San Marcos — San Antonio developer Darren Casey's vision for Sessom Canyon has the support of the current landowners and the go-ahead of the city's Planning & Zoning Commission, complete with a city engineer's opinion that the 1,008-bedroom residential/retail complex can be built and operated without damaging the San Marcos River.

There's also the stellar reputation of Casey himself, and the explosion of tax revenue the acreage would yield if developed as he proposes. Not to mention the promise of construction and retail jobs.

But at the canyon's bottom is Sessom Creek, which empties directly into the San Marcos River, and nearby arterials — especially Sessom Drive that separates the property from the campus of Texas State University —  are already jammed with motorists and pedestrians.

Those issues and others leave plenty of people not convinced of the project’s worth, with concerns ranging from public safety to water quality degradation and deterioration of nearby single-family neighborhoods.

The 14.28 acre project, as most recently amended, would be multi-story apartments wrapped around a central parking garage, with access from Loquat Drive and retail in a strip set back from Sessom.

Designs feature outdoor plazas and some acres that would remain undeveloped. A floodwater detention structure originally set in the creek bed has been moved to beneath the garage.

Prior to casting his vote against recommending the changes in zoning and land use and the approval of a Planned Development District (PDD), P&Z Commissioner Curtis Seebeck said, “It’s a great project, just in the wrong location.”

He's not the first to see it that way. Dianne Wassenich of the San Marcos River Foundation has compared controversy over the project's location to the public outcry when hotelier John Q. Hammon first proposed his Embassy Suites Hotel and city conference center be built atop the hill above the River's headwaters. Those adjoining facilities were instead built at IH-35 and McCarty Lane and both have proven successful. The environmentally sensitive hilltop area has been transformed into a Nature Preserve.

On Tuesday, the San Marcos City Council will hold a public hearing and initial vote on whether to approve the measures as recommended by P&Z. All would require a "super majority" of seven of the eight council members to be approved because of petitions presented by residents.

The P&Z vote was 5-2, with Travis Kelsey joining Seebeck in opposition; and Bill Taylor, Bucky Couch, Christopher Wood, Randy Bryan and Kenneth Ehlers comprising the majority.

If the project is approved on Tuesday, a second vote would occur later.

To accommodate the many lined up to speak, P&Z Commissioners extended the public comment period from 30 minutes to nearly an hour. That gave speakers plenty of time to make their case.

Jim Garber, addressing the safety of motorists and pedestrians, said there would be more of each than developers suggest. “At some level you know what’s going to happen. We’re going to have dead people,” he said. “If it can’t be safe don’t do it.”

Jim Kimmel read passages from his book about the San Marcos River and how many threats it currently faces. “In my professional opinion, regardless of what management practices are used, the runoff from this project is going to be changed substantially,” he said, and would “harm the River.”

Jane Hughson urged the commissioners to “do what is best for the surrounding area and town” and chided them about their duties. “You are not the economic development commission, you’re not the tax commission,” she said. “I am asking you to abide by the City Charter, the Master Plan and neighborhood integrity.”

Hughson, who lives near the back side of another large student housing development, went on to say, “Please don’t be fooled into thinking this parkland will be a true buffer” between the complex and adjacent neighborhoods. “With 1,000 residents and their guests, the parkland is going to be a pretty busy place.” She said what’s “left behind” in areas near her home include “clothing, items that suggest the use of illegal rugs and other items I won’t mention that clearly indicate activities going on.”

“Tree doctor” Vincent Debrock drew attention to the number of trees that would have to be cut down. He said he moved to Hillcrest Drive “because of the amount of trees. The quality of the air is better, the heat island (effect) is less.”

Debrock said he “wants to keep the quality of the canopy in town and preserve it,” noting that loss of trees could mean trouble with meeting federal clean air requirements in the future. “We just squeaked through,” he said. “Next year we might be in trouble, which will mean we will lose a lot of federal money for Capital Improvement Projects.”

According to the plans, any tree loss at the site would be “mitigated” by planting trees elsewhere, such as a city park, city staff said.

Larry Mock reiterated that the development is not in compliance with the Horizons Master Plan and “runs counter” to goals put forth in other city documents.

The city council is scheduled to call the public meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday.