Tag: Purpose Built Student Housing

Hours 0:00 – 6:00, 4/15/25

by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

Citizen Comment:

There was 3 hours of citizen comment, and another 45 minutes at the 3 pm workshops. Total, there were about 75 speakers across both meetings.

San Marcos turned out HARD this week.

The biggest topic: Proposed Resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza
37 people showed up to call for City Council to pass a ceasefire resolution, plus one more mentioning it at the 3 pm comments
17 people showed up to advocate against City Council passing a ceasefire resolution.

Both are pretty gigantic turnouts. Much to say. Stay tuned till this part of the meeting.

Next biggest topic: Will the new city hall stomp on the skate park and the dog park?
– 12 people showed up to support the dog and skate parks at 3 pm, and two additional speakers at 6 pm.

Everyone loves the parks, and no one wants the city to stomp on them.

Topics with 1-4 people:
– Opposed to the proposed apartment complex next to Little HEB, or at least advocating for some tenant protections to be included
– Opposed to the proposed AI Data Center. (Not on the agenda tonight, but I think it was supposed to be discussed)
– LULAC is holding their state convention in June, in New Braunfels, and you’re invited! Details here.

…

Here we go!

Items 9-10:

Background: About a year ago, there was a pretty big shitshow in town, regarding whether or not to approve some new apartments here:

It pissed off a lot of people! The main arguments against it were:

  • Student housing is exploitative
  • This will destroy a peaceful neighborhood
  • This will make traffic and parking worse
  • The university will buy it as soon as it’s built, and we’ll lose the tax income
    (There was a partial compromise to address this.)
  • It will displace the people who live in the smaller complex there currently.
    (Also a partial solution worked out here.)

The main arguments in favor:

  • We need more housing, period.
  • This will be walkable to campus for students
  • The tax money is needed, especially since Texas State just bought two giant complexes and they don’t pay taxes.

I was (and still am) in favor of approving these apartments. But I also think it’s urgent for us to address tenants’ rights with some meaningful ordinances.

Ultimately it passed, with some concessions. And it pissed off a lot of people along the way.

…

One final note:  Shannon Mattingly was the director of the San Marcos planning department from 2015 to 2022.  Then she went to work for the Drenner Group, which are some Austin developers.

Then she showed up back in San Marcos, on behalf of the Drenner Group, pushing for this apartment complex. It felt like a major conflict of interest – like she was using her inside-baseball knowledge to work the system. A bunch of people complained!

Shannon was such an insider on San Marcos codes that she knew she wasn’t technically breaking the rules.   That also irritated everyone.  Council sent the issues to the Ethics Review Board to make a new rule. I don’t think it’s come back from them yet.

….

Now Shannon Mattingly is back! With the same thing, in the same neighborhood!  I found myself a little irritated. 

(Different developer. She’s just been hired to get it through San Marcos.)

The new project

This new project is supposed to go here:

Right now it’s mostly parking lots:

But there are a few things.

These cute little houses are on Pat Garrison:

These dull buildings are on Comanche and W. Hutchison:

And this old D.R. Horton building:

which has since closed down.

There’s also a little hair salon Hair Solutions is on Fredericksburg:

but it’s not part of the project:

So it will be staying.

…

Here’s the thing: it’s not a terrible place for apartments! It’s actually pretty good.

It’s just a little obnoxious to revisit the same exact neighborhood and push more change so quickly. Give us a moment to catch our breath, okay?

…

Onto tonight!

  • Three people opposed at citizen comment.
  • Four people spoke against at the public hearing. The main arguments are that student housing is bad for students. Other arguments were made about traffic and character of the neighborhood.
  • Seven people spoke in favor, but six of those are working with the developer.

Here’s a key detail: they do not need permission from council to build an apartment complex. Here’s what they’re allowed to build right now:

  • Five stories
  • 75 feet tall
  • All units have 1, 2, or 3 bedrooms
  • 1 parking space per apartment.
  • Rent-by-the-Bedroom leases are allowed

They’re here to ask permission for two specific things:

  • They want the “Purpose Built Student Housing” status. This would letd them put 4- and 5- bedroom apartments in.
  • They want seven stories instead of five.

Here’s what they’re offering up, by way of concessions:

  • They’ll double the amount of parking they offer.
  • The height would stay at 75 feet.

This is the developer’s explanation of how they’ll fit 7 stories into a 5 story building:

I guess? Here, you know you’re waiting for this meme:

mm-hmm.

…

One key detail: P&Z was not amused.  They voted it down hard, 9-1.  This means that Council needs a supermajority to overturn the recommendation.

…

One more complication:

These two apartment complexes were bought by Texas State back in 2023:

They were both converted to dorms. Texas State doesn’t pay city property taxes, so San Marcos lost a ton of money from this – probably well over a half million per year. Everyone was royally pissed off.

So now, any time one of these apartments gets proposed, council wants to make damn sure that the developer isn’t going to turn around and sell it to Texas State.

….

Questions from Council:

Question: Will these be affordable apartments?
Answer: Not really. If we’re allowed 4- and 5-bedroom apartments, they’ll be cheaper than 1-3 bedroom apartments. But we’re not going for affordable here.

Question: Will you charge for parking spaces?
Answer: Yes. Not all our students have cars, so it’s not fair to them to include it with the rent.

This is the wrong answer! The developer wants to charge for parking spaces, because if they include it with the rent, the rent will be higher. They want to advertise lower rents.

But Council wants parking spaces automatically included with the rent. If students have to pay extra for parking, many of them will say “screw it” and just park on the street. Council does not want the streets clogged with extra cars.

Matthew Mendoza: Will you put the pool somewhere else, so that people at HEB don’t have to see it?

Here’s what he’s talking about:

I mean, that’s not keeping me up at night, but okay.

…

Wheeling and Dealing:

Parking: Should they make the parking fee included, and students have to sign an affidavit that they don’t have a car, if they want it waived? (Similar to pets.)
Council members said they wanted to, but then no one ever made an amendment. So no.

    Selling to Texas State: Saul asks for 15 years, or even 10 years? The developer says absolutely not.

    What if we say 7 years, but we don’t start clock once it’s built and open for business? The developer says okay.

    How many bedrooms per apartment unit? It will be capped at 5 bedrooms. In theory, 4- and 5- bedroom units are “attainable” in price, even if they’re not “affordable” in price.

    Can we require a certain number of affordable units, in exchange for the extra stories? This is called a density bonus, and it’s a common thing. But for some reason, in our code, we’ve specifically excluded Student Housing from this incentive. So we can’t.

    Pool: You’ve gotta screen that thing in! For our eyes. Good lord. (This amendment passes.)

    …

    Final comments:

    Jane: It’s very walkable. I’m not crazy about the 5 stories. It’s not going to be affordable. But okay.

    Matthew: I love our single-family neighborhoods. This will help keep students out of them.

    Saul: I’m a no, because of the sale after 7 years.

    …

    The vote:

    Whoops. It FAILS!

    Remember, P&Z denied this, so it takes 6 votes to overturn the P&Z vote. This ain’t that.

    …

    What happens next?

    The developer pipes up: “I think we can agree to ten years after all!”

    This makes Saul and Amanda both angry: “You’re playing games. You didn’t take us seriously when we asked if you could consider ten years. We’re still voting no.”

    Finally it turns out that the developers misunderstood: they thought they weren’t allowed to sell the complex, period. But the city doesn’t care if they sell the complex – we just don’t want them to sell it to Texas State, or anyone else that is tax-exempt. The city just doesn’t want to lose the property tax income!

    This is a much easier request! The developers are visibly relieved. “SURE!” they say. “10, 15 years, whatever. As long as we can close this out tonight.”

    Council settles on 12 years from whenever it’s built and opens. So in practice, at least 15 years.

    …

    I’m combining two final votes into one here, but they went the same way:

    So it will happen.

    …

    So: Are student housing complexes exploitative to students?

    Yes! Yes, they are. We saw this fantastic presentation last fall that explained all the problems. 

    Basically, these companies play some legal ninjutsu. They avoid the word “lease”, because that’s a legal word with specific tenant protections. Instead, they offer “installment contracts”.

    This is a big problem! This means that any time anything goes off-script, you’re still responsible for the entire 12 months worth of rent, ie $12k or $15K or whatever. Then, since they’ve got you over a barrel, they really do screw with tenants in ways that small-scale landlords just can’t do. Really, go skim through this post if you want to know the dirty details.

    Nobody made any amendments regarding Tenant’s Rights, but it is on the strategic plan for this coming year.

    …

    Item 11: Speed limits!

    This neighborhood is called the Wallace Addition:

    They’re getting new speed limits!

    Hopefully things are a little safer now for these folks:

    It’s going from 30 mph to 25 mph.

    Not that anyone is arguing with me on this, but here’s a nice graph showing how much safer pedestrians are when the car is going 25 mph vs 30 mph:

    read more here!

    Finally, this is kind of interesting:

    First, Texas state law says you have to do a traffic study if you want to drop the speed limit below 30 mph. So we did.

    That last sentence is so interesting! So if cars were burning down these streets at 40 mph, we wouldn’t be allowed to drop it down to 25 mph? Maybe I’m misinterpreting it, or maybe Texas is dumb sometimes.

    Hours 0:00 – 5:18, 4/2/24

    by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

    Citizen comments:

    Let’s organize this by topic.

    1.  Calling for Council to pass a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza.

    There were 9 speakers on this topic.  That’s a LOT!  Especially because different activists have shown up pretty much every meeting since January.

    One speaker said she’d met with Mayor Hughson about this. Apparently Jane’s response was, “What good can little old San Marcos do?” and worrying over internal division.  It’s easy to see where Jane is coming from – why bother going out on a limb, when it doesn’t benefit the San Marcos directly? 

    But the thing is, it does matter to people who live here – they’re showing up and telling you this, over and over again – and they’re correct that US taxpayers are contributing towards this is a horrific bloodbath. The reason that cities should call for a ceasefire is to amplify the voices of its citizens towards the federal government. (It’s not just San Marcos. 100 cities have done so already and here’s a partial list from February.)

    And look: the grassroots pressure is working – Biden’s relations with Netanyahu are getting increasingly frosty.  It’s going extremely slow, but Biden is responding to public pressure. 

    Here’s the other thing: ignoring this many speakers is a REALLY bad look.  Why not call for a ceasefire? It’s very easy and respects the voices in your community. 

    ……

    Fast-forward six hours. It’s almost midnight and everyone is tired. At the very end of the meeting, there was one person left for Q&A. She asked Council, “Would you vote yes for a ceasefire resolution, if it were before you right now?”

    Alyssa Garza said yes, of course.

    As the question hung in the air, the lawyer spoke up and said something like, “This item is not on the agenda for discussion, and it’s most likely a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act if you all discuss it in public, without it being posted with advance notice so that anyone can attend.”

    Jane Hughson said she’d wait to discuss it until it is properly on an agenda. (Guess who controls the agenda?)

    Shane Scott shrugged and said sure – he’d sign anything that has the word “peace” in it.

    Mark Gleason said he’d vote no, this is a local government and it’s a waste of taxpayer money and everyone’s time to weigh in on international matters.

    Saul Gonzales, Jude Prather, and Matthew Mendoza just stayed quiet, and let the moment pass.

    1.  One speaker talked about civil discourse, and how it’s deteriorated. The claim was that pre-social media, speakers used to hug and mingle in the hall, and then put their differences aside after they spoke. 

      But now they get skewered ruthlessly online.  It’s very nerve-wracking to talk at City Council, and the rude treatment online doesn’t help. Threat of retaliation, intimidation, vitriol, even from people you might otherwise agree with. We should support the people who speak up at council and respond civilly.

    So I am probably part of the online crowd being referred to here? I feel ambivalent about this.  

    It does take courage to speak at city council meetings! We need people in the community willing to step up and present their point of view.  If I’m over here jeering and mocking from the cozy sanctity of my blog, it could make people less likely participate.

    But on the other hand, speakers are advocating for a particular policy outcome.  They are trying to tip how an issue plays out. That affects other people.  If I think they’re peddling crap, I want to explain this to my readers, because I’m also advocating for particular policy outcomes.

    (Ok fine, but do I have to be so mean about it?  I try not to be mean exactly, but it’s kind of lifeless and dull to write a blog without any kidding around. But I do try to stick to ripping on people’s positions and arguments, and never make personal attacks.)

    1. Lindsey Street apartments.  This is what we’re spending nearly all the meeting on. Let’s not make that part even longer than it needs to be.

    Items 8-11: Those dang Lindsey Street Apartments. 

    Quick backstory:

    Should we allow student apartments here?

    The street dividing the two pink parts  is North Street, and it’s also the official boundary for downtown.

    So we end up having separate conversations about the West Half, the pentagon on the left, and the East Half on the right.

    What did P&Z say?

    For the West Half: P&Z said “Get outta here, ya punk.”  No to everything that the developer asked for. (Discussed here.)

    For the East Half, P&Z hedged:

    • They agreed to rezone it CD-5D, instead of the mishmash of antiquated zonings that we don’t use any more.  
    • They agreed to permit it for Purpose-Built Student Housing.
    • They said no to 7 stories of height.  

    Last week, Council discussed the property west of North Street, but didn’t vote.

    The Citizen Comments:

    Look: my whole shtick is that I care about all the little San Marcos issues, right? Every two weeks I get down in the weeds with you. And yet …I just don’t care about these apartments.  At all. I just don’t. I can’t muster any enthusiasm either way. 

    But other people do! So let’s get into it. First, public comments:

    Arguments that I just don’t get:

    • Student housing is full of mold, foundational issues, pest infestation, water problems, and other maintenance issues. Complexes won’t address these issues.
    • Halt any developments that might worsen gentrification in San Marcos.
    • Do not build more student housing without resolving the existing problems of student housing.
    • RBB leasing process is exploitative because students view an immaculate show apartment and not the actual apartment that they end up leasing. When students move into their actual shitty new digs, they lack recourse. They must document every issue within 48 hours or be held liable. This is predatory and manipulative.
    • RBB undermines student retention at Texas State.
    • 90% of the leasing-related conflicts that go to the attorney for students at Texas State involve RBB. [Note: you can’t evaluate this claim unless you know the percent of Texas State students who live in RBBs.]
    • Roommate matching programs are problematic. Sometimes students get placed with families.
    • Students are asked to sign leases up to 10 months ahead of time. This is predatory.
    • Housing is a human right. Therefore we are calling for a 5 year moratorium on RBB housing. This would allow us to focus on fixing the existing problems.
    • Restart the city subcommittee on student housing.
    • Implement a variety of housing options for low-income residents.
    • Invest in code enforcement.
    • There is a housing shortage for students and rents have risen 40% from pre-pandemic levels.
    • This is a Texas State problem, not a San Marcos problem.
    • We are overbuilt on student housing. There are 45 student complexes in town. If you crunch the numbers, we have 20,000 RBB bedrooms, and only 13,000 students trying to find off-campus housing. The further away from campus you get, the more vacancies there are.
    • There is a housing shortage for students and rents have risen 40% from pre-pandemic levels. (I don’t understand how this is an argument against.)
    • Riding shuttles isn’t that bad.
    • This is just like the Blackland neighborhood in Austin.

    Look, I’m not trying to be difficult here. I’m just mystified by the arguments above. A lot of them are legitimate problems that need solving. But voting against this complex doesn’t solve any of them!

    I suppose the argument is that Council should vote “no” as a protest vote? But against who, themselves? They already have the power to prioritize these issues. You can just directly advocate for council to tackle these issues.

    Here’s our city website on tenant resources. Council could spend a lot more money supporting tenants, enforcing code, and combating delinquent leasing agencies and landlords.

    Arguments that at least seem relevant to me:

    • Do not displace residents who are currently living in affordable housing.
    • This will be a domino effect. If this is approved, then next will be the land next it it, then next to that, and eventually it will cross Moore street and eat away the historic neighborhood.
    • There have been occasions when apartments weren’t finished being built, but they’d already leased units to students, and so when August came around, the students had nowhere to live.
    • This will be sold to the University immediately, and we’ll lose the tax revenue, just like we did for Santuary Lofts and Vistas.
    • Historic houses need preservation.
    • Traffic and parking will get worse
    • Flooding will get worse

    The city and the developer end up working out conditions that sort of address most of these. We’ll discuss this further below.

    Arguments in favor:

    • we have student housing, but not enough within walking distance of campus. All the complexes close to campus are full.
    • Good spot for students
    • Tax money is nice.
    • They’re willing to make concessions on some of those points above.

    [Technical note: Jude Prather recused himself last week.  Since then, he checked with the lawyer and with the Ethics Review Committee. Everyone gave him a thumbs’ up to participate with a clean conscience. So he’s back in the game.]

    Council dives in:

    Jude: I’m all in! What a kind and generous developer! I love it.

    Saul: Can you guarantee that you won’t turn around and sell this to the University?

    Developer: I talked to the bank.  They won’t guarantee my loan if I sign something that says I won’t sell it. The reason is that if I go bankrupt or die or something, the bank wants to be able to sell to the highest bidder.  But they said that they could give me 5-7 years. For the first 5-7 years, I could sign something agreeing not to sell to any entity that doesn’t pay taxes. 

    Saul: I’m worried about traffic.

    Developer. We did a traffic study.  Students work weird hours at jobs like serving and bartending, and walk to class, so they’re actually not contributing to rush hour traffic.  They don’t tend to have 9-5 jobs. 

    Saul: Is this going to be affordable?

    Developer: Not really. But there are about 4-5 families that currently live there, and I could extend affordable leases to them in the new building. 

    Matthew: I protect the single-family neighborhoods.  My constituents keep telling me “keep the students way over there!”  And students deserve options!

    At one point Matthew says, “I never feel right about denying anybody a place to live.”  Can we put that on a t-shirt for the next time he starts talking about occupancy restrictions?!?

     

    “I never feel right about denying anybody a place to live.”

    – Matthew Mendoza, 4/2/24, 1:53:55

    Mark Gleason: This doesn’t encroach on the historic district. It’s a great place for students. The tax dollars will help.  He’s on board.

    He asks if we can improve some of the sidewalk gaps in this area, while we’re at it? This is a good thought!

    Finally, Mark’s angry that people invoke “flooding” as a weapon to tear down projects they don’t like, because it cheapens the real experience that he and so many others went through. Flooding is not an issue here, because it’s already completely paved. Making it higher doesn’t change the flood-math. (This is correct.) However, speakers kept bringing up the flood risk throughout the night, and eventually Mark lost his temper and snapped at them.

    Jane Hughson: Can’t bring herself to do CD-5D west of North street.  What about a lesser zoning like ND4? CD5?

    Answer: ND4 has a lot of restrictions. Their architect couldn’t get more than 55 units in.  CD-5D allows for 100 units.

    How about CD5? It’s nearly the same as CD-5D, but it doesn’t have the extra D, which literally stands for “Downtown”. This allows Council to say that technically, they didn’t enlarge downtown. They just switched to the non-downtown kind of high intensity zone.

    They settle on CD-5D on the east half and CD-5 on the west half. There are some differences in design standards and parking requirements, which we’ll get to in a moment.

    ….

    For a five hour meeting, remarkably little happened. It was incredibly repetitive. So I don’t want to lay it out chronologically because I’d put myself to sleep. Let’s see if I can boil this down enough.

    List of Concessions

    Tentatively, here’s what the developer is agreeing to do.

    1. The development would be on the rental registry.

    This came from P&Z and gets no discussion. No problem.

    1. There are two moderately old, cute houses and one very cute old house on the west side:

    The developer is planning on having them moved elsewhere.  Right now they have two parties that are interested in relocating them. 

    If both of those fall through, the developer agrees to a 1 year demolition delay instead of a 6 month demolition delay, to give time for another person to come forward. 

    3. All the normal code requirements still apply. This is normal.

    4. Parking, part 1.

    Should a parking space be included in your rent, or should we allow them to charge an additional fee for parking?

    The argument goes like this: in places like The Parlor, students don’t use the garage because they don’t want to pay a monthly parking fee. Then they clog up all the parking spaces that the local businesses need for their customers.  Whereas if the parking garage is already included to residents, then students will use the garage and get out of the street spots.

    The developer has a ridiculous argument: we don’t want to disincentivize students who may not want to bring a car to campus!  Because we’re environmentalists!

    The actual reason is that it drives up their rates, of course, and gives them a competitive disadvantage. Council votes and lets the developer off the hook on this one.

    5. If the place is pre-leased and construction isn’t done, you have to provide housing and let tenants out of the lease.  (This is true for all new construction, a change we implemented because it has happened before.)

    6. Parking, Part 2.

    How many parking spaces should they be required to build?

    The East Half is CD-5D. In that zone, you have to build 1.05 spaces per bedroom. The West half is CD-5, and in that zone, you have to build 1 spot per unit, which is way less.

    If you’re building a parking garage, each space costs $30K (according to the developer) so they want to provide as little as possible.  They were already discussing parking breaks, before CD-5 was on the table.

    Now everyone’s going to crunch the numbers, and finalize this next time.

    1. The CUP will expire in 3 years if they don’t make progress. (This is also standard)
    1. The complexes will offer both Rent By the Bedroom (RBB) and conventional leases on both sides.

    Jane asks: Will the conventional leases be priced less than RBBs?

    In other words, if you’re charging $1000 per bedroom, and $3000 for a 3-bedroom apartment, you’re not actually offering a conventional lease that anyone will ever sign.  

    Developer: Of course we wouldn’t do that! Of course I am just saying random stuff and who knows what I’ll actually do!

    1. They have to build to the silver level in the LEED green building program.
    1. On displacing current tenants and tearing down affordable housing:

    Current tenants will given 6 months advance warning .

    Up to 5 families will be given a comparable rent in the new development.  (Of course, they’ll have to find other housing for the 3-4 years, while it’s being built.)

    12. West of North Street: 

    They will cap it at 4 stories. There will only be 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. At most 80% impervious cover on the ground.

    This is all an effort to make the west half less student-y and more general public.

    Typically in student housing, there’s one bathroom per unit. In non-student housing, there isn’t. Jane Hughson asks what bathroom ratio he’s thinking for the west non-student side? The developer admits 1 bathroom per bedroom. (More clues that this is just all going to be student housing. Which is fine with me.)

    13. On selling to Texas State:

    Developer will not sell the property to a non-tax-paying entity for 7 years. The clock starts running at approval, not occupancy.

    14. West of North Street will not be designed and marketed to students. It is not permitted as Purpose Built Student Housing. Students can obviously still live there, but the developer has to pretend that it’s regular housing.

    …….

    HOWEVER! This list of goody concessions is only available to Council if Council agrees to let him go up to 7 stories on the east side. And P&Z said no to this.

    What would this look like? 

    Here’s the city staff’s slides, showing the heights nearby:

    That first one is if you’re standing at Texas State, looking south.

    Here you’re standing on the west, looking east. Campus is on the left.

    This is similar – you’re standing southwest, looking northeast. Campus is on the top left corner.

    Here’s the developer’s mock-up of a 7 story building:

    This is the view if you’re standing on the west, looking east, with campus on your left again. Currently the 5 story mock-up in the foreground will actually be 4 stories.

    I thought Council would balk at the 7 stories, but they zipped through it and passed it, 5-2.  Of course, it was past 11 pm at that point.  Saul Gonzales and Jane Hughson voted against it.

    So here’s where it stands:

    1. The developer got the high intensity PSA they needed on the west side.
    2. The developer got CD-5 on the west, but not CD-5D. This is a meaningless distinction that allows Council to say that they stood firm and refused to extend downtown. 
    3. Council postpones the permit for Purpose Built Student Housing until next time.  This is where everyone agrees to the 14 conditions listed above. Everyone can sleep on it and think it over for an extra week or two before signing off on it.
    4. The developer got their 7 stories on the East half, and 4 stories on the West.

    Hours 1:00 – 1:42, 3/5/24

    by The San Marxist, posted in Hour summaries

    Items 15-16:  Burying power lines

    All new developments have to bury their power lines.  

    In other words, this is bad:

    whereas this is good:

    There’s a lot of reasons why this is good practice:

    Ok, great.

    Whisper South and Whisper South Industrial are here:

    Whisper South has requested skipping burying their electrical lines.  Staff denied the request. So they appealed to City Council.  

    City Council agreed with staff, and denied the request as well. 

    Good job, Council!

    …

    Items 17-18:  The Neighborhood Commission 

    Maybe the Neighborhood Commission is my arch-nemesis?  I disagree so hard with them that steam is coming out my ears.

    They sent Council two resolutions, on Occupancy Restrictions and Purpose Built Student Housing.

    1. Occupancy Restrictions

    Back in April 2022, Council voted to loosen occupancy restrictions from a max of 2 unrelated people in a house, to a max of 3 unrelated people in a house. Unfortunately, the code wasn’t updated for another 18 months. By this point, Max Baker was off Council and Matthew Mendoza was on it.

    Matthew was in a panic over the idea of 3 unrelated people living together. He tried to get everyone to vote against it, and it failed, and then tried one more time. He clutched his pearls so hard that he’s probably infertile now.

    It finally passed, officially, in October. So it has been in effect for six months. But in a sore loser move, a subcommittee was put together “to study the issue further”.

    The Neighborhood Commission is pissed off.

    They want the rule to revert to a max of two unrelated people.

    Listen: a cap of two unrelated people is batshit crazy.  They clearly hate students, but banning students effectively bans poor people as well. (I really don’t care if that’s accidental or on purpose.) This prevents poor people from pooling their resources and being able to afford the rent in a quiet neighborhood.  That’s super gross!   

    Who actually thinks City Council should be in the business of policing who is married?  Why are we micro-managing people’s private lives this way?! 

    Usually people will say “It’s about parking!” or “It’s about noise!” or “It’s about wild parties!”  But there are other mechanisms for dealing with noise and parties.  (Namely code enforcement and rental registries for landlords.)

    What about the extra cars, parking on the street? Listen: your desire to keep street spots empty is less important than other people’s right to affordable housing. I don’t know why we allow “empty street spots” to be a weapon that existing home owners can wield against renters. Home owners do not have a right to keep street spots empty.

    But let me be fair: surely the neighborhood commission gave thoughtful reasons, right?

    Unless I’m missing something, they’re saying that three friends living together is causing all this:

    • Rising costs of home ownership
    • Impact on residents remaining in their homes
    • Impact of landlords attempting to put 3 unrelated students in a home
    • Negative impact on the neighborhood

    Wow. That is high on blame and short on details. If something is going on, spell it out explicitly, because right now it looks unhinged. (Also home prices are currently falling.)

    What does Council do?

    Remember the subcommittee that was formed? It hasn’t met yet, mostly because it doesn’t have a purpose.

    Jane Hughson calls for the subcommittee to meet within 30 days.  The subcommittee is Matthew Mendoza, Mark Gleason, and Alyssa Garza.

    Shall they meet?

    Yes, they must meet!! Jane, Matthew, Mark
    No, it’s over, this is dumb: Alyssa, Shane, Jude

    So the informal vote fails. They do not need to meet.

    But wait! There’s more from the Neighborhood Commission!

    1. They hate Purpose Built Student Housing and rent-by-the-bedroom leases. 

    There is an argument that RBB leases are predatory. (I don’t exactly agree, but we’ll talk about this extensively in the Bonus P&Z section.) But for now, it’s safe to say that the Neighborhood Commission is not upset because students are being exploited.

    The Neighborhood Commission is saying this:

    They do not want student housing complexes. I think this is clear.

    So let’s summarize: they do not want students renting houses in neighborhoods. They also do not want apartment complexes to cater to students.

    This is just delusional. Look, we have a university! With a lot of students! They are entitled to live in this town!

    If students are throwing obnoxious parties, then we need to properly fund Code Enforcement to shut those down. If you have a problem with rentals, hold landlords accountable. This commission thinks that shutting off the actual supply of housing – this human right that we all deserve – will somehow lead to different behavior by students.

    What does Council do?

    It’s a little perplexing. Jane Hughson moves to postpone the discussion.

    Her explanation is that they didn’t put Rent by the Bedroom (RBB) on the agenda, and so legally Council cannot discuss it. She wants to put both RBB and Purpose Built Student Housing on the agenda, so that Council can have the appropriate discussion.

    But this is just wrong. Look at the agenda:

    Rent by the bedroom is actually right there, on the agenda! How did no one correct her? They literally read that blurb out loud at 1:30:56, here.

    (I mean, I truly don’t care. Let’s postpone. It’s not urgent.)

    ….

    Council or city staff: if you’re reading this, I do have one practical suggestion:  

    If you’re going to regulate RBB leases, you should require that leases include an option to rent by semester, for a modest surcharge.   Students need some flexibility to be able to take internships, or graduate in December, or move home for the summer.

    Since the complexes are profiting off of being quasi-dorms, they should provide this benefit specific to students, like a dorm would.

    Bonus! Feb 27th P&Z meeting

    by The San Marxist, posted in P&Z Meetings

    We have to unpack this.  The center of gravity has shifted on P&Z.

    Let’s start with the end of the meeting:  the committee voted on their new chair.

    Jim Garber has been the chair of P&Z since 2016 (aside from one year when he cycled off P&Z).  He’s literally been elected seven times.  It’s been quite a run.  Jim Garber was the main driving force behind the re-write of VisionSMTX.

    But at this meeting, Garber lost re-election to David Case.

    David Case is [updated: used to be] on the San Marcos Area Chamber of Commerce, and is the local VP for Schertz Bank. So it’s safe to say he’s pro-business. The pendulum has officially swung from anti-development towards pro-development. 

    Is this good or bad?

    It depends!

    I am Goldilocks! I want us to land in the middle. I want us to have calm quiet neighborhoods, but they must include affordable apartments for lower income folks.  I want us to have gentle densification and to have nearby stores, so that you don’t have to drive a long way for your basic needs. Jim Garber was blocking a lot of this with the VisionSMTX re-write.

    However, back in the early 2000s, we were haphazardly approving all kinds of giant apartments complexes. The danger is that P&Z will start recklessly greenlighting every proposal again.

    How do I feel about giant apartment complexes? They should be carefully scrutinized on a case-by-case basis. 

    There are good parts: they do not contribute to sprawl, they are more environmentally efficient than houses, you get some economy of scale, you can have amenities like pools and exercise rooms, and it’s easier to include wraparound services for low-income housing. 

    But they are also a mechanism to enforce segregation by wealth, which makes me very cranky. And the scale matters: it’s jarring to put a giant complex immediately alongside a quiet neighborhood. Location is a major consideration.

    Anyway: the NIMBY old guard was voted out, and a new tide has taken hold.  It’s just too early to know exactly how far it’s going to swing.

    There was also one big, complicated zoning case:

    Should we build student housing here?

    This came up back in October. It was memorable because Shannon Mattingly was the director of the San Marcos Planning Department until 2022, and then jumped over to this developer. It’s a pretty clear conflict of interest.

    Here is a close-up:

    One more background issue:

    The university recently purchased Sanctuary Lofts and Vistas Apartments, which are very close to this:

    They are going to turn them into dorms. The city is pissed off, because we used to get a lot of property tax from those apartments, and the university doesn’t have to pay local taxes.

    So this looms on everyone’s minds: in five years, will the university just buy this, too?

    Onto the issues

    There were a lot of citizen concerns, which I’ll categorize:

    1. Complaints that student housing is exploitative:
    • Aspire (13 stories) charges $1k/bedroom
    • Rent by the Bedroom (RBB) means inadequate/subpar living conditions
    • Roommate matching is not legally binding
    • All roommates share liability for damages to common areas.
    • RBB is predatory
    • Student housing means subpar construction and craftsmanship

    I find these complaints mystifying. Do these people think that the rest of the landlords are glorious noblesmen? All tenants need protection. Plenty of non-student apartment complexes are unsafe and unsanitary. All roommates always share liability for damages to common areas! All landlords will try to extract the highest rent they can.

    I just am not clear why student housing is especially bad. Why not build a broader coalition across all renters?

    2. Complaints about San Marcos housing in general:

    • We need diverse housing options
    • Downtown housing is solely being built for students, serious lack of other housing.
    • There is plenty of student housing available: 40 RBB complexes in San Marcos, with over 20K bedrooms.

    We do need diverse housing options. Developers are not our friends, and they will not build diverse options unless it’s in their financial interests. This means simplifying the approval process and creating incentives for small-scale apartments and condos.

    But those are all larger issues than this one complex.

    3. Mostly legitimate concerns that are specific to this project:

    • This will make downtown encroach on nearby neighborhoods.
    • This will be a large corporate structure on an already congested street
    • The smalltown feel and skyline is being eaten up by big developments. 
    • They should provide regular leases alongside RBB.
    • We will be tearing down existing affordable housing and displacing people in order to build more expensive housing.

    I find most of these compelling.

    4. Concerns that I don’t know how to categorize:

    • we should not destroy this town for the convenience of students!

    It was a LOT.  

    So what did P&Z do? They basically landed somewhere in the middle. I thought they handled it well.

    The request has four parts:

    1. Extend “Downtown” to include the west side of their property, that pentagon piece west of North Street.
    2. Change a mishmash of old zonings – multifamily 12, multifamily 18, multifamily 24 – to all match the standard downtown zoning, CD-5D.
    3. Get a permit to have Purpose Built Student Housing.
    4. Get an alternative compliance to go up to 7 stories.

    Here we go:

    1. Extend “Downtown” to include the bit west of North Street.

    In terms of this picture:

    we’re talking about the pentagon on the left hand side. Should that be part of the designated official Downtown District?

    The vote: All 9 vote to deny. West of North Street is not downtown.

    2. Change a mishmash of old zonings – multifamily 12, multifamily 18, multifamily 24 – to all match the standard downtown zoning, CD-5D.

    First, the lefthand pentagon, west of North Street: No. This passes 9-0.

    Next, the right and middle bits, east of North Street: there’s some good discussion.

    • Will this make flooding worse? CD-5D zoning is 100% impervious cover, like downtown. Currently they’re allowed up to 75% impervious cover.

    Probably not: it’s actually 100% impervious already, because there’s a parking lot covering all the land. It pre-dates the 75% regulation.

    • What about the affordable housing already there? It would be torn down.

    The vote: 5-4 in favor of changing the zoning to CD-5D.

    (This is the first pro-development vote.)

    3. Get a Conditional Use Permit to have Purpose Built Student Housing.

    Important: this is not the same as Rent by the Bedroom. They can already do RBB leasing if they want. Purpose Built Student Housing lets them go up to 5 stories and have four bedrooms per unit, instead of 4 stories and up to three bedrooms per unit.

    Arguments: We just passed the Downtown Area Plan. The Downtown Area Plan calls for no student housing downtown. We need to set a precedent of respecting the area plans.

    The counterargument comes from William Agnew, who says, “I was on the Downtown Area Plan committee. I thought it was absurd to pretend we don’t want student housing downtown. That’s who lives downtown! I’m in favor of this CUP.” I love his bluntness.

    The developer says they will offer regular leases alongside RBBs. For what that’s worth.

    The vote: 7-2 in favor.

    4. Get an alternative compliance to go up to 7 stories.

    It gets pointed out that this is already uphill of Sanctuary Lofts, which is 5 stories. So if this were seven stories, it would loom even higher, due to the hill.

    The vote: 8-1 opposed. They will have to stop at five stories.

    In conclusion…

    Approving this apartment complex has its negative trade-offs. It does make the area more congested. It does destroy some cheaper housing in exchange for more expensive housing.

    That said, I think that overall, P&Z landed in a reasonable spot on the four items.