Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees And Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals refund and policy change for alcohol‑distance variance fees after restaurant request
Summary
After staff reported duplicative notices and fees tied to annual distance variances for on‑premise alcohol at Jorge’s Mexican Restaurant, council indicated intent to refund the distance variance fee and directed staff to pursue a fee‑schedule change to avoid duplicative annual charges for alcohol‑related CUPs.
Get email alerts on the Fees And Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Marcos City Council discussed and indicated support for refunding a distance‑variance fee charged to Jorge’s Mexican Restaurant at 2550 Hunter Road and for changing the city’s fee schedule to avoid duplicative annual charges when an alcohol conditional‑use permit (CUP) and a distance variance require similar notices.
Planning Manager David Soto told the council the property has a history of annual variance filings since 2021 and that fees charged to the applicant total roughly $765 for the variance process. Soto said the variance notice radii differ (for schools the measurement is property‑line to property‑line) and that staff is preparing options: (1) refund the fee in whole or part for this case, (2) amend the fee schedule to consolidate or waive the duplicate distance variance fee when paired with an alcohol CUP, or (3) adopt a development‑code amendment if needed.
Council members asked whether notices could be mailed together to save postage and staff time and whether partial refunds are permissible. The city’s legal adviser said partial refunds are possible and that staff can propose language. Councilmembers pressed that the two processes (distance variance and alcohol CUP) generate overlapping administrative work and that a fee‑schedule amendment would be the simpler fix.
Councilmembers expressed support for the full refund in this case, and the mayor asked staff to return a consent‑or action‑level item on the next agenda to implement the refund. For longer‑term changes council directed staff to pursue a fee‑schedule amendment (and to refer code changes to committees as needed) to avoid requiring duplicated annual application fees when applications are processed together.
The council did not adopt a final refund ordinance during the Nov. 18 meeting; instead members recorded intent and directed staff to return a formal item for action at the next meeting.

