Boulder City planning panel votes on whether to advance 88.5‑acre data‑center proposal after hours of public comment

The Boulder City Planning Commission on May 20 heard hours of public comment and a detailed presentation by Townsite Solar 2’s proponents before voting on whether to advance an 88.5‑acre parcel for potential data‑center use through the city’s land‑management process.

The item under consideration was the addition of a parcel at the southwest corner of I‑11 and U.S. 95 to the city’s Land Management Process (LMP), a procedural list that the city uses to evaluate leasing or sale of public land. Deputy City Manager Michael Mays told the commission that inclusion on the LMP list is a first step only, does not confer development rights, and that any lease or zoning changes would require later city‑council action and supporting approvals.

More than three hours of residents, medical and public‑safety professionals, small‑business owners and candidates took the microphone in opposition. Speakers repeatedly cited current Colorado River shortage restrictions, concern about long‑term water use and wastewater management, the potential for higher electric rates if new demand competes on wholesale markets, and effects on wildlife and the town’s tourism‑oriented character. “Please vote no on advancing this project,” resident Amanda Nuckols said during early public comment, arguing the 170‑megawatt figure for the facility and the 88.5‑acre footprint represented an industrial scale inappropriate for the area.

Medical and public‑health speakers framed the choice as a health decision as well as a land‑use question. Jocelyn Lazaro, a family nurse practitioner who called in, said Southern Nevada is under tier‑1 Colorado River shortage restrictions and warned that data centers’ water use can be “difficult to comprehend,” citing large water draws reported for some national facilities.

Proponents of the Townsite Solar 2 project — represented in the hearing by Gerald Balboa, chief operating officer for Skyler Opportunities, and Rick Lammers, project manager — described technical changes they said were intended to reduce impacts. Lammers said the proposal had pivoted from evaporative cooling to a 100% air‑cooled, closed‑loop design and estimated a one‑time fill of roughly 400,000 gallons for system startup and ongoing potable‑water needs limited to restroom and domestic uses (he characterized ongoing use as comparable to roughly 10 residences, about 2,000 gallons per day). He also said the project holds a firm 230‑kV transmission agreement into the Mead Substation and that the applicant has paid for interconnection costs.

The proponent team presented projected economic benefits — including appraisal‑based lease revenues and long‑term tax base estimates — and said the site could generate meaningful revenue for the city over a multidecade lease. Union representatives and a handful of residents also testified in favor, citing jobs and economic opportunity.

Commissioners pressed the applicants on several technical points — including water replacement and treatment, the frequency and chemical composition of ‘blowdowns’ from cooling systems, diesel backup generator noise and fuel storage, and the distinction between firm bilateral power contracts and spot‑market purchases. Independent residents and technical commenters raised conflicting numbers in different sections of the applicant packet and asked for clearer documentation.

After closing the public hearing, commissioners discussed the limited scope of the LMP vote — whether the parcel should be added to the LMP list — and noted the city could negotiate contract terms, performance bonds or other protections should a lease proceed. The commission then voted on a motion related to the LMP listing (the vote was framed in the meeting as a procedural determination rather than project approval). The motion carried on the record; the LMP process (and any eventual lease or zoning changes) would proceed to the city council for further consideration and contract negotiation.

What happens next: inclusion on the LMP list does not authorize construction or change zoning. If the parcel remains on the list, any lease proposal would require appraisals, council approval, and additional permitting and environmental review. Multiple residents said they plan to continue organizing and to press the City Council to reject any lease or to require strict contractual safeguards.

Authorities referenced: City code and the city charter sections governing the Land Management Process (as described by the deputy city manager), and the planning packet materials submitted by Townsite Solar 2 (presented at the meeting). The planning commission emphasized its role as a recommending body and that final decisions, lease negotiations and any zoning amendments would be decided by the city council or through subsequent permitting steps.

The commission then moved on to other agenda items.