.png)
After San Marcos’ Planning and Zoning Commission amended the SMTX 4 All strategic action plan, the leaders who worked to produce the plan are speaking out about the changes.
Commissioners struck down three actions and amended two actions items in the housing action plan during a planning and zoning meeting on Sept. 24, which leaders of the housing task force say were crucial to the plan.
Workforce Housing Task Force Chair Laura Dupont and Workforce Housing Task Force Vice Chair Gloria Salazar spoke out about P&Z’ decision to remove action items from the plan, which was developed over the course of a year by a group of 19 community members who represented “diverse industries including governmental and educational agencies, major employers, the development community, neighborhood representatives, service providers, and the banking community.”
Salazar, who has served on the habitat board and the housing board over the years in San Marcos, said removing key components of the plan makes it harder to complete the desired outcome as it was previously envisioned.
“Certainly, we're glad it did get approved,” Salazar said. “At least we're a little bit, you know, one step closer. But it's movement forward, but not necessarily with everything in place that we need to actually fulfill the need that we have for our community. That's how I feel.”
The three action items removed from the plan relate to zoning changes:
Action B1. Development Codes and Zoning: Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by expanding the types of zoning districts and building types allowed within existing neighborhoods. Use a community driven process with a focus on accommodating residents through all stages of life; Action B3. Infill Housing Assistance: Assist builders with fee waivers, clear-path permitting, and regulatory incentives like reduced parking or additional units in exchange for permanently affordable housing in pre-identified infill sites; Action D2. Accommodate Growth through Appropriate Zoning: The City should proactively zone both undeveloped and infill areas in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the capacity for residential growth is in excess of the anticipated population growth instead of relying on each individual project to request zoning.
Dupont expressed her disappointment with the commission’s decision to remove the action items and noted the action plan is not a change in development code, but a policy plan free from obligation.
“It is hard for me to believe that leadership that says they're interested in creating affordability, and making an impact on the housing market in a community, it's difficult for me to believe that that's the truth when that's the response,” Dupont said.
She added that the zoning changes would provide for the ability to create overlay zoning that is denser than what currently exists, and noted that infill lots already exist in many historic districts surrounding downtown.
Salazar said the zoning changes wouldn’t create multi-story apartment complexes in existing neighborhoods, but would allow for older houses and buildings to be converted into smaller apartments.
Dupont noted that if leadership is serious about affecting change in the community, they should leave action items on the table.
“Housing affordability and displacement are real issues in our community,” she said. “The city council uses zoning tools all the time as a way to achieve their priority of historic preservation. When they take the same tool off the table when it comes to achieving affordable housing, it’s clearly an illustration of their priorities.”
P&Z Chair Jim Garber explained why he believes the commission voted to remove certain action items.
“Proactive zoning means city-initiated zoning, and we thought, or I should say, most of the commissioners felt that that was much too heavy-handed,” Garber said. “And the way the process normally works and has worked for as long as certainly I can remember is that if a landowner wants to rezone to something else, they submit an application, and then it's reviewed, and they say, ‘Well, yeah, that's a good idea. No, it's a bad idea ...’ But it's a notion of it is initiated by the landowner. Whereas what (action item D2) was suggesting here is that the city initiate the rezoning and we thought that was much too, way too heavy-handed and sort of a big-government approach.”
During deliberation on action item B1, which supports diverse neighborhoods by expanding the types of zoning districts and buildings allowed in existing neighborhoods, Commissioner Mike Dillon said at Sept. 24 P&Z meeting that he thinks increased density in neighborhoods is not a good thing.
“I don’t think that this protects, based on what I’ve seen, the neighborhoods,” Dillon said. “I think increased density in the neighborhoods degrades neighborhoods, I think high density downtown degrades downtown and I think we have plenty of land and I’m one of those people who likes sprawl.”
Dupont said the city must be proactive with housing to prevent displacement.
“We have to stop talking about the structures, and we have to focus on the people,” Dupont said. “And that's really what I would like to challenge the people that are opposed to this, is what is your answer then? Right? Because ... this isn't going to go away, it's going to get worse. So what is your answer to how are we going to take care of our — not people coming in even — of our existing community members? Those are the ones that will be displaced if we don't do something now, proactively.”
Salazar noted that the plan was not thrown together, but took a diverse group of people considerable time and effort to create, and said that council should be very clear about the action items, and have no misunderstandings before they take a vote on the plan.
“We have a serious problem in San Marcos,” Salazar said. “So perhaps, some people in our community do not see it around. But it is there, and it's not going to just go away just because we're not going to pay attention to it. It has to be addressed.”
