ATTACHMENT B
Community Perspectives on Land Use Alternatives Report
I 1
San Marcos General Plan Update
Community Perspectives on Land Use Alternatives
Developed by Kearns & West and De Novo Planning Group
November 21, 2022
I 2
Introduction and Overview
Throughout the General Plan Update process, the City engaged with the San Marcos community to develop draft Land Use Alternatives as well as ideas for programs and policies that should be included in the General Plan Policy Document. This working paper presents the feedback received on the Land Use Alternatives Report, highlighting major themes, and exploring perspectives on the alternatives to shape the Draft Proposed Land Use Map and the comprehensive General Plan Update.
The Land Use Alternatives were developed following a series of public visioning workshops, surveys, stakeholder interviews, and pop-up events that explored a vision for San Marcos’ future land use plan. All activities were facilitated in English and Spanish. A summary of input received was developed, noting key themes and priorities from participants. The Land Use Alternatives Report was then developed from the input received during the visioning phase and input from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC).
The Land Use Alternatives Report included analysis on the following alternatives:
• The Current General Plan (business as usual)
• Alternative 1: Activity Nodes
• Alternative 2: Corridors
Public Input Process for Land Use Alternatives
The Land Use Alternatives were shared with the community through a multi-pronged approach.
Members of the community could provide input online, through public hearings, and at in-person events. All activities were facilitated in English and Spanish. The following specifies opportunities for the public to provide input on the Land Use Alternatives:
• Online Surveys
o A Community Survey was designed for members of the public to review the land use alternatives, identify both the benefits and impacts of growth in San Marcos, and identify how the visions shared in the different land use alternatives aligned with their vision for the future in San Marcos.
o A Parcel Survey was designed to gather input on specific parcels identified in proposed Land Use Alternatives. This survey received a high response rate particularly relating to the “Briggs Parcel” (discussed later in this summary). • In June 2022, City staff attended several Community Outreach Events to educate the public, and collect their input, on the Land Use Alternatives. • Two Open House events were held (one at the Senior Center and one at the Civic Center) for community members to provide input in-person in a more informal setting. • A Planning Commission Study Session was held for Planning Commissioners to review the land use alternatives and provide input on how components of the alternatives should (or should not be) reflected in the Draft Proposed Land Use Map. Members of the public could also provide input during the study session.
• A Joint City Council/GPAC Workshop was facilitated for members of the City Council and GPAC to review the alternatives, engage in small group discussion, hear public comment, and provide Staff and the consultant team on direction related to the Draft Proposed Land Use Map.
• The July 2022 GPAC Meeting was dedicated to providing GPAC members the opportunity to review what was heard in previous discussions, including the joint City Council/GPAC Workshop, and dive deeper in the Land Use Alternatives to ensure that all members could provide meaningful input on what should be included in the Draft Proposed Land Use Map.
I 3
Key Themes and Community Perspectives
This working paper synthesizes the perspectives on the Land Use Alternatives from the input opportunities noted above. While the level and depth of feedback provided on the alternatives varies according to level of involvement and knowledge of the General Plan, key themes emerged across all input platforms. The themes and perspectives expressed are highlighted below. Nuances are discussed within each theme, as the process did not require consensus.
Both Alternatives Include Elements Desired by the Community The population growth and density identified in Alternative 1 more closely meet the projected buildout vision for San Marcos, but some areas of development included in Alternative 2 (that were not included in Alternative 1) were also desirable. Input shared in response to the online surveys, during the planning commission study session, and throughout the City Council/GPAC meeting highlighted a preference for Alternative 1 over Alternative 2, with the desire to incorporate some key elements of change from Alternative 2 that met specific priorities, such as growth around transit stations or improving the development conditions along high-visibility corridors. In the community survey, respondents identified an overall preference for the Current General Plan, but when diving into what types of land use designations were preferred in each area of the community (north, south, east, and west), Alternative 2 more closely represented to respondents how the City should grow.
Conversations in small groups at the joint City Council/GPAC workshop also centered on what qualities of Alternative 2 were desirable and should be merged with changes proposed under Alternative 1 in order to arrive at a Draft Proposed Land Use Map that melds the two alternatives.
While both land use alternatives anticipate population growth, the population growth possible under Alternative 2 (almost doubling the current population of San Marcos) was a concern for members of the public, Planning Commission and City Council. While the designations and parcels highlighted in Alternative 2 resonated with the community, population growth and traffic considerations were a concern.
Growth Should Take Place in Focused Infill Areas of the City Growth should take in focused infill areas of the City, specifically around activity centers and along multimodal transit corridors, to reduce impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. While growth in activity centers is a priority, the areas identified align more closely with Alternative 2. Specific areas of interest include the east side of the community, by the Civic Center. Community members did highlight that while the Civic Center and east side should be prioritized, the east side is also home to low-income and diverse communities in San Marcos. Thus, growth should be balanced with equity considerations, including specific policies related to displacement and how to include current residents in future growth opportunities.
Maintain the Current Land Use Designation on the “Briggs” Parcel No high density residential should be planned for the “Briggs” location. The parcel was included on both Land Use Alternative maps, and most responses on the Parcel Survey and public comments at the joint City Council/GPAC workshops were related to the site. City staff recommended the removal of the parcel.
Flexible Land Use Designations are Preferred
Flexible land use designations and transition zones are the preferred method of growth in San Marcos. The GPAC, City Council, and Planning Commission highlighted how flexible land use designations allow for growth to occur more organically over time and do not tie San Marcos to a specific growth metric. Community members noted how these flexible land uses, or transition zones, I 4
could also give the City time to plan for infrastructure needs while allow property owners more flexibility in how they develop their property in the future.
Responses in the community survey highlight strong preference for “some” or “maximum” flexibility for land use designations. Mixed-use development with commercial component was the most preferred flexible use highlighted in the survey.
High Density Designations are Appropriate with Limits
Higher levels of residential density (beyond what is currently allowed) was discussed as appropriate in some places in San Marcos, but the MU-75 designation (allowing up to 75 du/ac) felt too dense.
The City Council and GPAC discussed how new taller development can “fit” within the image of San Marcos (i.e., the maximum number of stories that should be allowed). While there are differences of opinion, one area of agreement is that if high density is planned for within the City, a maximum density lower than 75 du/ac is preferred.
Visions for Economic Development and Job Growth are Nuanced Economic development should focus on high paying jobs, but expanded office and industrial growth is the least preferred option for changes to future land use designations. The need for high paying jobs was identified as a way to both retain college students who attend the many colleges and universities in the City and reflective of a desire for a corporate campus or office-retail.
There is some nuance highlighted here, as responses in the community survey showed significantly less interest in growing office and industrial uses than any other land use, both of which are more aligned with high paying jobs. Respondents instead preferred focusing on commercial and commercial mixed-use development, while retaining existing industrial where feasible.
Prioritize Reducing Traffic Impacts
Traffic is the most pressing issue, and future growth planning must address traffic concerns.
Community members expressed concern that Alternative 2’s focus on development along major corridors could exacerbate traffic patterns.
Public transportation, walkability, and transit-oriented development were highlighted as ways to address transportation in the City, but the main concern were traffic impacts to any development.
Plan for Public Facilities, Schools, and Open Space
Loss of open space to development is not desirable, and new development should include open space and public facilities. Open space and public facilities were noted as one of the highest priorities for community members. Dialogue and input related to residential, commercial, and economic growth highlighted the need for public facilities and open space to be prioritized. If development does occur in a specific activity center or node, public facilities and public use spaces need to be incorporated and prioritized.
New growth should be coordinated with the school district so that school facility planning can respond to updates to the City’s land use map. The City should be engaging with regional partners and school districts to plan for additional schools and transportation needs related to schools.