Bonus-bonus! P&Z meeting, 1/15/26

by The San Marxist, posted in P&Z Meetings

When all is written about the data center, my guess is that the Rubicon was crossed at P&Z last week. This was the pivotal moment.

Lots has already been written about this meeting:

  • San Marcos Record: $1.5B data center moves forward to council: Planning and Zoning Commission voted for rezoning after nearly 8 hours of public discourse
  • Caldwell/Hays Examiner: SAN MARCOS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IGNORES PUBLIC COMMENT, VOTES TO ALLOW CONTROVERSIAL RE-ZONING APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED HIGHLANDER SM-1 DATA CENTER

So I’m going to keep this brief.

Background: 

First off, it was a seven hour meeting.  Total, it was almost 5 hours of public comment.

Over 100 people spoke. There are good photos at both those links, above.

Instead of summarizing all that, I’m going to just let the group data.center.action.coalition represent all the speakers.

These claims are from that website:

and they also have created this map of the four proposed data center locations:

Their maps are MUCH nicer than my scribbly ones.

…

Here’s how conversation went, at P&Z:

William Agnew: City staff keep saying that it’s a choice between housing and a data center. But I thought the housing option was dead.

Here’s what Agnew is referring to:

City staff makes these comparisons all the time – arguing that this data center uses less water than 470 homes.

This argument only works if you believe that the houses would otherwise be built. If Mayberry has given up on the idea of housing, then this comparison is useless.

Agnew asks the developer, Mayberry: “If you get turned down for this rezoning, would you build houses instead?”
Mayberry: “Yes. We were already working with architects and engineers when we were approached by the data centers. We will go back to houses if this is voted down.” (I’m paraphrasing.)

Is he telling the truth? My guess is that P&Z believes him and the activists don’t. I truly have no idea. (But it is a terrible location for a subdivision.)

…

Next big topic: Is Mayberry violating city rules by bringing the rezoning back in January?

When a project gets denied at City Council, it can’t come back for one year. It’s only been about five months. Lots of speakers bring up this point.

The city lawyer is very clear: this wasn’t actually denied back in August. It just wasn’t approved. Therefore they can come back sooner.

Note: This really does happen regularly. It’s not just this data center. Council will hold off on a formal denial, to give someone a chance to come back around again.

…

Various points made by different commission members:

  • We should wait until after Council comes up with new rules for data centers.
    Answer: We’re obligated to move forward with applications, and any later rules would not apply to this application
  • Are there tax abatements being discussed?
    Answer: No, not locally. There could be some federal or state tax break being offered.
  • We’re a recommending body, not elected officials. We should approve this so that Council can decide.
  • It’s weird to call this “Commercial Low” when it actually won’t employ many people.
  • This is consistent with the comp plan! I love it.
  • I’m not going to vote against the will of hundreds of people. I don’t love it.
  • This is spot zoning, which is illegal! You can’t base your zoning on one single use.
  • It’s not spot zoning – if you look at all the non-data center uses, they’re totally fine.

The vote:

Yes: David Case, Rodney Van Oudekerke, Michelle Burleson, Griffen Spell, Lupe Costilla, Maraya Dunn

No: William Agnew, Amy Meeks

There are actually two separate votes – one to allow for the zoning to change, and one to actually change the zoning. Both go the same way.

This matters a LOT.

Last spring, P&Z voted this rezoning down. Therefore Council needed a supermajority – 6 votes out of 7 – to overturn a P&Z decision. They only got 5.

But now, P&Z has approved the rezoning. So this time, Council will only need a regular majority to approve it. That’s a much lower bar to clear.

…

So who flipped?

Here’s how the vote went, last March:

Five commissioners – Costilla, Burleson, Spell, Dunn, and Van Ouderkerke – all switched their vote since last March.

I don’t know what to make of that, but it’s a huge number. It suggests that conversations have been happening outside of publicly available meeting times.

…

Full disclosure: I am in the mushy center on this issue.

The argument against the data center:

  • There are a ton of passionate activists who are voicing their opinion about what should happen in this city. That should carry some weight.
  • The water, the electricity, and the bad vibes.
  • Maybe denial will send a message to the state legislature? Some symbolic value?

The argument in favor:

  • The property tax is significant, even if only a fraction of it comes in.
  • People who need city services aren’t going to show up and voice their opinion against the activists. But they still exist, and there are a lot of them, and they deserve to have their needs funded.
  • Denying this data center does not move the needle on the actual water and electricity problems caused by the data center industry.

I am really hung up on this map:

That is the current count of data centers in Texas. Over 90 data centers within 100 miles of San Marcos.

My personal favorite solution:

What I want is for Council to negotiate with Mayberry to get this data center onto reclaimed water.

That’s not actually as farfetched as it sounds – there are many data centers currently operating on reclaimed water. Furthermore, San Marcos runs a reclaimed water pipe out to this exact area, already – the Hays County Power Plant uses reclaimed water for its cooling.

So who knows. Are people willing to coalesce around a compromise?

Leave a comment