San Marcos again delays vote on plan to guide growth, development

San Marcos officials say they need more input from residents on what the city's next 20 to 30 years should look like.

Mayor Jane Hughson presides over a San Marcos City Council meeting in 2023. City officials are delaying the adoption of a comprehensive plan that is intended to guide how the city approaches growth and development for the next 20 to 30 years.
Kin Man Hui/Staff photographer


San Marcos city officials are delaying the adoption of a new comprehensive plan, intended to guide how the city approaches growth and development for the next 20 to 30 years. After more than three years of work and several revisions by different groups, the city is asking residents to weigh in on the proposal in a survey launching in February.
Sam Owens, San Antonio Express-News / Staff photographer

San Antonio Express-News
By Liz Teitz, Staff writer
January 18, 2024

The San Marcos City Council has again delayed a vote on the city's long-awaited comprehensive plan, with city officials saying they need more feedback from residents on the document that will guide the city’s growth over the next two to three decades.

The plan, “Vision SMTX++” is in its third iteration after years of work, and is intended to shape how the city will approach issues like housing, economic development and transportation – all controversial issues as San Marcos grapples with population growth. But residents and some council members remain at odds over the latest version, including whether it adheres to the vision of community members and what consequences the plan could have in the future.

The city, which is home to Texas State University, has just over 70,000 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2010, it had just under 45,000. Like other fast-growing communities in the Interstate 35 corridor, issues of growth, traffic and environmental impacts have been flashpoints; the presence of the university, which is aiming to grow its enrollment, has also added pressure.

The comprehensive plan is intended to address some of those issues. While not a mandate, it’s supposed to provide an overarching vision to shape future decisions, and will be used to guide other documents in the future, such as code revisions and neighborhood plans.

The council was scheduled to adopt the latest version of the plan in November, but postponed it to January. This week, the council postponed it again in order to deploy a new outreach effort to solicit feedback.

Residents will have the opportunity to submit handwritten comments and responses, complete an online survey or use Konveio, a direct commenting platform that will allow them to digitally leave feedback directly on the 150-page plan. They can also like or dislike others’ comments, using thumbs up and thumbs down signs, which city staff will also use to track support for different opinions.

The survey will debut Feb. 2 and close Feb. 23, according to a presentation by Director of Planning and Development Services Amanda Hernandez. It will be announced and promoted online, on flyers and utility bills and with direct emails, among other efforts. 

A three-year process

The city’s last comprehensive plan — titled "Vision San Marcos: A River Runs Through Us"  —was adopted in 2013, 

Work on the new plan began in 2020. Community members, consultants and city staffers spent more than two years on the plan rewrite, resulting in “Vision SMTX.” The city hosted more than 100 meetings and events and received nearly 4,000 comments through the process, Assistant Director of Planning Andrea Villalobos said last year.

Last February, the city's Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed plan and took issue with much of it, forming their own subcommittee of four members and Mayor Jane Hughson to work through it. They provided changes to city staff – a table showing the changes took up 74 pages – who came back with Vision SMTX+.

The commission made more changes in August, sending yet another new vision, Vision SMTX++, to the City Council.

Some supporters have said the changes were necessary and resulted in a better plan. Others who have spoken at council meetings in recent months  say the changes made by the Planning Commission resulted in a document that no longer reflects the community’s perspectives and needs. 

In November, the council was expected to adopt the plan on a second reading, but instead voted to postpone, citing recent feedback from constituents. 

"I don't feel prepared to make such a big decision, given that many of our neighbors reached out with very different perspectives," Council Member Alyssa Garza said as she asked for a delay. "I think, generally speaking, a lot of our neighbors have expressed frustrations over the process," she said, so she wanted more time to get more feedback and to provide information. 

The council appointed a three-member committee to work with staff on seeking more community input and discuss potential amendments. That group met in November and December, and tasked staff with bringing back their outreach plan. 

Questions of growth

Much of the debate has focused on how the plan will affect growth: To what extent the city will manage and direct growth, what kinds of development can be built where, and how existing neighborhoods will be affected. 

The plan includes an updated “preferred growth scenario” aimed at directing new development, outlining what land uses, amenities and building forms are best for different parts of the city. In "neighborhood low" places, for example, the preferred scenario is primarily detached, single-family homes, one or two stories tall with setbacks from streets, and some small-scale commercial uses. In areas designated as "neighborhood high," medium or larger-scale multi-family housing and developments that are four to five stories tall would be allowed.  

The draft plan says many community members wanted access to amenities like parks, shops and restaurants near where they live. It also says residents “expressed a strong desire to minimize the impacts of new development on established neighborhoods, historic, cultural, and environmental assets.” 

How those goals are achieved have been a topic of discussion at public meetings over the last few months: some have said the plan promotes sprawl and vehicle-dependence, while others say it will work to protect neighborhoods from unwelcome changes. Development near the San Marcos River, and what kind of buildings should be allowed in that area, has also been a concern.

Density is another key issue. What kind of housing should be allowed in different neighborhoods has been discussed often, with some residents speaking up at council meetings this fall about needing middle housing, or medium-density housing, and about the need to consider not just homeowners and single-family homes but also renters and people who live in apartments.