What's Really Being Built? The Roseville Data Center Debate and Why Communities Are Starting to Say No

Roseville residents are asking a simple question: Why is the city writing environmental reports for a data center that hasn’t been formally proposed yet? It all started when developer Panattoni signed a deal in 2021 to build a mixed-use development on 240 acres of city-owned land on Phillip Road. The project includes housing, retail, and something called an“innovation center”—a term that’s sparked intense debate because nobody can quite define what it means. The draft environmental report published in February 2026 includes a scenario for a 30-megawatt data center with 15 diesel backup generators and consumption of 538 acre-feet of recycled water annually. No tenant’s been identified. No formal proposal has been submitted. Yet the review assumes this worst-case scenario anyway.

This vocabulary problem isn’t unique to Roseville. Tech companies across the country are using terms like“innovation centers,”“specialized industrial parks,”and“AI facilities”to describe what are essentially massive data centers. And communities are starting to notice. Over 70 cities and counties now restrict data centers. Monterey Park became the first city to ban them entirely through a voter referendum, with 86% approval. The backlash is driven by legitimate concerns: power demand strains local grids, water consumption drains municipal supplies, diesel generators create air pollution, and property values often take a hit. Panattoni itself launched a data center division in 2024 and operates global facilities ranging from 100 megawatts to over 1 gigawatt. A 30-megawatt facility would be relatively modest for them.

Residents like Rachel Davis and Josh Hickson aren’t against growth or development. They’re asking for transparency. They want to know what’s actually being planned, not after environmental reviews assume it, but before decisions are locked in. The city says a hyperscale data center isn’t possible due to local grid limitations, but a 30-megawatt facility could operate under the proposed zoning. That’s exactly why residents want clarity now. Do you think communities should require full transparency about facility type before environmental review even begins?