Proposed Francis Harris Lane data center draws sharp local opposition over water, noise and grid strain

John Mayberry, the applicant for a 900 Francis Harris Lane development, told the San Marcos City Council on Dec. 16 that a draft restrictive covenant now before the city would limit a proposed data center’s local impacts and create legally enforceable obligations.

Mayberry said the site already has a contract for 150,000 gallons per day with Crystal Clear Special Utility District and that he will “voluntarily surrender half of these water rights back into the system.” He also said the covenant will include monitoring mechanisms and be enforced through the city’s site‑plan process and legal remedies when necessary.

The applicant’s representative, Michael Whan, summarized other proposed commitments: cutting approved water use by more than half compared with the previous residential entitlement; designing stormwater runoff performance 10% better than current code; limiting impervious cover by about 10 percentage points compared with typical light‑industrial allowances; pursuing LEED registration; and capping ambient noise at a flat 75 dB at the property line. Whan said the covenants would also include labor‑standards language and that a court injunction could be used to enforce violations.

The presentations did not satisfy many neighbors. More than a dozen residents who spoke during the meeting’s citizen‑comment period said the draft covenant and developer statements were insufficiently enforceable and that the city should prioritize resident water needs and electric reliability.

“Every Texan will pay more every year,” said Abigail Lindsay, citing reports that wholesale electricity prices have risen sharply and calling tax breaks and exemptions “a delay” in fiscal benefits to the city. “Data centers will use our water and our electricity, pollute the air with backup generators, and the tax revenue you think you might see will not be there for at least five years,” she said.

Watershed experts told council the local water picture is constrained. Zayn Porterfield of the watershed association reviewed regional planning documents and said Crystal Clear will be heavily reliant on a future Alliance pipeline expansion not expected to be available until around 2040; under current projections the district faces a negative balance of supply and demand years before then. “At the time the management plan was written, data centers were not factored into demand projections,” Porterfield said.

Other speakers raised noise and equity concerns. Resident Tori Martin testified she felt the council had not answered neighbors’ questions and called for more scrutiny of whether the project would harm adjacent neighborhoods. Saunders Ducker, an ecologist, said the center “addresses no need of the community” and warned of environmental and public‑health harms observed elsewhere.

City staff described the planning background and next steps. Senior planner Julia Clary said Planning and Zoning previously recommended denial; an August council vote favored the change but failed because code required a supermajority to overturn the commission’s recommendation. The application has been resubmitted (PSA2501 / PSA2502) and will return to Planning and Zoning for a public hearing in January, followed by two council public hearings (the first as a hearing only and a potential final reading in March).

Clary and other staff noted details that staff has received from the applicant and in a recently submitted draft restrictive covenant: a proposed 75,000‑gallon‑per‑day cap in the covenant (the applicant frames that as a reduction from the prior residential allocation), a closed‑loop cooling system for the data center, limits to impervious cover, an 80% total suspended solids (TSS) removal target for on‑site water quality facilities, a maximum site‑line sound level of 75 dB, and a proposed prohibition on warehouse/distribution uses on the parcel. Staff also listed an applicant projection of up to $1.5 billion in private investment for the site as an illustrative scenario for possible tax revenue.

Councilmembers pressed staff and the applicant for clarifications before any formal vote: where noise would be measured, whether masonry walls or other mitigation would be required, the exact redline changes to the restrictive covenant, the identity and readiness of any proposed operator, and independent verification of water‑sourcing claims. Several councilmembers asked staff to circulate a marked‑up (redlined) covenant before the next public hearing.

The project’s schedule means local officials and residents will see the application again in early 2026. Planning staff said a January PNZ hearing is planned and council hearings would follow; no final land‑use decision was made on Dec. 16.

Why this matters: the council’s decision will affect local water allocations, noise protections for nearby neighborhoods, and how San Marcos balances potential tax revenue against infrastructure and environmental risk. The project also illustrates a broader regional trend: Central Texas has seen rapid data‑center demand that places pressure on electric transmission and water supplies, issues that cross municipal boundaries and require coordination among utilities, regulators and local governments.