Solis moves to ban AI-scale data centers in unincorporated areas
Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda L. Solis (D-Downtown LA, East LA, Boyle Heights, El Monte, West Covina, Pomona) will ask the Board of Supervisors today to permanently ban large-scale data centers, including the hyperscale facilities that power artificial intelligence, in every zone of unincorporated Los Angeles County.
The motion directs the Department of Regional Planning, working with Public Health, the Fire Department and other agencies, to draft a zoning code amendment and environmental review that define data centers by acreage, square footage, energy use and water consumption. Hyperscale and AI data centers would be banned. Smaller enterprise, accessory and sole-source data centers used for everyday computing would remain allowed.
Public Health would also study rules for the low-frequency, continuous noise the facilities produce, and county officials would be ready to impose a moratorium if a project posing an immediate threat surfaces before the ordinance is done.
“Given the pressing concerns to immediately prevent the environmental and health effects of data centers powering AI from impacting unincorporated County residents, it is imperative that the Board of Supervisors act on the recommendations to prohibit these facilities expediently,” the motion states.
Today’s vote would make permanent a temporary ban that Regional Planning Director Amy Bodek ordered Sept. 17, following a Solis motion the Board approved unanimously in April. The county ban covers only unincorporated areas, home to about 1 million residents. Cities set their own rules, and El Monte and Baldwin Park have already approved yearlong bans of their own. Resident opposition has centered on the San Gabriel Valley, including a proposed 218,400-square-foot data center in the City of Industry.
The push comes as the county’s own policy on using artificial intelligence stalls. The Board continued its proposed AI policy to Nov. 10 at Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell‘s request.
Barger, Horvath put county lawyers on state fire report
Los Angeles County Supervisors Kathryn Barger (R-Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge) and Lindsey P. Horvath (D-Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Calabasas, Malibu, Pacoima) will ask the Board today to have County Counsel, the county’s lawyers, lead its review of the new state-commissioned report on the January 2025 fires.
The motion directs County Counsel, working with the Fire Chief, the Office of Emergency Management, the CEO, the Sheriff and Public Works, to deliver a written analysis within seven days. It would identify where the report’s recommendations overlap with the McChrystal Group’s after-action reports and the Citygate Associates investigation, which recommendations are new, and what the county can do right away.
The 724-page report by UL Research Institutes’ Fire Safety Research Institute, commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom, found that critical warnings from paramedics in west Altadena never reached incident commanders during the Eaton Fire. As State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez noted Monday, the historically Black and brown neighborhood went hours without evacuation orders and suffered 18 of the fire’s 19 deaths.
The motion puts County Counsel, rather than the Fire Department or the Office of Emergency Management, in charge of the review. The county is suing Southern California Edison over the Eaton Fire, while Edison has filed cross-complaints accusing the county’s Fire Department and Office of Emergency Management of failing to warn residents in time.
The family of Stacey Darden, who died in west Altadena, has separately sued Edison and Genasys, the company that supplied the county’s emergency alert software, alleging its preset alert zones left most of the neighborhood out of the initial warnings.
If approved, County Counsel’s analysis would be due to the Board around Oct. 13.
Hahn, Mitchell push to bring Hug Act to juvenile halls
Los Angeles County Supervisors Janice Hahn (D-Long Beach, San Pedro, Torrance, Redondo Beach, Whittier, Diamond Bar) and Holly J. Mitchell (D-Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Compton, Carson) will ask the Board today to make sure county juvenile facilities are ready to give incarcerated youth the right to hug their loved ones when the new Hug Act takes effect Jan. 1.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1646 over the weekend. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City, Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, Ladera Heights, Mar Vista) authored the legislation, which requires juvenile facilities statewide to allow youth physical contact with visitors, subject to reasonable safety rules. It grew out of a poster made by youth at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, whose list of requests ended with a wish to hug their moms.
“Every time I visit Los Padrinos I am reminded just how young the youth in our custody are. We have a long way to go to fix our juvenile system, but establishing the right of these young people to hug their loved ones is one small way we can bring some humanity back in,” said Hahn.
The motion directs the Probation Department to drop its requirement that the chief probation officer approve contact visits in advance, and to confirm that contact will not be restricted as discipline.
Youth who decline a contact visit could not be penalized on future visits. Probation would ramp up contact visits through the end of the year, notify families of their rights in writing, and report on compliance through January 2028, including how often contact is restricted and why.
Whitesides bill bars chatbots from posing as kids’ friends
U.S. Rep. George Whitesides (D-Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Lancaster) introduced bipartisan legislation that would bar AI chatbots from acting human with minors by default, including claiming to have feelings or using relationship-building language to keep kids engaged.
The Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act, co-led by Reps. Mike Kennedy (R-UT), Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento County) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), targets how chatbots are designed rather than restricting access. Chatbots couldn’t claim to be human or pose as doctors or counselors, guilt-trip kids into staying online, or be talked out of the rules through roleplay. They’d have to disclose that they’re AI up front and periodically. Only a parent could turn the protections off.
“As a father of two teenagers, I’ve seen firsthand how affected our kids already are by this digital age, where corporations are using everything from addictive algorithms to overly-friendly chatbots to keep children hooked on their platforms,” said Whitesides.
The bill wouldn’t require age verification or restrict adult use, and narrow tools like customer service bots would be exempt. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would develop testing standards with industry, and the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general could enforce the law, with penalties scaled to the number of children affected.
Eighty-nine percent of 13- to 15-year-olds now use AI, and 28% use it every day, according to Common Sense Media.
