Guest Opinion: William Paparian | Why Pasadena Must Ban Data Centers: A Former Mayor’s Call

As the former Mayor of Pasadena and longtime Councilmember for East Pasadena, I have spent decades fighting to preserve our city’s unique character, protect our resources, and promote responsible growth. Today, that responsibility demands we take a firm stand: Pasadena should enact an outright ban on data centers.

The July 8 Planning Commission study session made the urgency unmistakable. Commissioners and residents raised sharp alarms over massive power and water demands. One commissioner invoked the old Western line: “Whiskey’s for drinking and water’s for fighting over.” City staff confirmed that even a single 10-megawatt data center — on the smaller end of the scale — would consume as much electricity as 8,000 Pasadena households per year and drink water comparable to the annual needs of 120 households. Larger hyperscale facilities would multiply those impacts dramatically.

Pasadena has long prided itself on thoughtful leadership — whether in historic preservation, arts and culture, or fostering responsible innovation near Caltech and the 210 Technology Corridor.

As the San Gabriel Valley grapples with the explosive growth of artificial intelligence infrastructure, our city now faces a defining choice: Will we lead by protecting what makes Pasadena livable, or will we follow a national rush that risks overburdening our finite resources?

Data centers are not abstract tech gadgets. They are industrial-scale facilities that run 24/7 at near-full capacity to support cloud computing and AI. A single 50-megawatt hyperscale project — one that developers are already quietly inquiring about in Pasadena — could consume a significant portion of our constrained electrical import capacity (limited to 280 megawatts), according to Pasadena Water & Power data. That is the equivalent of powering tens of thousands of homes or electric vehicles. Our peak demand already strains the system. Adding such a load without massive and expensive upgrades would almost certainly raise rates for every resident and business while jeopardizing our ambitious 2030 carbon-free energy goals.

Water usage adds another critical concern. Depending on cooling methods and facility size, a data center’s annual water consumption can be substantial.

In East Pasadena neighborhoods already focused on conservation and drought resilience, diverting that volume of water to industrial cooling is unacceptable.

I am not anti-technology. Pasadena’s Bradley Street project — Amazon’s quantum computing R&D expansion — represents exactly the kind of high-value, lower-impact innovation we should welcome. It fits comfortably within our existing East Pasadena Specific Plan zoning for research laboratories and offices. Traditional hyperscale data centers are fundamentally different: they are energy- and water-intensive industrial operations masquerading as “tech.”

Our zoning code currently contains no definition for data centers, meaning they are technically not permitted anywhere in the city. At the July 8 session, staff presented a draft definition that would classify a “general” data center as any facility of one megawatt or more, using more than 50 gallons of water per minute on an annualized basis, or sitting on one acre or more. Chair Lambert Giessinger asked staff to return with something concrete. But this narrow focus on definitions is not enough. It is not a loophole to close with half-measures — it is an opportunity to draw a firm line with an outright ban.

Community Benefits of an Outright Ban

A ban would deliver clear, tangible benefits to Pasadena residents:

• Shield every household and small business from potential rate increases and reliability risks by protecting our constrained electrical import capacity.
• Preserve precious water for families, parks, and small businesses instead of massive server farms.
• Keep the 210 Technology Corridor focused on high-value R&D that creates skilled local jobs rather than low-employment industrial warehouses.
• Prevent noise, diesel generator pollution, air quality degradation, and visual blight in a community that values livability above all.

Critics will argue that smart regulation — tiered definitions, location restrictions, and infrastructure cost-sharing — is the better path. State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez’s legislation addressing diesel backups and cost accountability is welcome. Yet history shows that once deep-pocketed developers arrive, enforcement lags and compromises multiply. Monterey Park recognized this reality and became the first city in California to declare data centers a public nuisance and enact a permanent ban. Pasadena can and should lead.

An outright ban would send a clear message that we value balanced, responsible growth over speculative industrial uses. It would protect ratepayers, preserve space in our tech corridor for true innovation, and allow us to focus on housing, small businesses, and infrastructure that actually serve residents. Far from being anti-progress, this demonstrates the foresight that has always distinguished Pasadena: we innovate responsibly, not reactively.

The time to act is now. City Council committees have begun the conversation, and the Planning Commission’s July 8 study session shows the public is engaged. I urge every resident to attend upcoming meetings, submit public comment, and contact your Councilmembers. Tell them: Follow Monterey Park’s lead. Choose people over power plants. Let Pasadena lead by protecting what matters most.

Pasadena deserves better than becoming another dot on the map of AI’s resource hunger. Let’s lead by saying no to data centers — and yes to a future that puts people first.

William Paparian is a former Mayor of Pasadena and longtime advocate for professional law enforcement training and accountability.