Council receives update on two proposed plans for its long term growth

The San Marcos City Council received staff presentations and held discussions over the Vision SMTX Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Area Plan at their regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday.

In public comment, many citizens lamented the lack of public input involved in the Vision SMTX Comprehensive Plan versus the previous plan–Vision San Marcos: A River Runs Through Us, with the majority of the downtown discussion focused on the possible development options for one of the last remaining undeveloped lot in the downtown area with river access.

For the Vision SMTX Comprehensive Plan, there will be one more vote before it is made final.

For the Downtown Area Plan, the council voted five to two for option three for the CM Allen Parkway land along the river–developed with mixed use buildings and green space throughout. San Marcos City Council Member Shane Scott and San Marcos City Council Member Saul Gonzales cast the dissenting votes. The council voted all in favor of postponing the vote on the entire downtown plan.

San Marcos City Council Member Alyssa Garza said she would be voting no on all amendments related to the comprehensive plan.

“I’m not going to be cosigning any changes without a for-real conversation about who we leave behind,” Garza said. “So, you can just … mark me down as no for any of the proposed amendments.”

San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson said she had a couple of pages of information related to amendments that she wanted to share, the majority of which created no changes to the plan other than providing clarity in the document.

“During our review we found some errors and some items that we felt should be stated in a different way,” Hughson said. She said that objectives should be changed to con- siderations for clarity. She gave the example of the part of the plan about transportation, which listed “congestion” under objectives. She said it would make more sense if this were a consideration because it is clearly not an objective. The council voted on this amendment and was passed six to one, with Garza with the dissenting vote.

San Marcos City Council Member Jude Prather said he was concerned with the amount of changes that were done in the last quarter of the process when it had been going on for years.

“I always say I feel uncomfortable when we have a document where this massive amount of work and effort and time and expertise went into [it], and then just by the seat of our pants we’re going to make amendments,” Prather said.

San Marcos Director of Planning and Development Amanda Hernandez said that it is not uncommon for changes to occur on the comprehensive plan in the final stages just due to the nature of the process.

“The majority, we felt, even if they were a notable change, for example, was adding a definition that wasn’t already in the plan,” Hernandez said. “While that’s notable, it doesn’t actually change anything in the plan, it actually provides more clarity.” She said the changes made the document easier for the public to read and comprehend.

For the Downtown Area plan, the majority of the conversation revolved around the CM Allen Parkway options. This area of land that runs along the river is privately owned.

San Marcos Assistant Director of Planning Andrea Villalobos said the first option would be for the land owner to develop the land with higher density, mixed use buildings.

Villalobos said option two was proposed by the planning and zoning subcommittee and would involve expanding the public riverside park system and green stormwater infrastructure. She said the city would have to purchase the land.

Villalobos said option three involved the development of the space with mixed use buildings, o en green space between buildings, and buildings that incorporate public plaza space adjacent to the street with well landscaped streets and signage.

San Marcos River Foundation Executive Director Virginia Parker said that she supports option two–green space.

“We can’t continue to prioritize tax revenue over natural resources,” Parker said. “The city could utilize grant funding for flood mitigation and park space to purchase part of the six acres along CM Allen.”

San Marcos City Council Member Mark Gleason said he couldn’t support option two when the south and east side of town have little to no park access.

He added that he isn’t happy with any of the options, but he preferred option three.

“We’ve got parkland now sitting that we can’t take care of–don’t have the money for it,” Gleason said. “How much good could we do on the west side of town with a loop–a trail.”

Scott said he preferred the green space option, which he imagined as a place for the community to come together and would create additional places for children to play downtown.

“If we have the opportunity to do it I would probably choose option two,” Scott said. “I think that families should come first.”

San Marcos City Council Member Matthew Mendoza had staff pull up the map that showed the distribution of parks within the city.

He pointed out the complete lack of parks on the east side of I-35, and he said he believed city money for parks should be allocated to green space in that part of town.

Option three with mixed-use buildings and green space was approved by the council.