Ingleside council advances Port of Corpus Christi rezoning after heated public hearing

The City of Ingleside on Tuesday advanced three ordinances to their first reading that would change large parcels owned by the Port of Corpus Christi Authority from single-family residential zoning to industrial or general commercial zoning.

Port of Corpus Christi real estate director Sam Esquivel told the council the authority is asking the city to rezone roughly 2,100 acres — about 1,700 acres in the McCampbell tract plus roughly 374 acres in the Good Hope area — to allow industrial and some expanded commercial uses. After public hearings and discussion, the council voted to move the rezoning measures to the next reading; each motion passed with six votes in favor and one abstention by Mayor Adame.

The rezoning request drew dozens of residents to the public hearing and dozens of public comments, most opposing the change. Residents and neighborhood groups raised concerns about wetlands loss, local drainage impacts, long‑term land use and public-health risks if the property is used for battery energy storage systems or industrial projects tied to hydrogen or ammonia production.

“Please deny the solar farm,” said Michelle Mack of 218 Bayshore Drive during public comment. “I’m convinced that the Port Of Corpus Christi has absolutely no intention of their proclaimed stewardship of this area and to coexist with us residents.”

Cindy Velez, director of Coastal Watch Association, referenced permitting work already under way and state agency review: “Back in February of 2023, the port applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to discharge approximately 111,000 cubic yards of fill material into 13.9 acres of wetlands. In March of 2023, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recommended they deny the permit.” Velez urged the council to require a broader environmental review and a clear project scope from the port.

Tom Sirwonka, who identified himself as a nearby resident, told the council the rezoning could be the start of further industrialization: “This solar farm on wetlands which has been denied by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Corps of Engineers is just the start … If you think about down the road for your children and your grandchildren what’s this neighborhood gonna look like?”

Some speakers urged a planning approach rather than outright denial. Dylan Davis, a nearby landowner, said the city should consider buffer widths and monitoring if development proceeds. Jason Knight, a member of the Aransas Pass City Council, asked the city to review drainage studies because water routed from the rezoning area could affect neighboring jurisdictions.

City officials and Port of Corpus Christi staff repeatedly emphasized procedural limits and city controls. Esquivel said the port’s request is a zoning change only; specific, higher-impact projects would require separate permits. City staff and several council members said the city’s updated ordinance requires an “intensive‑use special use permit” for projects with significant impacts — a review at which the council can require drainage studies, mitigation, setbacks or other conditions.

Council members also discussed the fiscal implications and ownership issues. City staff noted that tax revenue accrues on improvements or tenant-built facilities on port land (not on the vacant port-owned land itself); improvements built by a private tenant are taxable to local jurisdictions.

Planning and zoning staff and council members said the rezoning request aligns with the city’s future land‑use map in general, but council members and residents warned that the land’s physical constraints — the large percentage of wetlands, pipeline easements and flood‑plain conditions — limit development options and raise mitigation costs. Port staff said much of the McCampbell tract is wetlands and within the flood plain and therefore expensive to build on, which is why certain low‑impact uses such as elevated solar were discussed as possible future uses by the port.

The council recorded the formal motions and votes to advance the measures: item 20 (rezoning several large tracts to industrial) was moved by Councilman Long and seconded by Councilman John Salinas and advanced on a 6–0–1 vote (Mayor Adame abstained). Item 21 (rezoning the 374.31‑acre tract south of Highway 35) and item 22 (a 400‑foot commercial buffer rezoning) similarly moved forward with the same council majority and abstentions noted.

Planning staff said they mailed 115 notices to nearby property owners before the hearings and received one written response from a property owner objecting to the rezoning. Council members asked the port to work cooperatively with the San Patricio County Drainage District and neighboring jurisdictions on drainage planning if the rezoning proceeds.

Next steps: the ordinances will return for a formal reading and additional council action at a later meeting. Any intensive‑use or special permits for specific projects (for example, a solar facility or battery energy storage) would be subject to a separate, project‑level public review and council approval.