Brittany Kelley
SAN MARCOS — The heavily-discussed Mayberry Data Center has hit a road block in San Marcos.
The 199.49-acre site for the proposed center was first presented to San Marcos City Council at its Aug. 19, 2025, meeting. According to council member Matthew Mendoza, the site was initially approved for a single-family development in 2022, but the project didn’t come to fruition.
Three years later, the landowners changed course with the proposal of a data center. To move forward, approximately 64 acres of land must be annexed into the city limits. Additionally, the entire property would need to be rezoned from conservation/cluster to commercial/employment low via a preferred scenario amendment (PSA).
Although council voted 5-2 to approve the item in August 2025, the motion ultimately failed, since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the PSA in March 2025. This meant that a super majority, 6-1, was required to pass the PSA.
Commissioner Jim Garber emphasized at the P&Z meeting that he had rarely seen such a community response to a project: “This is one of the biggest turnouts I’ve ever seen … We beg citizens to come out and get involved; we want your input. So, when we get it, I want to listen.”
The data center then resubmitted the PSA in October.
Despite its earlier decision the year prior, the commission opted to recommend approval Jan. 13, 2026.
Since its inception, community members have spoken against the data center, many citing environmental concerns.
The day before the Feb. 17, council meeting, where the PSA would be brought forward yet again, following commission recommendation, citizens gathered with the newly-established Data Center Action Coalition for a press conference relating to the data center on the proposed site.
“A man who fancies himself the owner of this land wants to pave over 70% over 200 acres to raise multiple buildings to over four to five stories that would house computer servers and to inject those buildings with sacred water using proprietary cocktails of chemicals that he’ll probably sign [nondisclosure agreements] to never reveal to the city of San Marcos and then, it’ll be on the city to remove those chemicals, so we can then drink that water because we are running out,” said Si Frede of the coalition. “It is incumbent upon all of us to insist that people in power do the right thing and also to organize and do what needs to be done to defend this place because we owe our lives to this place.”
The next day, hundreds of citizens lined the street outside of San Marcos City Hall in preparation to speak against the item, amounting to more than four hours of public comment that echoed similar environmental concerns to those who spoke nearly a year ago.
“Last year, San Marcos City Utilities provided you all with projections of our water usage versus our natural resources. They highlighted the potential for our region to essentially run out of water by 2047 without calculating the four proposed data centers within San Marcos city limits,” said resident Jessica Bunting.
Those pushing data centers, she continued, claim that they will “only use” 75,000 per day, equivalent to the usage of 915 San Marcos residents in one day.
“One person’s water consumption over two and a half years is the same as one day of data center water usage,” said Bunting. “We do not have the natural resources to accommodate these developments. If these centers move forward, we are setting ourselves and future generations up for failure.”
Resident Aaron Brown discussed the long-term implications of a data center, stating that it is the “new and shiny thing” of this time period, where everyone, including San Marcos, rushes to be part of it, without considering the environment.
He stated that there is talk about the job opportunity for three to five years during the construction, but that after, only limited positions will remain.
“Where do we stand on this data center 10, 15 years down the road,” prompted Brown. “We are seeing this snapshot and it is up to you and the council to look at the bigger picture … We’re eroding that green space; we are eroding our conservation in this area.”
Immediately following public comment, council member Lorenzo Gonzalez moved to table the PSA, as there are still unknowns regarding other data centers in the area. He stated that the decisions of those sites affect how the council should vote. Additionally, there are unanswered questions that should be resolved, said Gonzalez.
Mayor Jane Hughson was against postponing the item after so long. If anything, she suggested voting for the first reading and then, receiving the requested information at the second reading, since two are required.
“I truly feel that a postponement on insufficient grounds that have been presented, which are wholly insufficient … feels like we are torturing these people” said council member Amanda Rodriguez.
Considering community member questions, council member Alyssa Garza asked why an agenda packet with more detailed information wasn’t uploaded to the city’s website prior to the day of the vote. Staff stated that they uploaded the document as soon as it was available.
Hughson shared her own concerns about the water from the power generation, stating that she is unsure of what the answer is. This was also a worry for Mendoza, as well as Senate Bill 6, which relates to the planning for, interconnection and operation of certain electrical loads and generation of power by water supply or sewer.
Still considering the postponement was Gonzalez, who amended his motion to move the discussion to March 31. The motion failed 3-4, with council members Rodriguez, Josh Paselk, Garza and Mendoza dissenting.
“I’m still not convinced that we have the information that we need to have a genuine conversation about the implications of data centers,” said Garza. “I have not received sufficient information from various powers that be to make it so that I was comfortable voting, ‘Yes.’”
At nearly 2:30 a.m., Garza motioned to deny the PSA, with Rodriguez providing a second. The item passed 5-2, with Gonzales and Mendoza dissenting, as the room erupted into applause and cheers from residents.
Despite the denial, a city staff member noted that another application can be filed by the owners in six months.
To listen to the full discussion, visit bit.ly/4kQsOJg.
