Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council amends and adopts ban on hyperscale data centers after technical fixes; final vote 6–1
Summary
Council debated and amended an ordinance to prohibit hyperscale data centers in Longmont, adopted definitional clarifications and aggregation language, and passed the ordinance 6–1. Public commenters raised concerns about water use, energy demand and surveillance; supporters argued the city should set guardrails.
Longmont City Council on June 9 approved an amended ordinance that prohibits hyperscale data centers in the city, after adopting three technical clarifications to the definition and enforcement language.
Council member Popkin, who led the proposal, summarized the intent before the public hearing: the ordinance defines "hyperscale data centers" as facilities with a projected peak electrical demand "equal to or greater than 5% of Platte River Power Authority's nameplate capacity or 100 megawatts, whichever is lower." Popkin said the goal was to set a floor and provide guardrails. "I proposed this ban because I'd rather us be proactive here to set the terms and not reactive," he said.
Public comment was strongly mixed. Diana Chavez, a Princess Drive resident, told council she was "adamantly opposed" to large data centers because of water, privacy and environmental concerns; Meg Thornberry urged the city to make water the priority in any regulation and to include retroactive enforcement language. Residents and advocacy groups asked council to consider cumulative impacts, noise and potential workarounds such as multiple smaller sites serving the same end user.
Council members and staff discussed enforcement and aggregation. Staff explained that because the change is to the land development code (Title 15), projects that conflict with the ordinance would not receive development approval; staff also said existing enforcement provisions in Title 15 would apply and that utilities could be disconnected for violations in the extreme. Council approved three clarifying amendments — replacing an incorrectly worded phrase with "equal to or greater than," referencing the definition rather than a fixed megawatt number in a secondary clause, and adding factors for determining aggregated or coordinated operations (same owner or end user, connected or adjacent parcels, same point of interconnection).
After amendment votes, council passed the ordinance as amended with a 6–1 vote; the record shows Council member Christ opposed the measure. Supporters said the ban is intended to prevent disproportionate stress on local energy and water systems while staff work on rules for smaller facilities; critics urged more study and said the city should avoid unintended economic consequences.
Next steps: the ordinance as amended is on the books; staff and advisory boards will continue work on standards for non‑hyperscale facilities, water and noise considerations, and public education so residents and businesses understand the change.
