.png)
The city of San Marcos is gaining more than 900 acres but approaching the approved use of that land “cautiously,” to use Mayor Jane Hughson’s word.
Most of the San Marcos City Council’s nearly four-hour meeting Tuesday night was devoted to discussion of the annexation and rezoning of 934 acres of land along Farm to Market Road 1984 and State Highway 80. Both the annexation and rezoning were up for their first readings at the council meeting Tuesday, with a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. Council approved the annexation and rezoning on first reading but set some conditions for the second reading of the rezoning ordinance.
The acreage includes land designated for development by Katerra, a manufacturing company that has an economic development incentive agreement with the city. Developer Mike Schroeder is seeking annexation and a zoning change to Heavy Industrial to accommodate the construction of an industrial rail park called the SMART (San Marcos Air, Rail and Truck) Terminal. Katerra would be the first rail customer for the park.
Numerous residents, mostly from the nearby Blanco River Village neighborhood, spoke against the development, voicing concerns about traffic, the environment and overall quality of life.
“‘Think of the jobs it will bring’ is what developers always say to local communities, often with devastating environmental impact,” Shannon Duffy, a professor at Texas State University who lives in Blanco River Village, said. She also pointed out that Farm Road 110, which developers have said will help alleviate traffic associated with the rail park, has not been built yet.
Dolores Rose Lombardo, another Blanco River Village resident, offered up a petition against the development with 59 signatures.
Not all speakers were against the development, however. John Meeks, whose family has been in San Marcos for generations and who works as senior vice president of corporate development at McCoys, urged council to approve the development.
“Tonight you have the opportunity to make a bold affirmative vote in approving the SMART Terminal development,” he said, calling the rail park an “economic development engine” and highlighting the opportunities that better paying jobs could bring to local residents.
Adriana Cruz, head of the Greater San Marcos Partnership, read a letter from Kevin Carswell, owner of Mochas & Javas, in favor of the development. In the letter, Carswell said he lives off of FM 1984 in Country Glen and wants the rail park to move forward. Katerra, offering base pay of $16.80 an hour, is a chance for San Marcos to lower its poverty rate and raise its median income.
“There are many positives for this project that will directly benefit our community,” Carswell wrote in the letter.
Dianne Wassenich of the San Marcos River Foundation said that the foundation has faith in the city’s new ordinances that help protect water quality and prevent flooding when new development moves in.
“I and the river foundation do trust that our new development ordinances and our floodplain ordinances and our water quality ordinances are so much better than they were in the past,” she said. Wassenich urged council to consider all factors and “do the right thing.”
The annexation discussion
After a staff presentation, council members asked questions about the project, particularly regarding FM 110 and the potential environmental effects of development, given its proximity to the San Marcos River. City staff said that the Katerra site is 0.6 miles from the river, and the acreage boundary at State Highway 80 is 1,260 feet from the river.
Planning chief Shannon Mattingly noted that if the city opted not to annex the 934 acres, the development could still go forward, but without the city land development standards.
Council member Mark Rockeymoore said he wanted to be clear on whether this site is the only location in the area where the rail park could be built.
“It’s my understanding that it’s the only location between San Antonio and Temple,” Mattingly replied.
Council member Melissa Derrick asked about the number of trucks that would be bringing materials to Katerra, since rail service will not be available until after Katerra starts production. Matthew Ryan, production manager for Katerra, said there would be around 30-35 trucks per day without rail service.
“That would be at the outset,” he said. “Once the rail service is available, that will be cut by 65-70 percent on the inbound side.”
Katerra is expected to start production in 2020, about six months before rail service is available.
Derrick also asked about any chemicals or solvents used at Katerra and the potential for environmental contamination.
“No, not at all,” Ryan said. “We’re very much light industrial.”
Council member Lisa Prewitt said that she would support annexation because it would give the city more control over the development. Council member Ed Mihalkanin echoed Prewitt’s opinion.
“We as a city government have so many more tools, if we annex this property, to make sure that development is done in a way that conforms to our values,” he said.
The first reading of the ordinance annexing the 934 acreage passed 6-1, with council member Jocabed Marquez voting against it.
“I’m voting in favor of the people,” she said. “The people don’t want this.”
The zoning discussion
Council held a public hearing on the proposed zoning change, and residents presented suggestions to make the development more palatable. Sandra Martinez, resident of Blanco River Village, said that the development does not meet the requirements of the San Marcos development code, which include relieving development pressure on existing neighborhoods and protecting neighborhood character.
“This project in this location does none of those things. It certainly puts more pressure on our neighborhoods and the neighborhoods in Martindale,” she said. “... From what’s been said tonight there’s not much we can do about it, but we could change the zoning to light industrial from heavy industrial.”
San Marcos resident Roland Saucedo said that while he thinks the park sounds like a great plan, he has concerns.
“This is Blanco Gardens all over again,” he said. “The neighbors are saying no. This is their home. This is where they’ve been living. This is where they want to continue living. This is not compatible for that neighborhood.”
Saucedo said that although San Marcos needs the investment and the jobs, if Schroeder is truly concerned with the neighborhoods, he could get companies that come into the park to put money in an emergency fund in the event that flooding occurs.
“That’s an act of good faith,” Saucedo said. “Did Mr. Schroeder want to be annexed? He didn’t want to be annexed; he needed to be annexed for our services.”
Two Texas State students spoke out against the development, urging the council to focus more on helping city residents, avoiding gentrification and taking the environment into account.
“There are so many different issues with the SMART Terminal that I need to get more clarity on and that I think a lot of us have expressed wanting to have some control,” Derrick said.
Rockeymoore concurred, telling Schroeder, “I realize this is the only place in town that would fit the requirements of your business. With all of that said, I think we need more controls as well.”
Council member Saul Gonzales assured residents of Martindale that when they have expressed concerns to the council, they have been noted.
“Even though some of y’all folks don’t live in San Marcos, we do consider you our neighbors and we’re listening to you,” he said.
Prewitt asked if the part of the land along the rail line — where Heavy Industrial zoning is required — could be zoned Heavy Industrial and the rest Light Industrial. Cosentino said a development agreement could address specific uses. Schroeder said that with a $16.5 million investment in rail infrastructure for Katerra alone, the rest of the project is necessary and much of it requires rail service. However, he said that he would be willing to get Light Industrial designation for the part of the property closer to Highway 80.
He also assured council, “I’m not planning on bringing in a heavy, nasty company.”
Prewitt pointed out that council has 90 days from the first reading to cast a final vote without requiring more public hearings on the matter, and that would give time to have another meeting to discuss conditions that could be set forth in an economic development agreement. Council and city staff made arrangements so that the regular workshop meeting the afternoon of Jan. 29 would be set aside to discuss the issue. Prewitt proposed an amendment to the motion approving Heavy Industrial zoning stating that the item will be brought back for its second reading only after council has discussed the details of land use through a development agreement. The amendment passed unanimously, but Rockeymoore and Marquez voted against the zoning change to Heavy Industrial.
Gonzales asked, for clarity, if council could vote down the zoning change at second reading if no satisfactory terms on land use could be reached. Hughson said yes.
“We’re progressing, but cautiously,” she said.
