You heard a data center is coming. Here is what that actually means.

A typical hyperscale data center can use anywhere from 100,000 to several million gallons of water per day for cooling, depending on size, climate, and cooling technology. Water-cooled facilities use more than air-cooled. Closed-loop systems recirculate. Direct-to-chip and immersion cooling can lower the total. LSARS surfaces the disclosed water use per project, the source (potable, recycled, non-potable), and the impact on local utility capacity, so the question gets a sourced answer instead of a developer talking point.

A single hyperscale campus typically draws between 100 and 1,000 megawatts continuously, comparable to a medium-sized city. AI training workloads push the upper end. The electricity has to come from somewhere, which means new grid expansion, new transmission lines, or new generation. LSARS tracks disclosed load against local grid capacity and shows the modeled impact on rate base and reliability.

Cooling fans, transformers, and backup generators are the primary noise sources. Sound can travel 1,500 feet to over half a mile depending on terrain, foliage, building geometry, and wind direction. Backup generators on monthly load tests can produce 80 to 100 decibels at the property line. LSARS includes a noise propagation model in the zone of impact report so you can see whether your home, school, or business falls inside the audible footprint.

Data centers use significant water for cooling and significant electricity for compute. Whether your bills go up depends on local utility rate structures, the project water sourcing plan (potable, recycled, or non-potable), and whether the local grid needs expansion to serve the load. LSARS tracks the disclosed water and energy use per project and compares it against your local utility capacity, so you can ask informed questions at the public hearing.

A typical large data center campus runs dozens to hundreds of Tier 2 or Tier 4 diesel generators for backup power. Each generator emits nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other pollutants when it runs for testing or actual outages. LSARS calculates the cumulative emissions and the cancer risk they add for the people living and working nearby, using EPA AirToxScreen and California OEHHA methods. The numbers are sourced and traceable, not summarized by the developer.

Distance matters. Wind direction matters. Stack height matters. LSARS produces a zone of impact map for every permit application, showing where modeled emissions are predicted to reach and at what concentrations. If a school, hospital, or sensitive receptor falls inside the zone of impact, the report says so, with the calculation method cited.

In most cases the routine operations of a data center pose limited direct health risk to nearby residents. The real questions are about cumulative emissions from backup generator testing, water and air quality changes, noise, and traffic during construction. LSARS produces a project-specific risk profile that names the actual exposures, the magnitudes, and the populations affected, instead of generic reassurance.

Because most of the technical environmental review happens after the zoning vote, not before it. By the time the air permit is contested, the construction crew is already under contract. LSARS exists to put the data on the table before the vote. The Community Impact Brief shows what is known, what is missing, and what questions need more detail, so your council can ask the right questions and you can hold them to specific commitments.

Promises about jobs, infrastructure investment, road improvements, green space, and water usage rarely get tracked publicly after approval. LSARS tracks committed benefits against actual delivery on a public dashboard, so you can see what was promised and what has actually been done, with citations to the original commitment documents.

LSARS is paid for by permit applicants but the analysis follows EPA and California OEHHA published methods. The developer cannot change the numbers. Your council and your community see the same report at the same time. Think of it as an independent audit of the project, not a developer brochure.

You may not need to stop it. You may need to shape it. Communities that go straight to opposition often lose the political fight; communities that arrive at the public hearing with specific, sourced data and specific, named conditions tend to get either a better project or a defensible no. The questions on this page are designed to give you the data. The next step is the council meeting and the entitlement conditions. If the project genuinely cannot be made safe at this site, the same data is what supports a referendum or legal challenge later.

A focused list of questions that name specific impacts: total generator emissions, water sourcing, school proximity, noise propagation, traffic studies, post-approval benefit tracking. We publish a printable list. Bringing specific questions changes the conversation from a yes-or-no zoning vote into a discussion about conditions and accountability.