7.B Dimensional Requirements for Non-Residential Zoning District Zoning District Code Area Sq.Ft. Width Ft. Depth Ft. Front Ft. Rear Side Max Height Max Imperv. Max Imperv. Existing Pre-Development District PRE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Proposed General Business District GB 10,000 100 100 25 rear adj. to non-res: 0 rear adj. to res: 25 side adj. to non-res: 0 side adj. to res: 25 120 80 80 GOAL The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 2.1 acres of land from Pre-Development District (PRE) to General Business District (GB) for a proposed commercial development.  COMMUNITY BENEFIT It is the City’s desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with the City’s vision of future growth.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION When evaluating zone changes, Staff refers to the criteria listed in UDC Section 21.5.4.D. The criteria are listed below:  1. Whether the proposed zoning change implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan, or any other applicable adopted plans; The proposed zone change does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map. The subject property is designated as Mixed-Use Center in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map. The Mixed-Use Center Future Land Use Designation is intended for a combination of higher-density housing, locally serving commercial, and recreational uses. Mixed-Use centers are typically located along significant transportation corridors. The subject property is located along FM 1518, which is identified as a principal arterial in the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed General Business District (GB) zoning allows for commercial and retail uses. The uses permitted within the General Business District (GB) meet the intent of the Mixed-Use Center Future Land Use Designation. 2. Whether the proposed zoning change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the City; As part of promoting the health, safety, and welfare, the City should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. All new development is required to meet the site design requirements listed under Article 9 of the Unified Development Code. During the Comprehensive Land Use Plan engagement process, there were multiple requests for services south of FM 78 that would serve the Southern portion of Schertz. The proposed zone change permits the subject property to be developed for uses that can serve the surrounding residential developments, thus promoting the general welfare of the City by permitting uses that meet community needs. As part of the zone change application, a Traffic Impact Analysis Summary was submitted and reviewed by the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department provided the following after reviewing the Traffic Impact Analysis Summary: "In summary, the proposed zone change will increase traffic on Ray Corbett Drive, but the increase in traffic can be mitigated so the City's transportation system functions at an acceptable level." The improvements noted by Engineering, that can be constructed to mitigate the traffic include the following: widening Ray Corbett Dr for a full left turn lane; signalization of the intersection (FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr) when it meets signal warrants; increasing the length of the Southbound left turn lane that is part of the current FM 1518 project; and a right-turn/ deceleration lane on FM 1518. Please note that these are ways to mitigate the increase in traffic, but the required improvements for the specific development will not be known until later in the development process. Although the proposed zone change does allow for a zoning district that permits land uses that were requested during the Comprehensive Land Use Plan engagement process, the proposed zone change does adversely increase the traffic at the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive. However, the increase in traffic can be mitigated through improvements along Ray Corbett Dr and FM 1518, but the final required improvements are not known at this time. 3. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the immediate area; General Business District (GB) is intended to provide areas for development of non-residential uses that offer a wide variety of retail and service establishments that are generally oriented towards serving the needs of the entire community. The uses permitted include antique shops, retail, taverns, restaurants, and beauty shops/ barber shops. To the north of the property is Ray Corbett Dr, a residential collector. To the east and south of the subject property is the remainder of the 30-acre tract that is also zoned Pre-Development District. To the east of the larger tract is Ray Corbett Junior High School. To the west is FM 1518, a principal arterial. Across FM 1518, there are lots along the western portion of FM 1518 that are zoned General Business District (GB). The proposed zone change to General Business District (GB) would allow for uses that serve the needs of the entire community and can serve the residential developments south of FM 78. The uses permitted within General Business District (GB) are consistent and appropriate with the existing uses in the immediate area. 4. Whether other factors deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. Staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed zone change application. The City of Schertz Fire, EMS, and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed zone change request and do not provide objections. RECOMMENDATION Although there are concerns with the traffic impact of the requested zone change, the proposed General Business District (GB) is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan- Future Land Use Map, and permits uses that serve the overall needs of the community. Staff recommends approval of PLZC20260028.  Attachments Aerial Exhibit Notification Map Proposed Zone Change Exhibit Engineering TIA Memo Zone Change FM 1518 & Ray Corbett Dr PLZC20260028 Planned Commercial Collector A Commercial Collector A Planned Commercial Collector B Planned Residential Collector Residential Collector Planned Secondary Rural Arterial Secondary Rural Arterial Planned Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Planned Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Freeway Minor Roads Major Roads Highways Project Boundary ETJ Schertz Municipal Boundary County Boundaries Unknown 36" 30" 24" 20" 18" 16" 12" 10" 8" 6" 4" 3" 2" 1" Private Pressure Neighboring Gravity Schertz Pressure Schertz Gravity Sewer Main Schertz Treatment Plant3Q CCMA Treatment Plant3Q Schertz Lift Station[Ú Private Lift Station[Ú CCMA Lift Station[Ú Manholes!P HydrantU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P!P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P Bexar County 10634 7 2 BARN S & BARN E S I N C 309923 PRICE CHRISTOPHER K EST OF 1146865 HOUY SHANNON NEIL & TINA MARIE 309894 IMPACT CHURCH SCHERTZ 309842 SCHNEIDER ALTON B & EILEEN 11330 7 4 SCHE R T Z C I B O L O UNIVE R S A L C I T Y I S D 1185753 WILLOW GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 309927 IMPACT CHURCH SCHERTZ 1133073 SCHERTZ CIBOLO UNIVERSAL CITY ISD 309850 WIDEMAN AMY CORINE309848 FRIESENHAHN MILTON & BILLIE, BASHA ELIZABETH ANN, ZWIEKE JEANNE MARIE, & MENK KATHERINE 309917 SCHERTZ 1518 LTD 1185875 FRED DEVELOPMENT LLC 1103267 CROTON PROPERTIES LLC 8" WL 4" WL 8" WL 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 30" WL 12" W L 1 2 " W L 8" WL 8" W L 2" WL 8" W L 1 2 " W L 10" W L 12" W L 1 2 " W L 8 " W L 8" W L 12" W L 8" W L 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 8" W L 8" WL 8" W L 6" W L 8 " W L 8" W L 12" W L 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 2" W L 8 " W L 3 " W L 6 " W L 8" P V C SD R 3 5 8"PV C S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 26 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8" P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8"PV C SDR 3 5 8"PVC SDR 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8" P V C S D R 2 6 8"P V C SD R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"P V C SDR 3 5 8"PV C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 2 6 8" P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8"P V C SD R 2 6 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8"PV C SDR 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 3 5 8"P V C SDR 3 5 RAY C O R B E T T D R A L S A T I A N W A Y LOWE R S E G U I N R D E F M 1 5 1 8 N LOWER SEGUIN RD E F M 1 5 1 8 N CYPR E S S BARN A L S A T I A N W A Y S H A D O W Y DU SK KRUT H PT P E C A N B R A N C H O B E R N A I P A T H BENI N G VALL E Y ARBO R PAR K L N C O L O N E L R D G KLON D I K E C V M E T Z V A L L E Y R A I N B O W G L A D E R E M I L L Y WAY A U R O R A S K Y S T R A S B O U R G W A Y NO RTHE R N STAR FORB A C H DR BROO K ORCH A R D CLEA R WELL S P A R K L E P T RAY C O R B E T T D R C O T T O N S P I N D L E BLOS S O M B L F H I L L B R O O K R D Microsoft, Vantor µ0 200 400 600100 Feet 10105 E FM 1518 N (309923) 10105 E FM 1518 N (1146865) RAY C O R B E T T D R (113 3 0 7 4 ) 10115 E FM 1518 N (309927) E FM 1518 N (309848) LOWER SEGUIN RD (1103267) E F M 1 5 1 8 N C O L O N E L R D G NORT H E R N S T A R ARB O R P A R K L N RAY C O R B E T T D R A U R O R A S K Y P V T R D A T 1 2 0 0 0 R A Y C O R B E T T D R Last update: February 13, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* Zone Change FM 1518 & Ray Corbett Drive (PLZC20260028) City of Schertz Parcels 200' Buffer Project Boundary µ 0 250 500125 US Feet PRE GB DVL R-A PDD PRE E F M 1 5 1 8 N RAY C O R B E T T D R GB PRE GB DVL R-A PDD PRE E F M 1 5 1 8 N RAY C O R B E T T D R Last update: February 17, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* FM 1518 & Ray Corbett Dr (PLZC20260028) CURRENT (DVL) Development Agreement (Delayed Annexation) (M-2) Manufacturing (Heavy) (M-1) Manufacturing (Light) (MSMU-ND) Main Street Mixed Use New Development (MSMU) Main Street Mixed Use (OP) Office and Professional (NS) Neighborhood Services (GB-2) General Business II (GB) General Business (MHP) Manufactured Home Parks (MHS) Manufactured Home Subdivision (TH) Townhome (GH) Garden Home/Single-Family Residential (Zero Lot Line) (AD) Agricultural District (R-7) Single-family Residential (R-6) Single-family Residential (R-4) Apartment/Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Two-Family Residential (R-2) Single-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Residential (R-A) Single-family Residential/Agricultural (PUB) Public Use (PDD) Planned Development (PRE) Pre-Development ClassificationProposed Zoning Change PROPOSED µ 0 100 200 300 40050 Feet DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission via Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner From: John Nowak, P.E., Engineer Date: April 22, 2026 Re: Traffic Impact Summary for Proposed Zone Change at the Southeast corner of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive This zone change request is for a portion of a 36.29 acre parcel at the Southeast corner of the FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive intersection. The zone change request is for a two acre portion, right at the intersection. The current zoning for this two-acre portion is PRE. If the two-acre parcel is developed to it’s full potential, the maximum peak hour trips it would generate is 4. The applicant is requesting the parcel be re-zoned to GB. The same parcel with GB zoning and developed to it’s full potential could generate a peak hour trip volume of 811 trips. This potential assumes development of the property to its maximum potential with the highest trip generation uses allowed in GB zoning. The applicant intends to develop the property with uses that would generate less than this amount of peak hour trips. The requested zone change would have an adverse impact to the FM 1518/Ray Corbett Drive intersection due to the increase in traffic. There are improvements that can be constructed to mitigate the effects of the additional traffic. Such improvements include, widening of Ray Corbett drive to provide for a full left turn lane; signalization of the intersection when it meets signal warrants; increasing the length of the southbound left turn lane that is part of the current FM 1518 project; and a right turn/decel lane if warranted. There is sufficient Right-of-Way available along Ray Corbett Drive to allow for the needed widening for the left turn lane. In an attempt to be pro-active and assuming the full 36.29 acre parcel will be developed in some fashion in the future, Staff has forwarded a copy of the traffic summary identifying the lengthening of the FM 1518 left turn lane to TXDOT for their consideration and incorporation into the FM 1518 project. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Should the zone change be approved, the proposed development will need to conduct a TIA as part of the development process. The TIA will be required to do a signal warrant analysis for the FM 1518/Ray Corbett intersection. If the intersection meets signal warrants due to the proposed development, then the developer will be required to work with TXDOT to signalize the intersection. Any other improvements identified in the TIA needed to mitigate the additional traffic generated by the development will also be required to be constructed by the development. In the long term, if the proposed development also had a connection/access point to Lower Seguin Road (the southern end of the 36.29 acre tract), it would help “split the traffic load” from this proposed development and future development between two signalized intersections (FM 1518/Lower Seguin and FM 1518/Ray Corbett). One of the requirements in the UDC is that cross access easement be provided during the platting process. The proposed development will be required to provide such an easement going towards Lower Seguin Road. Future development will be required to connect to and extend the easement to make a connection to Lower Seguin Road. In summary, the proposed zone change will increase traffic on Ray Corbett Drive, but the increase in traffic can be mitigated so the City’s transportation system functions at an acceptable level. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 5 B   TO:Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY:Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner SUBJECT:PLSPU20260030 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 2.1 acres of land, generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr, also known as a portion of Bexar County Property Identification Number 1103267, City of Schertz, Texas.  BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 2.1 acres of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr. The subject property is currently unplatted and undeveloped. The property is currently zoned Pre-Development District (PRE). This specific use permit application is accompanied by a zone change request to the General Business District (GB), known as PLZC20260028. As per UDC Section 21.5.8, a Specific Use Permit is required to permit a convenience store with gas pumps in General Business District (GB).  On April 23, 2026, six (6) public hearing notices were mailed to the surrounding property owners within a 200-foot boundary of the subject property. At the time of the staff report, zero (0) responses in favor, zero (0) responses neutral, and zero (0) responses in opposition were received. A public hearing notice will be published in the “San Antonio Express” before the City Council hearing. The applicant placed two notification signs on the subject property.  Subject Property:   Zoning Land Use Existing  Pre-Development District (PRE)Undeveloped Proposed  General Business District (GB) with a Specific Use Permit (SUP) Convenience Store with Gas Pumps Adjacent Properties:    Zoning Land Use North  Right-of-Way  Ray Corbett Dr. South  Pre-Development District (PRE) Undeveloped East  Pre-Development District (PRE) Undeveloped West  Right-of-Way  FM 1518 GOAL The applicant is requesting a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 2.1 acres of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr. COMMUNITY BENEFIT It is the City’s desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with the City’s vision of future growth.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION When evaluating Specific Use Permits, staff references UDC Section 21.5.11.D. for the criteria of approval. The criteria are listed below: 1. The proposed use at the specified location is consistent with the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan, or any other applicable adopted plans. The subject property is designated as Mixed-Use Center in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map. The Mixed-Use Center Future Land Use Designation is intended for a combination of higher-density housing, locally serving commercial and recreational uses. Mixed-Use centers are typically located along significant transportation corridors. The subject property is located along FM 1518, a principal arterial and transportation corridor. The proposed Specific Use Permit does not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map Land Use Designation.  2. The proposed use is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district regulations; Pre-Development District (PRE) was intended as a zoning placeholder after the annexation of property into city limits. The subject property is also requesting a zone change to General Business District (GB). General Business District (GB) is intended to provide suitable areas for the development of non-residential uses that may include retail and service establishments that are generally oriented toward serving the overall needs of the community and are usually located along principal transportation corridors. The proposed Specific Use Permit is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the General Business District (GB). 3. The proposed use is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of adjacent developments and neighborhoods. The City of Schertz does not have ordinances in place that restrict the distance of a convenience store with gas pumps from a school. Additionally, the City of Schertz has not adopted an ordinance that requires a certain distance of separation for alcohol sales and schools. The proposed General Business District (GB) zoning is compatible with the existing zoning in the area and uses in the area. The Specific Use Permit is required due to the proposed gas pumps for a gas station. A convenience store without gas pumps is permitted by right in General Business District (GB). 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the overall health, safety or general welfare of the City; As part of promoting health, safety and welfare, the City should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. The proposed Specific Use Permit is only proposed to be within 2.1 acres of the larger 30 acre tract. The remainder of the tract is zoned Pre-Development District (PRE). No zone change applications or development plans are currently being processed for the remainder of the tract.  To the north of the subject property is Ray Corbett Dr, a residential collector. To the east, is the remainder of the tract zoned Pre-Development District (PRE) and Ray Corbett Junior High. To the west of the subject property is FM 1518. Although not immediately adjacent to Ray Corbett Junior High, the location of the proposed convenience store with gas pumps is in proximity to a Junior High. Additionally, the proposed location is at the intersection of a principal arterial and residential collector.  If the proposed zone change and specific use permit are approved, access points to the site will be evaluated. Since the subject property is located along FM 1518, a TxDOT no objection letter will be required for any proposed plat and site plan. All access points along FM 1518 will need to be permitted and approved by TxDOT.  As part of the Zone Change and Specific Use Permit application, a Traffic Impact Summary was prepared, which was reviewed by the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department provided the following after reviewing  the Traffic Impact Analysis Summary:  "In summary, the proposed zone change will increase traffic on Ray Corbett Dr, but the increase in traffic can be mitigated so the City's transportation system functions at an acceptable level." The improvements noted by Engineering, that can be constructed to mitigate the traffic included the following: widening Ray Corbett Dr for a full turn lane; signalization of the intersection (FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr) when it meets signal warrants; increasing the length of the southbound left turn lane that is part of the current FM 1518 project; and a right turn/ deceleration lane on FM 1518. Please note that these are ways to mitigate the increase in traffic, but the required improvements for the specific development will not be known until later in the development process. The full TIA report and required traffic mitigation will be reviewed at the time of the site plan. The increase in traffic will affect the safety of the intersection at FM 1518 and Ray Corbett, but traffic mitigation efforts will be required during the development process.  Although the location of the proposed Specific Use Permit is not ideal, at the corner of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr, it is not surrounded and adjacent to residential uses and zoning, and there is a buffer from the proposed location of the convenience store with gas pumps and the Junior High. 5. Whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the Specific Use Permit. Staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met for the Specific Use Permit. The City of Schertz Fire, EMS, and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed Specific Use Permit request and do not provide objections. The Police Department evaluated the calls for service for a convenience store with gas pumps in proximity to schools and did not find a correlation between the two. Additional Considerations: The Environmental Protection Agency released a report in 2015, "Best Practices for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools." The report references school siting guidelines that recommend considering the locations for new schools by including the proximity to the community, distance from major transportation facilities, exposure to air pollutants during student commutes, feasible mitigation on site, and accessibility by walking or biking. There is no specific guidance on convenience stores with gas pumps in proximity to schools. Across the city, there are schools within proximity to convenience stores with gas pumps. Samuel Clemens High School is across the street from a convenience store with gas pumps located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Schertz Parkway and Aero Ave. Comal Creek Elementary School is approximately 250 feet away from a convenience store with gas pumps located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Hubertus Road and IH-35 N Access Road. The School of Science and Technology, which is located on IH -35 N  Access Road and Fairlawn Ave, is located down the road from a convenience store with gas pumps located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hubertus Road and IH-35. The convenience stores with gas pumps, in these cases, are taking advantage of the intersection of major transportation corridors. Ideally, schools are located within residential neighborhoods where a convenience store with gas pumps would not be seen as an appropriate location due to the location within a residential neighborhood. The proposed Specific Use Permit request is for a convenience store with gas pumps located on the southeast corner of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Dr., in proximity to a school, but not adjacent to or within residential uses or zoning. Although the chosen southeast corner of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive is not ideal, and the corners of FM 1518 and Lower Seguin Road would be preferred for a proposed convenience store with gas pumps, the proposed Specific Use Permit location does not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, is not incompatible with the surrounding area, and traffic impacts can be mitigated. Previous Specific Use Permit requests to permit convenience stores with gas pumps received opposition due to the proximity of the proposed gas pumps to residential developments. For this Specific Use Permit request, the proposed 2.1 acres is not immediately adjacent to residential uses or zoning. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Specific Use Permit to allow a Convenience Store with Gas Pumps, does not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it is compatible with the existing uses and existing zoning, and it is not immediately adjacent to residential developments or zoning. Staff recommends approval of PLSPU20260030. Attachments Aerial Exhibit 200-Foot Notification Map EPA Report- Best Practices Engineering TIA Summary Memo SUP-FM 1518 & Ray Corbett Dr PLSPU20260030 Planned Commercial Collector A Commercial Collector A Planned Commercial Collector B Planned Residential Collector Residential Collector Planned Secondary Rural Arterial Secondary Rural Arterial Planned Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Planned Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Freeway Minor Roads Major Roads Highways Project Boundary ETJ Schertz Municipal Boundary County Boundaries Unknown 36" 30" 24" 20" 18" 16" 12" 10" 8" 6" 4" 3" 2" 1" Private Pressure Neighboring Gravity Schertz Pressure Schertz Gravity Sewer Main Schertz Treatment Plant3Q CCMA Treatment Plant3Q Schertz Lift Station[Ú Private Lift Station[Ú CCMA Lift Station[Ú Manholes!P HydrantU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P!P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P Bexar County 10634 7 2 BARN S & BARN E S I N C 309923 PRICE CHRISTOPHER K EST OF 1146865 HOUY SHANNON NEIL & TINA MARIE 309894 IMPACT CHURCH SCHERTZ 309842 SCHNEIDER ALTON B & EILEEN 11330 7 4 SCHE R T Z C I B O L O UNIVE R S A L C I T Y I S D 1185753 WILLOW GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 309927 IMPACT CHURCH SCHERTZ 1133073 SCHERTZ CIBOLO UNIVERSAL CITY ISD 309850 WIDEMAN AMY CORINE309848 FRIESENHAHN MILTON & BILLIE, BASHA ELIZABETH ANN, ZWIEKE JEANNE MARIE, & MENK KATHERINE 309917 SCHERTZ 1518 LTD 1185875 FRED DEVELOPMENT LLC 1103267 CROTON PROPERTIES LLC 8" WL 4" WL 8" WL 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 30" WL 12" W L 1 2 " W L 8" WL 8" W L 2" WL 8" W L 1 2 " W L 10" W L 12" W L 1 2 " W L 8 " W L 8" W L 12" W L 8" W L 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 8" W L 8" WL 8" W L 6" W L 8 " W L 8" W L 12" W L 8 " W L 1 2 " W L 2" W L 8 " W L 3 " W L 6 " W L 8" P V C SD R 3 5 8"PV C S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 26 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8" P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8"PV C SDR 3 5 8"PVC SDR 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8" P V C S D R 2 6 8"P V C SD R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"P V C SDR 3 5 8"PV C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 2 6 8" P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 2 6 8"P V C SD R 2 6 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC S D R 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PV C SDR 2 6 8"PV C SDR 3 5 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 8"PVC SDR 3 5 8"P V C SDR 3 5 RAY C O R B E T T D R A L S A T I A N W A Y LOWE R S E G U I N R D E F M 1 5 1 8 N LOWER SEGUIN RD E F M 1 5 1 8 N CYPR E S S BARN A L S A T I A N W A Y S H A D O W Y DU SK KRUT H PT P E C A N B R A N C H O B E R N A I P A T H BENI N G VALL E Y ARBO R PAR K L N C O L O N E L R D G KLON D I K E C V M E T Z V A L L E Y R A I N B O W G L A D E R E M I L L Y WAY A U R O R A S K Y S T R A S B O U R G W A Y NO RTHE R N STAR FORB A C H DR BROO K ORCH A R D CLEA R WELL S P A R K L E P T RAY C O R B E T T D R C O T T O N S P I N D L E BLOS S O M B L F H I L L B R O O K R D Microsoft, Vantor µ0 200 400 600100 Feet 10105 E FM 1518 N (309923) 10105 E FM 1518 N (1146865) RAY C O R B E T T D R (113 3 0 7 4 ) 10115 E FM 1518 N (309927) E FM 1518 N (309848) LOWER SEGUIN RD (1103267) E F M 1 5 1 8 N C O L O N E L R D G NORT H E R N S T A R ARB O R P A R K L N RAY C O R B E T T D R A U R O R A S K Y P V T R D A T 1 2 0 0 0 R A Y C O R B E T T D R Last update: February 13, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* SUP FM 1518 & Ray Corbett Drive (PLSPU20260030) City of Schertz Parcels 200' Buffer Project Boundary µ 0 250 500125 US Feet Best Practices for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools November 2015 c Best Practices for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA would like to acknowledge the following organizations that provided comments on an earlier draft of this document: South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Green, Clean and Healthy Schools Partnership Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools ..........................................2 Near-Road Air Pollution and Children’s Health ....................................................................................2 How Can Near-Road Pollution Exposure Be Reduced in Schools? ...............................................3 Building Design and Operation Strategies for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure ....................................................................................................................3 Ventilation, Filtration, and Indoor Air Quality in Schools .............................................................................3 Passive/Natural Ventilation .....................................................................................................................................4 Mechanical Ventilation .............................................................................................................................................4 Filtration .........................................................................................................................................................................5 Actions for Building Occupants ...............................................................................................................................7 Summary .........................................................................................................................................................................8 Site-Related Strategies for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure ..........................................9 Transportation Policies ................................................................................................................................................9 Establish Anti-Idling and Idle Reduction Policies ..........................................................................................9 Upgrade Bus Fleets ....................................................................................................................................................9 Encourage Active Transportation .......................................................................................................................10 Site Location and Design ........................................................................................................................................10 Roadside Barriers ........................................................................................................................................................12 Sound Walls ................................................................................................................................................................12 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................................13 Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................14 School Ventilation and Filtration System Assessment .....................................15 Additional Resources ...............................................................................................16 Introduction Purpose of This Publication This publication can help school communities identify strategies for reducing traffic-related pollution exposure at schools located downwind from heavily traveled roadways (such as highways), along corridors with significant trucking traffic, or near other traffic or vehicular pollution sources. Many of these strategies are already being used by schools across the country to reduce exposures to traffic-related air pollution. We hope that this compilation of best practices will help other schools that want to take steps to address concerns about traffic-related pollution exposure. Many of the best practices outlined in this publication may also be effective in reducing exposure at schools near other sources of particulate air pollution, such as rail yards, ports, and industrial facilities. Contact your state or local air pollution agency for assistance in evaluating the impacts, if any, that traffic-related air pollution may have on your school. EPA’s School Siting Guidelines also include information on evaluating impacts of nearby sources of air pollution. Evaluating the potential impact of traffic- related air pollution may be performed as part of an overall environmental evaluation for your school. Intended Audience This publication was designed for school administrators, facility managers, school staff, school nurses, school-based health centers, parents, students, and others in the school community who are concerned about traffic-related air pollution exposure due to a school’s proximity to a heavily traveled roadway or trucking corridor and who want to understand potential approaches to reduce exposures. Other audiences that may find this resource applicable to their work include community-based environmental and health organizations; HVAC professionals, architects, design engineers, and construction contractors who can apply the principles of this document during facility siting, design, and construction; and other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies. Other EPA Resources for Schools The EPA website (www.epa.gov/schools) offers many documents and tools to help states, districts, schools, teachers, parents, and students create or enhance productive and healthy learning environments. These resources address a broad range of issues that affect children's health in schools, from selecting appropriate locations for schools to maintaining the buildings and grounds. Some of these resources may address strategies that are discussed in this publication. You can use these comprehensive resources to assess your school's environmental health efforts and implement or improve related programs, policies, and procedures. If you have questions about EPA’s resources for schools, contact your regional school coordinator. 1 Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure at Schools Exposure to traffic-related air pollution has been linked to a variety of short- and long-term health effects, including asthma, reduced lung function, impaired lung development in children, and cardiovascular effects in adults. Children’s exposure to traffic-related air pollution while at school is a growing concern because many schools are located near heavily traveled roadways. This document briefly introduces the health risks associated with traffic-related pollution exposure and offers strategies to reduce students’ exposure in new and existing schools. Near-Road Air Pollution and Children’s Health Pollutants directly emitted from cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles are found in higher concentrations near major roads. Examples of directly emitted pollutants include particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and benzene, though hundreds of chemicals are emitted by motor vehicles. Motor vehicles also emit compounds that lead to the formation of other pollutants in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen dioxide, which is found in elevated concentrations near major roads, and ozone, which forms further downwind. Beyond vehicles’ tailpipe and evaporative emissions, roadway traffic also emits brake and tire debris and can throw road dust into the air. Individually and in combination, many of the pollutants found near roadways have been associated with adverse health effects. S tudies show that concentrations of traf fic-related air pollutants can be elevated inside classrooms, and that traf fic is one of the most significant sources of air pollution in both the indoor and outdoor school environments. Motor vehicle pollutant concentrations tend to be higher closer to the road, with the highest levels generally within the first 500 feet (about 150 meters) of a roadway and reaching background levels within approximately 2,000 feet (about 600 meters) of a roadway, depending on the pollutant, time of day, and surrounding terrain.1 Many scientific studies have found that people who live, work, or attend school near major roads appear to be more at risk for a variety of short- and long-term health effects, including asthma, reduced lung function, impaired lung development in children, and cardiovascular effects in adults. Children are particularly susceptible to health problems resulting from air pollution exposure due to: •Respiratory systems that are not fully developed. Studies show exposures to air pollution in childhood can result in decreased lung function.2 •Higher rates of exposure than adults because they are more active and they breathe more rapidly. Children spend a lot of time at school, and nearly 17,000 schools in rural and urban areas across the U.S. are located within 250 meters (~820 feet) of a heavily traveled road.3 Exposure to traffic-related pollution is a concern both indoors and outdoors― 1 Karner, A. A., Eisinger, D. S., & Niemeier, D. A. (2010). Near-roadway air quality: Synthesizing the findings from real-world data. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(14), 5334-5344. doi:10.1021/es100008x 2 Health Effects Institute. (2010). Traffic-related air pollution: A critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. Special Report 17. Available at http://pubs. healtheffects.org/view.php?id=334 3 Kingsley, S. L., Eliot, M. N., Carlson, L., Finn, J., MacIntosh, D. L., & Suh, H. H. (2014). Proximity of US schools to major roadways: A nationwide assessment. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 24, 253–259. doi:10.1038/jes.2014.5. This study defines major roadways as those with a Census Feature Class Code classification of A1 (primary road with limited access or interstate highway) or A2 (primary road without limited access). 2 3 concentrations tend to be higher outdoors, yet numerous studies have found that concentrations of traffic-related pollutants can also be elevated inside classrooms, where children spend most of the school day.4,5 In addition, diesel-powered school buses can be a significant source of pollution near schools. How Can Near-Road Pollution Exposure Be Reduced in Schools? Over the past several decades, emission control technologies and regulations have led to large decreases in emissions per vehicle. Pollutant concentrations have also declined, though at a slower rate, because there has been growth in both the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Government and industry are still working to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted by motor vehicles. In the meantime, several strategies are being used by communities and schools across the country to reduce traffic-related pollution exposure. Some of these strategies aim to reduce indoor exposure at the individual building level, while others target reductions indoors and outdoors on a larger scale. Given the importance of PM in general, and diesel PM specifically as a harmful pollutant, the focus of this document is on strategies that can be used to mitigate PM exposure, although some techniques may be applicable to gaseous pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide, benzene) as well. This document addresses the following mitigation strategies that can be implemented by local school authorities: ventilation, filtration, actions for building occupants, transportation policies, site location and design, and the use of roadside barriers. Many of these strategies may also be effective at reducing exposure at schools near other sources of particulate air pollution (e.g., railyards, industry) and near facilities that have increased truck and car traffic (e.g., warehouses, ports). In planning, implementing, and evaluating mitigation strategies, it may be valuable to assemble a diverse project team that is committed to ensuring a healthy environment for children and staff.6 E levated PM concentrationsin schools have been linked to: •Poor ventilation; •Ineffective or nonexistent air filtration; •Proximity to roadways; •Open windows and doors allowing entry of polluted outdoor air during rush hours; •Infrequent and incomplete cleaning of indoor surfaces; and •High occupancy levels.7,8 Building Design and Operation Strategies for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure Ventilation, Filtration, and Indoor Air Quality in Schools Proper building ventilation is crucial for maintaining healthy indoor air quality. Ventilation in schools is achieved passively (e.g., via open windows and doors) or mechanically by a building’s heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. 4 Mejia, J. F., Choy, S. L., Mengersen, K., & Morawska, L. (2011). Methodology for assessing exposure and impacts of air pollutants in school children: Data collection, analysis and health effects - A literature review. Atmospheric Environment, 45(4), 813-823. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.11.009 5 Mullen, N. A., Bhangar, S., Hering, S. V., Kreisberg, N. M., & Nazaroff, W. W. (2011). Ultrafine particle concentrations and exposures in six elementary school classrooms in northern California. Indoor Air, 21(1), 77-87. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00690.x 6 For more information on developing a project team, see EPA’s Energy Savings Plus Health guidelines (Appendix A). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Energy savings plus health: Indoor air quality guidelines for school building upgrades. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/pdfs/Energy_Savings_Plus_Health_Guideline.pdf 7 Stranger, M., Potgieter-Vermaak, S. S., & Van Grieken, R. (2008). Characterization of indoor air quality in primary schools in Antwerp, Belgium. Indoor Air, 18(6), 454-463. 8 McCarthy, M. C., Ludwig, J. F., Brown, S. G., Vaughn, D. L., & Roberts, P. T. (2013). Filtration effectiveness of HVAC systems at near-roadway schools. Indoor Air, 23(3), 196-207. doi:10.1111/ ina.12015 4 Studies have shown that in addition to reducing health effects related to air pollution exposure, proper ventilation contributes to a comfortable learning environment associated with better test scores and attendance.9 However, improved ventilation does not always improve air quality. For example, if filtration is not used, higher ventilation rates can increase pollutant levels indoors if outdoor pollutant concentrations are higher than indoor concentrations. Passive/Natural Ventilation In passive or natural ventilation systems, air is supplied to a classroom through open windows or doors or by leaks in the building envelope (e.g., gaps around windows and doors). Passive systems rely on dilution of indoor air contaminants by mixing indoor air with outdoor air. This approach is only effective if the outdoor air is less polluted than the indoor air. It is often challenging to achieve proper ventilation using passive methods because assessing ventilation needs and outdoor air quality, as well as controlling ventilation rates, can be difficult for building occupants to carry out. Strategies for reducing pollution exposure in naturally ventilated classrooms include reducing indoor sources of air pollution and, at schools near heavily traveled roads, timing air intake (i.e., opening and closing doors and windows) to avoid bringing in outdoor air during peak travel times (see Actions for Building Occupants section for more information). Additionally, there are filtration-related options for schools with passive systems, which are described in the sections that follow. Recommendations •Keep windows and doors closed during peak traf fic times (e.g., morning and evening rush hours). •Minimize indoor sources of air pollution. •Use a stand-alone filtration unit or upgrade to a mechanical ventilation system. Mechanical Ventilation In mechanical ventilation systems, air is circulated through a building by air intake and/or exhaust fans. Mechanical systems used in schools can be grouped into two categories: units that serve a single room without air ducts (such as a unit ventilator or individual heat pump) and central air handling units that serve multiple rooms via ductwork. The effectiveness of mechanical ventilation depends on HVAC system type, design, maintenance, and operation. An imbalance in a building’s HVAC system can result in the building becoming pressurized. Negative pressure can allow outdoor contaminants to enter the building through the building envelope, while positive pressure prevents infiltration of outdoor air but can force moisture into the walls of the building. In cold climates, moisture can condense in walls and promote mold growth. Therefore, pressure relief dampers that allow air to exit the building or exhaust fans that draw air out are typically recommended. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends10 that central HVAC air handling units be used when possible, as they are often quieter (and therefore less likely to be turned off), easier to maintain because of the reduced number of individual units, and compatible with higher efficiency filtration. While central units typically achieve higher air exchange rates and therefore better indoor air 9 Mendell, M. J., & Heath, G. A. (2005). Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air, 15(1), 27-52. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. Available at www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/hvac.html 5 quality, the necessary ducting and registers tend to increase system cost. Ductwork in central ventilation systems should be kept clean and tested regularly for leaks. Regardless of the type of system used, mechanical ventilation systems are typically more reliable than natural methods because airflow rates are controllable. Recommendations •Use mechanical ventilation if possible. Central HVAC units that serve multiple classrooms are typically more effective than single-room unit systems. •In classrooms where suf ficient mechanical ventilation can be ensured, seal the building envelope to prevent infiltration of polluted air through cracks around windows, doors, and HVAC ducts. •With a properly performing mechanical ventilation system, keep windows and doors closed to avoid bringing in polluted outdoor air. •Ensure that HVAC systems are properly maintained and operated. •Locate air intakes away from roadways, bus idling, drop-off zones, and other pollutant sources, such as designated smoking areas.11 Filtration Although diluting air contaminants through ventilation is sometimes adequate, many buildings (including schools) require additional air treatment to achieve suitable indoor air quality. Studies have shown that filtration in schools can improve indoor air quality by reducing particle concentrations by as much as 97% relative to outdoor levels.12 Achieving maximum performance of filtration systems requires: •Proper installation; •Continuous operation; •A tight building envelope (i.e., minimal air leaks); •Effective air distribution; •Careful placement of air inlet and outlet locations; and •Regular maintenance, including replacement of filters. Filtration has some practical limitations. Filtration is only effective at removing particles that enter the system through an outside air intake and particles that enter through the return air ducts usually located at ceiling level. Particles entering the school through other pathways may not be removed (for instance, particles entering the classroom through open doors or windows, through leakage in the building envelope, from indoor sources, or from re-suspension from floors). In addition, removal of gaseous pollutants by filtration is typically less effective than particle removal; filters that are able to remove gaseous pollutants are costly and are not commonly used in schools. Indoor air filtration is typically incorporated into a building’s HVAC system, although portable, stand- alone air cleaners are also available. Both system types typically employ filters that remove air contaminants based on particle size.13 S chools undertaking energy ef ficiency upgrade projects may wish to consider concurrent opportunities to improve indoor air quality.14 11 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that schools prohibit all tobacco use at all school facilities and events at all times. See http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/ tobacco for more recommendations on tobacco use prevention through schools. 12 McCarthy, M. C., Ludwig, J. F., Brown, S. G., Vaughn, D. L., & Roberts, P. T. (2013). Filtration effectiveness of HVAC systems at near-roadway schools. Indoor Air, 23(3), 196-207. doi:10.1111/ ina.12015 13 Some portable, stand-alone air cleaners use alternate technologies to remove contaminants, such as electrostatic precipitators. While effective at removing particles, electrostatic precipitators tend to be more expensive than traditional filters, require more maintenance over time, and can generate small amounts of ozone as a by-product of air purification. In addition, some air cleaners are designed to intentionally generate ozone and are not recommended. The California Air Resources Board maintains a list of air cleaning devices tested and certified by the State of California to meet California’s electrical safety and ozone emission requirements. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/aircleaners/certified.htm 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Energy savings plus health: Indoor air quality guidelines for school building upgrades. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/energy_ savings_plus_health.html 6 The degree of indoor air quality improvement from filtration depends on the filter’s Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating. Filters with MERV ratings from 1 to 4 are effective at removing large particles (e.g., pollen, dust mites, paint dust), but are less effective at removing small, traffic-related particles that can enter the respiratory system and cause adverse health effects. Filters with higher MERV ratings are increasingly more effective at removing very small particles. Studies examining filtration systems in schools have found that all types of filtration systems improve air quality conditions inside classrooms and can be used to reduce exposure to traffic-related pollutants indoors. Central HVAC systems equipped with filters tend to be more effective than unit systems (e.g., window units) with filters. In schools with central HVAC systems, medium-efficiency filters (MERV 6–7) tend to reduce particle concentrations by approximately 20% to 65%, while higher performance filters (MERV 11–16) can reduce particle concentrations from 74% to 97% relative to outdoor concentrations.15 Higher MERV ratings are generally associated with higher particle removal rates. Stand- alone systems, although slightly less effective, are well-suited for classrooms that are not equipped with a central HVAC system and can achieve removal I n a pilot study of high-performance filtration in schools, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that the combined use of register-based and high-performance panel filters was most effective at reducing particle concentrations, with reductions of 87–96%, while the use of the high-performance panel filter alone reduced particle concentrations by close to 90%.16 efficiencies close to 90%.17 However, performance depends on the amount of air that can be processed by the unit and other classroom layout features that influence airflow to the system. A downside of some stand-alone units is that they can be noisier than HVAC-based filtration. However, quieter stand- alone units are available that meet the noise level requirements for new classroom equipment.18 It is important to maintain HVAC filtration performance through regular maintenance and proper HVAC system operation. Excessive depressurization can be avoided by routine cleaning and filter replacement as necessary. Monitoring the system pressure can help identify when filter replacement is needed and can maximize performance, minimize energy costs, and prevent early disposal of useful filters. Inexpensive pre-filters can be used to remove a majority of particle mass and extend the life of the more expensive main filter. Filter performance and lifetime can also be improved by locating outdoor air intakes away from potential pollution sources so that cleaner air is drawn into the system. Some schools may be able to incorporate high- efficiency filtration into their existing HVAC system. However, not all HVAC systems are compatible with high MERV-rated filters. In some systems, the addition of a high MERV-rated filter can result in 15 McCarthy, M. C., Ludwig, J. F., Brown, S. G., Vaughn, D. L., & Roberts, P. T. (2013). Filtration effectiveness of HVAC systems at near-roadway schools. Indoor Air, 23(3), 196-207. doi:10.1111/ ina.12015 16 Polidori, A., Fine, P. M., White, V., & Kwon, P. S. (2013). Pilot study of high-performance air filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air, 23(3), 185-195. doi:10.1111/ina.12013 17 Polidori, A., Fine, P. M., White, V., & Kwon, P. S. (2013). Pilot study of high-performance air filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air, 23(3), 185-195. doi:10.1111/ina.12013 18 Polidori, A., Fine, P. M., White, V., & Kwon, P. S. (2013). Pilot study of high-performance air filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air, 23(3), 185-195. doi:10.1111/ina.12013 7 a large drop in system pressure. The magnitude of the pressure drop varies by filter type and not all high-efficiency filters result in a large drop in pressure. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s school air filtration program uses high-performance panel filters that have air resistance properties similar to conventional filters, do not require the use of a pre-filter, and do not reduce airflow through the HVAC system. In addition, these filters have longer lifespans than the medium- efficiency MERV filters typically in use, requiring replacement approximately once per year rather than every four months.19 Depending on the HVAC system, installing the highest MERV-rated filter that the current system can handle may be a cost-effective way to improve indoor air quality. In other cases, improving or replacing the existing HVAC system may be required to achieve the pumping capacity necessary to accommodate high-efficiency filtration because of limited airflow. Capital and/or increased operating costs may pose limitations to these improvements; however, potential savings associated with any system upgrades should also be considered. For example, the cost of purchasing an air sensor to monitor ventilation needs, and thereby help optimize ventilation rates, could offset long-term, higher energy costs due to over-ventilation. Recommendations •For classrooms relying on passive/natural ventilation, use quiet, portable, stand- alone filtration systems to reduce indoor concentrations. •For schools with mechanical ventilation systems, use high-ef ficiency filtration to reduce particle pollution exposure inside classrooms. •Upgrade filtration to the highest MERV-rated filters that the HVAC system can handle. •Consider HVAC system upgrades to accommodate high-ef ficiency filtration, including the installation of pre-filters, if necessary. •Inspect and replace filters regularly according to manufacturer recommendations. •Where possible, locate air intakes away from pollution sources. Actions for Building Occupants The actions of building occupants can greatly affect near-road pollution exposure indoors. For instance, opening windows or doors for ventilation in classrooms can allow polluted air to enter into the classroom and overwhelm the air quality benefits of an HVAC filtration system. Keeping windows and doors closed is especially important during periods of peak traffic (e.g., morning and evening rush hours) when near-road pollutant concentrations are typically highest. Although the classroom is a noise-sensitive environment, it is important that HVAC systems are not turned off during the day. For naturally ventilated classrooms, there may be opportunities to time air intake to avoid bringing in outdoor air during peak concentration times. Although the focus of this document is traffic-related pollution exposure, it is important to note that indoor sources can largely impact (or even dominate) indoor concentrations of PM and gaseous pollutants. Indoor 19 Polidori, A., Fine, P. M., White, V., & Kwon, P. S. (2013). Pilot study of high-performance air filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air, 23(3), 185-195. doi:10.1111/ina.12013 8 sources include combustion sources, secondhand smoke, dust from student activity (PM), and (gaseous) emissions, such as from building materials, furniture, carpets, air fresheners, personal care products, biologically derived emissions from mold and bacteria, and classroom supplies (e.g., dry erase markers and some cleaners). Exposure outdoors may be reduced by carefully timing outdoor activities to avoid times of peak pollution. Ozone pollution is often worse on hot, sunny days, especially during the afternoon and early evening. Particle pollution can be high any time of day, but higher levels can be found near idling cars, trucks, and buses and near busy roads, especially during rush hour. If possible, plan strenuous outdoor activities outside of rush hour and drop-off/pick-up times, and consider locating activities farther from roads and loading zones. In addition, many schools implement the Air Quality Flag program to raise awareness of the daily air quality forecast. The school flags, combined with information on current air quality from www.airnow.gov, can be used to help plan outdoor activities. Raising awareness about indoor and outdoor air quality issues and providing training for staff on optimal building operating practices (including HVAC operation) specific to the design of their school are inexpensive strategies that can supplement upgrades to the ventilation and filtration system and building and site design. EPA’s IAQ Tools for Schools program provides an easy-to-use framework and set of tools to train staff on indoor air quality (IAQ) management (www. epa.gov/iaq/schools). Training is recommended as a complementary strategy and should not be considered an alternative to ventilation upgrades. Recommendations Train teachers and school staff on best ventilation practices, including: •Keeping windows and doors closed in mechanically ventilated classrooms to prevent entry of polluted outdoor air. •Keeping windows and doors closed in naturally ventilated classrooms during peak commute times. •Keeping HVAC systems turned on throughout the day. •Keeping air vents clear of items that may block air flow. •Understanding the importance of indoor pollutant sources and how to reduce emissions from indoor sources. Plan strenuous outdoor activities during times with lower amounts of traf fic. Summary Ventilation and filtration needs vary by school according to occupancy, proximity to roadways or other pollutant sources, and the prevalence of indoor sources. School administrators can improve indoor air quality by modifying ventilation and filtration systems, yet it can be difficult to identify which strategies will yield the most significant improvements for the level of effort and cost required. To evaluate which (if any) actions may be needed to help reduce exposure to traffic-related pollution, school staff can begin by making a preliminary assessment. A brief guide to assist in the assessment of a school ventilation and filtration system is provided on page 15. Once a baseline assessment of the current ventilation system is complete, mitigation strategies suitable for the system can be evaluated. Table 1 offers mitigation strategies for different types of ventilation systems typically found in classrooms. 9 Table 1. Ventilation systems versus mitigation strategies. HVAC/ventilation system types are listed from generally less effective to more effective, and mitigation strategies are listed from the simplest (and least costly) to implement to those that require a higher level of effort. Site-Related Strategies for Reducing Near-Road Pollution Exposure Transportation Policies Establish Anti-Idling and Idle Reduction Policies Bus operation and idling can produce large amounts of PM and other air pollutants. Some schools have instituted anti-idling or idle reduction policies to reduce the impact of pollution from buses and passenger vehicles near schools. Anti-idling policies can result in large decreases in particle concentrations, particularly at schools operating multiple diesel school buses. HVAC/Ventilation Type Mitigation Strategies Educate Staff Air-Seal Building Improve Air Intake Use Filtration Upgrade System Passive/natural ventilation May be an option if adequate ventilation to dilute and remove pollutants from indoor sources Avoid bringing in air during periods of high traffic Use a portable stand-alone filtration system Switch to a mechanical ventilation method Single-classroom HVAC unit (e.g., window unit) Avoid airflow obstructions Use quiet systems Use highest compatible MERV-rated filter Use pre-filters or high-performance panel filters Upgrade to a central HVAC system Central HVAC system serving multiple classrooms—high- efficiency filtration use limited by airflow Change air intake locations if near pollution source(s) (e.g., roadway, drop-off zone, parking) Use highest compatible MERV-rated filter Use pre-filters or high-performance panel filters Modify airflow to be compatible with higher efficiency filtration Central HVAC system serving multiple classrooms—high- efficiency filtration use not limited by airflow Change air intake locations if near pollution source(s) (e.g., roadway, drop-off zone, parking) Use MERV 16+ filter Use pre-filters N/A Upgrade Bus Fleets Pollution from school buses can also be reduced by upgrading bus fleets. Fleet turnover for diesel school buses is low, with buses typically operating for 20 to 30 years. Older buses emit high levels of PM and other air pollutants. However, technological advances and tighter PM emissions standards for new buses, set by EPA, have resulted in new buses (manufactured during or after 2007) that are 60 times cleaner than buses produced prior to 1990. Emissions can be reduced by retrofitting older school buses with PM filters or oxidation catalysts, or by replacing older buses with newer models. Emissions may be reduced by using certain alternative fuels, including biodiesel blends. Engines certified to operate on alternative fuels such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG) can also reduce emissions. Discuss potential funding options for bus fleet upgrades with your state or local environmental or air quality agency.20 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Clean school bus. Available at http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/sector-programs/csb-overview.htm 10 Encourage Active Transportation Promoting active transportation, such as walking and bicycling to and from schools, can help reduce traffic- related pollution by reducing the number of buses and passenger vehicles nearby. For example, the addition of walking/biking paths at Roosevelt Middle School in Eugene, Oregon, reduced traffic volumes near the school by 24%.21 While active transportation may contribute to improved air quality near schools, students walking or biking to school may be exposed to roadway pollution and other traffic hazards because of their proximity to motor vehicle traffic. When safe alternatives exist, biking and walking to school along routes with lower traffic volumes may help reduce exposure to pollution and safety hazards.22 Parallel and off-street walking/biking paths through parks or other off-road areas can also provide a good alternative to traveling along a road with many motor vehicles. Pursuing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements can help provide safer routes for students to walk and bike to school. This could include installing or improving sidewalks, crosswalks, signs, markings, and countdown timers, as well as encouraging “walking” school buses.23 When considering walking and biking routes to school, impacts on safety, lighting, access, and maintenance requirements should be considered. The Safe Routes to School National Partnership provides many resources on promoting safe walking and biking (www.saferoutespartnership.org). Despite the potential for increased exposure associated with active transportation, walking and biking have been shown to improve health, and people who live in highly walkable neighborhoods are generally more physically active than those who live in less walkable neighborhoods. Promoting walking and biking to school along routes or paths with lower traffic volumes (relative to other roads) will increase the likelihood that the health benefits of exercise outweigh the health risks associated with increased air pollutant exposures. Recommendations •Limit school bus idling by instituting anti- idling or idle reduction policies. •Upgrade school bus fleets by: –Retrofitting buses with PM filters or oxidation catalysts; and –Replacing older buses with newer models. •Emissions may be reduced by using certain alternative fuels, including biodiesel blends. Engines certified to operate on alternative fuel such as LPG, CNG, and LNG can also reduce emissions. •Discuss funding opportunities for bus fleet upgrades with your local or state environmental or air quality agency. •Provide walking and biking paths to promote active transportation and reduce the number of buses and passenger vehicles near the school. Site Location and Design In response to concerns about the impacts of near-road air pollution, several agencies, including EPA and several state agencies in California, have established siting guidelines for new schools that recommend reducing traffic-related air pollution exposure (Table 2 ). While California guidelines recommend that new schools should not be located within 500 feet or more of major roads, EPA’s School Siting Guidelines note the need to consider multiple issues associated with exposure and health. For example, a school sited far from a major road 21 Safe Routes to School National Partnership. (2012). Safe routes to school and traf fic pollution: Get children moving and reduce exposure to unhealthy air. Available at http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Air_Source_Guide_web.pdf 22 Safe Routes to School National Partnership. (2012). Safe routes to school and traf fic pollution: Get children moving and reduce exposure to unhealthy air. Available at http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Air_Source_Guide_web.pdf 23 National Center for Safe Routes to School. (2013). Starting a walking school bus. Available at http://www.walkingschoolbus.org 11 that requires long commutes by bus or car may result in higher overall exposure for students, compared to a school site near a major road that does not require long commutes. Overall, EPA recommends multiple strategies, as described in this document, to reduce students’ overall exposure. School sites include of a variety of land use types, such as classrooms, playgrounds, athletic fields, offices, and maintenance and storage facilities. For new school developments near roadways, there may be opportunities to reduce traffic-related pollution exposure through careful site design. By Table 2. School siting documents developed by various agencies. Agency Guidance Key Outcomes U.S. EPA School Siting Guidelines (2011) Recommends considering many factors in evaluating locations for new schools, including proximity to the community (including community amenities and infrastructure), distance from major transportation facilities, exposure to air pollutants during student commutes, feasible mitigation on site, and accessibility by walking or biking. California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) Recommends that new schools are not located within 500 feet of major roadways (>50,000 vehicles/day). California Department of Education School Site Selection and Approval Guide (2000) Recommends distancing schools 2,500 feet from major roadways where explosives are carried and at least 1,500 feet from roads where gasoline, diesel, propane, chlorine, oxygen, pesticides, or other combustible or poisonous gases are transported. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Issues in School Site Selection: Guidance Document (2005, updated 2007) Recommends a buffer zone of no less than 500 feet, and as much as 1,000 feet, between schools and major roadways. Los Angeles Unified School District Distance Criteria for School Siting (2008) Recommends that new schools are not built within 500 feet of a freeway or major transportation corridor (>100,000 vehicles/day). Sample layouts for a large land parcel with a school and other land uses. A less desirable layout (left) with the school located close to the highway is compared to an improved layout (right) with the school more than 500 feet from the highway (red dotted line). 12 locating land uses such as maintenance, storage, parking, and office facilities in the area closest to the roadway, classroom and play areas can be located farther from the roadway in areas where air pollutant concentrations tend to be lower. Some of these strategies may also be applicable to existing school sites near roadways, or to sites located near other sources of diesel particulate air pollution such as warehouses, truck routes, railyards, and ports. Exposure to traffic-related pollution can also be reduced by locating onsite transportation-related sources, especially school bus drop-off and pick-up locations, as far from classrooms, play areas, and building air intakes as possible. Optimal placement of offices, playgrounds, athletic fields, and classrooms within a school site depend on a variety of factors, including typical wind patterns, the amount of time spent and activities performed outdoors versus indoors, and indoor ventilation conditions. Recommendations •For new school developments, consider locations farther from major roads and other areas with heavy truck traf fic, but still within the community. –A quantified evaluation of post-mitigation air quality impacts may be appropriate and/or required. •Consider unintended consequences of any location, such as increased commute distances and decreased opportunity for walking and biking. •Consider opportunities to locate playgrounds, athletic fields, and classrooms farther from the roadway, or other areas with heavy truck traf fic, by locating maintenance, storage, parking, and of fice facilities in the area closest to the roadway. •Locate bus and passenger vehicle loading zones away from classrooms, play areas, and building air intakes. Roadside Barriers Sound Walls Pollutant concentrations behind a barrier located downwind of a roadway are typically lower than concentrations in the absence of a barrier. Studies show that reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations within approximately 500 feet of a highway in the presence of a well-designed sound wall can be on the order of 15% to 50%.24 The effectiveness of sound walls at mitigating near-road pollution exposure depends on roadway configuration, local meteorology, and barrier height, design, and endpoint location. For example, pollutant concentrations may be higher downwind of a wall if there are gaps in the wall that allow pollutants to pass through. Sound walls can be considered for schools located adjacent to highways and other busy, high-traffic roadways. I n situations where school authorities do not have jurisdiction or ownership over the immediate roadside environment, consider discussing the use of roadside barriers to reduce traf fic-related pollution exposure with the relevant authority (e.g., state department of transportation, city planning department). 24 Baldauf, R. W., Khlystov, A., Isakov, V., Thoma, E., Bowker, G. E., Long, T., & Snow, R. (2008). Impacts of noise barriers on near-road air quality. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 7502–7507. 13 T he combined use of vegetation and sound walls has shown promise in reducing vehicle pollution downwind of roadways by up to 60%.25 Vegetation Trees and plants along roadways can reduce particle concentrations by acting as a physical barrier between roadways and schools (similar, in effect, to sound walls), or by filtering particles as they pass through and accumulate on leaf surfaces. The amount of removal depends on season, plant species, leaf size and density, and pollutant type. The effectiveness of trees and plants as physical barriers also depends on the density and height of the greenery. Mature vegetation tends to be more effective than young vegetation, evergreen species are typically more effective than deciduous species, and vegetation with needle-like greenery (e.g., conifers) tends to be more effective than broad- leaved trees. Particle removal rates tend to be higher when vegetation is located close to the pollutant source and when wind speeds are low. The vegetation types chosen for roadside barriers should be appropriate for the location of interest, including water requirements, non-invasive species, and aesthetics. In general, the vegetation barrier should be thick (approximately 20 feet or more) and have full leaf and branch coverage from the ground to the top of the canopy along the entire length (i.e., no gaps in-between or underneath the vegetation). In some instances, this type of barrier may require the use of multiple vegetation types such as a combination of bushes and trees. The vegetation chosen should also maintain its structure during all seasons; thus, coniferous trees would be preferable to hardwood species. The vegetation types chosen should also not be emitters of air pollution or high levels of pollen. Schools can use the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) i-Tree Species tool26 to begin the process of choosing appropriate vegetation, in consultation with other experts from plant nurseries, local cooperative extensions, city government, or the U.S. Forest Service. All vegetation that will be located near a road should be sited consistent with state and local safety guidelines. Recommendations •Use a solid roadside barrier (only along highways) and/or vegetation to block traf fic- related pollutants from influencing air quality near the school. •Minimize gaps in solid and vegetative roadside barriers. •For vegetative barriers, use an evergreen species with mature, dense greenery and locate the barrier downwind and close to the roadway. •Choose species appropriate for region and site, consulting with plant nurseries, local cooperative extensions, city governments, or the U.S. Forest Service. Similar to sound walls, concentrations may be higher behind a vegetative barrier that is located downwind of the roadway if there are gaps in the vegetation such as missing or dead trees, or lack of cover from the ground to the top of the vegetation. In any case, vegetation can be used as a buffer to distance people from the roadway while creating a more attractive and shaded space that encourages active transportation (such as walking and bicycling) as an alternative to vehicle use.27 25 Bowker, G. E., Baldauf, R., Isakov, V., Khylstov, A., & Petersen, W. (2007). The effects of roadside structures on the transport and dispersion of ultrafine particles from highways. Atmospheric Environment, 41, 8128-8139. 26 USDA’s i-Tree Species is designed to aid users in selecting proper species given the tree functions they desire. The tool is available at www.itreetools.org/species. 27 Baldauf, R., McPherson, G., Wheaton, L., Zhang, M., Cahill, T. Hemphill Fuller, C., Withycombe, E., & Titus, K. (2013). Integrating vegetation and green infrastructure into sustainable transportation planning. Transportation Research News, September-October, 14-18. 14 Summary of Recommendations Table 3 outlines mitigation strategies that can be used to reduce traffic-related pollution exposure in schools, including ventilation/HVAC system requirements, benefits, drawbacks, and relevance for new and/or existing schools. Note that some of these mitigation strategies will only serve to reduce pollution exposures indoors (e.g., filtration), or will only effectively reduce some pollutants (e.g., PM2.5) but not others (e.g., volatile organic compoundss). These mitigation strategies reduce risks, but do not eliminate them. Strategy Ventilation/ HVAC System Type Benefits Drawbacks New/ Existing Schools Educate staff on ventilation and indoor air quality best practices All Teachers are less likely to turn mechanical systems off; air vents remain unobstructed; doors/windows are kept closed during peak pollution periods; indoor sources of air pollution are reduced Effectiveness may decrease over time; results depend on training quality and staff cooperation Both Air-seal around windows, doors, HVAC ducts, etc. Mechanical ventilation systems Reduces the amount of unfiltered air entering the building Indoor pollutant concentrations may build over time if ventilation is insufficient, especially if indoor pollutant generation is high Both Relocate air intake or source if roadway/pollution source is near intake vent Central HVAC systems; single classroom HVAC units Reduces particle and gaseous concentrations in incoming air; can increase lifespan of filters Cost Both Use filtration All Reduces particle concentrations from both outdoor and indoor sources Maintenance and replacement required; may require system upgrades Both Improve HVAC system design to be compatible with high-efficiency filtration Central HVAC systems Larger reductions in particle concentrations are possible Cost Both Implement anti- idling/idle reduction policies All Reduces emissions of particles and gases Lack of vehicle climate control during hot/cold weather Both Upgrade school bus fleet All Reduces emissions of particles and gases Cost Both Encourage active transportation (e.g., walking and biking) to school All Reduces emissions of particles and gases; improved health with exercise Walkers/bicyclists may be exposed to traffic- related pollution or other hazards during trips Both Locate school site away from pollution sources All May reduce student exposure to particles and gases at the school, although overall exposures may increase if an alternative site requires long commutes by bus or car If alternative sites are limited, there may not be opportunities to locate the school farther from the road; unintended consequences from locating sites far from the community may include a decreased opportunity for walking and biking, increased traffic, and/or increased exposures during commuting New Design school site to minimize exposure to pollutant sources All Reduces student exposure to particles and gases Effectiveness is site-specific; may be costly for existing schools Both Use solid and vegetative barriers All Reduces concentrations of particles and gases near schools; vegetative barriers may increase shade and improve aesthetics Cost; optimal design may be site-specific; maintenance and water needs for vegetative barriers Both 15 School Ventilation and Filtration System Assessment 1.Assess whether near-road pollution may be a problem. •Is there a major roadway near the school? If so: –How far away is it? –Is the school downwind of the road? •Where does school bus pick-up and drop-off occur? –Are there opportunities to reduce bus idling or relocate loading zones away from classrooms and outdoor recreation areas? 2.Assess the current ventilation and filtration system. •Is ventilation achieved passively or mechanically? •If mechanical: –Is a central HVAC system used or a single-classroom unit? –Are filters being used? –What is the blower capacity? –Is filtration being used? If so, what is the MERV rating of the filter(s)? 3.Assess ventilation operation. •Are teachers leaving windows and/or doors open during the day? •Are there opportunities to bring in air during off-peak emission times? •Are teachers turning systems off due to noise issues? •Are filters being inspected, cleaned, and replaced according to the schedule recommended by the manufacturer? 4.Assess air-sealing needs to limit infiltration of unconditioned air. •Can infiltration of polluted air be reduced by sealing around any of the following: –Windows? –Doors? –HVAC ducting? 5.Evaluate air intake location(s) relative to roadways or other pollutant sources such as school bus drop-off and pick-up locations. •Is air intake located near a roadway, loading zone, or other pollutant source, such as designated smoking areas?28 Are supply and exhaust vents unobstructed? •Can the air intake be relocated to an area that is less influenced by pollutant sources? 28 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that schools prohibit all tobacco use at all school facilities and events at all times. See http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/ tobacco for more recommendations on tobacco use prevention through schools. 16 Additional Resources Information regarding air quality and pollution mitigation in schools is available on the EPA website: •General information about indoor air quality: www.epa.gov/iaq •Creating healthy indoor environments in schools: www.epa.gov/iaq/schools •Energy Savings Plus Health: Indoor Air Quality Guidelines for School Building Upgrades: ww w.epa.gov/iaq/schools/energy_savings_plus_health.html •EPA School Siting Guidelines: www.epa.gov/schools/guidelinestools/siting/download.html •Exhibit 5: Factors Influencing Exposures and Potential Risks: www.epa.gov/schools/guidelinestools/siting/ downloads/Exhibit_5_Factors_Infl encing_Exposures_and_Potential_Risks.pdf •Exhibit 6: Screening Potential Environmental, Public Health and Safety Hazards: www.epa.gov/schools/ guidelinestools/siting/downloads/Exhibit_6_Screening_Potential_Environmental_Public_Health_and_ Safety_Hazards.pdf •HVAC systems in schools: www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/hvac.html •EPA Clean School Bus Program: www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/csb-overview.htm •The Role of Vegetation in Mitigating Air Quality Impacts from Traffic Emissions: http://archive.epa.gov/nrmrl/ archive-appcd/web/pdf/baldauf.pdf •EPA School Flag Program: http://cfpub.epa.gov/airnow/index.cfm?action=fl g_program.index Other useful resources include: •California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf •South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Issues in School Site Selection: Guidance Document: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/school_guidance.pdf •South Coast Air Quality Management District, Near-Road Mitigation Measures and Technology Forum Materials: www.aqmd.gov/home/library/technology-research/technology-forums •California Department of Education, School Site Selection and Approval Guide: ww w.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp •Los Angeles Unified School District, Distance Criteria for School Siting: ww w.lausd-oehs.org/docs/Misc/DistanceCriteriaTable%20Rev12_10_08.pdf •ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, 2013: ww w.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/1865968 •ASHRAE Indoor Air Quality Guide: Best Practices for Design, Construction, and Commissioning, 2009: ww w.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/indoor-air-quality-guide c a Office of Children’s Health Protection (1107A) EPA-100-R-15-001 www.epa.gov November 2015 Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains at least 50% post consumer fiber. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission via Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner From: John Nowak, P.E., Engineer Date: April 22, 2026 Re: Traffic Impact Summary for Proposed Zone Change at the Southeast corner of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive This zone change request is for a portion of a 36.29 acre parcel at the Southeast corner of the FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive intersection. The zone change request is for a two acre portion, right at the intersection. The current zoning for this two-acre portion is PRE. If the two-acre parcel is developed to it’s full potential, the maximum peak hour trips it would generate is 4. The applicant is requesting the parcel be re-zoned to GB. The same parcel with GB zoning and developed to it’s full potential could generate a peak hour trip volume of 811 trips. This potential assumes development of the property to its maximum potential with the highest trip generation uses allowed in GB zoning. The applicant intends to develop the property with uses that would generate less than this amount of peak hour trips. The requested zone change would have an adverse impact to the FM 1518/Ray Corbett Drive intersection due to the increase in traffic. There are improvements that can be constructed to mitigate the effects of the additional traffic. Such improvements include, widening of Ray Corbett drive to provide for a full left turn lane; signalization of the intersection when it meets signal warrants; increasing the length of the southbound left turn lane that is part of the current FM 1518 project; and a right turn/decel lane if warranted. There is sufficient Right-of-Way available along Ray Corbett Drive to allow for the needed widening for the left turn lane. In an attempt to be pro-active and assuming the full 36.29 acre parcel will be developed in some fashion in the future, Staff has forwarded a copy of the traffic summary identifying the lengthening of the FM 1518 left turn lane to TXDOT for their consideration and incorporation into the FM 1518 project. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Should the zone change be approved, the proposed development will need to conduct a TIA as part of the development process. The TIA will be required to do a signal warrant analysis for the FM 1518/Ray Corbett intersection. If the intersection meets signal warrants due to the proposed development, then the developer will be required to work with TXDOT to signalize the intersection. Any other improvements identified in the TIA needed to mitigate the additional traffic generated by the development will also be required to be constructed by the development. In the long term, if the proposed development also had a connection/access point to Lower Seguin Road (the southern end of the 36.29 acre tract), it would help “split the traffic load” from this proposed development and future development between two signalized intersections (FM 1518/Lower Seguin and FM 1518/Ray Corbett). One of the requirements in the UDC is that cross access easement be provided during the platting process. The proposed development will be required to provide such an easement going towards Lower Seguin Road. Future development will be required to connect to and extend the easement to make a connection to Lower Seguin Road. In summary, the proposed zone change will increase traffic on Ray Corbett Drive, but the increase in traffic can be mitigated so the City’s transportation system functions at an acceptable level. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 5 C   TO:Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY:Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner SUBJECT:PLZC20260101 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 0.2 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed Use District (MSMU), known as 502 Main Street, specifically known as Guadalupe Property Identification Number 67753, City of Schertz, Texas.  BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 0.2 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU). The subject is currently not platted and is used for a restaurant. The applicant is not proposing to change the current use and is requesting the zone change for the flexibility the zoning district allows to bring the property into compliance with the Unified Development Code.  On April 23, 2026, sixteen (16) public hearing notices were mailed to the surrounding property owners within a 200-foot boundary of the subject property. At the time of the staff report, zero (0) responses in favor, zero (0) responses neutral, and zero (0) responses in opposition were received. A public hearing notice was also sent to the school district. A public hearing notice will be published in the “San Antonio Express” before the City Council hearing. The applicant placed one notification sign on the subject property.  Subject Property:   Zoning Land Use Existing  General Business District (GB) Restaurant Proposed  Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU) Restaurant Adjacent Properties:    Zoning Land Use North  Right-of-Way  Main St. South  Railroad Tracks Union Pacific Railroad  East  General Business District (GB) Office West  General Business District (GB) Undeveloped Zoning: Dimensional Requirements Table 21.5.7.B- Non-Residential Zoning Districts Table 21.5.7.A- Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Size Dimensions Minimum Yard Setbacks Misc. Lot Requirements Zoning District Code Area Sq. Ft. Width Ft. Depth Ft. Front Ft. Side Ft.Rear Ft.Max Height Max Impervious Coverage Exisiting General Business District GB 10,000 100 100 25 adj to non-res:0 adj to res.: 25 adj to non-res:0 adj to res.: 25 120'80% Proposed Main Street Mixed-Use District MSMU 5,000 50 100 10 5 10 35'80% GOAL The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 0.2 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU). COMMUNITY BENEFIT It is the City’s desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with the City’s vision of future growth.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION When considering zone changes, staff looks to the criteria listed in UDC Section 21.5.4.D. The criteria are listed below:  1. Whether the proposed zoning change implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan, or any other applicable adopted plans. The proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan. The subject property is designated as Main Street on the Future Land Use Map. The Main Street Future Land Use Designation is intended for residential, commercial, cultural, and entertainment uses to create a dynamic urban core. The subject property is currently used as a restaurant and is intended to keep being used as a restaurant. The property is also part of the Main Street Corridor that is eligible for Main Street Grants. The proposed zone change to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU) implements the Future Land Use Map designation of Main Street. 2. Whether the proposed zoning change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. As part of promoting health, safety, and welfare, the City should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. Any new development will be required to meet the site design requirements listed in Article 9 of the Unified Development Code. The purpose of the zone change is to bring the site into compliance, thus promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. The Engineering Department provided a traffic impact evaluation of the proposed zone change. The following conclusion was made: "There is no increase or decrease in the expected traffic with the zone change request," and "...there is no adverse impact to the City's transportation system by the zone change request."  The proposed zone change will not affect the safety of the City by adversely impacting traffic. 3. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the immediate area; The proposed Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU) is intended for properties along Main Street and in proximity to Main Street, and permits single-family, multi-family, and low-intensity commercial uses. Along Main Street, there are existing commercial uses which include other existing restaurants, professional offices, and retail. The applicant intends to continue the restaurant use in the proposed zoning district, which is consistent and appropriate with the existing uses in the immediate area. 4. Whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment. Staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed zone change application. The City of Schertz Fire, EMS, and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed zone change request and do not provide objections. A public hearing notice was mailed to SCUC ISD. The most recent demographic reports and forecasting reports are available as part of the staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of PLZC20260101 due to the location of the subject property on Main Street, the compatibility with existing uses and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map. Attachments Aerial Exhibit 200 Foot Notification Map Proposed Zone Change Exhibit Engineering Memo on TIA Summary SCUC ISD Demographic Reports SCUC ISD 10- Year Forecasting Report Proposed Zone Change 502 Main Street PLZC20260101 Planned Commercial Collector A Commercial Collector A Planned Commercial Collector B Planned Residential Collector Residential Collector Planned Secondary Rural Arterial Secondary Rural Arterial Planned Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Planned Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Freeway Minor Roads Major Roads Highways Project Boundary ETJ Schertz Municipal Boundary County Boundaries Unknown 36" 30" 24" 20" 18" 16" 12" 10" 8" 6" 4" 3" 2" 1" Private Pressure Neighboring Gravity Schertz Pressure Schertz Gravity Sewer Main Schertz Treatment Plant3Q CCMA Treatment Plant3Q Schertz Lift Station[Ú Private Lift Station[Ú CCMA Lift Station[Ú Manholes!P HydrantU U U U U U U U U U U U U U !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P 67696 CHILDREN OF GOD CHURCH INC 40841 GRANGER REALTY & INVESTMENTS LLC 6 7 6 5 7 R A N D O L P H L O D G E # 1 2 6 8 6 7 5 4 9 S C H E R T Z B A N K & T R U S T 6 7 6 1 6 L O N G O R I A M I N I S T R I E S I N C 41124 FAULTERSACK STEVEN ADAM 41123 SANCHEZ MARY ESTELLA 41122 UAMD LLC 41121 CITY OF SCH E R T Z 41118 E S SCHERTZ 78 LLC 67454 MARTINEZ ALFONSO R 67423 MARTINEZ ALFONSO R 67684 426 MAIN ST LLC 21464 TWITERO FAMILY TRUST 67719 SOUTHERN PACIFIC 67697 SCHERTZ BANK & TRUST 67531 PONCE MARIO SANDOVAL 67501 DAILEY BALIS E JR 32861 WALTEL LLC 32859 WALTEL LLC 67753 LOPEZ DANY EDUARDO DBA MELANIES CAFE 40842 VIDAL RANDAL J & MELISSA K 67686 ROWELL KRISTI MICHELLE 6 7 6 2 1 H U E R T A J O E & F R A N C E S H U E R T A & J O L E A N H U E R T A 137487 KAPADIA JAGDISH 67718 SOUTHERN PACIFIC 67704 JOHN GANNON INC 67489 CITY OF SCHERTZ 67548 301 FIRST STREET LLC 148344 CHILDREN OF GOD CHURCH INC 6 7 7 7 1 P E N T E C O S T A L L I F E C H U R C H I N C 6 7 5 7 7 H U B E R L E E & D I C K P E R R A 6 7 5 6 2 H P P R I N T I N G I N C 67486 BURCH ROBERT R 67445 LNG PROPERTIES INC 67610 BURCH ROBERT R 67679 BURCH ROBERT R 67690 BURCH ROBERT R 67530 TRES ANGELES LLC 148343 PHILIP ELIZABETH PROPERTIES LLC 67612 A01B01 LLC 67564 CITY OF SCHERTZ 67500 6K PROPERTIES LLC 67647 BLCH1 LLC 10005052 (UNAVAILABLE) Union P a c i f i c 8 " W L 6" WL 8" W L 3 " W L 12" W L 12" W L 2" WL 1 2 " W L 12" W L 6 " W L 6" WL 8 " W L 6" WL 6 " W L 12" W L 6" WL 8" WL 2" WL 6 " W L 6" W L 1 8 " W L 2" W L 6" W L 8" W L 6 " W L 6" WL 3 " W L 6 " W L 10" WL 4" WL 2" W L 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8"P V C S D R 3 5 8 " V i t r i f i e d C l a y 6 " V i t r i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vitr i f i e d C l a y 8"Vitr i f i e d C l a y 8"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 1 S T S T MAIN S T E FM 1518 N FM 78 FM 78 M I L L S T 1 S T S T CHUR C H S T B E A C O N A V E R A N D O L P H A V E MAIN S T 1 S T S T L I N D B E R G H A V E CURT I S S A V E WUES T S T E A V IAT I O N BL V D LEE EXCH A N G E A V E Microsoft, Vantor µ0 150 30075 Feet 5 0 7 M A I N S T ( 6 7 6 5 7 ) 5 0 9 M A I N S T ( 6 7 5 4 9 ) 5 1 3 M A I N S T ( 6 7 6 1 6 ) MAIN ST (67454) 432 MAIN ST (67423) 519 MAIN ST (67697) 508 MAIN ST (32861) 506 MAIN ST (32859) 502 MAIN ST (67753) 409 MAIN ST (67621) 415 MAIN ST (137487) 110 FM 78 (67486) 216 FM 78 (67445) 206 FM 78 (67530) FM 78 (UNAVAILABLE) 417 MAIN ST (67500) 210 FM 78 (67647) U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d L I N D B E R G H A V E EXCH A N G E A V E 1 S T S T LEE FM 78 MAIN S T WUEST S T Last update: April 20, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* Proposed Zone Change 502 Main Street (PLZC20260101) City of Schertz Parcels 200' Buffer Project Boundary µ0 100 20050 Feet R-2 GB GB GB GB R-2 R-2 R-2 GB U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d MSMU FM 78 MAIN S T L I N D B E R G H A V E 1 S T S T EXCH A N G E A V E WUEST S T R-2 GB GB GB GB R-2 R-2 R-2 GB U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d FM 78 MAIN S T L I N D B E R G H A V E 1 S T S T EXCH A N G E A V E WUEST S T Last update: April 20, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* 502 Main Street (PLZC20260101) CURRENT (DVL) Development Agreement (Delayed Annexation) (M-2) Manufacturing (Heavy) (M-1) Manufacturing (Light) (MSMU-ND) Main Street Mixed Use New Development (MSMU) Main Street Mixed Use (OP) Office and Professional (NS) Neighborhood Services (GB-2) General Business II (GB) General Business (MHP) Manufactured Home Parks (MHS) Manufactured Home Subdivision (TH) Townhome (GH) Garden Home/Single-Family Residential (Zero Lot Line) (AD) Agricultural District (R-7) Single-family Residential (R-6) Single-family Residential (R-4) Apartment/Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Two-Family Residential (R-2) Single-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Residential (R-A) Single-family Residential/Agricultural (PUB) Public Use (PDD) Planned Development (PRE) Pre-Development ClassificationProposed Zoning Change PROPOSED µ 0 150 30075 Feet DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission via Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner From: John Nowak, P.E., Engineer Date: April 22, 2026 Re: Traffic Impact Summary for Proposed Zone Change for 502, 506, and 508 Main Street The properties at 502, 506, and 508 Main Street are currently zoned GB, General Business. The property owner is requesting MSMU, Zoning, a specific zoning district for the Main Street corridor. The properties are currently fully developed and no change of uses are expected with the zone change request. Therefore, there is no increase or decrease in expected traffic generation associated with this zone change request. As such, there is no adverse impact to the City’s transportation system by the zone change request. 4Q24 Demographic Report 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.8 01234 Guadalupe Co. Comal Co. San Antonio MSA Texas US Unemployment Rate, Year  Over Year Dec‐24 Dec‐23 2 Local Economic Conditions 3 12.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Se p ‐19 No v ‐19 Ja n ‐20 Ma r ‐20 Ma y ‐20 Ju l ‐20 Se p ‐20 No v ‐20 Ja n ‐21 Ma r ‐21 Ma y ‐21 Ju l ‐21 Se p ‐21 No v ‐21 Ja n ‐22 Ma r ‐22 Ma y ‐22 Ju l ‐22 Se p ‐22 No v ‐22 Ja n ‐23 Ma r ‐23 Ma y ‐23 Ju l ‐23 Se p ‐23 No v ‐23 Ja n ‐24 Ma r ‐24 Ma y ‐24 Ju l ‐24 Se p ‐24 No v ‐24 Unemployment Rate, Sept 2019 –Dec 2024 San Antonio MSA Texas 3 Local Economic Conditions San Antonio International Airport •Broke ground on third terminal at end of 2024 •Estimated total cost = $2.5 billion •Third terminal will anchor the expansion &  improvement project housing as many as 17  new gates spanning approx. 850,000 sq. ft.  •Will include concessions and lounge areas  while housing new Federal Inspection Station  to accommodate expanded international air  service •Expected to generate $3.2 billion in revenue  for the city over 15 years •New ground loading facility also added at  Terminal A including new passenger gates and  overnight aircraft parking •The third terminal is scheduled for completion  in 2028 4 Housing Activity by MSA © 2022 Zonda 18,503 19,046 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2014Q4 2015Q4 2016Q4 2017Q4 2018Q4 2019Q4 2020Q4 2021Q4 2022Q4 2023Q4 2024Q4 Annual Housing Starts vs. Annual Closings Annual Housing Starts Annual Closings Source:  Zonda San Antonio New Home Starts & Closings Key Trends Starts:  +26% YOY  / +6% QOQ Closings:  +4% YOY / +6% QOQ Closings Exceed Starts by 543 Homes 6 SCUC ISD Housing Market Analysis Average New vs. Existing Home Sale Price, 2013 - 2024 • The average new home sale price in SCUC ISD has risen 54% between 2014 and 2024, an increase of more than $135,200 • The average existing home sale price in SCUC ISD has risen 85% in the last 10 years, an increase of more than $158,800 Avg New Home Avg Existing Home 2014 $250,897 $187,097  2015 $262,532 $181,881  2016 $284,037 $189,189  2017 $297,182 $197,710  2018 $328,762 $221,637  2019 $314,299 $234,868  2020 $318,065 $247,691  2021 $345,858 $257,537  2022 $431,606 $327,526  2023 $422,149 $333,286  2024 $386,156 $345,921  $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 New Home Price Existing Home Price 7 San Antonio New Home Ranking Report ISD Ranked by Annual Closings –4Q24 * Based on additional Zonda Education housing research Rank District Name Annual Starts Annual Closings Inventory VDL Future 1NORTHSIDE ISD (BEXAR) 3,739 3,920 1,909 6,114 21,246 2COMAL ISD 2,691 3,028 1,670 4,843 21,591 3MEDINA VALLEY ISD 2,377 2,410 1,232 5,228 27,810 4EAST CENTRAL ISD 2,513 2,230 1,243 4,351 24,478 5SOUTHWEST ISD 1,301 1,328 628 2,269 7,296 6 JUDSON ISD 615 899 207 547 871 7SCUC ISD 787 894 391 2,113 5,896 8NAVARRO ISD 841 832 453 1,290 6,635 9 BOERNE ISD 777 761 497 1,545 9,427 10 SOUTHSIDE ISD 700 730 322 927 16,702 11 NEW BRAUNFELS ISD 656 589 407 854 6,164 12 NORTH EAST ISD 397 361 234 906 5,196 13 SEGUIN ISD 325 342 204 668 5,384 14 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ISD 300 238 164 86 790 15 MARION ISD 230 174 139 327 4,559 16 FLORESVILLE ISD 116 137 49 227 0 17 SAN ANTONIO ISD 59 87 126 305 772 18 LYTLE ISD 91 76 44 319 1,046 19 PLEASANTON ISD 54 61 25 72 0 20 ALAMO HEIGHTS ISD 3 41 8 15 19 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Annual Starts Annual Closings 8 District New Home Starts and Closings Starts 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Closings 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1Q 175 201 237 294 349 103 189 1Q 133 138 165 190 181 280 235 2Q 180 176 197 300 393 187 260 2Q 185 211 249 258 227 247 249 3Q 177 207 261 265 174 241 163 3Q 185 240 286 268 218 199 200 4Q 185 198 232 319 63 157 161 4Q 161 179 213 196 334 155 214 Total 717 782 927 1,178 979 688 773 Total 664 768 913 912 960 881 898 9 District Housing Overview by Elementary Zone Elementary Annual  Starts Quarter  Starts Annual  Closings Quarter  Closings Under  Const.Inventory Vacant   Dev. Lots Future CIBOLO VALLEY 76 11 123 30 13 33 118 36 GREEN VALLEY00000 0 00 PASCHAL 10321 141242 ROSE GARDEN 234 64 230 53 85 137 827 2,499 SCHERTZ 0 0210 0 1 060 SIPPEL 298 70 277 68 76 154 729 1,817 WATTS 47 7 80 20 8 16 15 580 WIEDERSTEIN 131 9 160 41 13 49 383 662 Grand Total 787 161 894 214 196 391 2,113 5,896 Highest activity in the category Second highest activity in the category Third highest activity in the category • The district has 23 actively building subdivisions • Within SCUC ISD there are 6 future subdivisions in various stages of planning • Of these, groundwork is underway on more than 500 lots within 6 subdivisions • 462 lots were delivered in the 4 th quarter 10 District Housing Overview Mont Blanc • 100 total future lots • Preliminary plat approved Jan 2023 • Groundwork underway on all lots 11 Residential Activity Homestead • 1,470 total lots • 783 future lots • 296 vacant developed lots • 20 homes under construction • 339 homes occupied • Started 66 homes in last 12 months; started 16 homes in 4Q24 • Equipment on site for 62 lots in Phase 11 • $400K - $700K January 24, 2025 12 Residential Activity Saddle Creek Ranch • 807 total lots • 36 future lots • 61 vacant developed lots • 7 homes under construction • 690 homes occupied • Closed 61 homes in last 12 months; closed 16 homes in 2Q24 • Groundwork underway on remaining lots • $290K+ Grace Valley – Cibolo Farms • 331 total lots • 186 future lots • 124 vacant developed lots • 17 homes under construction • First homes started 4Q24 • Lennar January 24, 2025 13 Residential Activity Grace Valley • 868 total lots • 557 future lots • 163 vacant developed lots • 16 homes under construction • 128 homes occupied • Closed 123 homes in last 12 months; closed 32 homes in 4Q24 • Groundwork underway on 111 lots in Phase 3A • Lennar • $237K+ January 24, 2025 14 Residential Activity Venado Crossing • 507 total lots • 311 future lots • 15 vacant developed lots • 8 homes under construction • 165 homes occupied • Closed 48 homes in last 12 months; closed 20 homes in 4Q24 • Groundwork underway on 61 lots in Phase 4 • $350K+ Steele Creek • 940 total lots • 335 future lots • 118 vacant developed lots • 1 home under construction • 474 homes occupied • Closed 98 homes in last 12 months; closed 25 homes in 4Q24 • Delivered 111 lots for homebuilding in 4Q24 • DR Horton • $365K+ 15 Residential Activity Saddlebrook Ranch • 635 total lots • 335 future lots • 287 vacant developed lots • 12 homes under construction • Started first homes 3Q24 • Delivered 132 lots for homebuilding in Phase 4 & 5 in 4Q24 • Ashton Woods • $362K+ January 24, 2025 16 Residential Activity Crossvine • 1,017 total lots • 168 future lots • 291 vacant developed lots • 19 homes under construction • 516 homes occupied • Started 56 homes in last 12 months; started 15 homes in 4Q24 • $400K+ Clearwater Creek • 1,156 total future lots • Prelim plat Phase 1 (104 lots) approved April 2022 • Groundwork underway on Phase 1 • Lennar 17 Residential Activity January 24, 2025 18 Housing Market Trends: Multi‐family market‐December 2024 • There are 618 multifamily units under construction, 318 of which are single family rental homes • There are nearly 1,300 future multifamily units in various stages of planning across the district 19 District Multifamily Overview 20 Multi‐Family Activity January 24, 2025 Aviator 1518 • 300 apartment units under construction • Groundwork started early 2024 • Estimated lease date late spring 2025 21 Multi‐Family Activity Schertz Station • 318 single-family rental homes under construction • Groundwork started July 2024 • Estimated lease date August 2025 January 24, 2025 • There are 287 students residing in 2,472 multifamily units across the district • The overall district multifamily yield is 0.116 22 District Multifamily Yield 2,065 1,9111,988 1,690 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2023/24 2024/25 Newcomers Leavers 23 Newcomers and Leavers +77 +221 24 Birth Rate Analysis Kindergarten Enrollment District Births Ratio 2006 (2011/12) 827 568 1.456 2007 (2012/13) 862 695 1.240 2008 (2013/14) 937 745 1.258 2009 (2014/15) 985 758 1.299 2010 (2015/16) 989 779 1.270 2011 (2016/17) 995 790 1.259 2012 (2017/18) 1,009 860 1.173 2013 (2018/19) 982 838 1.172 2014 (2019/20) 1,048 874 1.199 2015 (2020/21) 951 900 1.057 2016 (2021/22) 935 978 0.956 2017 (2022/23) 819 900 0.910 2018 (2023/24) 788 962 0.819 2019 (2024/25) 739 913 0.809 2020 (2025/26) 699 867 0.806 2021 (2026/27) 763 946 0.807 2022 (2027/28) 750 934 0.803 2023 (2028/29) 776 972 0.798 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Schertz‐Cibolo‐U City ISD KG  Enrollment vs. District Births Kindergarten Enrollment District Births 25 Yellow box = largest grade per year Green box = second largest grade per year Ten  Year  Forecast by Grade Level Year (Oct.) EE/PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total  Growth % Growth 2020/21 325 951 1,019 1,040 1,077 1,135 1,143 1,232 1,248 1,219 1,293 1,394 1,305 1,292 15,673 2021/22 455 935 997 1,019 1,074 1,116 1,124 1,221 1,287 1,318 1,428 1,347 1,305 1,264 15,890 217 1.4% 2022/23 436 819 962 998 1,077 1,114 1,067 1,133 1,230 1,306 1,478 1,371 1,247 1,283 15,521 ‐369 ‐2.3% 2023/24 430 788 838 967 997 1,090 1,079 1,097 1,178 1,264 1,435 1,459 1,238 1,286 15,146 ‐375 ‐2.4% 2024/25 444 737 814 895 989 1,018 1,121 1,116 1,112 1,232 1,469 1,403 1,394 1,202 14,946 ‐200 ‐1.3% 2025/26 452 715 766 853 925 1,022 1,057 1,171 1,147 1,150 1,415 1,438 1,354 1,374 14,839 ‐107 ‐0.7% 2026/27 458 780 747 805 886 972 1,051 1,094 1,207 1,189 1,315 1,388 1,374 1,352 14,618 ‐221 ‐1.5% 2027/28 461 768 815 789 838 922 998 1,091 1,120 1,253 1,370 1,286 1,335 1,363 14,409 ‐209 ‐1.4% 2028/29 463 797 806 858 825 877 953 1,038 1,119 1,160 1,436 1,342 1,237 1,326 14,237 ‐172 ‐1.2% 2029/30 463 811 826 836 888 851 903 988 1,057 1,161 1,331 1,406 1,287 1,232 14,040 ‐197 ‐1.4% 2030/31 463 833 840 860 865 918 878 938 1,015 1,098 1,335 1,303 1,352 1,279 13,977 ‐63 ‐0.4% 2031/32 463 850 867 874 894 900 948 913 961 1,052 1,264 1,307 1,252 1,343 13,888 ‐89 ‐0.6% 2032/33 463 862 877 899 906 926 929 985 935 997 1,207 1,237 1,254 1,246 13,723 ‐165 ‐1.2% 2033/34 463 885 890 910 931 939 957 966 1,009 970 1,146 1,184 1,185 1,247 13,682 ‐41 ‐0.3% 2034/35 463 902 917 924 943 965 971 995 991 1,047 1,115 1,124 1,140 1,180 13,677 ‐50.0% 26 Ten  Year  Forecast by Campus Yellow box = exceeds Functional capacity Pink box = exceeds Max capacity Fall ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Campus  Functional  Capacity Max  Capacity 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 CIBOLO VALLEY EL 1,038 1,200 591 535 523 519 510 512 521 526 534 544 554 GREEN VALLEY EL 732 899 503 481 463 469 462 453 451 450 450 448 449 NORMA PASCHAL EL 704 871 574 556 545 521 531 524 528 527 530 531 531 ROSE GARDEN EL 1,031 1,200 861 838 814 813 814 830 856 876 906 936 969 SCHERTZ EL 683 1,017 663 635 618 571 561 561 564 556 553 550 545 SIPPEL EL 704 997 641 625 628 645 647 665 689 707 731 757 783 WATTS EL 739 906 500 486 473 457 473 480 494 505 519 530 546 WIEDERSTEIN EL 704 997 564 577 584 598 628 650 676 701 710 722 737 ELEMENTARY TOTALS 4,897 4,733 4,648 4,593 4,626 4,675 4,779 4,848 4,933 5,018 5,114 Elementary Percent Change ‐4.17%‐3.35%‐1.80%‐1.18% 0.72% 1.06% 2.22%1.44% 1.75% 1.72% 1.91% Elementary Absolute Change ‐213 ‐164 ‐85 ‐55 33 49 104 69 85 85 96 JORDAN INT 888 1,126 811 781 754 752 711 675 665 694 728 737 755 SCHLATHER INT 832 1,116 724 740 683 615 607 607 556 569 583 585 599 WILDER INT 855 1,188 702 707 708 722 673 609 595 598 603 601 612 INTERMEDIATE TOTALS 2,237 2,228 2,145 2,089 1,991 1,891 1,816 1,861 1,914 1,923 1,966 Intermediate Percent Change 2.80%‐0.40%‐3.73%‐2.61%‐4.69%‐5.02%‐3.97% 2.48% 2.85% 0.47% 2.24% Intermediate Absolute Change 61 ‐9 ‐83 ‐56 ‐98 ‐100 ‐75 45 53 9 43 DOBIE JH 1,285 1,540 1,231 1,184 1,262 1,256 1,180 1,108 1,073 1,052 992 1,023 1,058 CORBETT JH 1,285 1,500 1,113 1,113 1,134 1,117 1,099 1,110 1,040 961 940 956 980 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 2,344 2,297 2,396 2,373 2,279 2,218 2,113 2,013 1,932 1,979 2,038 Junior High School Percent Change ‐4.01%‐2.01% 4.31%‐0.96%‐3.96%‐2.68%‐4.73%‐4.73%‐4.02% 2.43% 2.98% Junior High School Absolute Change ‐98 ‐47 99 ‐23 ‐94 ‐61 ‐105 ‐100 ‐81 47 59 CLEMENS HS 2,733 3,300 2,589 2,618 2,531 2,523 2,523 2,491 2,503 2,492 2,388 2,309 2,206 STEELE HS 2,733 3,200 2,790 2,871 2,806 2,739 2,726 2,673 2,674 2,582 2,464 2,361 2,261 ALSELC 89 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 5,468 5,581 5,429 5,354 5,341 5,256 5,269 5,166 4,944 4,762 4,559 High School Percent Change 0.92% 2.07%‐2.72%‐1.38%‐0.24%‐1.59% 0.25%‐1.95%‐4.30%‐3.68%‐4.26% High School Absolute Change 50 113 ‐152 ‐75 ‐13 ‐85 13 ‐103 ‐222 ‐182 ‐203 DISTRICT TOTALS 14,946 14,839 14,618 14,409 14,237 14,040 13,977 13,888 13,723 13,682 13,677 District Percent Change ‐1.32%‐0.72%‐1.49%‐1.43%‐1.19%‐1.38%‐0.45%‐0.64%‐1.19%‐0.30%‐0.04% District Absolute Change ‐200 ‐107 ‐221 ‐209 ‐172 ‐197 ‐63 ‐89 ‐165 ‐41 ‐5 27 Key Takeaways   Annual closings near 900 in 2024 Housing market remains cloudy with continued  high interest rates  and looming tariffs   The district has more than 390 homes currently in  inventory and more than 2,100 vacant developed  lots available for builders Groundwork is underway on approx. 500 lots  within 6 subdivisions Schertz‐Cibolo‐Universal City ISD is forecasted to  enroll more than 14,000 students by 2029/30 14,946 14,040 13,677 12,500 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 Enrollment Projections FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • • 13,540 14,056 14,586 15,081 15,465 15,615 15,768 15,972 15,673 15,890 15,521 15,146 14,864 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-P # O F S T U D E N T S DISTRICT ENROLLMENT HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT 1.0% growth per year (153 students per year) 1.3% loss per year (-195 students per year) 3.4% growth per year (481 students per year) HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT BY CAMPUS LEVEL 5,261 5,446 5,512 5,716 5,783 5,811 5,899 5,547 5,596 5,406 5,110 4,895 2,125 2,211 2,326 2,253 2,252 2,344 2,445 2,375 2,345 2,200 2,176 2,226 2,210 2,211 2,341 2,421 2,453 2,403 2,363 2,467 2,605 2,536 2,442 2,324 4,460 4,718 4,902 5,075 5,127 5,210 5,265 5,284 5,344 5,379 5,418 5,419 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-P # O F S T U D E N T S CAMPUS LEVEL ENROLLMENT Elementary Intermediate Junior High High School ENROLLMENT HISTORY BY LEVEL –OCTOBER • • • • • • • STUDENT TRANSFERS PEIMS YEAR TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT DIFFERENCE 2012 216 681 -465 2013 212 704 -492 2014 244 647 -403 2015 302 702 -400 2016 297 907 -610 2017 290 1061 -771 2018 304 1079 -775 2019 296 1283 -987 2020 300 1591 -1291 2021 317 1981 -1664 2022 308 2695 -2387 2023 Data available in March First Year of Founders Charter School First Year of School of Science and Technology First Year of Legacy Traditional School STUDENT TRANSFERS IN VS. OUT 216 212 244 302 297 290 304 296 300 317 308 681 704 647 702 907 1,061 1,079 1,283 1,591 1,981 2,695 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 # O F S T U D E N T S STUDENT TRANSFERS IN vs OUT TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT School of Science and Technology Pre-K –8th Grade Legacy Traditional Pre-K –8th Grade Founders Academy K –12th Grade MAIN DESTINATIONS FOR TRANSFERS OUT 444 472 551 529 504 272 328 356 365 414 34 43 119 159 192 16 24 71 285 367 52 106 229 0 463 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 # O F S T U D E N T S TRANSFER DESTINATIONS Randolph ISD Founders Academy Great Hearts School of Science and Technology Judson ISD Legacy Traditional SO, HOW MANY STUDENTS WILL WE HAVE IN THE FUTURE? 14,056 15,081 15,615 15,972 15,890 15,146 14,661 14,217 14,007 14,036 14,162 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 # O F S T U D E N T S DISTRICT HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT AND PROJECTIONS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS o o o o PEIMS YEAR PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH (DECLINE) PERCENTAGE CHANGE 2023 15,146 -375 -2.42% 2024-P 14,864 -282 -1.86% 2025-P 14,661 -203 -1.37% 2026-P 14,451 -210 -1.43% 2027-P 14,217 -234 -1. 62% 2028-P 14,073 -144 -1.01% 2029-P 14,007 -66 -0.47% 2030-P 14,017 10 0.07% 2031-P 14,036 19 0.14% 2032-P 14,059 22 0.16% 2033-P 14,162 103 0.73% PEIMS YEAR PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH (DECLINE) PERCENTAGE CHANGE 2023 15,146 -375 -2.44% 2024-P 14,864 -282 -1.86% 2025-P 14,661 -203 -1.37% 2026-P 14,451 -210 -1.43% 2027-P 14,217 -234 -1. 62% 2028-P 14,073 -144 -1.01% 2029-P 14,007 -66 -0.47% 2030-P 14,017 10 0.07% 2031-P 14,036 19 0.14% 2032-P 14,059 22 0.16% 2033-P 14,162 103 0.73% ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS o o o WHY HAS IT BECOME SO HARD TO PROJECT ENROLLMENT? o o o o o o FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • •CAMPUS CAPACITY UNDERSTANDING CAMPUS CAPACITY o o o o o o o o o PLANNING USING OUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY o CAPACITY RELIEF TOOLS o o o o o o o o o ELEMENTARY CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 CIBOLO VALLEY EL 891 1,200 761 657 611 587 589 594 594 608 617 620 627 637 % Max Capacity 63%55%51%49%49%49%49%51%51%52%52%53% GREEN VALLEY EL 673 924 586 533 497 482 469 497 506 524 535 537 535 529 % Max Capacity 63%58%54%52%51%54%55%57%58%58%58%57% NORMA PASCHAL EL 673 924 603 625 591 582 564 544 546 559 569 574 580 585 % Max Capacity 65%68%64%63%61%59%59%60%62%62%63%63% ROSE GARDEN EL 891 1,200 899 896 882 878 891 923 957 999 1,046 1,075 1,104 1,131 % Max Capacity 75%75%74%73%74%77%80%83%87%90%92%94% SCHERTZ EL 675 1,102 671 668 628 605 601 576 581 588 591 586 582 582 % Max Capacity 61%61%57%55%55%52%53%53%54%53%53%53% SIPPEL EL 675 1,058 742 672 679 690 721 756 782 827 867 904 961 1,030 % Max Capacity 70%64%64%65%68%71%74%78%82%85%91%97% WATTS EL 673 924 593 513 469 440 428 423 428 446 457 463 476 490 % Max Capacity 64%56%51%48%46%46%46%48%49%50%52%53% WIEDERSTEIN EL 675 1,058 551 546 538 544 527 517 529 549 568 574 587 602 % Max Capacity 52%52%51%51%50%49%50%52%54%54%55%57% ELEMENTARY TOTALS 5,826 8,390 5,406 5,110 4,895 4,808 4,790 4,830 4,922 5,099 5,250 5,335 5,453 5,587 % Max Capacity 64%61%58%57%57%58%59%61%63%64%65%67% Elementary Percent Change -3.40%-5.48%-4.21%-1.78%-0.37%0.83%1.91%3.59%2.96%1.63%2.20%2.46% Elementary Absolute Change -190 -296 -215 -87 -18 40 92 177 151 85 117 134 ELEMENTARY CAPACITIES 90% 92%94% 91% 97% 67% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY CIBOLO VALLEY EL GREEN VALLEY EL NORMA PASCHAL EL ROSE GARDEN EL SCHERTZ EL SIPPEL EL WATTS EL WIEDERSTEIN EL ELEMENTARY TOTALS INTERMEDIATE CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 JORDAN INT 810 1,000 716 769 796 763 777 742 676 646 641 695 734 739 % Max Capacity 72%77%80%76%78%74%68%65%64%70%73%74% SCHLATHER INT 810 1,200 750 682 700 689 640 573 563 594 597 651 682 677 % Max Capacity 63%57%58%57%53%48%47%50%50%54%57%56% WILDER INT 810 1,250 734 725 730 743 748 739 683 627 616 654 681 685 % Max Capacity 59%58%58%59%60%59%55%50%49%52%54%55% INTERMEDIATE TOTALS 3,450 2,201 2,176 2,226 2,195 2,165 2,054 1,922 1,867 1,854 2,000 2,097 2,101 % Max Capacity 64%63%65%64%63%60%56%54%54%58%61%61% Intermediate Percent Change -6.13%-1.09%2.30%-1.39%-1.37%-5.13%-6.43%-2.86%-0.70%7.87%4.85%0.19% Intermediate Absolute Change -144 -24 50 -31 -30 -111 -132 -55 -13 146 97 4 INTERMEDIATE CAPACITIES 74% 61% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY JORDAN INT SCHLATHER INT WILDER INT INTERMEDIATE TOTALS JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 DOBIE JH 1,300 1,540 1,348 1,316 1,229 1,194 1,228 1,196 1,152 1,058 1,009 1,025 1,025 1,109 % Max Capacity 88%85%80%78%80%78%75%69%66%67%67%72% CORBETT JH 1,080 1,500 1,188 1,126 1,095 1,096 1,103 1,111 1,114 1,083 1,001 936 924 989 % Max Capacity 79%75%73%73%74%74%74%72%67%62%62%66% JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 3,040 2,537 2,442 2,324 2,290 2,331 2,307 2,266 2,141 2,010 1,961 1,949 2,098 % Max Capacity 83%80%76%75%77%76%75%70%66%65%64%69% Junior High School Percent Change -2.62%-3.71%-4.83%-1.46%1.79%-1.03%-1.78%-5.52%-6.12%-2.44%-0.61%7.64% Junior High School Absolute Change -68 -94 -118 -34 41 -24 -41 -125 -131 -49 -12 149 JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES 72% 66% 69% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY DOBIE JH CORBETT JH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 CLEMENS HS 2,700 3,300 2,544 2,563 2,576 2,550 2,469 2,419 2,397 2,400 2,418 2,383 2,292 2,183 % Max Capacity 77%78%78%77%75%73%73%73%73%72%69%66% STEELE HS 2,160 3,200 2,716 2,700 2,688 2,663 2,541 2,452 2,411 2,345 2,330 2,202 2,113 2,038 % Max Capacity 85%84%84%83%79%77%75%73%73%69%66%64% HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 6,650 5,381 5,418 5,419 5,368 5,165 5,026 4,963 4,900 4,903 4,740 4,560 4,376 % Max Capacity 81%81%81%81%78%76%75%74%74%71%69%66% High School Percent Change 0.69%0.71%0.02%-0.94%-3.78%-2.69%-1.25%-1.27%0.06%-3.32%-3.80%-4.04% High School Absolute Change 37 38 1 -52 -204 -137 -64 -63 3 -163 -180 -183 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITIES 66% 64% 66% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY CLEMENS HS STEELE HS HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • •BONDING CAPACITY PROJECTING BONDING CAPACITY -SCUC o PROJECTING TAX REVENUE o ASSUMES NO REFINANCING FOR BOND SAVINGS o DEFEASING PRINCIPAL o MODEST PROPERTY VALUE GROWTH o 4.0% ANNUAL INCREASE FOR 2024-2028 o 2.0% ANNUAL INCREASE FOR 2029-2033 o AS DEBT IS RESTRUCTURED AND PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE, WE BEGIN TO HAVE SOME BONDING CAPACITY o CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL DEBT IS LOWER AT FIRST, MORE IN LATER YEARS o FORECASTING USING THREE OPTIONS FOR I&S TAX RATE o $0.47 PER $100 OF VALUATION (C URRENT), $0.48 PER $100 VALUATION, AND $0.49 PER $100 VALUATION PROJECTED AVAILABLE BOND DOLLARS $215 $246 $278 $312 $347 $362 $380 $399 $419 $438 $284 $316 $351 $388 $426 $442 $463 $483 $505 $526 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BO N D C A P A C I T Y I N M I L L I O N S SCUC Bond Capacity by Year & Rate Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ PROJECTING FACILITY COSTS -SCUC o o o o o o o o o o o PROJECTING FACILITY COSTS -SCUC YEAR High School Junior High Elementary/ Intermediate 2024 $ 235,000,000 $ 113,000,000 $ 72,000,000 2025-P $ 242,050,000 $ 116,390,000 $ 74,160,000 2026-P $ 246,891,000 $ 118,717,800 $ 75,643,200 2027-P $ 251,828,820 $ 121,092,156 $ 77,156,064 2028-P $ 256,865,396 $ 123,513,999 $ 78,699,185 2029-P $ 262,002,704 $ 125,984,279 $ 80,273,169 2030-P $ 267,242,758 $ 128,503,965 $ 81,878,632 2031-P $ 272,587,614 $ 131,074,044 $ 83,516,205 2032-P $ 278,039,366 $ 133,695,525 $ 85,186,529 2033-P $ 283,600,153 $ 136,369,435 $ 86,890,260 2034-P $ 289,272,156 $ 139,096,824 $ 88,628,065 PROJECTED BOND CAPACITIES VS. CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BONDING CAPACITY VS CONSTRUCTION COSTS JUNIOR HIGH Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ PROJECTED BOND CAPACITIES VS. CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BONDING CAPACITY VS CONSTRUCTION COSTS JUNIOR HIGH Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ Estimated $41 M in HVAC needs over the next 10 years Estimated $9 M in Ancillary Systems needs over the next 10 years Estimated $40 M in Building and Site needs over the next 10 years TAKE AWAYS…. o o o o o o o o o QUESTIONS/COMMENTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 5 D   TO:Planning and Zoning Commission PREPARED BY:Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner SUBJECT:PLZC20260109 - Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on a zone change request on approximately 0.4 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed Use District (MSMU), known as 506 Main St. and 508 Main St., specifically known as Guadalupe County Property Identification Numbers 32859 and 32861, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas.  BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 0.4 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU). The subject property is platted and is used for a realty office. The applicant is not proposing to change the use and is requesting the zone change for the flexibility the zoning district allows. On April 23, 2026, seventeen (17) public hearing notices were mailed to the surrounding property owners within a 200-foot boundary of the subject property. A public hearing notice was mailed to SCUC ISD. At the time of the staff report, zero (0) responses in favor, zero (0) responses neutral, and zero (0) responses in opposition were received. A public hearing notice will be published in the “San Antonio Express” before the City Council hearing. The applicant placed two notification signs on the subject property. Subject Property: Zoning Land Use Existing General Business District (GB)Realty Office Proposed Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU)Realty Office Adjacent Properties: Zoning Land Use North Right-of-Way Main Street South Railroad Tracks Union Pacific Railroad East Right-of-Way 1st Street West General Business District (GB)Restaurant Zoning: Dimensional Requirements Table 21.5.7.B- Non-Residential Zoning Districts Table 21.5.7.A- Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Dimensions Minimum Yard Setbacks Misc. Requirements Zoning District Code Area Sq. Ft. Width Ft. Depth Ft. Front Ft. Side Ft. Rear Ft. Max Height Max Impervious Coverage Existing General Business District GB 10,000 100 100 25 adj to non-res: 0 adj to res: 25 adj to non-res: 0 adj to res: 25 120'80% Proposed Main Street Mixed-Use District MSMU 5,000 50 100 10 5 10 35'80% GOAL The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 0.4 acres of land from General Business District (GB) to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU). COMMUNITY BENEFIT It is the City’s desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with the City’s vision of future growth.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION When considering zone changes, staff looks to the criteria listed in UDC Section 21.5.4.D. The criteria are listed below: 1. Whether the proposed zoning change implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan, or any other applicable adopted plans. The proposed zone change implements the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Land Plan. The subject property is designated as Main Street on the Future Land Use Map. The Main Street Future Land Use Designation is intended for residential, commercial, cultural, and entertainment uses to create a dynamic urban core.  The subject property is currently used for a realty office, a low-intensity commercial use. Additionally, the property is located on Main Street and is part of the Main Street Corridor. The proposed zone change to Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU) implements the Future Land Use Map designation of Main Street.  2. Whether the proposed zoning change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. As part of promoting the health, safety, and welfare, the City should encourage development compatible with surrounding uses, utilizing standards and transitional uses to alleviate negative impacts. Any new development will be required to meet the site design requirements listed in Article 9 of the Unified Development Code. The proposed zone change is being done in conjunction with the adjacent property, 502 Main Street, to bring the property into compliance, thus promoting the general welfare of the City. The Engineering Department provided a traffic impact evaluation of the proposed zone change. The following conclusion was made: "There is no increase or decrease in the expected traffic with the zone change request," and "...there is no adverse impact to the City's transportation system by the zone change request." The proposed zone change will not affect the safety of the City by adversely impacting traffic.  3. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change will be consistent and appropriate with existing uses in the immediate area; The proposed Main Street Mixed-Use District (MSMU) is intended for properties along Main Street and in proximity to Main Street, and permits single-family, multi-family, and low-intensity commercial uses. The subject property is used for a realty office and is intended to continue doing so. To the left of the property is a restaurant and across 1st Street, there is a parking lot. Along Main Street, there are professional offices, restaurants, hair salons, cafes, and retail. The uses permitted within the proposed MSMU zoning are consistent and appropriate with the existing uses in the immediate area.  4. Whether other factors are deemed relevant and important in the consideration of the amendment.  Staff has ensured all UDC requirements have been met for the proposed zone change application. The City of Schertz Fire, EMS, and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed zone change request and do not provide objections  A public hearing notice was mailed to SCUC ISD. The most recent demographic reports and forecasting reports are available as part of the staff report.  RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of PLZC20260109 due to the location of the subject property on Main Street, the compatibility of the proposed zone change with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Future Land Use Map, and the existing uses in the immediate area.  Attachments Aerial Exhibit 200-Foot Notification Map Proposed Zone Change Map Engineering TIA Summary Memo SCUC ISD Demographic Report SCUC ISD 10-Year Forecasting Report Proposed Zone Change 506 & 508 Main Street Planned Commercial Collector A Commercial Collector A Planned Commercial Collector B Planned Residential Collector Residential Collector Planned Secondary Rural Arterial Secondary Rural Arterial Planned Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Planned Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Freeway Minor Roads Major Roads Highways Project Boundary ETJ Schertz Municipal Boundary County Boundaries Unknown 36" 30" 24" 20" 18" 16" 12" 10" 8" 6" 4" 3" 2" 1" Private Pressure Neighboring Gravity Schertz Pressure Schertz Gravity Sewer Main Schertz Treatment Plant3Q CCMA Treatment Plant3Q Schertz Lift Station[Ú Private Lift Station[Ú CCMA Lift Station[Ú Manholes!P HydrantU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P 67696 CHILDREN OF GOD CHURCH INC 40841 GRANGER REALTY & INVESTMENTS LLC 6 7 6 5 7 R A N D O L P H L O D G E # 1 2 6 8 6 7 5 4 9 S C H E R T Z B A N K & T R U S T 6 7 6 1 6 L O N G O R I A M I N I S T R I E S I N C 41124 FAULTERSACK STEVEN ADAM 41123 SANCHEZ MARY ESTELLA 41122 UAMD L L C 41121 CITY OF SCH E R T Z 41118 E S SCHERTZ 78 LLC 67454 MARTINEZ ALFONSO R 67423 MARTINEZ ALFONSO R 67684 426 MAIN ST LLC 21464 TWITERO FAMILY TRUST 67719 SOUTHERN PACIFIC 67697 SCHERTZ BANK & TRUST 67531 PONCE MARIO SANDOVAL 67501 DAILEY BALIS E JR 32861 WALTEL LLC 32859 WALTEL LLC 67753 LOPEZ DANY EDUARDO DBA MELANIES CAFE 40842 VIDAL RANDAL J & MELISSA K 67686 ROWELL KRISTI MICHELLE 6 7 6 2 1 H U E R T A J O E & F R A N C E S H U E R T A & J O L E A N H U E R T A 137487 KAPADIA JAGDISH 67718 SOUTHERN PACIFIC 67704 JOHN GANNON INC 67489 CITY OF SCHERTZ 67548 301 FIRST STREET LLC 148344 CHILDREN OF GOD CHURCH INC 6 7 7 7 1 P E N T E C O S T A L L I F E C H U R C H I N C 6 7 5 7 7 H U B E R L E E & D I C K P E R R A 6 7 5 6 2 H P P R I N T I N G I N C 67486 BURCH ROBERT R 67445 LNG PROPERTIES INC 67610 BURCH ROBERT R 67679 BURCH ROBERT R 67690 BURCH ROBERT R 67530 TRES ANGELES LLC 148343 PHILIP ELIZABETH PROPERTIES LLC 67612 A01B01 LLC 67564 CITY OF SCHERTZ 67500 6K PROPERTIES LLC 67647 BLCH1 L L C 10005052 (UNAVAILABLE) Union P a c i f i c 8" W L 8 " W L 12" WL 6" W L 3 " W L 12" W L 8" W L 1 2 " W L 2" W L 1 2 " W L 12" W L 6 " W L 6" WL 6 " W L 8 " W L 6 " W L 12" W L 2" WL 6" WL 2" WL 2" WL 8" WL 2 " W L 6 " W L 6" W L 1 8 " W L 8 " W L 8" W L 6 " W L 6" W L 6" W L 6 " W L 6" WL 2" WL 3 " W L 6 " W L 6 " W L 6 " W L 4" WL 10" WL 2" W L 2" W L 2" W L 12"V i t r i f i e d C l a y 8 " P V C S D R 3 5 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vitr i f i e d C l a y 6"Vitrified Clay 6 " V i t r i f i e d C l a y 6 " V i t r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8 " V i t r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vitr i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 8"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 6"Vit r i f i e d C l a y 1 5 " U n d e t e r m i n e d 1 S T S T MAIN S T E FM 1518 N FM 78 FM 78 D O W M A N S T R A N D O L P H A V E 1 S T S T WRIG H T AVE CHUR C H S T L I N D B E R G H A V E W I L L I A M S 2 N D S T CURT I S S A V E B E A C O N A V E B E A C O N A V E MAIN S T EXCH A N G E A V E M I L L S T 1 S T S T WUES T S T LEE E A V I A T I O N B L V D AZTE C W AY Microsoft, Vantor 0 100 20050 Feetµ 507 MAIN S T (676 5 7 ) 509 MAIN S T (675 4 9 ) 513 MAIN S T (676 1 6 ) MA I N S T (6 7 4 5 4 ) 51 9 MA I N S T (6 7 6 9 7 ) 50 8 MA I N S T (3 2 8 6 1 ) 50 6 MA I N S T (3 2 8 5 9 ) 50 2 MA I N S T (6 7 7 5 3 ) 11 0 FM 7 8 (6 7 4 8 6 ) 21 6 FM 7 8 (6 7 4 4 5 ) 20 6 FM 7 8 (6 7 5 3 0 ) FM 7 8 (U N A V A I L A B L E ) 41 7 MA I N S T (6 7 5 0 0 ) 21 0 FM 7 8 (6 7 6 4 7 ) 52 8 MA I N S T (2 1 4 6 4 ) MA I N S T (6 7 7 1 9 ) 2 0 5 1 S T S T ( 4 1 1 2 2 ) 2 0 1 1 S T S T ( 4 1 1 2 1 ) U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 1ST ST LINDB E R G H A V E E X C H A N G E A V E L E E W U E S T S T F M 7 8 M A I N S T La s t u p d a t e : A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 2 6 Ci t y o f S c h e r t z , G I S S p e c i a l i s t : B i l l G a r d n e r , g i s @ s c h e r t z . c o m ( 2 1 0 ) 6 1 9 - 1 1 8 5 *T h e C i t y o f S c h e r t z p r o v i d e s t h i s G e o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m p r o d u c t " a s i s " w i t h o u t a n y e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d w a r r a n t y o f a n y k i n d i n c l u d i n g bu t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e i m p l i e d w a r r a n t i e s o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y a n d f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e . I n n o e v e n t s h a l l T h e C i t y o f S c h e r t z b e l i a b l e fo r a n y s p e c i a l , i n d i r e c t , o r c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s o r a n y d a m a g e s w h a t s o e v e r a r i s i n g o u t o f o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e u s e o f o r p e r f o r m a n c e o f th e s e m a t e r i a l s . I n f o r m a t i o n p u b l i s h e d i n t h i s p r o d u c t c o u l d i n c l u d e t e c h n i c a l i n a c c u r a c i e s o r t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s . P e r i o d i c a l c h a n g e s m a y b e ad d e d t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e r e i n . T h e C i t y o f S c h e r t z m a y m a k e i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d / o r c h a n g e s i n t h e p r o d u c t ( s ) d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n a t a n y t i m e . * Pr o p o s e d Z o n e C h a n g e 50 6 & 5 0 8 M a i n S t r e e t Ci t y o f S c h e r t z Pa r c e l s 20 0 ' B u f f e r Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y µ 0 10 0 20 0 50 Fe e t R-2 GB GB GB GB R-2 R-2 R-2 GB U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d MSMU FM 78 MAIN S T L I N D B E R G H A V E 1 S T S T EXCH A N G E A V E WUEST S T R-2 GB GB GB GB R-2 R-2 R-2 GB U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d FM 78 MAIN S T L I N D B E R G H A V E 1 S T S T EXCH A N G E A V E WUEST S T Last update: April 22, 2026 City of Schertz, GIS Specialist: Bill Gardner, gis@schertz.com (210) 619-1185 *The City of Schertz provides this Geographic Information System product "as is" without any express or implied warranty of any kind including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall The City of Schertz be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of or performance of these materials. Information published in this product could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Periodical changes may be added to the information herein. The City of Schertz may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) described herein at any time.* 506 & 508 Main Street CURRENT (DVL) Development Agreement (Delayed Annexation) (M-2) Manufacturing (Heavy) (M-1) Manufacturing (Light) (MSMU-ND) Main Street Mixed Use New Development (MSMU) Main Street Mixed Use (OP) Office and Professional (NS) Neighborhood Services (GB-2) General Business II (GB) General Business (MHP) Manufactured Home Parks (MHS) Manufactured Home Subdivision (TH) Townhome (GH) Garden Home/Single-Family Residential (Zero Lot Line) (AD) Agricultural District (R-7) Single-family Residential (R-6) Single-family Residential (R-4) Apartment/Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Two-Family Residential (R-2) Single-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Residential (R-A) Single-family Residential/Agricultural (PUB) Public Use (PDD) Planned Development (PRE) Pre-Development Classification Proposed Zoning Change PROPOSED µ 0 150 30075 Feet DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission via Daisy Marquez, Senior Planner From: John Nowak, P.E., Engineer Date: April 22, 2026 Re: Traffic Impact Summary for Proposed Zone Change for 502, 506, and 508 Main Street The properties at 502, 506, and 508 Main Street are currently zoned GB, General Business. The property owner is requesting MSMU, Zoning, a specific zoning district for the Main Street corridor. The properties are currently fully developed and no change of uses are expected with the zone change request. Therefore, there is no increase or decrease in expected traffic generation associated with this zone change request. As such, there is no adverse impact to the City’s transportation system by the zone change request. 4Q24 Demographic Report 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.8 01234 Guadalupe Co. Comal Co. San Antonio MSA Texas US Unemployment Rate, Year  Over Year Dec‐24 Dec‐23 2 Local Economic Conditions 3 12.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Se p ‐19 No v ‐19 Ja n ‐20 Ma r ‐20 Ma y ‐20 Ju l ‐20 Se p ‐20 No v ‐20 Ja n ‐21 Ma r ‐21 Ma y ‐21 Ju l ‐21 Se p ‐21 No v ‐21 Ja n ‐22 Ma r ‐22 Ma y ‐22 Ju l ‐22 Se p ‐22 No v ‐22 Ja n ‐23 Ma r ‐23 Ma y ‐23 Ju l ‐23 Se p ‐23 No v ‐23 Ja n ‐24 Ma r ‐24 Ma y ‐24 Ju l ‐24 Se p ‐24 No v ‐24 Unemployment Rate, Sept 2019 –Dec 2024 San Antonio MSA Texas 3 Local Economic Conditions San Antonio International Airport •Broke ground on third terminal at end of 2024 •Estimated total cost = $2.5 billion •Third terminal will anchor the expansion &  improvement project housing as many as 17  new gates spanning approx. 850,000 sq. ft.  •Will include concessions and lounge areas  while housing new Federal Inspection Station  to accommodate expanded international air  service •Expected to generate $3.2 billion in revenue  for the city over 15 years •New ground loading facility also added at  Terminal A including new passenger gates and  overnight aircraft parking •The third terminal is scheduled for completion  in 2028 4 Housing Activity by MSA © 2022 Zonda 18,503 19,046 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2014Q4 2015Q4 2016Q4 2017Q4 2018Q4 2019Q4 2020Q4 2021Q4 2022Q4 2023Q4 2024Q4 Annual Housing Starts vs. Annual Closings Annual Housing Starts Annual Closings Source:  Zonda San Antonio New Home Starts & Closings Key Trends Starts:  +26% YOY  / +6% QOQ Closings:  +4% YOY / +6% QOQ Closings Exceed Starts by 543 Homes 6 SCUC ISD Housing Market Analysis Average New vs. Existing Home Sale Price, 2013 - 2024 • The average new home sale price in SCUC ISD has risen 54% between 2014 and 2024, an increase of more than $135,200 • The average existing home sale price in SCUC ISD has risen 85% in the last 10 years, an increase of more than $158,800 Avg New Home Avg Existing Home 2014 $250,897 $187,097  2015 $262,532 $181,881  2016 $284,037 $189,189  2017 $297,182 $197,710  2018 $328,762 $221,637  2019 $314,299 $234,868  2020 $318,065 $247,691  2021 $345,858 $257,537  2022 $431,606 $327,526  2023 $422,149 $333,286  2024 $386,156 $345,921  $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 New Home Price Existing Home Price 7 San Antonio New Home Ranking Report ISD Ranked by Annual Closings –4Q24 * Based on additional Zonda Education housing research Rank District Name Annual Starts Annual Closings Inventory VDL Future 1NORTHSIDE ISD (BEXAR) 3,739 3,920 1,909 6,114 21,246 2COMAL ISD 2,691 3,028 1,670 4,843 21,591 3MEDINA VALLEY ISD 2,377 2,410 1,232 5,228 27,810 4EAST CENTRAL ISD 2,513 2,230 1,243 4,351 24,478 5SOUTHWEST ISD 1,301 1,328 628 2,269 7,296 6 JUDSON ISD 615 899 207 547 871 7SCUC ISD 787 894 391 2,113 5,896 8NAVARRO ISD 841 832 453 1,290 6,635 9 BOERNE ISD 777 761 497 1,545 9,427 10 SOUTHSIDE ISD 700 730 322 927 16,702 11 NEW BRAUNFELS ISD 656 589 407 854 6,164 12 NORTH EAST ISD 397 361 234 906 5,196 13 SEGUIN ISD 325 342 204 668 5,384 14 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ISD 300 238 164 86 790 15 MARION ISD 230 174 139 327 4,559 16 FLORESVILLE ISD 116 137 49 227 0 17 SAN ANTONIO ISD 59 87 126 305 772 18 LYTLE ISD 91 76 44 319 1,046 19 PLEASANTON ISD 54 61 25 72 0 20 ALAMO HEIGHTS ISD 3 41 8 15 19 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Annual Starts Annual Closings 8 District New Home Starts and Closings Starts 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Closings 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1Q 175 201 237 294 349 103 189 1Q 133 138 165 190 181 280 235 2Q 180 176 197 300 393 187 260 2Q 185 211 249 258 227 247 249 3Q 177 207 261 265 174 241 163 3Q 185 240 286 268 218 199 200 4Q 185 198 232 319 63 157 161 4Q 161 179 213 196 334 155 214 Total 717 782 927 1,178 979 688 773 Total 664 768 913 912 960 881 898 9 District Housing Overview by Elementary Zone Elementary Annual  Starts Quarter  Starts Annual  Closings Quarter  Closings Under  Const.Inventory Vacant   Dev. Lots Future CIBOLO VALLEY 76 11 123 30 13 33 118 36 GREEN VALLEY00000 0 00 PASCHAL 10321 141242 ROSE GARDEN 234 64 230 53 85 137 827 2,499 SCHERTZ 0 0210 0 1 060 SIPPEL 298 70 277 68 76 154 729 1,817 WATTS 47 7 80 20 8 16 15 580 WIEDERSTEIN 131 9 160 41 13 49 383 662 Grand Total 787 161 894 214 196 391 2,113 5,896 Highest activity in the category Second highest activity in the category Third highest activity in the category • The district has 23 actively building subdivisions • Within SCUC ISD there are 6 future subdivisions in various stages of planning • Of these, groundwork is underway on more than 500 lots within 6 subdivisions • 462 lots were delivered in the 4 th quarter 10 District Housing Overview Mont Blanc • 100 total future lots • Preliminary plat approved Jan 2023 • Groundwork underway on all lots 11 Residential Activity Homestead • 1,470 total lots • 783 future lots • 296 vacant developed lots • 20 homes under construction • 339 homes occupied • Started 66 homes in last 12 months; started 16 homes in 4Q24 • Equipment on site for 62 lots in Phase 11 • $400K - $700K January 24, 2025 12 Residential Activity Saddle Creek Ranch • 807 total lots • 36 future lots • 61 vacant developed lots • 7 homes under construction • 690 homes occupied • Closed 61 homes in last 12 months; closed 16 homes in 2Q24 • Groundwork underway on remaining lots • $290K+ Grace Valley – Cibolo Farms • 331 total lots • 186 future lots • 124 vacant developed lots • 17 homes under construction • First homes started 4Q24 • Lennar January 24, 2025 13 Residential Activity Grace Valley • 868 total lots • 557 future lots • 163 vacant developed lots • 16 homes under construction • 128 homes occupied • Closed 123 homes in last 12 months; closed 32 homes in 4Q24 • Groundwork underway on 111 lots in Phase 3A • Lennar • $237K+ January 24, 2025 14 Residential Activity Venado Crossing • 507 total lots • 311 future lots • 15 vacant developed lots • 8 homes under construction • 165 homes occupied • Closed 48 homes in last 12 months; closed 20 homes in 4Q24 • Groundwork underway on 61 lots in Phase 4 • $350K+ Steele Creek • 940 total lots • 335 future lots • 118 vacant developed lots • 1 home under construction • 474 homes occupied • Closed 98 homes in last 12 months; closed 25 homes in 4Q24 • Delivered 111 lots for homebuilding in 4Q24 • DR Horton • $365K+ 15 Residential Activity Saddlebrook Ranch • 635 total lots • 335 future lots • 287 vacant developed lots • 12 homes under construction • Started first homes 3Q24 • Delivered 132 lots for homebuilding in Phase 4 & 5 in 4Q24 • Ashton Woods • $362K+ January 24, 2025 16 Residential Activity Crossvine • 1,017 total lots • 168 future lots • 291 vacant developed lots • 19 homes under construction • 516 homes occupied • Started 56 homes in last 12 months; started 15 homes in 4Q24 • $400K+ Clearwater Creek • 1,156 total future lots • Prelim plat Phase 1 (104 lots) approved April 2022 • Groundwork underway on Phase 1 • Lennar 17 Residential Activity January 24, 2025 18 Housing Market Trends: Multi‐family market‐December 2024 • There are 618 multifamily units under construction, 318 of which are single family rental homes • There are nearly 1,300 future multifamily units in various stages of planning across the district 19 District Multifamily Overview 20 Multi‐Family Activity January 24, 2025 Aviator 1518 • 300 apartment units under construction • Groundwork started early 2024 • Estimated lease date late spring 2025 21 Multi‐Family Activity Schertz Station • 318 single-family rental homes under construction • Groundwork started July 2024 • Estimated lease date August 2025 January 24, 2025 • There are 287 students residing in 2,472 multifamily units across the district • The overall district multifamily yield is 0.116 22 District Multifamily Yield 2,065 1,9111,988 1,690 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2023/24 2024/25 Newcomers Leavers 23 Newcomers and Leavers +77 +221 24 Birth Rate Analysis Kindergarten Enrollment District Births Ratio 2006 (2011/12) 827 568 1.456 2007 (2012/13) 862 695 1.240 2008 (2013/14) 937 745 1.258 2009 (2014/15) 985 758 1.299 2010 (2015/16) 989 779 1.270 2011 (2016/17) 995 790 1.259 2012 (2017/18) 1,009 860 1.173 2013 (2018/19) 982 838 1.172 2014 (2019/20) 1,048 874 1.199 2015 (2020/21) 951 900 1.057 2016 (2021/22) 935 978 0.956 2017 (2022/23) 819 900 0.910 2018 (2023/24) 788 962 0.819 2019 (2024/25) 739 913 0.809 2020 (2025/26) 699 867 0.806 2021 (2026/27) 763 946 0.807 2022 (2027/28) 750 934 0.803 2023 (2028/29) 776 972 0.798 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Schertz‐Cibolo‐U City ISD KG  Enrollment vs. District Births Kindergarten Enrollment District Births 25 Yellow box = largest grade per year Green box = second largest grade per year Ten  Year  Forecast by Grade Level Year (Oct.) EE/PK K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total  Growth % Growth 2020/21 325 951 1,019 1,040 1,077 1,135 1,143 1,232 1,248 1,219 1,293 1,394 1,305 1,292 15,673 2021/22 455 935 997 1,019 1,074 1,116 1,124 1,221 1,287 1,318 1,428 1,347 1,305 1,264 15,890 217 1.4% 2022/23 436 819 962 998 1,077 1,114 1,067 1,133 1,230 1,306 1,478 1,371 1,247 1,283 15,521 ‐369 ‐2.3% 2023/24 430 788 838 967 997 1,090 1,079 1,097 1,178 1,264 1,435 1,459 1,238 1,286 15,146 ‐375 ‐2.4% 2024/25 444 737 814 895 989 1,018 1,121 1,116 1,112 1,232 1,469 1,403 1,394 1,202 14,946 ‐200 ‐1.3% 2025/26 452 715 766 853 925 1,022 1,057 1,171 1,147 1,150 1,415 1,438 1,354 1,374 14,839 ‐107 ‐0.7% 2026/27 458 780 747 805 886 972 1,051 1,094 1,207 1,189 1,315 1,388 1,374 1,352 14,618 ‐221 ‐1.5% 2027/28 461 768 815 789 838 922 998 1,091 1,120 1,253 1,370 1,286 1,335 1,363 14,409 ‐209 ‐1.4% 2028/29 463 797 806 858 825 877 953 1,038 1,119 1,160 1,436 1,342 1,237 1,326 14,237 ‐172 ‐1.2% 2029/30 463 811 826 836 888 851 903 988 1,057 1,161 1,331 1,406 1,287 1,232 14,040 ‐197 ‐1.4% 2030/31 463 833 840 860 865 918 878 938 1,015 1,098 1,335 1,303 1,352 1,279 13,977 ‐63 ‐0.4% 2031/32 463 850 867 874 894 900 948 913 961 1,052 1,264 1,307 1,252 1,343 13,888 ‐89 ‐0.6% 2032/33 463 862 877 899 906 926 929 985 935 997 1,207 1,237 1,254 1,246 13,723 ‐165 ‐1.2% 2033/34 463 885 890 910 931 939 957 966 1,009 970 1,146 1,184 1,185 1,247 13,682 ‐41 ‐0.3% 2034/35 463 902 917 924 943 965 971 995 991 1,047 1,115 1,124 1,140 1,180 13,677 ‐50.0% 26 Ten  Year  Forecast by Campus Yellow box = exceeds Functional capacity Pink box = exceeds Max capacity Fall ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Campus  Functional  Capacity Max  Capacity 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 CIBOLO VALLEY EL 1,038 1,200 591 535 523 519 510 512 521 526 534 544 554 GREEN VALLEY EL 732 899 503 481 463 469 462 453 451 450 450 448 449 NORMA PASCHAL EL 704 871 574 556 545 521 531 524 528 527 530 531 531 ROSE GARDEN EL 1,031 1,200 861 838 814 813 814 830 856 876 906 936 969 SCHERTZ EL 683 1,017 663 635 618 571 561 561 564 556 553 550 545 SIPPEL EL 704 997 641 625 628 645 647 665 689 707 731 757 783 WATTS EL 739 906 500 486 473 457 473 480 494 505 519 530 546 WIEDERSTEIN EL 704 997 564 577 584 598 628 650 676 701 710 722 737 ELEMENTARY TOTALS 4,897 4,733 4,648 4,593 4,626 4,675 4,779 4,848 4,933 5,018 5,114 Elementary Percent Change ‐4.17%‐3.35%‐1.80%‐1.18% 0.72% 1.06% 2.22%1.44% 1.75% 1.72% 1.91% Elementary Absolute Change ‐213 ‐164 ‐85 ‐55 33 49 104 69 85 85 96 JORDAN INT 888 1,126 811 781 754 752 711 675 665 694 728 737 755 SCHLATHER INT 832 1,116 724 740 683 615 607 607 556 569 583 585 599 WILDER INT 855 1,188 702 707 708 722 673 609 595 598 603 601 612 INTERMEDIATE TOTALS 2,237 2,228 2,145 2,089 1,991 1,891 1,816 1,861 1,914 1,923 1,966 Intermediate Percent Change 2.80%‐0.40%‐3.73%‐2.61%‐4.69%‐5.02%‐3.97% 2.48% 2.85% 0.47% 2.24% Intermediate Absolute Change 61 ‐9 ‐83 ‐56 ‐98 ‐100 ‐75 45 53 9 43 DOBIE JH 1,285 1,540 1,231 1,184 1,262 1,256 1,180 1,108 1,073 1,052 992 1,023 1,058 CORBETT JH 1,285 1,500 1,113 1,113 1,134 1,117 1,099 1,110 1,040 961 940 956 980 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 2,344 2,297 2,396 2,373 2,279 2,218 2,113 2,013 1,932 1,979 2,038 Junior High School Percent Change ‐4.01%‐2.01% 4.31%‐0.96%‐3.96%‐2.68%‐4.73%‐4.73%‐4.02% 2.43% 2.98% Junior High School Absolute Change ‐98 ‐47 99 ‐23 ‐94 ‐61 ‐105 ‐100 ‐81 47 59 CLEMENS HS 2,733 3,300 2,589 2,618 2,531 2,523 2,523 2,491 2,503 2,492 2,388 2,309 2,206 STEELE HS 2,733 3,200 2,790 2,871 2,806 2,739 2,726 2,673 2,674 2,582 2,464 2,361 2,261 ALSELC 89 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 5,468 5,581 5,429 5,354 5,341 5,256 5,269 5,166 4,944 4,762 4,559 High School Percent Change 0.92% 2.07%‐2.72%‐1.38%‐0.24%‐1.59% 0.25%‐1.95%‐4.30%‐3.68%‐4.26% High School Absolute Change 50 113 ‐152 ‐75 ‐13 ‐85 13 ‐103 ‐222 ‐182 ‐203 DISTRICT TOTALS 14,946 14,839 14,618 14,409 14,237 14,040 13,977 13,888 13,723 13,682 13,677 District Percent Change ‐1.32%‐0.72%‐1.49%‐1.43%‐1.19%‐1.38%‐0.45%‐0.64%‐1.19%‐0.30%‐0.04% District Absolute Change ‐200 ‐107 ‐221 ‐209 ‐172 ‐197 ‐63 ‐89 ‐165 ‐41 ‐5 27 Key Takeaways   Annual closings near 900 in 2024 Housing market remains cloudy with continued  high interest rates  and looming tariffs   The district has more than 390 homes currently in  inventory and more than 2,100 vacant developed  lots available for builders Groundwork is underway on approx. 500 lots  within 6 subdivisions Schertz‐Cibolo‐Universal City ISD is forecasted to  enroll more than 14,000 students by 2029/30 14,946 14,040 13,677 12,500 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 Enrollment Projections FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • • 13,540 14,056 14,586 15,081 15,465 15,615 15,768 15,972 15,673 15,890 15,521 15,146 14,864 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-P # O F S T U D E N T S DISTRICT ENROLLMENT HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT 1.0% growth per year (153 students per year) 1.3% loss per year (-195 students per year) 3.4% growth per year (481 students per year) HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT BY CAMPUS LEVEL 5,261 5,446 5,512 5,716 5,783 5,811 5,899 5,547 5,596 5,406 5,110 4,895 2,125 2,211 2,326 2,253 2,252 2,344 2,445 2,375 2,345 2,200 2,176 2,226 2,210 2,211 2,341 2,421 2,453 2,403 2,363 2,467 2,605 2,536 2,442 2,324 4,460 4,718 4,902 5,075 5,127 5,210 5,265 5,284 5,344 5,379 5,418 5,419 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024-P # O F S T U D E N T S CAMPUS LEVEL ENROLLMENT Elementary Intermediate Junior High High School ENROLLMENT HISTORY BY LEVEL –OCTOBER • • • • • • • STUDENT TRANSFERS PEIMS YEAR TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT DIFFERENCE 2012 216 681 -465 2013 212 704 -492 2014 244 647 -403 2015 302 702 -400 2016 297 907 -610 2017 290 1061 -771 2018 304 1079 -775 2019 296 1283 -987 2020 300 1591 -1291 2021 317 1981 -1664 2022 308 2695 -2387 2023 Data available in March First Year of Founders Charter School First Year of School of Science and Technology First Year of Legacy Traditional School STUDENT TRANSFERS IN VS. OUT 216 212 244 302 297 290 304 296 300 317 308 681 704 647 702 907 1,061 1,079 1,283 1,591 1,981 2,695 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 # O F S T U D E N T S STUDENT TRANSFERS IN vs OUT TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT School of Science and Technology Pre-K –8th Grade Legacy Traditional Pre-K –8th Grade Founders Academy K –12th Grade MAIN DESTINATIONS FOR TRANSFERS OUT 444 472 551 529 504 272 328 356 365 414 34 43 119 159 192 16 24 71 285 367 52 106 229 0 463 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 # O F S T U D E N T S TRANSFER DESTINATIONS Randolph ISD Founders Academy Great Hearts School of Science and Technology Judson ISD Legacy Traditional SO, HOW MANY STUDENTS WILL WE HAVE IN THE FUTURE? 14,056 15,081 15,615 15,972 15,890 15,146 14,661 14,217 14,007 14,036 14,162 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 # O F S T U D E N T S DISTRICT HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT AND PROJECTIONS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS o o o o PEIMS YEAR PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH (DECLINE) PERCENTAGE CHANGE 2023 15,146 -375 -2.42% 2024-P 14,864 -282 -1.86% 2025-P 14,661 -203 -1.37% 2026-P 14,451 -210 -1.43% 2027-P 14,217 -234 -1. 62% 2028-P 14,073 -144 -1.01% 2029-P 14,007 -66 -0.47% 2030-P 14,017 10 0.07% 2031-P 14,036 19 0.14% 2032-P 14,059 22 0.16% 2033-P 14,162 103 0.73% PEIMS YEAR PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH (DECLINE) PERCENTAGE CHANGE 2023 15,146 -375 -2.44% 2024-P 14,864 -282 -1.86% 2025-P 14,661 -203 -1.37% 2026-P 14,451 -210 -1.43% 2027-P 14,217 -234 -1. 62% 2028-P 14,073 -144 -1.01% 2029-P 14,007 -66 -0.47% 2030-P 14,017 10 0.07% 2031-P 14,036 19 0.14% 2032-P 14,059 22 0.16% 2033-P 14,162 103 0.73% ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS o o o WHY HAS IT BECOME SO HARD TO PROJECT ENROLLMENT? o o o o o o FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • •CAMPUS CAPACITY UNDERSTANDING CAMPUS CAPACITY o o o o o o o o o PLANNING USING OUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY o CAPACITY RELIEF TOOLS o o o o o o o o o ELEMENTARY CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 CIBOLO VALLEY EL 891 1,200 761 657 611 587 589 594 594 608 617 620 627 637 % Max Capacity 63%55%51%49%49%49%49%51%51%52%52%53% GREEN VALLEY EL 673 924 586 533 497 482 469 497 506 524 535 537 535 529 % Max Capacity 63%58%54%52%51%54%55%57%58%58%58%57% NORMA PASCHAL EL 673 924 603 625 591 582 564 544 546 559 569 574 580 585 % Max Capacity 65%68%64%63%61%59%59%60%62%62%63%63% ROSE GARDEN EL 891 1,200 899 896 882 878 891 923 957 999 1,046 1,075 1,104 1,131 % Max Capacity 75%75%74%73%74%77%80%83%87%90%92%94% SCHERTZ EL 675 1,102 671 668 628 605 601 576 581 588 591 586 582 582 % Max Capacity 61%61%57%55%55%52%53%53%54%53%53%53% SIPPEL EL 675 1,058 742 672 679 690 721 756 782 827 867 904 961 1,030 % Max Capacity 70%64%64%65%68%71%74%78%82%85%91%97% WATTS EL 673 924 593 513 469 440 428 423 428 446 457 463 476 490 % Max Capacity 64%56%51%48%46%46%46%48%49%50%52%53% WIEDERSTEIN EL 675 1,058 551 546 538 544 527 517 529 549 568 574 587 602 % Max Capacity 52%52%51%51%50%49%50%52%54%54%55%57% ELEMENTARY TOTALS 5,826 8,390 5,406 5,110 4,895 4,808 4,790 4,830 4,922 5,099 5,250 5,335 5,453 5,587 % Max Capacity 64%61%58%57%57%58%59%61%63%64%65%67% Elementary Percent Change -3.40%-5.48%-4.21%-1.78%-0.37%0.83%1.91%3.59%2.96%1.63%2.20%2.46% Elementary Absolute Change -190 -296 -215 -87 -18 40 92 177 151 85 117 134 ELEMENTARY CAPACITIES 90% 92%94% 91% 97% 67% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY CIBOLO VALLEY EL GREEN VALLEY EL NORMA PASCHAL EL ROSE GARDEN EL SCHERTZ EL SIPPEL EL WATTS EL WIEDERSTEIN EL ELEMENTARY TOTALS INTERMEDIATE CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 JORDAN INT 810 1,000 716 769 796 763 777 742 676 646 641 695 734 739 % Max Capacity 72%77%80%76%78%74%68%65%64%70%73%74% SCHLATHER INT 810 1,200 750 682 700 689 640 573 563 594 597 651 682 677 % Max Capacity 63%57%58%57%53%48%47%50%50%54%57%56% WILDER INT 810 1,250 734 725 730 743 748 739 683 627 616 654 681 685 % Max Capacity 59%58%58%59%60%59%55%50%49%52%54%55% INTERMEDIATE TOTALS 3,450 2,201 2,176 2,226 2,195 2,165 2,054 1,922 1,867 1,854 2,000 2,097 2,101 % Max Capacity 64%63%65%64%63%60%56%54%54%58%61%61% Intermediate Percent Change -6.13%-1.09%2.30%-1.39%-1.37%-5.13%-6.43%-2.86%-0.70%7.87%4.85%0.19% Intermediate Absolute Change -144 -24 50 -31 -30 -111 -132 -55 -13 146 97 4 INTERMEDIATE CAPACITIES 74% 61% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY JORDAN INT SCHLATHER INT WILDER INT INTERMEDIATE TOTALS JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 DOBIE JH 1,300 1,540 1,348 1,316 1,229 1,194 1,228 1,196 1,152 1,058 1,009 1,025 1,025 1,109 % Max Capacity 88%85%80%78%80%78%75%69%66%67%67%72% CORBETT JH 1,080 1,500 1,188 1,126 1,095 1,096 1,103 1,111 1,114 1,083 1,001 936 924 989 % Max Capacity 79%75%73%73%74%74%74%72%67%62%62%66% JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 3,040 2,537 2,442 2,324 2,290 2,331 2,307 2,266 2,141 2,010 1,961 1,949 2,098 % Max Capacity 83%80%76%75%77%76%75%70%66%65%64%69% Junior High School Percent Change -2.62%-3.71%-4.83%-1.46%1.79%-1.03%-1.78%-5.52%-6.12%-2.44%-0.61%7.64% Junior High School Absolute Change -68 -94 -118 -34 41 -24 -41 -125 -131 -49 -12 149 JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES 72% 66% 69% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY DOBIE JH CORBETT JH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITIES Campus Functional Capacity Max Capacity Previous Year Current PEIMS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 CLEMENS HS 2,700 3,300 2,544 2,563 2,576 2,550 2,469 2,419 2,397 2,400 2,418 2,383 2,292 2,183 % Max Capacity 77%78%78%77%75%73%73%73%73%72%69%66% STEELE HS 2,160 3,200 2,716 2,700 2,688 2,663 2,541 2,452 2,411 2,345 2,330 2,202 2,113 2,038 % Max Capacity 85%84%84%83%79%77%75%73%73%69%66%64% HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 6,650 5,381 5,418 5,419 5,368 5,165 5,026 4,963 4,900 4,903 4,740 4,560 4,376 % Max Capacity 81%81%81%81%78%76%75%74%74%71%69%66% High School Percent Change 0.69%0.71%0.02%-0.94%-3.78%-2.69%-1.25%-1.27%0.06%-3.32%-3.80%-4.04% High School Absolute Change 37 38 1 -52 -204 -137 -64 -63 3 -163 -180 -183 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITIES 66% 64% 66% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 % of MAXIMUM CAMPUS CAPACITY CLEMENS HS STEELE HS HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • •BONDING CAPACITY PROJECTING BONDING CAPACITY -SCUC o PROJECTING TAX REVENUE o ASSUMES NO REFINANCING FOR BOND SAVINGS o DEFEASING PRINCIPAL o MODEST PROPERTY VALUE GROWTH o 4.0% ANNUAL INCREASE FOR 2024-2028 o 2.0% ANNUAL INCREASE FOR 2029-2033 o AS DEBT IS RESTRUCTURED AND PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE, WE BEGIN TO HAVE SOME BONDING CAPACITY o CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL DEBT IS LOWER AT FIRST, MORE IN LATER YEARS o FORECASTING USING THREE OPTIONS FOR I&S TAX RATE o $0.47 PER $100 OF VALUATION (C URRENT), $0.48 PER $100 VALUATION, AND $0.49 PER $100 VALUATION PROJECTED AVAILABLE BOND DOLLARS $215 $246 $278 $312 $347 $362 $380 $399 $419 $438 $284 $316 $351 $388 $426 $442 $463 $483 $505 $526 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BO N D C A P A C I T Y I N M I L L I O N S SCUC Bond Capacity by Year & Rate Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ PROJECTING FACILITY COSTS -SCUC o o o o o o o o o o o PROJECTING FACILITY COSTS -SCUC YEAR High School Junior High Elementary/ Intermediate 2024 $ 235,000,000 $ 113,000,000 $ 72,000,000 2025-P $ 242,050,000 $ 116,390,000 $ 74,160,000 2026-P $ 246,891,000 $ 118,717,800 $ 75,643,200 2027-P $ 251,828,820 $ 121,092,156 $ 77,156,064 2028-P $ 256,865,396 $ 123,513,999 $ 78,699,185 2029-P $ 262,002,704 $ 125,984,279 $ 80,273,169 2030-P $ 267,242,758 $ 128,503,965 $ 81,878,632 2031-P $ 272,587,614 $ 131,074,044 $ 83,516,205 2032-P $ 278,039,366 $ 133,695,525 $ 85,186,529 2033-P $ 283,600,153 $ 136,369,435 $ 86,890,260 2034-P $ 289,272,156 $ 139,096,824 $ 88,628,065 PROJECTED BOND CAPACITIES VS. CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BONDING CAPACITY VS CONSTRUCTION COSTS JUNIOR HIGH Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ PROJECTED BOND CAPACITIES VS. CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 BONDING CAPACITY VS CONSTRUCTION COSTS JUNIOR HIGH Bond Capacity 47¢Bond Capacity 48¢Bond Capacity 49¢ Estimated $41 M in HVAC needs over the next 10 years Estimated $9 M in Ancillary Systems needs over the next 10 years Estimated $40 M in Building and Site needs over the next 10 years TAKE AWAYS…. o o o o o o o o o QUESTIONS/COMMENTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: 05/06/2026 Agenda Item 7 A   SUBJECT Current Projects and City Council Status Update    DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION The following is being provided for information purposes only so that the Planning and Zoning Commission is aware of the current status of new site plan applications, status of applications heard by the Commission and recommended for final action by the City Council, and the status of administratively approved applications.   NEW SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS: The following Site Plan Application was submitted from March 25, 2026, to April 28, 2026.   5632 FM 1103: A proposed new 1,675 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru located at 5632 FM 1103, also known as Valvoline Express Care Lot 1, Block 1, zoned General Business District (GB). CITY COUNCIL RESULTS: No planning applications went to City Council from March 25, 2026, to April 28, 2026. ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED PROJECTS: Administratively approved applications from March 26, 2026, to April 28, 2026.   152 Windy Meadows: A proposed parking lot expansion on an approximately 1-acre tract, located at 152 Windy Meadows, also known as Windy Meadows Subdivision Lot 17, Block 2, zoned General Business District-II (GB-2). Graytown Master Development Plan: A revised Master Development Plan of the proposed Graytown Development to realign the boundaries of Unit 6 and Unit 1a.