Measure DB, Alhambra

The stakes

Alhambra is about to ban data centers for the second time this year. The Council did it first: Ordinance O2M26-4863, adopted June 22, 2026, defines “Data Centers” and bars them citywide, by listing them as prohibited in some zones and leaving them off the permitted list everywhere else.^{Note 3}

Therefore, Measure DB changes nothing a resident can see as part of their ordinary day. If it passes, data centers stay banned.^{Note 5} If it fails, the Council’s ban “would remain in place unless and until changed by the City Council,” in the City Attorney’s words.^{Note 6}

Alhambra already has what the project’s structural engineer calls a data center: Southern California Edison’s 62,000-square-foot building, which that firm says will house operations processing the utility’s “daily functions, including the management and delivery of electrical power to its customers”.^{Note 7} Neither the measure nor any City document the research read mentions it.^{Note 8} The zoning code lets a use that was lawful before the rules changed continue, unaltered, unless it stops for 12 months; growing takes a Planning Commission permit, and only inside its existing building.^{Note 9} I found no City document saying whether Edison’s building counts as a data center, or how that rule applies to it.^{Note 10}

What the vote decides is who holds the key. A yes vote makes the ban an ordinance of the voters, which the City Attorney’s impartial analysis says “could be amended or repealed only by the voters”.^{Note 2} A no vote leaves the ban with the Council, which could change it later.^{Note 6,Note 11}

What changes

The ballot question asks whether to adopt an ordinance “affirming the Council adopted ban” by amending the Municipal Code “to again define” data centers and prohibit them in all zones.^{Note 1} The measure adds one sentence to the definition in Municipal Code section 23.43.050: “Data Centers are prohibited in all zones of the City.” Every other word repeats the definition the Council adopted in June.^{Note 5}

It amends the Municipal Code, not the City Charter, and that affects how firm the lock is.^{Note 12} Alhambra’s Charter is its local constitution, and under the state constitution a charter is changed the way it is adopted, by majority vote of the city’s voters.^{Note 12,Note 13} The Code holds ordinary city law, which the Council amends.^{Note 11} In the Code, the lock rests instead on the City’s position, below.^{Note 2,Note 14}

The definition of a data center here covers facilities “used primarily for analyzing, processing, storing, converting, transmitting, distributing, and managing electronic data for on-site or off-site use”.^{Note 15} It excludes data facilities that are “incidental to another primary use” and “strictly for the purposes of supporting the on-site operations of the primary use”.^{Note 15} In plain terms, a server room that is a side part of a business and serves only that business on the same site is not a data center.^{Note 15}

How it works

The Council placed DB on the ballot itself, by Ordinance O2M26-4868 on July 27.^{Note 4} It needs a simple majority, 50 percent plus one, and if it passes it is adopted as an ordinance of the people.^{Note 16}

The impartial analysis, the City’s FAQ and its September 10 press release all say only voters could change the ban afterward, and the last two call it “permanent”.^{Note 2,Note 17} That is the City’s position, not a court ruling: the analysis cites no rule for it, and the ordinance has no clause saying so.^{Note 2,Note 18} The nearest state rule, Elections Code section 9217, is written for ordinances “adopted by the voters,” and whether it reaches a measure the Council placed on the ballot itself is a question the research leaves open.^{Note 14}

What it costs, or the tradeoff

DB is not a tax.^{Note 19} Its election cost is not broken out: the July 27 staff report puts the whole city election, two measures and three Council seats, at $394,317; the July 14 estimate differs.^{Note 20}

No City document the research read projects lost tax revenue or jobs, and the adopted and adjusted budgets never mention data centers.^{Note 21} The argument for DB says data centers “pay minimal taxes and create few local jobs as they require few onsite workers,” and gives no figure.^{Note 22}

The strongest complication

The argument for DB is signed by the whole council, Jeffrey Maloney, Adele Andrade-Stadler, Ross Maza, Noya Wang and Katherine Lee, and no argument against it was submitted, so the ballot carries no rebuttals.^{Note 4,Note 23} That leaves the scrutiny to the reader.

First, the definition. It sets no megawatt, square-foot, or rack-count threshold, so the only exception to it is the “incidental” carve-out, and nothing in the text says how large “incidental” can get.^{Note 15} On a plain reading, the research’s and not a legal ruling, a hospital or school server room that serves only its own site is likely exempt, but a room that serves other sites, such as a school district’s central IT for many campuses, falls outside the carve-out whatever its size.^{Note 24}

Second, the evidence. The argument rests on water, air, power and noise: data centers “can use millions of gallons of water,” need “massive backup generators which can pollute our air,” add “stress to the power grid,” and run cooling systems “day and night”.^{Note 25} It gives no Alhambra figure, and the Council packet pages read for the research contain no local study.^{Note 25} Los Angeles County’s August 17 report, written for unincorporated areas, puts a hyperscale facility’s water use, with evaporative cooling, at up to 5 million gallons a day, without a source for the figure, and, citing a UC Riverside study, says 94 to 95 percent of data center water consumption in California comes from generating their electricity, not from the site.^{Note 26} The same report says, without a source, that traditional data centers, unlike hyperscale ones, “do not generate excess noise, impact air quality, or require new energy infrastructure”; Alhambra’s definition draws no size line between the two.^{Note 15,Note 27} Backup generators already face limits: the regional air district caps a new emergency diesel generator’s maintenance and testing at 50 hours a year.^{Note 28}

Third, the alternative. For its unincorporated areas, the County’s staff recommended banning hyperscale data centers, the largest kind, while regulating smaller ones through zoning.^{Note 29} After a yes vote, by the City’s reading, only voters could trade Alhambra’s ban for rules like the County’s.^{Note 2}

Where I land

This is my opinion, and I have not decided how to vote. The standard I am applying: does moving control of this ban from the Council to voters protect residents more than it costs the city’s ability to fix the rules? I can relate to the overwhelming social consensus on the pitfalls of the current generation of data centers: their resource-intensive requirements, eyesores, and minimal benefits to the local communities. But technology is moving fast. There is already a ban in place which allows for the Council to be nimble and make changes if needed.^{Note 3,Note 11} Of course, this is a double-edged sword and they could reverse the ban as easily as they passed it.^{Note 11} Regardless of whether the measure passes or not, understanding the long-term downstream effects on possible opportunities shouldn’t be overlooked.

The council members’ argument is that data centers are already banned and a yes vote makes that ban harder to undo.^{Note 30} Monterey Park’s voters passed their own ban in June with 88 percent of the vote.^{Note 31} What gives me pause is locking in a definition with no size limit, as supported by the County’s report on data centers, and an exemption nobody has tested.^{Note 15,Note 24,Note 27}

What would move me to yes: evidence that the Council’s ban is under real pressure to be reversed, or clearer language from the City on which server rooms, like a school district’s, the exemption covers, so businesses already operating in the City face no downstream effects.

What would move me to no: a City answer that the definition catches Edison’s building, or a hospital, school, or business like it, because after a yes vote only another election could fix it.

What I will watch

The mailed sample ballot booklet’s text, against the county’s electronic copy.^{Note 32} The City’s answer on Edison’s building.^{Note 10} Vote centers opened October 24 for the November 3 election.^{Note 4,Note 33}