Whittier Council Opens Door to Moratoriums on Data Centers, Detention Facilities and Other Land Uses
- Rebecca Canales
- 3 hours ago
- 5 min read
Whittier Council Opens Door to Moratoriums on Data Centers, Detention Facilities and Other Land Uses
WHITTIER, Calif. — The Whittier City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to establish a policy direction that could lead to future moratoriums or permanent restrictions on data centers, detention and processing facilities, car washes, and massage parlors.
The August 25 vote did not immediately prohibit any of the four land uses. Instead, it directed city staff to study their potential effects, evaluate the legal and regulatory mechanisms available to the city, and return to the council with options for possible moratoriums and longer-term changes to Whittier’s land-use rules.
The motion also directed staff to consider effects on fire protection, utilities, natural gas, water, trash collection, sanitation, traffic, and the city’s wider infrastructure.
Councilmember Vicky Santana introduced the proposal following an earlier council briefing on housing and state land-use mandates.
“Last week’s briefing on housing was very sobering and a reality check to all of us that the state basically preempted our authority on land use,” Santana said. “Some of us may agree that we shouldn’t be moving forward on some of these housing developments, but our hands are tied.”
Santana said the city should act while it still has the ability to shape local development.
“I want Whittier to be proactive and not reactive about land-use regulation,” Santana said. “I think we should control what we can control as a city.”
Her proposal initially covered a broad collection of intensive land uses. The council’s discussion ultimately concentrated on four categories: data centers, detention or processing facilities, car washes, and massage parlors.
No moratorium took effect Tuesday
Although council members repeatedly used the words “moratorium” and “urgency ordinance,” the council did not adopt either one Tuesday night.
The vote instead instructed staff to return with additional analysis and options. Any actual interim land-use moratorium would require another public action by the council, including the findings required under California law.
City Manager Conal McNamara explained that an urgency ordinance would begin a legally controlled process during which city staff would study the affected land uses and develop possible permanent regulations.
Under California Government Code Section 65858, an interim land-use ordinance generally requires approval by four-fifths of the council. It initially remains in effect for 45 days. Following required notice and a public hearing, it may be extended, but the total period ordinarily cannot exceed two years.
McNamara said the city would have to determine how much the work would cost, how long the necessary studies would take, and what environmental review might be required.
“These are the things you want us to study and analyze, and we need to come back to you and tell you, okay, it’s going to take this long, it’s going to cost this much,” McNamara said.
Mayor James Becerra described Tuesday’s action as an initial step.
“This is the beginning of the beginning, and I think it’s a very good beginning,” Becerra said.
Federal and state authority could limit city action
The discussion also exposed the difference between what council members may want to prevent and what the city can legally prohibit.
City Attorney Keith Collins said a local moratorium could not override a binding state requirement.
“When the state has a mandate — a law, a ‘city shall’ — then we can’t circumvent that with a moratorium,” Collins said.
That limitation is important because Santana introduced her proposal partly in response to state housing laws that restrict local discretion over residential development. Those laws have not eliminated all municipal land-use authority, but they have prevented cities from using some traditional zoning powers to block or reduce housing.
The federal question is different.
Asked what would happen if the federal government sought to require a facility, Collins said he could not identify an apparent mechanism through which Washington could compel the City of Whittier itself to open one.
“I would be shocked if the federal government came in and mandated that the city open one of those institutions,” Collins said.
He cautioned, however, that a city moratorium would remain controlling only until a court determined that federal law preempted the city’s action.
The discussion did not establish that Whittier could prevent the federal government from operating on federal property. Nor did the council identify any current federal or private proposal to construct an immigration detention center, processing facility, or data center in Whittier.
Pacheco raises concern about possible ICE facility
Mayor Pro Tem Mary Ann Pacheco said she wanted detention centers included because she was concerned that federal immigration authorities could seek to use one of the city’s larger properties.
“I wanted to get the detention centers on there because I’m particularly concerned about ICE deciding to use one of our large properties and to have a detention center there,” Pacheco said.
Pacheco emphasized that she was not attempting to delay the city’s response.
“It was never my intent, never my intent to postpone or to put the brakes on this,” she said. “I told you from the very beginning that I support a moratorium.”
No evidence was presented during the discussion that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is currently considering a Whittier property. The council’s action was preventive and prospective rather than a response to a pending application.
That distinction matters because Whittier is a largely developed city with little vacant land available for facilities requiring large parcels. A major detention facility or data center could require the reuse of an existing commercial, industrial, institutional, or residential property.
Water and infrastructure enter the debate
Councilmember Cathy Warner asked that the city’s analysis reach beyond zoning classifications and examine the cumulative ability of Whittier’s infrastructure to support additional development.
Warner raised questions about fire protection, water, electricity, natural gas, sanitation, traffic, development-impact fees, and whether utility providers could continue issuing “will serve” letters as development intensifies.
Staff cautioned that the city’s authority would depend upon the particular project and the state or federal law governing it.
The infrastructure discussion could become especially important for data centers, which can require substantial electricity and water resources. Whittier also operates its own municipal water system in parts of the city, although the extent to which it could deny or condition service would depend on the project, location, existing law, and the city’s service obligations.
Santana said infrastructure criteria could ultimately be incorporated into Whittier’s General Plan and specific plans to support longer-term restrictions.
She said the purpose of a temporary moratorium would be to give the city time to study those questions and revise its development regulations.
Four land uses remain in the process
Some council members initially favored concentrating on only data centers, detention facilities, and car washes, arguing that massage businesses raised different regulatory issues. The council discussed separating the subjects for individual votes.
The final motion, however, retained all four categories.
City staff may return with the subjects at different times rather than presenting one combined ordinance. Each proposed moratorium will require its own supporting analysis, including whether the city can establish a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare sufficient to justify interim restrictions.
The final motion was made by Santana and seconded by Councilmember Aida Macedo. Santana, Macedo, Warner, Pacheco, and Becerra voted in favor.
The unanimous vote records the council’s shared interest in examining all four land uses, but it does not guarantee that every council member will support every moratorium when specific ordinances return.
Tuesday night’s decision therefore begins the process rather than settling it. The next consequential step will come when city staff returns with the legal findings, costs, timelines, and proposed mechanisms needed to turn the council’s policy position into enforceable law.
Comments