Whittier council to consider land-use moratoria and ICE-response policies tonight
The Whittier City Council is scheduled to consider temporary restrictions on data centers, detention facilities, car washes and massage establishments Tonight, alongside a separate review of how city employees respond to federal immigration enforcement.
The October 27 meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 13230 Penn Street. The proposals remain pending council action.
The detention-facility proposal raises a question about the limits of local authority: how far can Whittier regulate detention-related land uses without interfering with federal immigration operations? The separate ICE-response item concerns city facilities, records and employee procedures.
The proposed zoning restrictions would apply within the City of Whittier. Los Angeles County governs land use in unincorporated South Whittier and in West Whittier/Los Nietos.
Under agenda item 9.A, staff recommends four urgency ordinances intended to give the city time to study land-use impacts and consider longer-term regulations.
The staff report describes an initial 45-day period.
Adoption would require a four-fifths council vote, and the ordinances would take effect immediately if approved. Extensions would require additional action and could bring the total moratorium period to as much as two years.
The data-center draft cites electrical demand, cooling and water needs, backup generators and round-the-clock operations. Its definition extends beyond facilities devoted exclusively to artificial intelligence, encompassing server farms, cryptocurrency mining, blockchain processing and related equipment and structures.
The detention draft would temporarily prohibit the establishment, expansion or intensification of detention facilities throughout the city. It defines those facilities broadly as publicly or privately owned or operated facilities primarily used to house people involuntarily. Its wording is not limited to immigration detention.
For car washes, the draft cites concerns that overconcentration could affect traffic, utilities and infrastructure.
The massage-establishment draft cites investigations and enforcement actions involving alleged illicit sexual activity, suspected prostitution, potential trafficking and associated public-safety concerns at certain establishments.
Those statements describe the city’s rationale for reviewing its regulations; they do not establish wrongdoing by every massage business.
According to the staff report, existing businesses could continue operating without expansion or intensification, and changes in ownership or operators would not be affected. Staff also says existing applications could continue to be processed at an applicant’s request, although approvals would be restricted.
The draft ordinances use broader wording barring city departments from accepting, processing, approving or issuing permits and other approvals for establishment, expansion or operation. How that language would accommodate the exceptions described in the staff report is a point for clarification at the hearing.
The report identifies no immediate fiscal impact, but says future studies, consultants, code amendments and hearings could require significant financial resources.
Federal court decisions show why the detention proposal presents an additional legal question.
In GEO Group v. Newsom, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that California could not use its private-detention ban to override the federal government’s decision to rely on private contractors for immigration detention. The court found that level of control incompatible with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
That ruling does not mean federal contractors are exempt from every state or local regulation. In a separate 2025 Washington case, GEO Group v. Inslee, the Ninth Circuit distinguished detention-condition regulations from a prohibition on federal detention operations. Further review has been requested in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Those cases concern different laws. They do not decide the validity of Whittier’s proposed ordinance. They do, however, identify a legal issue for the city: whether and how its restriction could apply to federal immigration detention without unlawfully controlling federal operations.
Under item 10.B, the council will review Senate Bill 580 and the California attorney general’s model policies for state and local agencies.
The attorney general’s July 2026 guidance says agencies must adopt the model policies, or equivalent policies, by January 1, 2027.
City Attorney Keith Collins states in his report that Whittier already complies through its existing policy. Council members could retain that approach, add provisions, adopt the model policy in full or direct staff to adapt portions of it.
The subjects include access to public and nonpublic areas of city facilities, requests for personal information and records, city databases and vendor-managed systems, employee training, documentation and legal review.
The packet also includes existing city procedures addressing responses to ICE’s presence, employee shelter-in-place measures during nearby immigration enforcement and communications with the council.
The attorney general’s guidance distinguishes limits on voluntary local assistance from interference with federal officers. It expressly says agency personnel should not physically interfere with federal agents or provide false information to officers acting within their lawful authority.
The practical question is what city personnel should do when federal authorities seek access or information, and when a request requires legal review.
Item 10.C concerns previously authorized assistance through the Hispanic Outreach Taskforce and Interfaith Food Center.
City Manager Conal McNamara’s report says the council approved up to $130,000 in August 2025, divided equally between the organizations, to help families experiencing hardship linked to immigration enforcement.
An additional $50,000 was allocated to HOT for support involving community organizations and legal-aid groups assisting residents with immigration documents and applications. According to the report, that additional money had not yet been provided to HOT, with disbursement understood to follow spending down its initial $65,000.
The report includes program updates from both organizations. The recommended action is to receive and file the review; the item is not presented as a request for a new appropriation.
Residents can attend at City Hall or participate through Zoom. Telephone access is available at 669-900-9128, meeting ID 956 7659 7390.
The agenda limits spoken public comments to two minutes. Email comments should be sent to ccd@cityofwhittier.org at least one hour before the meeting—by 5 p.m. Tuesday—to allow council members time to review them.
The land-use proposals are scheduled as a public hearing. The ICE-response and relief-funding reviews appear as separate staff-report items.
Learn More
October 27 agenda and participation instructions
Land-use moratoria staff report and draft ordinances
ICE-response report and existing city procedures
HOT and IFC relief-funding review
California attorney general’s SB 580 guidance.
GEO Group v. Newsom, 2022 opinion and GEO Group v. Inslee, 2025 opinion
Supreme Court docket for the pending review petition.
Comments