Agenda — Monterey Park City Council, October 2, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

CITY COUNCIL OF MONTEREY PARK

THE CITY COUNCIL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE MONTEREY PARK FINANCING

AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PARK GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONTEREY PARK CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
320 W. NEWMARK AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754

Wednesday
October 2, 2024
6:30 p.m.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and the City’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-17.

The public may watch the meeting live on the city’s cable channel MPKTV (AT&T U -verse, channel 99 or Charter Communications, channel 182) or by visiting the city’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos. Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call City Hall at (626) 307- 1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
You may speak up to 5 minutes on an/each Agenda item. You may combine up to 2 minutes of time with another person’s speaking. No person may speak more than a total of 10 minutes. The Mayor and City Council may change the amount of time allowed for speakers. Written Communication will be accepted up to 24 hours before the meeting via email to [email protected] or by completing an online form at www.montereypark.ca.gov/writtencomm.

While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow the City Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council may briefly respond to comments after Public Communications is closed. Persons may, in addition to any other matter within the City Council's subject-matter jurisdiction, comment on Agenda Items at this time. If you provide public comment on a specific Agenda item at this time, however, you cannot later provide comments at the time the Agenda Item is considered.

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño- Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Page 1 of 792 ends

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, October 2, 2024 - Page 2

CALL TO ORDER Mayor
FLAG SALUTE The Monterey Park Fire Explorer
ROLL CALL Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Yvonne Yiu

AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, CHANGES AND ADOPTIONS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
• City Clerk’s Office
• Fire Department
• Library
• Police Department
• Recreation and Community Services
• Public Works

[1.] PRESENTATION – None.

[2.] OLD BUSINESS

2-A. SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (“SPARC”) OUTREACH AND

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series – Outreach Report (Attachment 1)
(2) Approving the minutes for the SPARC’s regular meeting of August 29, 2024 (Attachment 2);
(3) Receiving the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee’s (“SPARC’s”) recommendation to expand allowed uses within Saturn Park and directing staff regarding the land uses for Saturn Park as deemed appropriate; and
(4) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[3.] CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 3A-3K

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

3-A. MINUTES
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Approving the minutes from the special meeting of May 22, 2024; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-B. ADOPTION OF CITYWIDE MISSION, VISION AND VALUES STATEMENTS It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Officially adopting the Monterey Park Team Charter, containing the citywide Mission, Vision and Values Statements; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Page 2 of 792 ends

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, October 2, 2024 - Page 3

3-C. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)

SERVICES
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a retroactive first amendment from July 1, 2024 to February 29, 2028, to the Knight Communications Agreement No. 2346- AA, in a form approved by the City Attorney. This first amendment will add IT services to the City’s Police Department in the amount of $763,877, for a total not to exceed $3,248,551 for the term of the Agreement.
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-D. WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-23-03) A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY

OF MONTEREY PARK AND THE COMMONS OF MPK, LLC, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 64 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 8- 410 S.

ALHAMBRA AVENUE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 5259 -004-036, 5259 -004-037, AND 5259-004-038)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-E. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPRECIATION WEEK RESOLUTION It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution declaring the week of October 6 – October 12, 2024, as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week in Monterey Park; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-F. OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (“OTS”) PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Accepting grant funds and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $25,555 for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program. (2) Adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to receive and appropriate grant funds in fiscal year 2024- 25, and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the OTS in the amount of $25,555 for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program; and
(3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-G. OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE (OTS) TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) GRANT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Accepting grant funds and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $190,000 for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP); (2) Adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to receive and appropriate grant funds in fiscal year 2024- 25, and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the OTS in the amount of $190,000 for the STEP; and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Page 3 of 792 ends

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, October 2, 2024 - Page 4

3-H. RECEIVE AND FILE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZING THE STATUS OF SISTER CITIES

COMMISSION AD-HOC COMMITTEE
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the staff report summarizing the status of the Sister Cities Commission Ad-Hoc Committee; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-I. MONTEREY PASS ROAD OVERLAY – AWARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TO HARDY & HARPER, INC.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a public works contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Hardy & Harper, Inc. in the contract amount of $1,133,912 for the Monterey Pass Road Overlay Project;
(2) Appropriating an additional $150,000 from Fund 241 Prop C Funds, and an additional $100,000 from Fund 100 General Funds to the FY2024-25 budget; (3) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed $113,392 over the total contract amount; and
(4) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

3-J. PURCHASE OF BULK CHEMICALS FOR WATER DIVISION
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute three-year agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Pacific Star Chemical, LLC; Univar Solutions USA, LLC; and USP Technologies for the purchase and delivery of hydrogen peroxide for a combined total not to exceed $240,000 annually;
(2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a three -year agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Gallade Chemical, Inc. for the purchase and delivery of sodium chloride for an amount not to exceed $40,000 annually; and (3) Appropriating to the FY 2024 -25 budget, $140,000 in water treatment funds for the purchase and delivery of hydrogen peroxide, and $15,000 in water operations funds for sodium chloride; and
(4) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Page 4 of 792 ends

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, October 2, 2024 - Page 5

3-K. EASEMENT WITH THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ELAC NORTHEAST

DRAINAGE AREA AND BIOFILTRATION PROJECT
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the grant of easement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the Los Angeles Community College District for a biofiltration project located in the ELAC Northeast Drainage area;
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[4.] PUBLIC HEARING

4-A. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023 -24

CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Opening the public hearing to receive testimonial and documentary evidence; (2) Approving the draft FY 2023 -2024 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG"), and HOME Investment Partnerships ("HOME") Programs;
(3) Directing staff to prepare and transmit the final documents to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD");
(4) Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to take all actions necessary or desirable to complete and submit the CAPER; and
(5) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[5.] NEW BUSINESS

5-A. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 105.3.2 TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES GOVERNING TIME LIMITATIONS FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Introducing and waiving first reading for an Ordinance amending Section 105.3.2 to the Administrative Provisions of the California Building Standards Code (as codified at Monterey Park Municipal Code § 16.01.040); and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15378, and 15308 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, and actions to protect the environment, respectively. This activity is for general policies and procedure-making that applies to building applications. Any subsequent construction or development will be evaluated separately under the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from further CEQA review.

Page 5 of 792 ends

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, October 2, 2024 - Page 6

[6.] CITY COMMUNICATIONS (CITY COUNCIL)

6-A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 2: THE KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 12 SCHOOLS AND LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION, REPAIR, AND SAFETY BOND ACT OF 2024
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution of the City Council of Monterey Park, California, supporting Proposition 2: the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

6-B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING AND RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 9, 2024, AS NATIONAL WALK & ROLL TO SCHOOL DAY
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution of the City Council of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing October 9, 2024, as National Walk & Roll to School Day; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[7.] FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

[8.] CLOSED SESSION (IF REQUIRED; CITY ATTORNEY TO ANNOUNCE)

ADJOURN

Page 6 of 792 ends

City Council Staff Report
DATE
: October 2, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: T
he Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (“SPARC”) Outreach and Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series – Outreach Report (Attachment 1);

2. Approving the minutes for the SPARC’s regular meeting of August 29, 2024 (Attachment 2);

3. Receiving the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee’s (“SPARC’s”) recommendation to expand allowed uses within Saturn Park and directing staff regarding the land uses for Saturn Park as deemed appropriate; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

On April 9, 2024, the Planning Commission discussed future land uses at Saturn Park as contemplated by the Land Use and Urban Design Element (“LUE”) to the General Plan approved by voters through Measure JJ in 2020 (Ordinance No. 2198; Attachment 3).

Additional background regarding the adoption of the LUE is contained in the City Council Staff Report, dated June 17, 2020 (Attachment 4). During a subsequent Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2024, the majority of the Planning Commission expressed support for expanded land uses within Saturn Park to implement the vision expressed in the LUE.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The SPARC was formed on May 22, 2024 by the City Council to solicit public input and develop a recommendation regarding potential future land uses as part of the implementation of the LUE. A four-part series of community workshops was held by the SPARC beginning on July 29, 2024 and ending on August 29, 2024. At the final meeting, the SPARC voted 8-1 to recommend that City Council expand allowed uses at Saturn Park and create two different zones for properties to the north vs. properties to the south of Saturn Street. The recommended action includes that City Council consider providing direction regarding any desirable “next steps” for implementing the LUE based upon the SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series – Outreach Report (dated October 2024).

Old Business - 2A

Page 7 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 2 of 4 ends

October 2, 2024

BACKGROUND:

The area referred to as Saturn Park in the LUE is approximately 65 acres and is bordered by adjacent residential uses, La Loma Park, and La Loma Reservoir to the north, Potrero Grande Drive to the south, Orange Avenue to the east, and residential uses to the west.

The area is comprised of 19 lots with 12 different property owners. This area was historically a decomposed granite quarry, but in later years became a business park called McCaslin Business Park.

Saturn Park currently has voter enacted zoning regulations, Office Professional ( “O-P”) zone, that were enacted through Measure D (Ordinance No. 1933) on April 14, 1998. The voter approved O-P zone in Saturn Park poses challenges to businesses wishing to locate in that area due to the limited allowed uses. Additionally, Saturn Park has office buildings that are obsolete and remain unoccupied due to changes to the mode in which businesses operate in the post-Pandemic era. Currently, approximately 73% of the available building square footage is unoccupied.

On November 3, 2020, voters enacted Measure JJ which adopted the LUE. A full discussion regarding the LUE was provided to the City Council in 2019 and 2020. Copies of those staff reports (without attachments) are included with this Staff Report for context (Attachment 4).

Measure JJ constitutes the 20-year voter approved vision for development in the City .

Measure JJ designates Saturn Park as “Innovation/Technology” ( LUE – Figure LU -3:

Land Use Policy Map, Attachment 5). Uses for this designation include research and development; light manufacturing; service commercial; professional offices; entertainment; and breweries/wineries/distilleries; trade and technical schools; public utilities, and similar uses “per zoning regulations.” Prohibited uses include warehousing, freight terminals, vehicle storage, and heavy manufacturing. Section 3(A) of Measure JJ specifically authorizes the City Council to “implement [Measure JJ] including, without limitation, adopting all zoning regulations needed to effectuate [Measure JJ] by ordinance.”

The SPARC was formed by the City Council on May 22, 2024 to solicit public input and develop a recommendation regarding potential future land uses at Saturn Park as part of the implementation of the LUE . On July 17, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a task order and budget appropriation to retain Willdan Engineering to assist the City with conducting outreach activities and potentially amending the zoning code to govern Saturn Park land uses in accordance with Measure JJ.

On June 18, 2024, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2245 instituting a moratorium governing the acceptance , approval and issuance of new permits for development within Saturn Park for at least 45 days, which ended on August 2, 2024. The moratorium was extended by adopting Ordinance No. 2246 on July 17, 2024 for an additional 90 days until October 31, 2024.

Page 8 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 3 of 4 ends

October 2, 2024

The Urgency Ordinance allow ed time for the SPARC to receive public input regarding recommended land uses for Saturn Park and implementation of the LUE. Additional extensions of the Urgency Ordinance may be desirable if the City were to pursue changes to the existing zoning regulations.

As part of the SPARC’s outreach, a four-part workshop series was held with sessions on July 29, August 12, August 19 and August 29, 2024. The workshop series was led by Willdan Engineering representatives who were responsible for leading discussions, breakout groups, and voting exercises aimed at gathering community feedback. The outreach process and community input are summarized in the SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series – Outreach Report contained in Attachment 1. Part of the recommended action is that City Council receive and file this report.

At the final meeting on August 29, 2024, the SPARC members received a recap of the community input received at the prior workshops and voted on a recommendation to City Council regarding potential future land uses at Saturn Park. With an 8-1 vote, the SPARC voted to:

Recommend that the Monterey Park City Council expand land uses for the Saturn Park area with consideration for areas and parcels above and west of Saturn Street versus the south of Saturn Street without eliminating any existing permitted land uses.

Since the SPARC is not scheduled to reconvene, the meeting minutes from August 29, 2024 are being presented to the City Council for consideration. The recommended action includes that City Council direct staff as deemed appropriate in regard to the land uses for Saturn Park.

2024-25
STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Potential direction to staff to implement the SPARC’s recommendation to expand allowed uses at Saturn Park will advance the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal to “Strengthen our local economy and enhance housing opportunities” by increasing options for potential future businesses at Saturn Park.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impacts are anticipated.

Page 9 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 4 of 4 ends

October 2, 2024

Respectfully submitted and prepared
by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

1. SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series – Outreach Report, dated October 2024

2. SPARC Meeting Minutes, dated August 29, 2024

3. Ordinance No. 2198, Enactment of LUE

4. City Council Staff Report, dated June 17, 2020

5. LUE – Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map

Page 10 of 792 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
SPARC Community Visioning Workshop Series
– Outreach Report, dated October 2024

Page 11 of 792 ends

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

CALIFORNIA
Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC)
Community Visioning Workshop Series
Outreach Report
October 2024

Page 12 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
1 Introduction

This Report is a comprehensive summary of the
activities associated with the series of Saturn
Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC)
community visioning workshops. The series was
designed to solicit input and feedback from
participants and residents and to provide
information for the SPARC to develop a
recommendation to City Council for the Saturn
Park land use planning or zoning moving
forward.

The Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee was
formed by the Monterey Park City Council to
help determine if alternative and/or additional
land uses could help to reinvigorate the Saturn
Park site. The SPARC considered public feedback
in order to develop and form its
recommendation to the City Council for a
possible plan to help revitalize the site under its
current permitted uses or under a broader range
of land uses.

Willdan facilitated these workshops and
captured the community feedback needed for
the SPARC to formulate its recommendations to
the City Council. The team put together an
outline of the topics to be addressed at each
meeting. These workshops were structured to
give the SPARC and attendees information on
Saturn Park and existing land use and zoning
regulations in order to facilitate productive
conversations and feedback at the meetings.

Participants included SPARC members,
residents, and other stakeholders.

Attached at the end of this report is a series of
documents associated with each meeting and
written email comments received outside of the
meetings. The summaries provided below reflect
these attachments.

Purpose

The purpose of the series of workshops was to
engage the public in envisioning a future for the
site that the community at-large can generally
support. Community feedback, suggestions, and
ideas are important to help achieve a broad
consensus among various stakeholders.

The objective of the workshops was a final
recommendation to the full City Council on how
to best move forward with a vision for the site.

The role of the SPARC was to receive public
comment and guidance, help achieve general
consensus, and to advise the City Council on a
path forward or alternatively a recommendation
of a no change option.

The Site

The Saturn Park Site and Vicinity, aerial image

The Saturn Park site, also known as McCaslin
Business Park, was named after the original
owner and developer Lowry B. McCaslin in the
1940s. The site was originally a quarry for mining
decomposed granite and was then developed
into a business park in the 1970s with office uses,
particularly a corporate office center. The site
was fully utilized in the 1980s, but over the past
10 years has declined in building occupancy and
usefulness. In addition, the post-pandemic office
market has shifted as in-person office
attendance has been reduced/replaced as
companies continue to offer remote or hybrid

Page 13 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
2 work models resulting in driving the demand for
office space down and vacancy rates up.

Today the site is a mix of multiple, privately-
owned parcels. In addition to office use, other
uses include warehousing and distribution. Lack
of land use diversities, high vacancies,
unimproved older buildings, and underutilization
of the site extend over large portions of the area.

The site is adjacent to single family
neighborhoods to the southwest, north and
northwest. The Edison electrical substation is
located southeast of the site and the I-60
Freeway is located to the south. Further
southeast is a commercial/retail development
known as The Market Place.

The site is directly accessed by Potrero Grande
Drive to the south through both Atlas Avenue at
the southern edge of the site and Saturn Street
at the eastern edge of the site. A series of three
driveways from Potrero Grande also provide
direct access from the southern edge of the site.

The topography is sloping. A range of building
types, sizes, layout, styles/themes, and
construction methods are found throughout.

The site overall does not appear to be a uniform
business park, with inconsistent and lackluster
streetscapes, inconsistent signage, an
overabundance of parking lots, and lack of
pedestrian accessibility contributing to an
outdated industrial/office park model.

Saturn Park Occupancy (yellow=vacant buildings; blue=occupied buildings; red=partially vacant buildings)

Land Use Designation:

Innovation /Technology

Regulating Plan:

Floor Area Ratio: 0.60
Max Height: 40 FT

Primary Uses:

Research and development
Light manufacturing
Service commercial
Professional offices
Entertainment
Breweries/wineries/distilleries

Other Permitted Uses:

Site Information
Saturn Park
 Size: 64.6 acres
 Building Area: 2,164, 909 sq. ft.
 Number of Parcels: 19
 Number of Owners: 12
 Parking Spaces: +/- 3,450
 Unoccupied Building Square
Footage: approximately 82%

Page 14 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
3 Trade and technical schools
Public utilities
Similar uses per zoning regulations

Prohibited Uses:

Warehousing
Freight terminals
Vehicle storage
Heavy manufacturing

Sample Uses Allowed per Zoning Regulations:

Sales and Service Businesses
Data Processing Facility
General Research Facility
Restaurants/Cafes
Sudio, Art, Dance, Martial Arts, Photography

SPARC Committee

In April 2024, discussions were held with the
Planning Commission to discuss the issues
surrounding the underutilization of Saturn Park
and explore ideas for expansion of existing
permitted uses.

On May 22, 2024, the City Council established
the SPARC to solicit public input on future land
uses of Saturn Park as part of the
implementation of the General Plan Land Use
and Urban Design Element. The SPARC is made
up the following members:

Council Members:

Mr. Thomas Wong- Chairperson
Mr. Vinh Ngo- Vice-Chairperson

Selected Members of the Public:

Mr. Philip Chang
Mr. Johnny Kwok
Mr. Paul Lee
Mr. Joe Leyva
Ms. Tammy Sam
Ms. Victoria Chen Stapleton
Ms. Maychelle Yee

Their role is to gather public input and based on
that input decide if the existing allowable land
uses should remain as contained in the General
Plan and Land Use Element or should include
more flexible uses.

Background

Although concerns and issues surround the site,
such as high vacancy rates, the site also presents
an opportunity for a re-imagined place.

Therefore, the City Council moved to form the
SPARC to develop recommendations with
community feedback.

While community outreach is being conducted,
the City Council voted to impose a moratorium
on new development within the site for an initial
45 days and with a subsequent 3-month
extension, which is set to expire on October 31,
2024.

The visioning process is a precursor to any
activities surrounding preparing a land use plan
for the site.

The Visioning Process

There are no current plans for the future of
Saturn Park (other than what is provided
generally in Monterey Park’s General Plan and
the Land Use Element adopted through Measure
JJ). This visioning process is intended to, with an
open mind, see what possibilities are available
and desired by the broader neighborhood and
community. Although there are constraints to
achieving a desired future, beginning with a
general consensus among various stakeholders
will help to shape a plan that could address some
of the concerns surrounding the site. The
visioning process for a Saturn Park future can be
illustrated in three steps, as shown below.

Page 15 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
4 The Workshop Series

The community workshop series was designed to
be engaging and informative. Four workshop
meetings were scheduled and publicly noticed.

The Chair opened each meeting; provided an
introduction of the purpose of the meetings,
accepted public comment and introduced the
consulting team. Language interpreters were
available as needed. City staff were available to
assist as needed.

The city mailed out meeting notice flyers to
residents and businesses within a 500-foot
radius of the Saturn Park site. The City’s website
has a devoted page which explains the purpose
of the SPARC and workshops. It can be accessed
at:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/1636/Satur
n-Park-Advisory-Review-Committee-SP
The City hired Willdan as consulting facilitators
for the workshop series. Mr. Salvador Lopez,
Director of Planning, and Ms. Juliet Arroyo,
Principal Planner, provided presentations, lead
exercises, and documented the process.

WORKSHOP NO. 1 – LISTENING SESSION

This first meeting served as the beginning of the
visioning process by listening to public
comments. Oral comments were written on
large poster boards, then compiled. The public
presented some ideas, asked questions,
considered concerns, and mentioned the
conditions of the site today.

Because the visioning is focused on possible
future land uses, participants mentioned some
of the land uses they might like to see.

Comments were received in favor of allowing
more uses, as well as comments in favor of
keeping the current permitted uses in place
without changes. The following were some
potential uses mentioned:
 Pedestrian friendly development
 Mixed Use
 Arts District
 Retail
 Grocery stores
 Public amenities (senior center, dog
park)
 Residential/Housing
 Open space/gathering spaces
 Entertainment

WORKSHOP NO. 2 – WORKING GROUPS
Out of the comments from Meeting No. 1 came
four general possible land use categories.

Land Use Categories:

1) Innovation/Technology
2) Housing/residential

1. What do we
recognize as the
issues?

2. What do we
envision for the
future of the site?

3. How will we get
there?

Page 16 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
5 3) Commercial
4) Public/Open Space

This meeting was developed as a working group
exercise to encourage small group dialog and
discussion. The participants and SPARC members
gathered around four tables led by the
facilitators from Willdan. The group discussed
each of the four land use categories, reviewed
comments from Meeting No. 1, helped to define
the land uses, and discussed the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints for
each.

Although there was input regarding all potential
development, there was a common theme of
wanting low intensity development and growth
while being sensitive to the outlying residential
neighborhoods.

WORKSHOP NO. 3 – RANKING EXERCISE
Based on the feedback from Meeting No. 2, most
participants generally supported a low-intensity,
neighborhood serving development option.

A presentation was given that described the
purpose of the workshop series and explained
the ranking exercise. The presentation
introduced seven use categories based on input
from Workshop No. 2. These categories are:

“Innovation/Technology”
(current conditions)

“Low Density Residential”

“Medium Density Residential”

Page 17 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
6 “High Density Residential”

“Mixed Use”

“Neighborhood Serving Commercial”

Page 18 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
7 “Public/Open Space”

Workshop No. 3 was intended to be an
independent activity to provide an opportunity
to express individual thoughts and preferences
of land uses that came out of the previous two
workshops.

More in-depth explanation and visual examples
were provided. These images were included as
examples to help convey what each category
means. This was more of a vision exercise than
a planning exercise.

The exercise began by describing types of
developments that fall within each use category.

Photos and illustrations (as shown above) were
provided as samples only. The presentation
explained the following ranking options using
colored stickers as follows:

Green Sticker (with smiley face) – Means general
support for this use category.

Yellow Sticker (with indifferent face) – Means
neutral support but with reservation, and a need
for more information, or with conditions.

Red Sticker (with disappointed face) – Means
general disapproval of this use category.

Ranking Exercise

All meeting attendees were given a set of
Green/Yellow/Red stickers for each category and
given the opportunity to place one of the three
options for each of the categories that best
reflects their preference. The following was
recorded:

Results
The category of Innovation/Technology received
the highest support with 47.5 percent of
participants ranking this category with a “Green”
sticker.

The category of Mixed Use received 38.4 percent
support.

The category of Neighborhood Serving
Commercial received the highest unsure support
with 28.2 percent of the participants ranking this
category with a “Yellow” sticker, followed closely
by Innovation/Technology.

Page 19 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary
SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
8 Residential uses, in all densities, did not seem to
gather most of the support among the
participants, but Mixed Use and Neighborhood
Serving Commercial appear to have broader
support, likely with some reservations and
conditions.

The category of Public/Open Space received the
highest disapproval with 66.7 percent of the
participants ranking this category with a “Red”
sticker. This was followed closely by “High
Density Residential” and “Medium Density
Residential”.

Wall Post- It Notes
The following note from a participant was
included in the exercise.

1. Regional Sports Center
Public Comments
Members of the public came up to the
microphone and voiced comments, concerns,
and questions about the process. Some provided
support for keeping the existing zoning
unchanged and some provided support for
allowing more flexible uses to re-invigorate the
site.

TABLE 1. RANKING EXERCISE RESULTS
USE

CATEGORY
Green Yellow Red Total
Innovation/
Technology
19 (47.5%)
11 (27.5%)
10 (25.0%)
40 (100%)
Low Density
Residential
12 (31.6%)
6 (15.8%)
20 (52.6%)
38 (100%)
Medium
Density
Residential
12 (31.6%)
4 (10.5%)
22 (57.9%)
38 (100%)
High Density
Residential
10 (25.6%)
4 (10.3%)
25 (64.1%)
39 (100%)
Mixed-Use 15
(38.4%)
9 (23.1%)
15 (38.5%)
39 (100%)
Neighborhood
Serving
Commercial
14 (35.9%)
11 (28.2%)
14 (35.9%)
39 (100%)
Public/Open
Space
11 (28.2%)
2 (05.1%)
26 (66.7%)
39 (100%)
MEETING NO. 4 – SPARC RECOMMENDATIONS
At Meeting No. 4, the SPARC heard additional
testimony from the public. Willdan made a brief
presentation summarizing the process and
public feedback received. The SPARC then voiced
their comments as individual members. The
SPARC comments were followed by a vote on a
motion reflecting their recommendations to the
City Council. The following motion was passed:
“Recommend that the Monterey Park City
Council expand land uses for the Saturn Park area
with consideration for areas and parcels
above and west of Saturn Street versus the
south of Saturn Street without eliminating any
existing permitted land uses.”

WORKSHOP FINDINGS
A unanimous consensus was not found among
the workshop participants. Some residents
support keeping the site’s current allowable uses
unchanged. Other participants appeared to
support more flexible uses with the reasoning
that they would like to see a more economically
robust Monterey Park.

Page 20 of 792 ends

SPARC Workshop Summary

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Summary
9 Mixed Reactions
The participants had mixed opinions about
allowing a broader range of uses for the future of
the site. There was a group of participants that
favored keeping the site’s current zoning and
land use designation the same. Another group
favored allowing more uses to help invigorate
the site and support a stronger, more
economically viable, Monterey Park. Another
group was still unsure about the process, and
what they were commenting on, or felt they
would rather listen than provide feedback.

A group of participants commented that
Monterey Park should allow for more housing
opportunities to help realize its share of housing
needs across the State.

Surprisingly, although participants expressed an
interest in open space and recreational uses in
Meeting Nos. 1 and 2, the “Public/Open Space”
use category received the greatest number of
“Red” stickers among the seven use categories at
Meeting No. 3.

There was general support for “Mixed Use” and
“Neighborhood Serving Commercial” introduced
to the site. Participants who were in favor of
these land use categories were receptive to
having “Mixed-Use” with a combination of
commercial uses together with “Low Density
Residential” to “Medium Density Residential”.

Concerns
Some participants expressed concerns about
traffic, noise, pollution, crime, with future
development, particularly with a broader range
of uses. Concerns were also raised about the city
meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Participants were also concerned about the
City’s tax base and felt that allowing commercial
uses could increase City revenues.

Questions
There were questions on the process of changing
the zoning and allowable uses and whether that
would be done by City Council approval or by the
voters. This question was most pronounced at
Meeting No. 4.

Next Steps

Following the formal recommendation from the
SPARC as a committee, the SPARC and staff will
present the recommendations to the City
Council, planned for September 2024. The City
Council will consider the SPARC
recommendations, receive public testimony,
deliberate and discuss a course of action for the
site.

EXHIBITS:

1. SPARC Agendas, Meetings 1-4

2. Meeting Minutes, Meetings 1-4
(with written communications)

3. Wildan Meeting Summaries/Notes
(Meetings 1-4)

4. PowerPoint Presentations (Meetings 1-
4)

5. Sign-In Sheets (Meetings 1-4)

6. Outreach Flyer

Page 21 of 792 ends

Exhibit No. 1
SPARC Agendas

Thursday, July 29, 2024
Monday, August 12, 2024
Monday, August 19, 2024
Thursday, August 29, 2024

Page 22 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue

Monday
July 29, 2024
6:00 PM

GENERAL INFORMATION
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the Community Development Department – Planning Division located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and the City’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/AgendaCenter.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54954.3(a), the public may address the SPARC only on matters listed on the Agenda. Those wishing to speak on a listed item should come to the podium, be recognized by the Chairperson, and state your name for the record. Each speaker will be provided a maximum three minutes to address the SPARC. Note, however, that public comment will be received by the SPARC throughout the meeting as part of the workshop.

Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call City Hall at (626) 307-1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.

CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wong
FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairperson Ngo
ROLL CALL Chairperson Thomas Wong, Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)
AGENDA

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplift the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Page 23 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – July 29, 2024 – Page 2

[1.] NEW BUSINESS
[2.]

WORKSHOP TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE
REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK . THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Discussing land use regulations and potential future uses at Saturn Park and receiving and filing the presentation provided by Willdan Engineering.

Potential discussion involves current land use regulations; land use designations and governance adopted by voters via Measure JJ in 2020; future land uses based upon California law and Measure JJ; and other, similar, topics. No particular action is recommended for this meeting; (2) Continuing the discussion of land use regulations and future uses at Saturn Park to the next scheduled meeting on August 12, 2024; and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

ADJOURN

Next regular scheduled meeting is on August 12, 2024.

Page 24 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue

Monday
August 12, 2024
6:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wong
FLAG SALUTE Member Philip Chang
ROLL CALL Chairperson Thomas Wong, Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)
AGENDA

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplift the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Page 25 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – August 12, 2024 – Page 2

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Approving the minutes for the regular meeting of July 29, 2024; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable. [2.] NEW BUSINESS
2-A.

WORKSHOP # 2 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK . THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Discussing land use regulations and potential future uses at Saturn Park and receiving and filing the presentation provided by Willdan Engineering.

Potential discussion involves current land use regulations; land use designations and governance adopted by voters via Measure JJ in 2020; future land uses based upon California law and Measure JJ; and other, similar, topics. No particular action is recommended for this meeting; (2) Continuing the discussion of land use regulations and future uses at Saturn Park to the next scheduled meeting on August 19, 2024; and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

ADJOURN

Next regular scheduled meeting is on August 19, 2024.

Page 26 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue

Monday
August 19, 2024
6:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wong
FLAG SALUTE Member Johnny Kwok
ROLL CALL Chairperson Thomas Wong, Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)
AGENDA

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplift the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Page 27 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – August 19, 2024 – Page 2

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Approving the minutes for the regular meeting of August 12, 2024; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable. [2.] NEW BUSINESS
2-A.

WORKSHOP # 3 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK . THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Discussing land use regulations and potential future uses at Saturn Park and receiving and filing the presentation provided by Willdan Engineering.

Potential discussion involves current land use regulations; land use designations and governance adopted by voters via Measure JJ in 2020; future land uses based upon California law and Measure JJ; and other, similar, topics. No particular action is recommended for this meeting; (2) Continuing the discussion of land use regulations and future uses at Saturn Park to the next scheduled meeting on August 29, 2024; and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

ADJOURN

Next regular scheduled meeting is on August 29, 2024.

Page 28 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue

Thursday
August 29, 2024
6:00 PM

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)
AGENDA

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplift the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Page 29 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – August 29, 2024 – Page 2

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Approving the minutes for the regular meeting s of August 12, 2024 and August 19, 2024; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable. [2.] NEW BUSINESS
2-A. WORKSHOP # 4 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK. THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

• SPARC Purpose:
o Conducted community visioning workshops for Saturn Park (McCaslin Business Park) in Monterey Park, California.
o Aim: Develop a recommendation for the City Council on future land use.
• Background:
o Site history: Former quarry, later a business park.
o Current issues: Decline in occupancy, outdated infrastructure, high vacancy rates, and post-pandemic office market shifts.
o Site details: 64.6 acres, 2,164,909 sq. ft. of building area, mix of office, warehousing, and distribution uses.
• Workshops:
o Facilitated by Willdan.
o Included presentations on existing land use and zoning regulations. o Structured discussions to gather community feedback.
• Community Feedback:
o Mixed opinions on maintaining current zoning vs. considering alternative uses.
o Key potential uses discussed:
 Innovation/technology
 Mixed-use development
 Neighborhood-serving commercial
 Public/open space
• Ranking Exercise:
o Based upon the previous three meetings, the current SPARC preferences are:
 Innovation/technology and mixed-use categories favored.  Public/open space and high-density residential received most disapproval.
o Concerns:
 Traffic, noise, pollution.
 Need for the city to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
• Next Steps:
o Final workshop: at this workshop, the SPARC will deliberate and vote on recommendations for the City Council.

Page 30 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – August 29, 2024 – Page 3

It is recommended that the SPARC consider:
(1) Receiving and filing a summary report of the SPARC outreach process by Willdan Engineering;
(2) Opening the discussion to SPARC members;
(3) Receiving a motion and second for a recommendation from the SPARC to the City Council;
(4) Having SPARC members vote on the motion; and
(5) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

ADJOURN

Page 31 of 792 ends

Exhibit No. 2
SPARC Meeting Minutes (with
Written Communications)

Thursday, July 29, 2024
Monday, August 12, 2024
Monday, August 19, 2024
Thursday, August 29, 2024

Page 32 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754
MONDAY
July 29, 2024
6:00 PM
The Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC) held a Regular Meeting in the Monterey Park City Service Club House, located at 440 South McPherrin Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Monday, July 29, 2024, at 6:00pm.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairperson Wong called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE: Vice-Chairperson Ngo led the flag salute.

ROLL CALL: Chairperson Wong called the roll:

Members Present: Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee
Members

Absent: Member Paul Lee
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Inez Alvarez, Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, City Librarian Kristin Olivarez, Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe, Director of Recreation and Community Services Director Aguirre, Director of Community Development Jessica Serrano, Planning
Manager Beth Chow, Economic Development Manager Joseph Torres, Economic Development Specialist Janice Huang, Office Assistant II Megan Cheung City
Consultants from Willdan Engineering Salvador Lopez and Juliette Arroyo.

1. NEW BUSINESS

2. WORKSHOP TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK. THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

Consultant Mr. Lopez made a presentation about Saturn Park including, current land use regulations, land use designations and initiatives adopted by voters via Measure JJ in 2020, future land uses based upon California law and Measure JJ. He also discussed the formation of the

MINUTES

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)

REGULAR MEETING
JULY 29, 2024

Page 33 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – July 29, 2024 – Page 2
SPARC Committee, goals and policies of General Plan, and needs and strategies on discussing future uses.

The meeting
was opened for public input from the attendees, with a limit of 3 minutes for comments.

Comment
s received from the public included:
• Question
related to any current entitlement applications for properties on Saturn Street; • Request for additional information about data centers; • Concern about potential breweries as future uses;
• Opposition to “high-rise”, high-density residential uses; • Opposition to any residential uses;
• Concern about pedestrian access to current areas around Saturn Park; • Concern about current building vacancies in Saturn Park; • Question about the need to focus on re- development of this area when there are other areas in the City that also need redevelopment, ex. Garvey/Garfield; • Concern about traffic and noise in the area;
• Preference for single-family residential as opposed to multi-family residential, if residential uses are allowed;
• Need to publicize outreach efforts more in the community; • Concern about proposed data centers’ noise generation and energy usage; • Support for mixed use retail and residential developments that create walkable neighborhoods;
• Preference to allow for development of senior day care centers or other uses to serve seniors;
• Preference to allow for parks and other opens spaces; • Support for revitalization of Saturn Park, including the affordable housing, with higher densities and moving away from Euclidean zoning;
• Question about the timeline on implementing a Specific Plan; • Desire to see high end retail establishments that help generate sales tax; • Concern about uses that do not generate income and may affect taxes for existing residents;
• General questions related to the zoning and planning processes; and • Applicant for data center in Saturn Park provided a brief presentation of data centers and their benefits to the community and City.

Comment
s received from members of the SPARC include:
• Need of discussing future uses in the area because due to high vacancy rates; • Encouragement for open dialogue and participation that may lead to opportunity for economic growth;
• Reques
t to learn more about data centers and their benefits;
• Request to invite retail and/or mixed use developers to present at future meetings; • Concerns about
latest efforts to change voter approved initiatives for the area; • Preference for the area to remain viable for innovation and technology uses; • Desire to create a positive development that could provide economic growth, using the Market Place
development as an example;
• Desire to have land uses evolve with the times and community; • Safety concerns
due to vacant buildings and lack of foot traffic currently;

Page 34 of 792 ends

SPARC Agenda – July 29, 2024 – Page 3

• Desire for an arts district or creation of entertainment spaces geared towards ages 25-50, that currently go outside the city to find amenities;
• Emphasis on ideal and attractive location of Saturn Park with its proximity to the freeway; • Desire to see change in the area and make the community safe, while allowing positive development of Saturn Park
• Developer’s need for any future development of Saturn Park to make financial sense; • Willingness to hear and consider opinions of the public for the best uses in Saturn Park; • Support of higher density residential uses to create “attainable housing”; and • Interest in what the community opinions for the future land uses.

Comments were received from SPARC members and attendees. No action was taken by the SPARC. The workshop and discussion of land use regulations and future uses at Saturn Park will continue at the next scheduled meeting on August 12, 2024.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

____________________________________
Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development

Page 35 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754

MONDAY
August 12, 2024
6:00 PM

The Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC) held a Regular Meeting in the Monterey Park City Service Club House, located at 440 South McPherrin Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Monday, August 12, 2024, at 6:00pm.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairperson Wong called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE: Member Philip Chang lead the flag salute.

ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Wong called the roll:

Members Present: Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

Members Absent: None.

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Inez Alvarez, Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, Fire Chief Chris Thompson, Director of Finance Martha Garcia, Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe, Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa, Director of Community Development Jessica Serrano, Planning Manager Beth Chow, Finance Manager Laura Borjon, Office Assistant II Megan Cheung

City Consultants from Willdan Engineering: Salvador Lopez, Juliet Arroyo, Jennifer Maria, and Chad Brown.

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES
Action Taken: The SPARC approved and adopted the meeting minutes for the regular meeting of July 29, 2024.

MINUTES

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)

REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12, 2024

Page 36 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 12, 2024 – Page 2

Motion: Moved by Vice -Chairperson Ngo and seconded by Member Sam, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: SPARC Members: Wong, Ngo, Chang, Kwok, Leyva, Sam, Stapleton, Yee
Noes: SPARC Members: None

Absent: SPARC Members: None
Abstain: SPARC Members: Lee
Recusal: SPARC Members: None
[2.] NEW BUSINESS
2-A. WORKSHOP #2 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK. THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM
WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

Consultant Salvador Lopez made a presentation about Saturn Park including:
land area, occupied vs. unoccupied space, number of lots, number of parking spaces, current land use regulations and primary uses. Additionally, information was presented about the City’s role in development, pending data center application at Saturn Park, and a summary of community input received at the July 29, 2024 meeting.

Consultant Juliet Arroyo led working group exercises and attendees participated in round table discussions led by Willdan facilitator, including Salvador Lopez, Juliette Arroyo, Jennifer Maria, and Chad Brown. The working group exercises involved having the participants review comments from SPARC Workshop #1 and select which of the following land use categories it belongs to: innovation
/technology (current zoning), residential/housing,
retail/commercial, and public uses (parks/open space, government/education).

The participants were instructed to provide what the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and/or threats were for each of the uses.

Comments received from the public included:

Table 1:
• Overall, group was supportive of more development at Saturn Park. • Innovation/Technology:
o Concerns: does not fit in with this area due no large universities nearby; group was not against data centers, but have concerns about current proposal due to lack of employment opportunities, needs a public component and better buffering;
• Housing/Residential:
o Acceptable: residential okay if it is low impact; blends with existing uses; condos/townhomes; mixed use and medium
density (3-stories) with retail and walkable area; amenities such as walking paths/trails would be good for residents;

Page 37 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 12, 2024 – Page 3

o Not Acceptable: mostly against high-density residential; o Concerns: vacant retail; RHNA goals should be considered; city lacks affordable housing; retail should be walkable;
• Retail/Commercial:
o Acceptable: family-oriented; arts district on a portion of the site with local businesses, including service; a pavilion with rotating uses; art walk event in an art center with art space easement; walkable; retail can face main roadways; commercial in
moderation;
o Not Acceptable: no big box retail; Montebello has big box retailers;
o Concerns: consider business interests;
• Public Uses (parking/open space, government/education):
o Acceptable: recreation area for exercising (portion of site); circular walking trails with a dog walk; good example: Almanor Park, Alhambra; pocket park would be with
demonstration/botanical gardens, with native California plants.

Table 2:
• Overall, group wants to keep the area as is and does not support any new development
and were concerned about impacts to the
surrounding community. A minority of the group was supportive of new development to support economic vitality.
• Innovation/Technology:
o Acceptable: want to keep the area as is;
o Concerns: want to keep area quiet; undesirables and unsafe conditions; noise impacts such as a grocery store and delivery trucks; rodents; trash; crime;
• Housing/Residential:
o Acceptable: minimal support; would consider low-density single- family development ; a minority of this group was open to residential development
o Not Acceptable: area is too small for affordable housing; no apartments or townhomes; no density;
o Concerns: building height and view obstruction; traffic; noise • Retail/Commercial:
o Acceptable: minority of this group was open to neighborhood serving retail/commercial;
o Not Acceptable: no commercial, retail or entertainment; o Concerns: existing infrastructure/street grid cannot support new development; traffic and noise impacts;
• Public Uses (parking/open space, government/education):
o Acceptable: open space barrier should be provided between existing residential and any new development ; indoor/covered open space sensitive to the outlying residential; pickleball courts; free public pool.

Page 38 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 12, 2024 – Page 4

Table 3:
• Overall, the group reached consensus on many topics although there were differences in opinion.
• Innovation/Technology:
o Acceptable: data center (although there were mixed opinions about whether this use should be allowed); life science business; medical device manufacturing;
o Concerns: traffic impacts; energy consumption;
• Housing/Residential:
o Acceptable: affordable housing; mixed use to create housing and convenience to retail/food service and freeways; senior housing; o Not Acceptable: affordable housing;
o Concerns: City’s RHNA numbers and progress towards meeting the housing goals; consider proximity to Edison site;
• Retail/Commercial:
o Acceptable: higher -end retail; Amazon Fresh; food services; medical device manufacturing; promote local businesses; make more welcoming to nearby residents; new tax revenues; new jobs;
o Not Acceptable: no commercial uses;
o Concerns: preserve residential feel; high number of commercial vacancies; traffic; noise;
• Public Uses (parking/open space, government/education):
o Acceptable: regional sports center including tennis, pickleball courts, racquetball; swimming pool;
o Not Acceptable: No recreation;
o Concerns: current facilities are run down; risk losing access to existing pool due to its condition; closest regional sports center too far from MPK; private ownership of properties makes it difficult to create more open space; City has not intention to purchase lan d at Saturn Park; traffic concerns; data center proposal could include public park with playground and/or dog park and offer fiber optic capabilities to nearby residents.

Table 4:
• There was a mixture of opinions for and against new development.

There was a request for examples of what is low, medium, and high density.
• Innovation/Technology:
o Acceptable: expansion of cemetery; tech incubator; Edison training area; technology related school; tech job; EV charging stations; data centers bring utility taxes, $400 million on improvements; undergrounding power lines; other businesses will benefit from data center investments.
o Not Acceptable: electrical infrastructure;
o Concerns: potential environmental impacts of data centers; • Housing/Residential:

Page 39 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 12, 2024 – Page 5

o Acceptable: mixed use and higher density;
o Not Acceptable: no mixed use or high density;
o Concerns: business owner in the area worried about housing impacting his business including traffic to and from and his ability to sell his business in the future, but not opposed to residential; m
ore fire protection desired, questions about police services; traffic; ample parking for any use; high density residential would bring undesirable conditions;
• Retail/Commercial:
o Acceptable: Whole foods, Trader Joes, Sprouts, Amazon Fresh, not Ralphs; sales tax, more revenue; potential revitalization; more jobs;
o Concerns: no retail demand; traffic; trash; increased crime; theft; noise; inability to fill current vacancies ; most worried about residential that abuts the businesses ; pedestrian safety; no sidewalks; environmental impacts; focus on bringing in more complimentary industries;
• Public Uses (parking/open space, government/education):
o Acceptable: dog park; manmade lake with recreation; pickleball courts
; community theater; playhouse; fine arts center;
amphitheater; musical (enclosed);
o Not Acceptable: No recreation;
o Concerns: wants a buffer with residential.

Wall Charts (direc t quote from participants):
• Innovation/Technology:
o Tech Incubator; should be close to Cal Tec; research center. • Housing/Residential:
o Some rental residential units; some condominiums;
o No affordable housing;
o Mixed-use housing (medium to high density);
o Bunker Hill Apartments (example);
o Medium density; 10-12 units per acre; 70 acres can yield 500 to 600 units.
o Single family use, no high-density housing.
• Retail/Commercial:
o Tell the State of California to stop being anti -business. Chevron moved to Texas after being in California for 100 years. • Public Uses (parking/open space, government/education):
o Green space near Edison powerlines;
o This is such an important topic and change. After antics, we have little time for actual impact; and
o “Smorgasburg” concept, weekend public market, high end market, retail.

Written Comments submitted prior to or on August 12, 2024 (see Attachments 1-4):

Page 40 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 12, 2024 – Page 6

• Email from Jairo Avalos, dated August 6, 2024
o Supports mixed use development at Saturn Park and provided case studies.
• Email from Deb, dated August 7, 2024
o Provided research with regulations from other municipalities regarding data centers.
o Supports residential development at Saturn Park.
• Email from Joe Leyva, dated August 12, 2024
o Provide link to article about impacts of data centers including delay in conversion to clean energy in CA, increase in electrical bills for everyone else, increased risk of blackouts, and increase water use, among others.
• Handout from Scott Rynders, submitted August 12, 2024 o Draft Saturn Park Data Center Zoning Overlay Areas

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.

____________________________________
Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development

Attachments:

1. Email from Jairo Avalos, dated August 6, 2024

2. Email from Deb, dated August 7, 2024

3. Email from Joe Leyva, dated August 12, 2024

4. Handout from Scott Rynders, submitted August 12, 2024

Page 41 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Email from Jairo Avalos, dated August 6, 2024

Page 42 of 792 ends

1 Cheung, Megan
From: Serrano, Jessica
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Cheung, Megan
Subject: FW: Sent over Saturn Park ideas but email was blocked

JESSICA SERRANO • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
320 WEST NEWMARK AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
Office (626) 307-1463
Email • [email protected]

From: Jairo Avalos <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 12:23 PM
To: Wong, Thomas <[email protected]>
Cc: Ngo, Vinh T. <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Inez <[email protected]>; Wong, Diana <[email protected]>; Serrano, Jessica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Sent over Saturn Park ideas but email was blocked

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Thank you all!

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 9:57 PM Wong, Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks! Want to make sure we incorporate this as something for the committee to think about.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2024, at 9:34 PM, Ngo, Vinh T. <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Jairo,

Hope to see you at the next SPARC meeting. If not, we will be sure to share your vision of a mixed-use community of high density housing over retail.

Vinh
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2024, at 7:10 PM, Jairo Avalos <[email protected]> wrote:

Page 43 of 792 ends

2 [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Attempting to resend with smaller images (I also sent this earlier to Sal from Will Dan which seemed to go through)

Hi,

Thank you for working on this project and incorporating the community's input. It is vital for the city and all of us who live nearby that the Saturn Park area gets revitalized. The area today is a ghost town, with tons of empty parking lots, no sidewalks, and a dangerous feeling. Families and residents don't feel safe walking around that area, especially close to sunset or in the early morning. The best way to change this is to bring life to the Saturn Park area, while providing amenities that all residents can enjoy.

I wanted to pass on some ideas that should be considered and put into the plan, specifically that we should:

1. Allow and encourage the development of housing above retail

2. Let this area be zoned in such a way that housing density and building height are maximized

1. Allow and encourage the development of housing above retail By allowing and encouraging housing to be built over retail, the area will be transformed. New residents will make the area vibrant and safe. Having retail on the ground floor of residential will allow for businesses to open up that can cater to the new residents and everyone in the surrounding community. Building housing right above those ground floor businesses will mean that there will always be people to patronize them.

I wanted to share two case studies of places that have done something similar to what we are trying to do with Saturn Park. These areas were industrial and then changed to be residential, where housing was built above ground floor retail.

Case studies

*********************************************************************** **********
Park & Paseo
Santa Ana CA

Page 44 of 792 ends

3 https://parkandpaseo.com/
*********************************************************************** **********
<Park & Paseo copy.png>

Park & Paseo is exactly the type of development we should be allowing and incentivizing in the Saturn Park area. Park & Paseo is a development that has
 Housing above retail (coffee shops, beauty spas, etc)  A community park, with space for a food truck to drive into  Community running/walking loop
 Dog park & Basketball courts
 Gym
 A coworking space
It has amenities for all residents and for people in the surrounding community. All spaces are active at all hours of the day and residents don't have to travel far to get their basic needs met, this means less driving and traffic and more living.

This development area is almost IDENTICAL to the Saturn Park area. It is right near a freeway and used to be an industrial area with high vacancy until changes were made to allow for this type of development. The similarities are very clear and the benefits to allowing this are very clear as well

Before (high vacancy industrial area) After (vibrant community of housing over retail)

*********************************************************************** **********
Culdesac
Tempe, AZ
https://culdesac.com/

Page 45 of 792 ends

4 *********************************************************************** **********
<Cul de sac copy.png>

Culdesac is a housing development where the ground floor can be retail or additional units of housing. The flexibility allows the space to evolve with the community and their needs. This development is particularly great because it incorporates a
 Grocery store
 Gym
 Laundry
 Barber shop
 Restaurant
 Bike shop
among other things. Having all key necessities like food and entertainment in the same space both increases the taxes that the city gets but also reduces car dependency (and traffic) because all basic necessities are easily accessible. The development also provides car and scooter-share on-site for when those are needed.

This is another example of a successful project of housing over retail that has revitalized an area that didn't have much happening for years.

2. Let this area be zoned in such a way that housing density and building height are maximized
Hand in hand with point #1, it's important that we incentivize beneficial projects like this by ensuring that they can get built. Potential partners to redevelop this site will be swayed more by allowing the maximum density and building height so that projects can pencil out.

Thank you once again for adding these thoughts and ideas to the development team's discussion and I hope we can move forward with allowing and incentivizing these types of uses.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 8:05 AM Wong, Thomas
<[email protected]> wrote:

Our filters can be pretty aggressive, maybe try again, and send to Inez as well? If it still doesn’t come through, we can have IT check.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2024, at 7:52 AM, Jairo Avalos
<[email protected]> wrote:

Page 46 of 792 ends

5 [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your
organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hi Mayor Wong and Mayor Pro tem Ngo,

I sent over an email with some ideas for Saturn Park, along with some useful short examples of types of good
developments to allow but I received a note saying the email was blocked. Do you all know if emails sent with images or links etc are blocked? I would love for you two to be able to see the examples.

Page 47 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Email from Deb, dated August 7, 2024

Page 48 of 792 ends

From: Deb SGV
To: Ngo, Vinh T.; Wong, Thomas; Yiu, Yvonne; Lo, Henry; Sanchez, Jose; MPClerk; CMO; Serrano, Jessica; [email protected]
Subject: Saturn Park - Data Center Laws From AZ, VA
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 10:14:25 PM
Attachments: Fairfax County VA Data-Centers-Draft-text.pdf ChandlerAZ DataCenter Final Ordinance.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hi - it's Deb Shibuyama Simone from Orange Ave, less than a quarter mile from the 1977 Saturn site. I spoke at the first SPARC meeting, and plan to speak again this week. I've been doing research and I found several municipalities, counties, and states that have had to retroactively regulate data centers after concerns about noise and power usage.

I'm going to present a synopsis of what I found to the committee, but I wanted to share these two ordinances, directly with all of you, because they sum up the issues well. If we go with the new data center, regulations like this will save a lot of headaches later, literally and figuratively.

Not sure if any of this has already been discussed, but I figured I'd do due diligence.

The issues basically are: Noise, Power Usage, and Accountability.

I plan to advocate for re-zoning that area as residential and putting up some townhomes for younger families, because these new giant data centers seem like more trouble than they're worth. I'll say that in the meeting as well.

Thanks,
Deb

Page 49 of 792 ends

Department of Planning and Development
Zoning Administration Division
12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 807
Fairfax, Virginia
22035-5507
Phone 703-324-1314
Fax 703-803-6372
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development
C o u n t y o f F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a
To protect and enrich the quality of life for the people, neighborhoods and diverse communities of Fairfax County April 23, 2024
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – DATA CENTERS
Staff Summary

BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2024, the Board of Supervisors (Board) directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment to strengthen the current provisions for data centers and authorized the scheduling of public hearings on an amendment. TheBoard Matter stated that the public hearing before the Board should be scheduled for July 2024. Public hearings on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to data centers are scheduled for:
 Planning Commission: June 5, 2024, at 7:00 p.m.
 Board of Supervisors: July 16, 2024, at 4:00 p.m.

This document provides a summary of potential options for consideration and draft text for discussion (Attachment 1). The draft text is based on the research included in theData Centers Report and Recommendations, dated January 9, 2024, and the discussions at the Board’s Land Use Policy Committee meeting on March 12, 2024. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, a staff report with proposed text will be published.

CURRENT REGULATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows data centers in the zoning districts shown in Table 1 below. Lot size and bulk regulations vary according to the zoning district. In addition, transitional screening and barriers are required in accordance with the recently amended Section 5108of the Zoning Ordinance. Among other provisions, these regulations require a 50-foot-wide landscaped transitional screening yard between industrial and residential uses.

The use standards for data centers include the building size thresholds for by-right development listed in the table below, as well as a requirement that, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts, all equipment for cooling, ventilating, or otherwise operating the facility, including emergency power generators and other power supply equipment, be contained in an enclosed building.

Page 50 of 792 ends

Data Centers
April 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

Zoning District By Right Special Exception
C-3 (Office)
C-4 (High Intensity Office)
Up to 40,000 SF of GFA;
or larger if repurposing a
building existing on
May 10, 2023
Required for larger size; or
for increase in height or
FAR
I-2 (Low Intensity Industrial)
I-3 (Light Intensity Industrial)
Up to 80,000 SF of GFA;
or larger if repurposing a
building existing on
May 10, 2023
Required for larger size; or
for increase in height or
FAR
I-4 (Medium Intensity Industrial)
I-5 (General Industrial)
I-6 (Heavy Industrial)
Yes (limited by district
height of 75 fee
t and
FAR of 0.5)
Required for increase in
height or FAR
PRC (Town Center,
Convention/Conference Center)
PDC (Planned Development
Commercial)
PTC (Planned Tysons Corner
Urban)
Yes, if shown on the
development plan
n/a
Table 1: Current Zoning Permissions1

POTENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS
The overall approach of the draft text (Attachment 1) is to add new use standards and revise the existing use standards that apply to data centers permitted by right, and to allow a special exception (SE) application to modify certain of those standards. Similarly, the draft text proposes additional standards for data centers in P districts that could be modified by the Board. This approach recognizes that the potential impacts of a data center may vary based on its size, location, equipment, and other features, as well as the evolving nature of the data center industry.

Further, the approach reflects the purpose of each zoning district and intends to guide data centers to the heaviest industrial districts.

Permissions
The draft text revises the permissions for data centers to show that in all conventional districts where a data center is allowed, it could be approved by right, subject to use-specific standards, and an SE could be allowed to modify certain standards. For example, if a use standard specifies a maximum building size or a minimum distance to residential, then an SE could allow for a larger size or a lesser distance. To provide flexibility for the Board, the permission options are broadly proposed to allow the Board to adopt this permission structure (by right with use standards/modifications by SE) for certain districts, while regulations in other districts could require an SE for any data center or disallow any new data centers. 1Abbreviations used in the table: SF – square feet; GFA – gross floor area; FAR – floor area ratio.

Page 51 of 792 ends

Data Centers
April 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

The draft text does not propose any changes to the zoning districts in which data centers are allowed, ex
cept for the PRC District. While data centers are currently permitted in the PRC District, no existing or approved data centers are currently located in the PRC District.

Additionally, no other industrial uses are allowed in the PRC District except for craft beverage production establishment and small-scale production establishment – uses with a customer focus that is compatible with the Town Center and Convention/Conference Center areas. Therefore, the draft text shows an option to remove the permission for data centers in the PRC District.

Additionally, in the P districts, sometimes the proffers allow all or most of the uses permitted in the zoning district. To ensure that a data center is specifically planned for a particular location, the draft text revises the permissions in the P districts to SE (including the PRC District if the use is not removed).

Use Standards
Several new and revised standards are listed in Table 2 and further described below.

By-right standards SE standards
Equipment
screening/enclosure
All districts Same
Maximum size C-3, C-4: 40,000 SF or
repurposing
I-2 – I-4: 80,000 SF or
repurposing
Size limit may be exceeded;
zoning district FAR still
applies
Setback from residential 200 feet
(up to 500 feet)
SE for lesser distance
Distance from Metro ½ mile SE for lesser distance
Noise study All districts Same
Building design standards Conventional districts: main
entrance feature; variation in
fa
çade surface every 150 feet;
minimum 30% fenestration
SE or development plan:
submit architectural sketches,
sight line studies; variation in
massing if within 200 feet of
residential
Table 2: Data Center Use Standards
In addition to the use-specific standards, all SE uses must comply with the general SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance and must be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The general SE standards (subsection4102.1.F) include, among other standards, that the proposed use must not adversely affect the use or future development of neighboring properties. The Comprehensive Plan review includes the Policy Plan and any site-specific text and may recommend that issues such as green building and renewable energy commitments, stormwater quality, and other environmental topics be addressed. On December 6, 2022, the Board authorized consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Countywide Policy Plan. The first stage of community engagement is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2024.

Page 52 of 792 ends

Data Centers
April 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

Revised use-specific standards are shown in the draft text to mitigate potential impacts. Certain standards that apply to b
y right development could be modified as part of an SE process. In addition to the standards below, staff is reviewing whether additional provisions should be considered for surface containment around above-ground fuel tanks.  Screening and enclosure of equipment – The Zoning Ordinance currently requires equipment for data centers (HVAC, generators, etc.) to be in an enclosed building, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts. The draft text includes several revisions to this standard: (a) removes the exception for the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts; (b) adds that the purpose of the provision is to provide visual screening and reduce noise; (c) requires equipment to be fully enclosed, except where the Director of Land Development Services determines that it is not mechanically feasible and adds a requirement for a screening wall if the equipment cannot be fully enclosed; and (d) adds a requirement for a screening wall for any accessory electrical substation. The changes recognize that certain types of systems, such as a cooling tower, cannot be located within an enclosed building.
 Size thresholds for by-right data centers – The potential for certain localized impacts of data centers increases in accordance with the gross floor area. Size thresholds allow data centers to be approved by right up to a certain size, or larger with SE approval. In order to guide data centers to locate in the I-5 and I-6 Districts, the heaviest industrial areas in the County, no additional building size limit is proposed for these districts. Each district’s limitations on floor area ratio would continue to apply.
o C-3 and C-4: These are commercial office districts. Recognizing that data centers are industrial uses which may not be compatible with the surrounding development, the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a maximum size of 40,000 square feet of gross floor area, or a larger size with repurposing of an existing building or with SE approval in a new building. No changes are proposed for these districts. However, options are included to remove the allowance for a larger by-right size with repurposing or to add a maximum size of 200,000 square feet of GFA for a data center proposed by right through repurposing.
o I-2, I-3, and I-4: The draft text adds the I-4 District to the standard that currently applies to I-2
and I-3, which limits the maximum size of a data center to 80,000 square feet of gross floor area. As with the standard that applies to C-3 and C-4, the 80,000-square-foot limit can be exceeded with SE approval or with the repurposing of an existing building; options are included to remove the allowance for a larger by-right size with repurposing or to add a maximum size of 200,000 square feet of GFA for a data center proposed by right through repurposing.
 Setback from residential – Setbacks can minimize potential visual and noise impacts on surrounding areas. A new standard is included in the draft text that requires a data center building and/or its equipment (e.g., HVAC, generators) to be located a minimum distance from residential zoning, and a lesser distance would be allowed with SE approval. The proposed standard refers to an “R district” which includes both conventional and planned

Page 53 of 792 ends

Data Centers
April 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

district residential areas in accordance with subsection9100.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. The draft standard includes a setback of 200 feet, but a broad range could be considered. This setback is based on a review of other setbacks in the Zoning Ordinance for uses which can have impacts on adjacent residential property including, among other uses, 100 feet for a barn for livestock or poultry with an agricultural operation, 150 to 250 feet for an extraction activity, and 250 feet for a crematory. In addition, Loudoun County, with the recent update of its zoning ordinance, requires a 200-foot setback for a data center from residential property.  Distance from Metro – Because of the expectation for pedestrian activity and active street fronts, and the desire to put high-population and employment centers near transit, data centers would not generally be compatible with the type of development planned for transit station areas and other areas near Metro stations. Therefore, a standard is included in the draft text that would not allow a data center within ½ mile of a Metro station entrance without SE approval. The SE approval would allow an innovative data center form, such as wrapping a building with active uses, to be accommodated on a site-specific basis.  Noise study – To ensure that data centers incorporate the features needed to mitigate potential noise impacts and comply with the Noise Ordinance, the draft text includes a standard requiring a noise study to be submitted for by right data centers as well as those undergoing rezoning or SE review. The standard also requires a post-construction noise study to confirm compliance with the Noise Ordinance prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit. Noise studies have been submitted as part of the review of certain data centers within Fairfax that have been approved by a rezoning or SE, and are required by other jurisdictions, including Loudoun County.
 Building design – A data center is an industrial building, and many have large blank facades.

To facilitate a high-quality building design, standards are proposed for by-right data centers.

The draft standards are objective and would require building designs that include a main entrance feature, façade variation, and a minimum amount of fenestration design features, which can include faux windows. For data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review, architectural renderings and sight-line studies would be required to demonstrate that the building would be reflective of a high-quality design. For data centers that are closer to residential areas, a variation in massing would also be required, such as changes in the building height.

Submission requirements
The draft text includes new submission requirements for a rezoning or SE to support the use standards for a noise study and architectural depictions.

Page 54 of 792 ends

Data Centers
April 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

NEXT STEPS
Community meetings are scheduled for:

Thursday, May 2, 2024, at 12:00 noon
Thursday,
May 2, 2024, at 7:00 p.m.

Monday, May 6, 2024, at 7:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024, at 12:00 noon
All four meetings will be virtual and include the same content. The different dates and times are intended to provide flexibility for attendees. Information about these meetings is posted on this website: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zoning-ordinance/amendments.

In addition, questions and comments can be directed to Carmen Bishop, Deputy Zoning Administrator, at 703-324-1314, [email protected]. A staff report with the proposed amendment will be published before the Planning Commission public hearing.

ATTACHMENT

1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text for Discussion

Page 55 of 792 ends

Attachment 1
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Data Centers
Draft Text for Discussion
April 23, 2024
ARTICLE 4 - USE REGULATIONS
4101. Use Tables

3. Use Table for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Districts TABLE 4101.1: Use Table for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Districts P = permitted; SE = special exception; SP = special permit; blank cell = not allowed A = allowed as accessory use only; A+ = permitted as an associated service use; AP = allowed with approval of administrative permit Use
Residential Districts Commercial Districts Industrial Districts Use-Specific Standards
NOTE: General
Standards also
apply
Industrial Uses
Freight Movement, Warehousing, and Wholesale Distribution: uses involving the movement, storage, and distribution of goods. Goods are generally delivered to other firms or the final consumer.

Data
Center
P
SE
P
SE
P
SE
P
SE
P
SE
P
SE
P
SE 4102.6.A
INSTRUCTION: Revise permissions for Data Center to add SE for I-4, I-5, I-6, as shown in Table 4101.1 below.

Table 4101.2, Option 1 removes the permission for a data center in the PRC District, and both options revise the planned district permissions to SE. In addition to the options shown below, consider all options for permissions – P and/or SE and/or if shown on a development plan for planned districts; or not permitted in certain districts.

Page 56 of 792 ends

2 4. Use Table for Planned Development Districts
TABLE 4101.2: Use Table for Planned Development Districts ✓ = permitted if shown on final development plan/PRC development plan and PRC plan; ✓/SE = permitted if shown on final development plan/PRC development plan and PRC plan, or as special exception if not on plan(s) SE = special exception; SP = special permit; blank cell = not allowed A = allowed as accessory use only; A+ = permitted as an associated service use; AP = allowed with approval of administrative permit
Use

PDH PRC PDC PRM PTC PCC
Use-Specific
Standards
NOTE: General
Standards also
apply
Industrial Uses
Freight Movement, Warehousing, and Wholesale Distribution: uses involving the movement, storage, and distribution of goods. Goods are generally delivered to other firms or the final consumer.

Data Center
OPTION 1 ✓ ✓ ✓
SE
✓
SE 4102.6.A
Data Center
OPTION 2
✓
SE
✓
SE
✓
SE
✓
SE 4102.6.A
4102. Use Standards

6. Industrial Uses
Freight Movement, Warehousing, and Wholesale Distribution A. Data Center
Standards applicable to all data centers:
(1) In all districts except the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts, To provide visual screening and reduce noise levels, all equipment necessary for cooling, ventilating, or otherwise operating the facility, including power generators or other power supply equipment, must be contained within an fully enclosed, except where determined by the Director to not be mechanically feasible. building where the use is located. This includes emergency power generators and other emergency power supply equipment. If the equipment is not enclosed, it must be screened by a wall or similar barrier. In addition, any accessory electrical substation must be screened by a wall or similar barrier.

INSTRUCTION: Revise the standards as shown below. Renumber/reletter as needed. Options included below.

Page 57 of 792 ends

3 (2) In the C-3 and C-4 Districts, the maximum building size is 40,000 square feet of gross floor area.

However, this size limit may be exceeded:
(a) If the use is located in a building existing on May 10, 2023 (insert effective date of the amendment); or [option to delete this allowance for a larger size in an existing building or to add a maximum size of up to 200,000 square feet of gross floor area when the use is located in an existing building]
(b) With special exception approval in accordance with subsection 8100.3. (3) In the I-2, and I-3, and I-4 Districts, the maximum building size is 80,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, this size limit may be exceeded:
(a) If the use is located in a building existing on May 10, 2023 (insert effective date of the amendment); or [option to delete this allowance for a larger size in an existing building or to add a maximum size of up to 200,000 square feet of gross floor area when the use is located in an existing building]
(b) With special exception approval in accordance with subsection 8100.3. (4) Any data center building, equipment for cooling, ventilating, or otherwise operating the facility, power generator, or other power supply equipment must be located at least 200 feet from the lot line of an R district. A lesser distance may be allowed with special exception approval in accordance with subsection 8100.3. [option for a minimum distance up to 500 feet, and for a different distance within the 500-foot limit for I-5 and I-6 than other districts] (5) A data center building must be located at least one-half mile from a Metro station entrance. A lesser distance may be allowed with special exception approval in accordance with subsection 8100.3.
(6) Prior to site plan approval, a noise study must be submitted demonstrating to the Zoning Administrator’s satisfaction that the operation of the data center will comply with the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 108.1 of the County Code. In addition, prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit, a post-construction noise study must be submitted demonstrating to the Zoning Administrator’s satisfaction that the operation complies with the Noise Ordinance.

Standards when permitted by right:
(7) A data center building must include a main entrance feature that is differentiated from the remainder of the building façade by a change in building material, pattern, texture, color, or accent material. The entrance feature must also either project or recess from the adjoining building plane.
(8) All building façades must include:
(a) A change in the facade surface for every 150 horizontal feet of at least one of the following: building material, pattern, texture, color, or accent material; and (b) Windows, doors, or similar fenestration design features such as faux windows, must be distributed horizontally and vertically across the façade and comprise a minimum of 30 percent of the individual façade.

Standards when permitted by development plan or special exception:
(9) A data center building must be designed to minimize adverse visual impacts on surrounding development as demonstrated by the submission of elevations, architectural sketches, or sight line studies. The building should have a high-quality design as evidenced by the use of materials, color, and texture. If the building is located less than 200 feet [distance to match the distance in

Page 58 of 792 ends

4 A(4) above] from an R district, it should include changes in building height or other design techniques to provide variation in building mass as viewed from the nearby residential district.

ARTICLE 8 - ADMINISTRATION, PROCEDURES,

AND ENFORCEMENT
8101. Submission Requirements

2. Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings)
E. Supporting Reports and Studies
The following additional information must be submitted:
(12) Data Center
For a rezoning to allow a data center, the application requires the following additional information:
(a) A noise study demonstrating that the operation of the data center will comply with the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 108.1 of the County Code.
(b) Architectural depictions of the proposed building and associated equipment as viewed from all lot lines and street lines.

3. Special Exceptions, Special Permits, and Variances
D. Additional or Modified Submission Requirements for Specific Special Exception Applications
The following are additional or modified submission requirements for special exception applications for:
(8) Data Center
(a) A noise study demonstrating that the operation of the data center will comply with the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 108.1 of the County Code.
(b) Architectural depictions of the proposed building and associated equipment as viewed from all lot lines and street lines.

INSTRUCTION: Add rezoning and special exception submission requirements for a data center. Renumber as needed.

Page 59 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 5033

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA, AMENDING ARTICLES II. DEFINITIONS, AND XXII.

ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 35 OF

THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF CHANDLER, RELATING TO DATA CENTERS.

WHEREAS, in accordance with A.R.S. 9-462, the legislative body may adopt by ordinance, any change or amendment to the regulations and provisions as set forth in the Chandler Zoning Code; and

WHEREAS, this amendment, including the draft text, has been published as an 1/8-page display ad in a local newspaper with general circulation in the City of Chandler, giving fifteen (15) days’ notice of time, date and place of public hearing; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission as required by the Zoning Code, on October 19, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Chandler, Arizona, as follows:

Section 1. Section 35-200, of Article II. Definitions, of Chapter 35 o f the City Code of the City of Chandler, is hereby amended by adding the following definition:

Data Center: A facility or portion of a facility housing networked computer systems and telecommunications equipment used for remote storage, processing, and distribution of data.

Section 2. Section 35 -2214, of Article XXII. ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS, of Chapter 35, of the City Code of the City of Chandler, is hereby added to read as follows:
35-2214. Data Centers.
(1) Data Centers are not permitted to operate in the City of Chandler unless explicitly approved as part of a Planned Area Development zoning district. Data Centers that are ancillary to another primary use are permitted if they a) occupy no more than ten percent of the building footprint, b) are used to serve the enterprise functions of the on -site property owner and are not used to lease data storage and processing services to third parties, and c) are not housed in a separate stand-alone structure on the parcel.
(2) Before a Data Center is constructed within a Planned Area Development zoning district, the property owner proposing to build a Data Center must comply with the following:

Page 60 of 792 ends

Ordinance No. 5033

Page 2 ends

a. The Data Center operator or property owner must notify residents within a half-mile radius of the parcel, including any affiliated homeowners’ association operating within the half -mile radius, that the property owner intends to build and operate a Data Center on the property. The notice required in this section must be mailed to all postal addresses and homeowners’ association addresses contained within a half -mile radius extending from the property line where the proposed Data Center will be built.
b. The Data Center operator must schedule and attend two neighborhood meetings with residents to describe the project and the proposed sound-mitigation aspects of the project design. Notice of the neighborhood meetings must be mailed to all residents and homeowners associations within a half-mile radius of the parcel. A representative of the developer or owner with decision -making authority on the design of the Data Center must attend the neighborhood meetings. The Data Center operator or property owner must also post a sign on the subject property, at least fifteen days before each neighborhood meeting, in accordance with design standards specified in Section 35-2601.1. The sign must be located along an arterial street or other high-visibility location as reasonably determined by the Zoning Administrator. The content of the sign shall (i) be consistent with the City’s generally applicable sign guidelines for posting signs for notification of neighborhood meetings, (ii) include the applicant name and contact information, a brief description of the Data Center project, and the date, time, and location of the neighborhood meeting, and (iii) must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator before installation. The applicant must remove the sign at the conclusion of the citizen review process.
(3) Upon request by City staff after issuance of a certificate of occupancy and commencement of the operation of the Data Center , the operator of a Data Center must provide an on-site neighborhood liaison between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm MST each day to respond to complaints about noise emanating from the Data Center.
(4) Before the first neighborhood meeting is held, the property owner proposing to build a Data Center must conduct a sound study performed by a third-party acoustic engineer to document baseline sound levels in the area of the proposed Data Center, including noise levels measured at the property line of the nearest property to the Data Center property that is planned or zoned for residential land uses, or other noise sensitive use as reasonably determined by the Zoning Administrator. The property owner must provide a copy of the results of the study to the City before the first neighborhood meeting. (5) The Data Center must be designed and built to incorporate sound mitigation methods sufficient to prevent the sound levels emanating from the Data Center (as determined by a third-party acoustic

Page 61 of 792 ends

Ordinance No. 5033

Page 3 ends

engineer) from exceeding the ambient noise levels that were observed in the baseline study. Design specifications for such sound mitigation must be provided to the City before building permit approval. (6) Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, whichever occurs first, the Data Center operator must conduct a noise study performed by a third-party acoustical engineer to document noise levels emanating from the Data Center measured at the property line of the nearest property to the Data Center property that is planned or zoned for residential land uses, or other noise sensitive use as reasonably determined by the Zoning Administrator during peak operation of the Dat a Center mechanical equipment. The Data Center operator must also conduct an additional noise study, as measured at the property line of the nearest property to the Data Center property that is planned or zoned for residential land uses, or other noise sen sitive use as reasonably determined by the Zoning Administrator, annually during peak operation of the Data Center mechanical equipment for five years after completion of the initial post-construction noise study. The Data Center operator must provide the results of the noise study to the City within thirty days of the anniversary of the date on which the certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion was issued by the City.
(7) If the Data Center operator intends to use backup power generators on the parcel, the operator must maintain a public website announcing the times when the generators will be in operation. Any routine operation of the backup generators, including for testing purposes, must be announced on the website at least t wenty-four hours in advance. The operator shall also notify the City of Chandler Communications and Public Affairs Department at least 24 hours in advance of a test. Unless the generators are supplying backup electrical supply during a power outage, backup generators may operate between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Upon request by City staff, the Data Center operator must provide the address of the website where the notices required by this section are published.

Section 3. Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, or any parts hereof, are hereby repealed.

Section 4. Providing for Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

Page 62 of 792 ends

Ordinance No. 5033

Page 4 ends

INTRODUCED AND TENTATIVELY APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Chandler, Arizona, this _____day of _____, 2022.

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK MAYOR

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chandler, Arizona, this _____day of , 2022.

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK MAYOR

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 5033 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chandler, Arizona, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2022, and that a quorum was present thereat.

CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Published in the Arizona Republic on:

CITY ATTORNEY

&$&'#&)

&$&'#&)
&$&'#&)

!

&$&'#&)
"(%&$&'#&)

Page 63 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
Email from Joe Leyva, dated August 12, 2024

Page 64 of 792 ends

From: Joe Leyva (HPC)
To: Serrano, Jessica; Chow, Beth
Subject: Explosion of power-hungry data centers could derail California clean energy goals Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 9:22:07 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I thought you would be interested in this story I found on MSN: Explosion of power-hungry data centers could derail California clean energy goals - https://www.msn.com/en- us/money/companies/explosion-of-power-hungry-data-centers-could-derail-california-clean- energy-goals/ar-AA1oEeJN?
ocid=socialshare&cvid=d1ac5d9c115243e8b60ddadbc9ff2dba&ei=33

Page 65 of 792 ends

/0
/0
/0
/1/2/3 /4 /i255 /6 /2 /7 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /11 /i255 /12 /13 /14 /3 /i255 /15 /i255 /12 /13 /4 /15 /4 /16 /13 /15 /9 /i255/17/10/18 /13 /19 /7 /14 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /25 /23 /29 /i255 /31 /25 /28 /25 /23 /29 /i255 /32 /i255 /33 /25 /23 /32 /23 /34 /25 /32 /35 /i255 /32 /26 /36 /25 /24 /22 /28 /37 /i255 /38 /27 /28 /27 /39 /24 /i255/40/31/32 /41 /i255 /42 /22 /43 /i255 /23 /27 /27 /26 /i255 /41 /22 /i255 /44 /23 /22 /40 /45 /27 /33 /22 /28 /27 /31 /32 /23 /26 /46
/47/48/49 /50 /51 /49 /52 /53 /54 /i255 /56/57/58 /i255 /47/59/60/52 /61 /62 /51 /51 /53 /61 /63 /64 /65 /66 /67 /i255/69/70/66/64

Page 66 of 792 ends

Page 67 of 792 ends

Page 68 of 792 ends

Page 69 of 792 ends

Page 70 of 792 ends

Page 71 of 792 ends

Page 72 of 792 ends

Page 73 of 792 ends

Page 74 of 792 ends

Page 75 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4
Handout from Scott Rynders, submitted
August 12, 2024

Page 76 of 792 ends

Page 77 of 792 ends

Page 78 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754

MONDAY
August 19, 2024
6:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairperson Wong called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE: Member Johnny Kwok lead the flag salute.

ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Wong called the roll:

Members Present: Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

Members Absent: None.

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Inez Alvarez, Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe, Director of Community Development Jessica Serrano, Planning Manager Beth Chow, Office Assistant II Megan Cheung

City Consultants from Willdan Engineering: Salvador Lopez and Juliet Arroyo

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES
Approving the meeting minutes for the regular meeting of August 12, 2024.

Action Taken: The approval of the August 12, 2024 meeting minutes was continued to the next regular meeting of July 29, 2024.

[2.] NEW BUSINESS

MINUTES

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)

REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2024

Page 79 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 19, 2024 – Page 2

2-A. WORKSHOP #3 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK. THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM
WILLDAN ENGINEERING.

The meeting started with public input from attendees. Each speaker was given a maximum of three minutes to address their comments.

Comments received from the public included:

• Opposition to stagnation in the community;
• Question as to why some residents want the area to stay the same; • Suggestion that the City retain consultants to help market Saturn Park to promote the sale of vacant properties;
• Clarification on land use decision appearing on ballot during Citywide election;
• Clarification and restatement that data centers are permitted uses; • Suggestion to participants pay attention to details provided because the “80% vacancy rate” only applies to two buildings;
• Suggestion on split uses based on proximity to residences; • Need for participants to understand that the committee is there to explore possibilities; and
• Concern that the City is not as developed as neighboring cities.

Consultant Salvador Lopez made a presentation about Saturn Park including:
land area, occupied vs. unoccupied space, number of lots, number of parking spaces, current land use regulations and primary uses. Additionally, information was presented about the SPARC visioning process, development review process, and a summary of community input received at the July 29, 2024 and August 12, 2024 regular meetings.

Consultant Salvador Lopez and Juliet Arroyo led participants on a series of ranking exercises and introduced seven land use types based on the input received at the SPARC Meeting No. 2. They first provided explanations on each type of land use, then provided several boards with visual themes and ideas; one board for each land use, and asked participants to place one sticker on each board. Green sticker indicated high favorability, red sticker indicate d low favorability , and yellow sticker indicated neutral. The s even land uses were:

• Innovation Technology;
• Low Density Residential;
• Medium Density Residential;
• High Density Residential;
• Mixed-Use Development;

Page 80 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 19, 2024 – Page 3

• Neighborhood Serving Commercial; and
• Public/Open Spaces

Participated placed a green, yellow or red sticker on each of the 7 boards to indicate their preference for that land use category at Saturn Park. The table below summarizes the outcome of this exercise:

USE CATEGORY Green Yellow Red Total
Innovation/Technology 19 (47.5%) 11 (27.5%) 10 (25.0%) 40 (100%) Low Density Residential 12 (31.6%) 6 (15.8%) 20 (52.6%) 38 (100%) Medium Density Residential 12 (31.6%) 4 (10.5%) 22 (57.9%) 38 (100%) High Density Residential 10 (25.6%) 4 (10.3%) 25 (64.1%) 39 (100%) Mixed-Use 15 (38.4%) 9 (23.1%) 15 (38.5%) 39 (100%) Neighborhood Serving Commercial 14 (35.9%) 11 (28.2%) 14 (35.9%) 39 (100%) Public/Open Space 11 (28.2%) 2 (05.15) 26 (66.7%) 39 (100% )

SPARC members made closing remarks and received additional public comments, including:

• Opposition to open spaces;
• City should concentrate on spending money on fixing existing Barnes swimming pool and gym instead of focusing on this project; • Support for dog park;
• Need to attract more young families due to concerning enrollment rate at Hillcrest, leading to cuts in staff and classes; and • Concerns that current infrastructures do not support additional retail development as well as additional traffic.

Written Comments submitted prior to or on August 19, 2024 (see Attachments 1-2):
• Email and letter from Lucia and Eric Roybal, dated August 16, 2024 o Expressed concerns regarding the SPARC visioning process, opposition to make any changes to existing zoning, and urge City to conduct environmental study of Saturn Park.

• Emails from Dave Jones, dated August 18, 2024
o Provided four links with videos promoting moving away from car dependent development and instead, promoting walkability, sustainability, and concept of the 15-minute city.

ADJOURNMENT

Page 81 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 19, 2024 – Page 4

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

____________________________________
Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development

Page 82 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Email and Letter from Lucia and Eric Roybal,
dated August 16, 2024

Page 83 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Alvarez, Inez; Garcia, Diana; Serrano, Jessica
Subject: Fwd: Opposition to Rezoning Saturn Park Without Further Environmental Study Date: Friday, August 16, 2024 8:03:35 AM
Attachments: SaturnPark_Council.docx
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Luci Corona <[email protected]>
Date: August 16, 2024 at 12:29:07 AM PDT
To: "Wong, Thomas" <[email protected]>, "Ngo, Vinh T." <[email protected]>, "Yiu, Yvonne" <[email protected]> Cc:

Eric Roybal <[email protected]>, "Lo, Henry"
<[email protected]>, "Sanchez, Jose"
<[email protected]>, MPClerk
<[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Saturn Park Without Further Environmental Study

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City of Monterey Park Council Members,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the representation provided by the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC). As a homeowner residing directly adjacent to Saturn Park, I have attended all SPARC workshops to date.

Unfortunately, I believe the committee does not adequately represent the interests of community members like myself.

Firstly, there are no committee members who live adjacent to the property and would be directly affected by any rezoning decisions related to Saturn Park. This lack of representation raises questions about the committee's ability to make informed and fair recommendations.

Secondly, the workshop format employed by SPARC has been confusing, unorganized, and misguided; our own input has been misinterpreted by both the committee and its moderators.

Furthermore, the workshops are presented as an opportunity for community

Page 84 of 792 ends

members to share their interests and ideas, however, it appears that city council and SPARC committee are already considering adding a residential component that would allow for mixed-use development and low income housing to Saturn Park, as described in Ordinance 2245 Section 2 H & I.

I wish to formally express my opposition, along with my partner Eric Roybal to any zoning changes that would impact the Saturn Park Innovation/Technology area. While we appreciate the city council’s proactive efforts to reimagine and reshape underutilized spaces, we believe that a comprehensive study is essential to assess the potential effects on community health and overall quality of life.

Therefore, we strongly urge the city to extend this analysis to include Saturn Park, considering its unique context, proximity to residential neighborhoods, and limited thoroughfare.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Lucia and Eric Roybal
Monterey Park Resident
(323) 350-7244
Please see attached document

Page 85 of 792 ends

August 16, 2024

To: City of Monterey Park Council Members
320 Newmark Ave.

Monterey Park, CA 91754

From: Lucia and Eric Roybal
2020 Clover Dr.

Monterey Park, CA. 91755

Re: Opposition to Rezoning Saturn Park Without Further Environmental Study

Dear City of Monterey Park Council Members,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the representation provided by the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC). As a homeowner residing directly adjacent to Saturn Park, I have attended all SPARC workshops to date. Unfortunately, I believe the committee does not adequately represent the interests of community members like myself.

Secondly, the workshop format employed by SPARC has been confusing, unorganized, and misguided; our own input has been misinterpreted by both the committee and its moderators.

Furthermore, the workshops are presented as an opportunity for community members to share their interests and ideas, however, it appears that city council and SPARC committee are already considering adding a residential component that would allow for mixed-use development and low income housing to Saturn Park, as described in Ordinance 2245 Section 2 H & I.

All environmental studies conducted over the past 23 years have exclusively focused on specific areas, including Corporate Center, Corporate Place, Monterey Pass, Downtown Core, Downtown Perimeter, Garvey Corridor, South Atlantic, and North Atlantic. The reports consistently conclude that new policies and programs in these specific areas would have significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, we strongly urge the city to extend this analysis to include Saturn Park, considering its unique context, proximity to residential neighborhoods, and limited thoroughfare.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lucia and Eric Roybal
Monterey Park Resident
(323) 350-7244

Page 86 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Emails from Dave Jones,
dated August 18, 2024

Page 87 of 792 ends

From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 6:20:52 PM
To: Salvador Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee - Walkable Cities

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Willdan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez,

Please share these two videos on walkable cities in the US that represent my vision of the example Saturn Park can become for the future of Monterey Park.

https://youtu.be/XLJLw3VkMoA?si=Nx02JMczOnoFcZcn

https://youtu.be/QcPaxCTZpfM?si=4jUFQMxNoU9jnOdR

City Nerd has a great YouTube channel for cities like Monterey Park should strive to become. Highly recommended.

Thank you,
Dave Jones

From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 6:10:50 PM
To: Salvador Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee: 15-minute city

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Willdan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez,

Please share this video featuring Carlos Moreno's talk on his idea of the 15-minute city.

https://youtu.be/TQ2f4sJVXAI?si=t1rNlnPo7VFdUbkn

This represents the core of my vision for what Saturn Park can become.

Thank you,
Dave Jones

From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 6:05:34 PM
To: Salvador Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee

Page 88 of 792 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Willdan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez,

Please share this video with the members of the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC).

The video explains why the car dependent development central to Monterey Park's existing development will eventually bankrupt the city, and why I believe Saturn Park presents a unique opportunity to envision a more sustainable future for the city.

https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0?si=V3v4i7t_E_4AQ26f

Thank you,
Dave Jones

Page 89 of 792 ends

REGULAR SPARC MEETING
Monterey Park City Service Club House
440 South McPherrin Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754

THURSDAY
August 29, 2024
6:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairperson Wong called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE: Member Johnny Kwok lead the flag salute.

ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Wong called the roll:

Members Present: Vice Chairperson Vinh Ngo, Member Philip Chang, Member Johnny Kwok, Member Paul Lee, Member Joe Leyva, Member Tammy Sam, Member Victoria Chen Stapleton, Member Maychelle Yee

Members Absent: None.

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Inez Alvarez, Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe, Director of Community Development Jessica Serrano, Director of Finance Martha Garcia, City Librarian Kristin Olivarez, Police Captain Bill Cuevas, Detective Guotao Zeng, Planning Manager Beth Chow, Office Assistant II Megan Cheung

City Consultants from Willdan Engineering: Salvador Lopez and Juliet Arroyo

[1.] CONSENT CALENDAR
1-A. MINUTES

Action Taken: The SPARC approved and adopted the meeting minutes f or the regular meetings of August 12, 2024 and August 19, 2024.

Motion: Moved by Vice Chairperson Ngo and seconded by Member Joe

MINUTES

SATURN PARK ADVISORY REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPARC)

REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 29, 2024

Page 90 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 29, 2024 – Page 2

Leyva, a motion was carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Committee Members: Wong, Ngo, Chang, Kwok, Lee, Leyva, Sam, Chen Stapleton
Noes: Committee Members: None

Absent: Committee Members: None
Abstain: Committee Member: Yee

[2.] NEW BUSINESS
2-A. WORKSHOP #4 TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE USES AT SATURN PARK. THE

WORKSHOP WILL BE MODERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM

WILLDAN ENGINEERING AND SPARC WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.

The meeting started with public input from attendees. Each speaker was given a maximum of three minutes to address their comments.

Comments received from the public included:

• Concern that there was in consistency between voting results and Measure JJ;
• S upport for recreation areas such as sports facilities, stadiums, indoor playgrounds, wellness center and active adult community; • Suggestion for participants to think “long- term” into the future and consider how the changes can benefit current children and incoming families;
• Question as to why the formation of SPARC committee did not require voting by residents;
• Need for City’s own school district, rather than the whole City splitting into four school districts;
• Need for affordable housing and mixed-uses to attract younger families to improve Hillcrest’s declining enrollment;
• Concerns that not enough outreach efforts were made in the vicinity; • Concerns on potential traffic problems and pedestrian safety; • Support to maintain current uses in the neighborhood including allowing data centers; and
• Support for a walkable neighborhood with parks that feel safe.

Consultant Salvador Lopez made a presentation about Saturn Park including:
an overview of the SPARC outreach process and recommendation, background information about the general plan land use regulations and allowed uses per zoning regulations, information about Measure JJ, and summary of community input from previous meetings. During the presentation, Director Serrano provided Saturn Park data and address ed concerns

Page 91 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 29, 2024 – Page 3

expressed by community members.

Following the presentation, discussion and comments were made by SPARC members, including:

• Support for expanded uses to help generate revenue for the City; • Need for more Saturn Park property owners to come together for further discussion;
• Concerns about the voter approved initiatives;
• Support to keep existing allowed uses which allow data centers; • Clarification that the committee’s recommendation is to expand uses, not reduce uses;
• Need to consider long-term vision for the City;
• Support to apply different land uses to north and south of the area; • Opposition to vacancies in the area; and
• Support for more housing opportunities.

After the discussion, SPARC members proceeded to develop and vote on a recommendation to the City Council.

Action Taken: Recommend that the Monterey Park City Council expand land uses for the Saturn Park area with consideration for areas and parcels above and west of Saturn Avenue versus the south of Saturn Avenue without eliminating any existing permitted land uses.

Motion: Moved by Member Lee and seconded by Member Leyva, the motion was carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Committee Members: Wong, Ngo, Chang, Kwok, Lee, Leyva, Sam, Chen Stapleton
Noes: Committee Members: Yee

Absent: Committee Members: None
Abstain: Committee Member: None

A substitute motion was presented by Committee Member Yee to allow voters to decide, but did not get any support from other members.

Additional comments received from the public included:

• Perception that the City and committee are not following legal processes and suggestion that the SPARCS’s recommendation require citywide voter approvals;
• Concerns that more time and community involvement are needed before any additional action is taken; and
• Support on lifting moratorium to allow more interested businesses to

Page 92 of 792 ends

SPARC Minutes – August 29, 2024 – Page 4

occupy vacant buildings.

Written comments submitted between A ugust 26, 2024 – September 5, 2024 (see Attachments 1-17):
• Email supporting continuing to allow data centers: 1
• Emails supporting no changes to existing zoning: 5
• Emails supporting expanded uses: 11

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 8: 08 p.m.

____________________________________
Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development

Page 93 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Email Eric Roybal,
dated August 26, 2024

Page 94 of 792 ends

From: Eric Roybal
To: CMO; Wong, Thomas; planningpermitcounter
Subject: ATTN: SPARC - Vote NO
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:07:05 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To Whom It May Concern: It is illegal for the City of Monterey Park to overturn the voter- approved General Plan. The City of Monterey Park must abide by the election results and uphold the General Plan as approved by the voters. Our voices matter. No changes or deviations from the existing voter-approved General Plan uses should be permitted. No one is above the law. The Monterey Park City Council must, also, follow the law and adhere to the legal process of updating the General Plan and related code requirements through review and approval by the voters as required.

Page 95 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Email from Mary Lei,
dated August 27, 2024

Page 96 of 792 ends

From: Mary Lei
To: CMO; Wong, Thomas; planningpermitcounter
Subject: ATTN: SPARC - Vote NO
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:16:00 AM
Attachments: [email protected]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To Whom It May Concern:

It is illegal for the City of Monterey Park to overturn the voter-approved General Plan. The City of Monterey Park must abide by the election results and uphold the General Plan as approved by the voters. Our voices matter. No changes or deviations from the existing voter-approved General Plan uses should be permitted. No one is above the law. The Monterey Park City Council must, also, follow the law and adhere to the legal process of updating the General Plan and related code requirements through review and approval by the voters as required.

I would strongly disapprove the City to

abuse zoning rules and regulations to create
multihousehold neighborhoods where single residential units are present and destroy the peace of our neigborhood. Overbuilding our city is destroys the peace and tranquility we long time residents enjoy and the reason why we settle here.

Mary Lei
resident since 1971

Page 97 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
Email and Letter from Lucia and Eric Roybal,
dated August 27, 2024

Page 98 of 792 ends

From: Lucia Corona
To: Wong, Thomas; Ngo, Vinh T.; Yiu, Yvonne; Lo, Henry; Sanchez, Jose; MPClerk; CMO; planningpermitcounter Cc: Eric Roybal
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Saturn Park
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:50:40 PM
Attachments: A close-up of a document Description automatically generated.png cidclip_image002.png
PastedGraphic-3.tiff
SaturnPark_Council-2.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City of Monterey Park Council Members,

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the recent workshops, the summary presented, and the composition of the committee involved in the rezoning discussions for Saturn Park. As highlighted in our previous correspondence, the information disseminated during these sessions appears ambiguous and misleading. It is troubling that members of city council and the committee, who have a vested interest in advancing a specific agenda, were permitted to participate in these workshops. This inclusion not only skews public opinion but also directs the narrative towards a predetermined outcome.

To illustrate, the total land use area under discussion encompasses 64.59 acres, comprising 19 parcels, however only 8 of these parcels are genuinely vacant. Furthermore, if the data center (which is effectively approved) is excluded, the number of truly vacant parcels is reduced to 7, totaling 27.72 acres.

Additionally, the workshop summary fails to accurately address the access routes to the proposed area. While it is correct that the site is directly accessible via Potrero Grande, Atlas Avenue, and Saturn Street, the assertion that there are "a series of three driveways from Potrero Grande" providing direct access to the entire site is misleading. These driveways primarily serve the businesses located on the southern side of the site and offer only limited access to the rest of the area through parking lots. Moreover, Potrero Grande becomes a one-way street traveling west, just 700 feet from Atlas Avenue, significantly limiting access to the site from the east. Any alternative access routes would exacerbate the congestion on already overburdened neighborhood streets.

Page 99 of 792 ends

We also seek clarity on the data supporting the claims presented to the public. Has the city monitored the decline in occupancy at Saturn Park? Can the city provide studies or evidence demonstrating how the post-pandemic office market has evolved, particularly with the shift towards remote and hybrid work models as it pertains to Saturn Park? Is there evidence that supports the city’s claim that changes have undoubtedly reduced the demand for office space and contributed to increased vacancy rates within Saturn Park?

The stated objective of the workshop is to "reimagine" Saturn Park, currently characterized by a lack of land use diversity, high vacancy rates, and underutilization. However, it appears that the city itself is contributing to the high vacancy rates by rejecting applications from prospective developers whose proposals do not align with the city's preferences.

City council intends to alter previously approved land uses based on a biased workshop, and disregards years of taxpayer-funded research that clearly indicate the city has sufficient space to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) under the current land use designations. The proposed changes to the Saturn Park Specific Plan and the corresponding zoning alterations seem to be driven by the interests of the city council rather than the needs and desires of the community. (Figure below, Housing Element 2023)

It is imperative to note that it is illegal for the City of Monterey Park to overturn the voter- approved General Plan. The city must adhere to the election results and maintain the General Plan as approved by the voters. The voices of the community must be respected, and no changes or deviations from the existing voter-approved General Plan should be permitted.

We urge the Monterey Park City Council to comply with the law and follow the proper legal

Page 100 of 792 ends

procedures for updating the General Plan and related code requirements. Any proposed changes must be subject to review and approval by the voters, as required by law.

I also wish to request the workshops be recorded and made available to the public.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Lucia and Eric Roybal

Monterey Park Residents
Please see attached document

Page 101 of 792 ends

August 27, 2024

To: City of Monterey Park Council Members
320 Newmark Ave.

Monterey Park, CA 91754

From: Lucia and Eric Roybal
2020 Clover Dr.

Monterey Park, CA 91755

Re: Opposition to Rezoning Saturn Park

Dear City of Monterey Park Council Members,

Page 102 of 792 ends

Potrero Grande" providing direct access to the entire site is misleading. These driveways primarily serve the businesses located on the southern side of the site and offer only limited access to the rest of the area through parking lots. Moreover, Potrero Grande becomes a one- way street traveling west, just 700 feet from Atlas Avenue, significantly limiting access to the site from the east. Any alternative access routes would exacerbate the congestion on already overburdened neighborhood streets.

Page 103 of 792 ends

We urge the Monterey Park City Council to comply with the law and follow the proper legal procedures for updating the General Plan and related code requirements. Any proposed changes must be subject to review and approval by the voters, as required by law.

I also wish to request the workshops be recorded and made available to the public.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Lucia and Eric Roybal
Monterey Park Residents

Page 104 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4
Email from Cindy Yee,
dated August 27, 2024

Page 105 of 792 ends

From: Garcia, Diana
To: Alvarez, Inez; Juliet Arroyo; Serrano, Jessica; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: LEAVE THE GENERAL PLAN AS IS
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:43:42 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cindy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:34:31 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: LEAVE THE GENERAL PLAN AS IS

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Attention City Council Members, City Manager, and Development Dept,

The vote of the voters has spoken and MUST be followed by our city laws. Until you can improve the lives of Monterey Park residents within our boundaries, you should not break the law by simply overturning the zoning codes in Saturn Park. You have a viable candidate that will lead to other businesses wanting to do business in that area. The worst thing this area possesses for any home building is the enormous transmission lines strung across Potrero Grande and over into the SCE power plant.

Our city’s infrastructure, with the empty storefronts and empty lots at two major intersections, is not just unsightly, it's a blight that does not appeal to visitors, let alone us residents. It’s an embarrassment!

We don't have our own school district for those who don’t know or care. One member of your committee mentioned that only three students are enrolled at Hillcrest. That’s totally wrong. I don’t know about Bella Vista, but you should give them a call. There are four kindergarten classrooms at Brightwood and Highlands because school districts like Alhambra, Garvey, Montebello, and LA (Robert Hill Lane) are using our children as pawns on a chessboard for one thing --- the almighty dollar known as ADA money (average daily attendance). You even have a member on your committee who is part of Mann’s Realty, which is a definite conflict of interest!

The people's vote has spoken, and your job is to work towards building a brighter future for Monterey Park or revamping your community and development departments. Could you allow the

Page 106 of 792 ends

data center to move into Saturn Park because the correct zoning can entice future businesses?

Yours truly,

Cindy Yee
50 year resident

Page 107 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 5
Email from Cathy Ta,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 108 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Cathy Ta
Cc: Serrano, Jessica; Alvarez, Inez; [email protected] Subject: Re: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:04:50 PM
Thank you for your email, we will include in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Cathy Ta <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello, Jessica,
Below please find my email to the City Council in support of the redevelopment of the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, particularly for tonight's final meeting on the project.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.

Best,
Cathy Ta
*********************************** Dear City Council,
I am writing to support proposals to reimagine and redevelop the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, which I understand, is suffering from a high level of (commercial) vacancy.

Monterey Park is my hometown. Having grown up here, I feel a measure of pride when the city is recognized for its good schools, wonderful location, local economy and family-friendly neighborhoods. When my husband and I were in the process of deciding where to settle down and raise our kids, Monterey Park won out due to these positive attributes, but also primarily because it is a place my parents still call home, as do my grandma - who is still alive, my brother and his family, and my extended relatives. The opportunity to raise our kids around

Page 109 of 792 ends

multi-generational relatives is bar none.

Yet, this opportunity to live near family is not available to everyone due to sky- rocket housing prices and record-low housing inventories throughout the state and the nation, Monterey Park being no exception. As a community, we need to recognize that the housing situation will only get worse, unless deliberate policies are enacted to solve the situation.

But, this is not just an economic issue. It is also a family issue and an intergenerational issue. Without practical solutions to pave the way for much needed inventory, the problem will continue into the future where our children will find themselves facing the financial predicament of being unable to afford housing within their means, much less climb onto the homeownership ladder, unless they are in the very top 1% of the income bracket. Even then, it is uncertain that they would be successful in securing a home close to family or other relatives without financial help and luck.

Monterey Park - a city of diversity with a reputation for being forward-thinking and resourceful against many odds over the years - has never been a type of place to deliberately narrow economic choices and family prospects for its own community. Instead, it needs to recommit to broadening opportunities, particularly by increasing housing supply.

The short-term and mid-term economic benefits of revitalizing the Saturn area to create more housing - whether as a mixed use project or other housing- related project - are plentiful, so I will not outline them here. What I will emphasize instead is that it is also - 100% - an intergenerational and family issue, if we are still in the business of giving opportunities for families to live and be close to one another and otherwise maintain family ties - benefits in themselves that are numerous across the board.

Overall, we need more housing-related projects, not less, as what is certain is that our Southern California housing market - and Monterey Park’s - will continue to be in high demand into the future.

Sincerely,
Cathy Ta

Page 110 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 6
Email from Connie Cheung,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 111 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Connie Cheung
Cc: Serrano, Jessica; Alvarez, Inez; [email protected] Subject: Re: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:03:57 PM
Thank you for your email, we will include in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 11:24 AM, Connie Cheung <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council,
I am writing to support proposals to reimagine and redevelop the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, which I understand, is suffering from a high level of (commercial) vacancy.

To keep our city going strong into the future, we should create better use of the Saturn business area through a mixed-used project or other housing-related development. We are in a housing crisis throughout the nation and state, so as a community, we need to recognize that Monterey Park is no exception. The housing situation will only get worse, unless deliberate policies are enacted to solve the situation.

The short-term and mid-term economic benefits of revitalizing the Saturn area to create more housing - whether as a mixed-use project or other housing-related project - are plentiful. The worst case scenario would be to leave the area as is and to deteriorate over time.

Sincerely,
Connie Cheung

Page 112 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 7
Email from Tina Ly,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 113 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Tina Ly
Cc: Serrano, Jessica; [email protected]; Alvarez, Inez Subject: Re: Saturn Park - Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:02:28 PM
Thank you for your email, we will include in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 12:49 PM, Tina Ly <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council,
We are writing to support proposals to reimagine and redevelop the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, which I understand is suffering from a high level of commercial vacancy.

Monterey Park, as well as much of the country, needs more housing and more affordable housing. While the development on South Alhambra Avenue is poorly designed as it disregards its impact on an already congested street, the Saturn business park area would be much more appropriate for a large development.

As residents of Monterey Park since 1986, we want the city to continue to attract families looking for a beautiful, diverse, interesting, and welcoming community such as ours.

Redeveloping Saturn business park to provide more mixed use and housing would be a step in that direction.

Kind regards,
Tina Ly
Khiem Ly
Thong Ly
318 S Alhambra Ave Monterey Park CA

Page 114 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 8
Email from Alan Beadle,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 115 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Alan Beadle
Cc: Serrano, Jessica; [email protected]; Alvarez, Inez Subject: Re: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 1:02:08 PM
Thank you for your email, we will include in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 12:44 PM, Alan Beadle <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hi Jessica,
I would like to share the below email to the City Council in support of the redevelopment of the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, for consideration at tonight's final meeting on the project.

Let me know if you would like to talk further or have any questions.

Thanks,
Alan
****
Dear City Council,
I would like to share my support for proposals to reimagine and redevelop the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, which I understand is suffering from high levels of vacancy.

My family and I have lived

in Monterey Park for over 14 years and I am proud
to call the city home.

When my wife and I were in the process of deciding where to settle down and raise our kids, we chose Monterey Park not just for its positive attributes, such as its great schools, location, local economy and family-friendly

Page 116 of 792 ends

neighborhoods, but also primarily because it is a place where my wife's parents, grandma, brother and his family, and extended relatives live. Being able to raise our kids around multi-generational relatives has been incredibly important and impactful for us.

Unfortunately, I realize that the opportunity to live near family is not available to everyone due to sky-high housing prices and low housing inventories throughout California and the nation as a whole.

Monterey Park is no
exception to these problems and as a community we need to recognize that the housing situation will only get worse, unless deliberate steps are taken.

This is not just an economic issue. It is also a family and intergenerational issue. Without practical solutions to create much needed housing inventory, the problem will grow to a point where our children will be unable to afford housing within their means, much less get onto the homeownership ladder, unless they are in the very top 1% of the income bracket. Even then, it is unclear if they would be successful in finding a home close to family or other relatives without additional financial support and luck.

Monterey Park is a diverse

city known for being forward-thinking and
resourceful against many challenges over the years.

It has never been the
type of place to deliberately narrow economic choices and family prospects for its own community. At

this moment, the city

needs to recommit to broadening
opportunities, particularly by increasing housing supply.

There are many short-term and mid-term economic benefits to revitalizing the Saturn area to create more housing (either as a mixed use project or some other housing-related project).

What I would like to add to this conversation is
a consideration of the

intergenerational and family issues.

Creating
opportunities for families to live and be close to one another and otherwise maintain family ties bring numerous benefits not just to those families, but our community as a whole.

The demand for housing in Southern California, and Monterey Park specifically, is going to remain high.

We need more housing-related projects, not less, to
meet this need.

Yours,
Alan Beadle

Page 117 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 9
Email from Jan Nishia,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 118 of 792 ends

From: Garcia, Diana
To: Alvarez, Inez; Serrano, Jessica; [email protected]; Juliet Arroyo; Wong, Thomas Subject: Fwd: SPARC - Vote NO
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 9:00:17 AM
Good morning -
Forwarding an email received this morning.

Diana G.

Get
Outlook for iOS
From: Jan Nishida <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 8:51:42 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: SPARC - Vote NO

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Subject Line: ATTN: SPARC - Vote NO

To Whom It May Concern:

It is illegal for the City of Monterey Park to overturn the voter- approved General Plan. The City must abide by the election results and uphold the General Plan approved by the voters. No changes or deviations from the existing voter-approved General Plan should be permitted.

The Monterey Park City Council must also follow the law and adhere to the legal process of updating the General Plan and related code requirements through review and approval by the voters as required.

Page 119 of 792 ends

Your Concerned Monterey Park Neighbor

Page 120 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 10
Email and Letter from James Pugh,
recieved August 29, 2024

Page 121 of 792 ends

From: MPClerk
To: Serrano, Jessica
Cc: Garcia, Diana
Subject: FW: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee - Data Center Letter Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:44:02 AM
Attachments: SPARC Recommendation - Data Center in Saturn Park.pdf image001.png
image003.png
Good Morning,
Please see attached written communication for the SPARC meeting.

Thank you,

HELENA CHO, CMC • ASSISTANT DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Monterey Park City Clerk’s Office
Office (626) 307-1362

From:

James Pugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 9:46 AM
To: MPClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Bryan Marsh <[email protected]>; Chris Flynn <[email protected]>; Scott Rynders <[email protected]>; Berger, Karl H. <[email protected]> Subject: Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee - Data Center Letter

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good morning City Clerk,

Please provide the SPARC with the attached letter before the public meeting today.

And kindly add
it to the record of proceedings for SPARC.

Thank you,
James E. Pugh | Partner
+1 213-617-4284

| direct
+1 949-877-4891 | mobile
[email protected]
| Bio
SheppardMullin
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles,

CA 90071-1422
+1 213-620-1780

| main

Page 122 of 792 ends

www.sheppardmullin.com | LinkedIn | Twitter

Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Page 123 of 792 ends

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1422
213.620.1780 main
213.620.1398 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com

213.617.4284 direct
[email protected]
August 28, 2024
File Number: 89AF-371175

VIA E-MAIL

Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee
City of Monterey Park
320 W. Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Email: c/o City Clerk,
[email protected]

Re: Data Center Zoning in Saturn Park

Dear Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee,

We represent SDCF Monterey Park, LLC (“Applicant”) regarding its data center project (“Project”) located at 1977 Saturn Street (“Site”) in the City of Monterey Park (“City”). This letter memorializes the Applicant’s position that data centers are appropriate and permitted land uses in Saturn Park per existing land use and zoning regulations. Likewise, as discussed below, data centers should remain permitted uses in Saturn Park even if the City decides to update the zoning, or create a specific plan, for the area. That conclusion is consistent with our legal analysis and is consistent with community sentiment expressed during the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (“SPARC”) workshops. Therefore, when SPARC makes its formal recommendation to the City Council, we request that SPARC recommend that data centers remain expressly permitted uses in Saturn Park.

The Applicant participated in every SPARC workshop. We have also reviewed the Community Visioning Workshop Series Outreach Report prepared by Willdan (“Outreach Report”) in August 2024. One thing is abundantly clear – there is solid support for uses allowed by the existing Innovation/Technology land use designation. In fact, as you know, the community and SPARC participants ranked the Innovation/Technology category as the most desirable land use by a large margin. And, as we have pointed out in our previous letters to the City, data center uses are consistent with the Innovation/Technology policies in the City’s land use element. Thus, we believe the SPARC process has solidified the position that any future zoning for Saturn Park must include data centers as expressly permitted uses. To do otherwise would ignore community input and undermine the existing land use element.

In addition, we understand that at SPARC’s fourth (and final) meeting it intends to vote on how to proceed with planning for Saturn Park. The Applicant’s position on future planning for Saturn Park is as follows. First, the City could simply retain the existing voter -enacted zoning, which permits data centers, and appears acceptable to the community based on the SPARC exercise. Second, portions of Saturn Park are ideally situated to accommodate data centers proximate to the existing Mesa Southern California Edison (“SCE”) substation. Accordingly, if the

Page 124 of 792 ends

August 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

City modifies the zoning in Saturn Park, then the properties located at 1977 Saturn Street and 1980 Saturn Street should be zoned to expressly permit data centers. The Applicant provided SPARC with overlay zones that could implement that type of zoning. Third, in no scenario should the City implement zoning, through a specific plan or any other means, that prohibits data centers or overly burdens the administrative process for such uses. We believe this is particularly important because: (a) the general plan supports new technology uses in Saturn Park like data centers; (b) the community confirmed its support for Innovation/Technology land uses; and (c) the City has an immediate data- center-redevelopment opportunity that would provide community benefits, new jobs, and substantial tax revenue. Hence, rezoning Saturn Park in a manner that prohibits or dissuades data center s would be counterproductive to smart planning and public policy.

In closing, with thank SPARC and the City for the opportunity to participate in the visioning process for Saturn Park. Please include our requests herein in the SPARC recommendat ion to City Council.

Sincerely,

James E. Pugh
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
LLP

cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Bryan Marsh, StratCap
Chris Flynn, StratCap
Scott Rynders, The Rynders Corporation

SMRH:4863-5531-6190.1

Page 125 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 11
Email from Karen Ta,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 126 of 792 ends

From: Alvarez, Inez
To: Serrano, Jessica
Cc: Salvador Lopez; Garcia, Diana
Subject: FW: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:30:19 PM

From:

Wong, Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Karen Ta <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Alvarez, Inez <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting

Thank you for sending this email, it will be noted in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Karen Ta <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Page 127 of 792 ends

housing situation will only get worse, unless deliberate policies are enacted to solve the situation.

Best,

Karen Ta
pronouns: she/they

Page 128 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 12
Email from Eok Ngo,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 129 of 792 ends

From: Eok Ngo
To: Serrano, Jessica; Wong, Thomas
Subject: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for Aug. 29 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:57:38 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To keep the city going strong into the future, we should create better use of the Saturn business area through a mixed-used project or other housing-related development. We are in a housing crisis throughout the nation and state, so as a community, we need to recognize that Monterey Park is no exception. The housing situation will only get worse, unless deliberate policies are enacted to solve the situation.

Sincerely,
Eok Ngo

Page 130 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 13
Email from William Tran,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 131 of 792 ends

From: William Tran
To: Serrano, Jessica
Cc: Wong, Thomas
Subject: Saturn Development support letter
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:07:38 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council,
I am writing to support proposals to redevelop and re-imagine the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park, which I understand is suffering from a high level of commercial vacancy.

Monterey Park is my hometown. Having grown up here, I feel pride when the city is recognized for its good schools, wonderful location, local economy and family-friendly neighborhoods - reasons why I choose to still live here as an adult.

Sincerely,
William Tran

Page 132 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 14
Email from Sylvia Chang,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 133 of 792 ends

From: Sylvia Chang
To: Serrano, Jessica
Cc: Wong, Thomas
Subject: Saturn Park - Email in Support of Redevelopment for August 29th Meeting Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:20:52 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Council Members,

I'm
writing to support the proposal to redevelop the Saturn business park area in Monterey Park, which has been struggling with high vacancy rates.

I made a conscious
choice
to move back to Monterey Park to grow my family.

I’m proud
of its great schools, location, culture, and family-friendly neighborhoods.

To
keep our city thriving, we should make better use of the Saturn business area with a mixed-use or housing-related project. We're facing a housing crisis nationwide and here in California, and Monterey Park is no exception. The situation will only worsen without intentional policies.

Revitalizing
the Saturn area to create more housing would bring both short-term and long- term economic benefits. Its location is ideal as its situated between residential and commercial (Costco area). The worst thing we could do is leave it as it is and let it deteriorate.

We need more housing options, not less. The demand for housing in Southern California, including Monterey Park, isn’t going away anytime soon.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Chang/ Monterey Park Resident
[email protected]

Page 134 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 15
Email from Bryan Mercke,
dated August 29, 2024

Page 135 of 792 ends

From: Ngo, Vinh T.

To: Bryan Mercke
Cc: Wong, Thomas; Serrano, Jessica; MPClerk; Salvador Lopez; Alvarez, Inez Subject: Re: SPARC Community Input
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:48:13 PM
Thanks for the note Bryan. I have cc MPK Clerk’s office, the City Manager, the Director of Community Development and Sal with Wildan Consulting who is leading the SPARC discussion.

Vinh
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2024, at 11:40
PM, Bryan Mercke <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello Council Members Wong and Ngo,

My name is Bryan Mercke, I am an attorney that lives and works in Monterey Park. I live very close to the Saturn Park area.

I was unable to attend the community workshops, but I hope the city is still soliciting input and will consider my opinion.

I reviewed the materials presented on the website, including the Supplemental Outreach Report.

The area, as it is now, is a dead zone. It is an ugly, underutilized space, and people speed up and down the street because there is little there. Please do now allow this current state of land usage to continue. Continuing to zone the area in its current way or zoning for “information/technology” will only permit this vacuum in our neighborhood to continue.

The city has an obligation to meet state mandated housing requirements, as all cities do in our state. My brief review of the housing plan leads me to believe the city will fail to meet these housing obligations, and could be subject to a “builder’s remedy.” If people are upset about housing in this area of the city with giant, empty, concrete cubes, they will be livid when the power to approve or deny projects is stripped away from the city on certain projects if the “builder’s remedy” is implemented.

Page 136 of 792 ends

Please consider a mixed use development in the Saturn Park area. If possible, I hope the city could also implement a park/green space in that area as well. There is enough space for both mixed use residential and a green space, and these two land uses compliment each other well. If a family is going to play in the park, they are more likely to stay for lunch when it is right next door, and residents/customers of the mixed use area would be more likely to utilize green space when the sun is shining and a bit of shade becomes irresistible. The area is ripe for mixed use development because of the Costco and shopping center nearby to address grocery shopping needs.

Mixed use would also serve the nearby residents and encourage foot traffic. I personally would love to be able to walk my dogs to a nearby green space from my front door, and buy a bagel and a cup of coffee. Currently, I do not enjoy walking my dogs down that stretch of Potrero Grande in front of Saturn Park because it is eerie, a dead zone, with cars speeding past. Commercial establishments are more likely to want to rent in a mixed use building with a pool of customers living right next door. I hope the city would consider generous height and density permitted to attract reputable developers, but I would be happy should mixed use be approved in any form.

I hope the Council and yourself will consider my comments when deciding the future of Saturn Park.

Best Regards,
Bryan Mercke

Page 137 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 16
Email and Letter from Charles Buck Stapleton,
dated August 30, 2024

Page 138 of 792 ends

From: MPClerk
To: Serrano, Jessica; Chow, Beth
Subject: FW: Comments for SPARC Committee
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 7:57:44 AM
Attachments: Letter to SPARC.pdf
image001.png
image003.png
Good Morning,

See below and attached comment for SPARC.

Thanks,

HELENA CHO, CMC • ASSISTANT DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Monterey Park City Clerk’s Office
Office (626) 307-1362

From:

Charles "Buck" Stapleton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 3:52 PM
To: MPClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Wong, Thomas <[email protected]>; Ngo, Vinh T. <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Inez <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Comments for SPARC Committee

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Thank you for the opportunity to attend the meetings. Attached you will find a letter addressed to the Committee.

Unfortunately there was such a loud outburst by a few members of a special interest group that I preferred to write a letter rather than listen to their "outcries" and "oh no" so typical of a bad behavior of a few people that prevent free speech.

Cordially,

Charles "Buck" Stapleton

Page 139 of 792 ends

Page 140 of 792 ends

Page 141 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 17
Email from Jeffrey Su,
dated September 5, 2024

Page 142 of 792 ends

From: Wong, Thomas
To: Jeffery Su
Cc: Serrano, Jessica; [email protected]
Subject: Re: In Support of Saturn Park Redevelopment
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2024 5:54:48 PM
Thanks Jeff, we will include this in the record.

Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2024, at 5:21 PM, Jeffery Su <[email protected]> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council:

I am writing in support of the redevelopment of the Saturn business park area of Monterey Park which is currently vacant for the most part.

As a
longtime resident of Monterey Park, I believe it is imperative that we create an environment that welcomes quality development and preserves family-friendly neighborhoods.

This is why I support a mixed-use project
for the Saturn business area.

As you know, this is a prime location just off
the freeway and close to major food and retail outlets.

This would also be
a very attractive location for housing which we all know is in short supply Using a fresh approach to redeveloping this area can only enhance the city of Monterey Park while enhancing the quality of life for Monterey Park residents.

Sincerely,
JefferySu
716 Cereza Drive, Monterey Park
(323) 283-7364

Page 143 of 792 ends

SPARC Meeting Minutes
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 18
Email response by Inez Alvarez,
dated September 9, 2024

Page 144 of 792 ends

INEZ ALVAREZ • CITY MANAGER
320 W. NEWMARK AVE. MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
Office (626) 307-1497
Email • [email protected]

This message is a public record and may be disclosed under the Public Records Act or other applicable law.

From: Alvarez, Inez
To: Yee, Maychelle
Subject: SPARC Meeting Inquiry - Measure JJ
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 4:24:00 PM
Attachments: 06-18-2024 Agenda Item No. 5A - Urgency Ordinance Implementing Interim Development for Saturn Park.pdf 05-22-2024 Agenda Item No. 3C - Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee SPARC.pdf image002.png
M. Yee Text Message 9.9.24.pdf
Hi Maychelle,

Thank you for your text, which I have attached for reference. I am replying by email, so that I can also forward you previous staff reports related to the matter.

As explained in writing to the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the SPARC – Measure JJ is the Land Use Element to the General Plan. Measure JJ provides the overall land use designation for Saturn Park. It does not establish zoning regulations.

To answer your question, no, this provision does not authorize the City Council to amend Measure JJ. No such authorization exists, i.e., voter delegation of authority to the City Council to amend Measure JJ.

As shown in the presentation at the SPARC meeting, Section 3(A) of Measure JJ specifically delegates authority to the City Council to adopt zoning regulations that are consistent with Measure JJ. This was also discussed in the staff reports for the May 22, 2024 and June 18, 2024 City Council meetings which I’ve attached for your convenience and reference. It is also explained in the ordinance establishing a moratorium on development in the Saturn Park area. I have highlighted the relevant language – hope this helps.

There has been no discussion regarding amending Measure JJ. The only discussion has been how to implement Measure JJ via zoning regulations.

Thank you,

Page 145 of 792 ends

Page 146 of 792 ends

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 22, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Establishing the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (“SPARC”) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Establishing the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (“SPARC”) initially comprised of Mayor Thomas Wong, Mayor pro tem Vinh Ngo, and Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On April 9, 2024, the Planning Commission considered future land uses at McCaslin Business Park as contemplated by the Land Use Element (“LUE”) to the General Plan (approved by voters in 2020). A copy of the April 9th staff report is attached for reference.

During a subsequent Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2024, Planning Commissioners expressed support for various land uses within the McCaslin Business Park to implement the vision expressed in the LUE. Based upon those discussions, it seems prudent for the City to solicit public input to adopt new land use regulations for what the LUE identifies as “Saturn Park.” The LUE was guided by a citizen’s oversight committee identified as the “General Plan Advisory Committee”; it is recommended that the City Council create the “Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee” or “SPARC” as described below.

BACKGROUND:

The general background for the future of Saturn Park is contemplated in the April 9 th Planning Commission staff report. The recommendation is for the SPARC to be initially comprised of the Mayor, the Mayor pro tem (Saturn Park is located in District 5), and the Assistant City Manager. The Mayor and the Mayor pro tem would each appoint two persons from the community to the SPARC so that a total of seven members would serve on the SPARC. The SPARC would be subject to the Brown Act.

The SPARC is intended to oversee a series of meetings that would engage residents, the business community, and other stakeholders in drafting a Saturn Park Specific Plan (“SPSP”) for consideration by the City Council. The SPSP would help implement the LUE by:

Consent Calendar - 3C

Page 147 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 2 of 3 ends

May 22, 2024

• Facilitating the coordination and planning of development within Saturn Park. • Attracting investment and business to enhance Saturn Park’s economic vitality. • Improve Saturn Park’s function and appearance
• Most of all, improving the quality of life for residents, business owners, employees, and visitors through neighborhood enhancements and improvements to public spaces.

To accomplish these objectives, the SPARC would provide ongoing and effective input to the City’s Project Team (City staff and consultants) and elected officials. SPARC members would:

• Provide ongoing input that reflects a member’s community knowledge, including reviewing and commenting on major work elements and products. • Help the Project Team gain a broader understanding of public and interest group perspectives.
• Provide suggestions regarding public engagement efforts. • Act as public engagement ambassadors by inviting/encouraging neighbors, friends, business colleagues, to participate in public engagement activities such as festival booths, workshops, etc.

Decision making within the SPARC would be a process that seeks to achieve mutual agreement. “Mutual agreement” does not necessarily mean that all members of the SPARC are equally enthusiastic about the decision or recommendation. It does mean that everyone in the committee is willing to “live with” the agreement even though some individuals might prefer an alternative solution.

The City already engaged a consultant to assist with developing the SPSP; the Community Development Director would serve as the SPARC liaison and secretary.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the establishment of the SPARC.

Respectfully submitted by:

Diana Garcia
Assistant City Manager

Page 148 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 3 of 3 ends

May 22, 2024

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENT:

1. Staff Report and Attachments from April 9, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

Page 149 of 792 ends

Staff Report
May 22, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Report and Attachments from April 9, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting

Page 150 of 792 ends

Staff Report, CUP-23-04
October 10, 2023

Planning Commission Staff Report

DATE: April 9, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: 5-A

TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE - Discussion of Land Use Regulations and future uses at McCaslin Business Park

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider:
(1) Receiving and filing this staff report as background information; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This staff report provides the historical context regarding land use considerations in McCaslin Business Park to be used in discussing future uses of the area.

BACKGROUND:

McCaslin Business Park is named after Lowry B. McCaslin (a former All-American [1929] who played for USC) who owned the area between 1937 and his death in 1995. It was originally a quarry for mining decomposed granite. Mr. McCaslin eventually developed the sand and gravel pit into a 73-acre business and industrial park. Residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Business Park were developed during the years 1947 to 1954.

In 1956, the Monterey Park City Council adopted an ordinance that effectively zoned the gravel operations out of business after persons in the residential neighborhoods complained of noise and dust. Mr. McCaslin succeeded in invalidating these restrictions as unconstitutional (McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 399). He began building the industrial park in 1970.

In 1996, the City Council adopted a moratorium on the use and storage of certain hazardous materials within the Business Park. This was in response to Alpha Photonics, Inc.’s proposal to include crystal growing operations as part of their electronic s component manufacturing business. The moratorium indicated that:
“an application for a project at 2019 Saturn Street, Monterey Park, located in the McCaslin Industrial Park. The initial building permit application and plans did not disclose the use or storage of hazardous materials on site. The City subsequently became informed that the proposed use will handle and store certain quantities of hazardous materials. The use and storage of hazardous materials can pose a danger to the City and the City began investigating the

Page 151 of 792 ends

Staff Report
April 9, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

regulation of the use and storage of these materials. Because of their potential danger, current law provides extensive State and County regulations for the handling and storage of hazardous materials.”
The moratorium was extended throughout 1997 until the City Council placed a proposition onto the 1998 ballot (on December 17, 1997) that was later identified as “Measure D.” Measure D was approved by voters on April 14, 1998 (Ordinance No. 1933 , Attachment 1).

Measure D added the “Office Professional” or “O -P” zone to the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) as Chapter 21.14.

Most recently, the Measure D regulations were publicly discussed in 2018. At that time, the City discovered that the voter approved regulations in MPMC Chapter 21.14 were improperly changed by Ordinance No. 2097 that was adopted in 2013. This apparently oc curred based upon a 2009 internal memorandum from the (then) Community Development Director to the (then) City Manager that asserted the City Council could make changes to MPMC Chapter

21.14 based upon its own authority. Measure D, however, did not delegat e authority to the City Council to make any changes to MPMC Chapter 21.14.

The voter approved zoning restrictions in the Business Park are challenging to businesses wishing to locate to that area (see Attachment 2 , e.g., letter from 2019 regarding 1977 Saturn). Currently, approximately 75% of the available building space is vacant.

Measure JJ was adopted by voters in 2020 (Ordinance No. 2198). Section 3(A) of Measure JJ provides that the City Council may “implement [Measure JJ] including, without limitation, adopting all zoning regulations needed to effectuate [Measure JJ] by ordinance.” Measure JJ designates McCaslin Business Park as “Innovation/Technology” (Land Use Element – Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map, Attachment 3). Uses for this designation include research and development; light manufacturing; service commercial; professional offices; entertainment; and breweries/ wineries/distilleries; trade and technical schools; public utilities, and similar uses “per zoning r egulations.” Prohibited uses are warehousing, freight terminals, vehicle storage, and heavy manufacturing.

Respectfully submitted by: Reviewed by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development
Justin A. Tamayo
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance No. 1933 – Measure D

2. August 14, 2019 Letter - 1977 Saturn

3. Land Use Element - Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map

Page 152 of 792 ends

Staff Report
April 9, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1933 – Measure D

Page 153 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ----=-1=93=3 __

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFOMl:A, ADDING CHAPTER 21.14, ENTITLED OFF1CE PROFESSIONAL, TO THE l\IONTEREY PARK l\IUNICIPAL CODE, MODIFYING SECTION 21.7Q.030 OF THE MONTEREY PARK l\IUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CERTAIN CONDITIONALLY PER1\UTTED USES IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE,

APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROVING A
ZONE CHANGE FOR THE AREA COMMONLY KNOl\'N AS
MCCASLIN BUSINESS PARK FROi\1 MANUFACTURING (M) TO
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (0-P)

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLO\VS:

SECTION 1. The People find and determine that a Zone Change pursuant to Title 21 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (MPMC), to change the zoning designation from M ~ (Manufacturing) to 0-P (Office Professional), and to establish appropriate development regulations for the 0-P zone are in the public interest and consistent with the General Plan.

SECTION 2. The People hereby amend the Monterey Park Municipal Code (MPMC) to establish an 0-P (Office Professional) Zone, by adding Chapter 21.14 thereto to read as follows:

Chapter 21.14
0-P --- Office Professional Zone
Sections:

21.14.010 Purpose

21.14.020 Permitted uses

21.14.030 Prohibited uses

21.14.040 Principal uses

21.14.050 Conditional uses

21.14.060 Standards of development generally

21.14.070 Lots

21.14.080 Yards

21.14.090 Building height

21.14.100 Floor area ratio (FAR)

21.14.110 Off-street Parking

Page 154 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ 1_93....;3 __

Page 2 of 8 ends

21.14.120 Required walls

21.14.130 Trash facilities

21.14.140 Buffering and maintenance of landscaping and easements

21.14.150 Compressors, air-conditioning units or similar mechanical equipment

21.14.160 Lighting

21.14.170 Exceptions

21.14.180 Site development plan approval

21.14.190 Limitations on permitted uses

21.14.010 Purpose. In order to provide for the development of integrated professional, office and limited retail areas that exhibit a diversity of business activity from both revenue and service quality standpoints, and which are compatible and responsive to abutting ]and uses, including residential developments, the following regulations shall be applicable to all properties classified in the 0-P zone.

21.14.020 Permitted uses. No person shall use, nor shall any property owner permit the use of ~ any lot classified in any 0-P zone for any use, other than the following as set out in Section

21.14.040 and 21.14.050.

21.14.030 Prohibited uses. All uses not permitted in this chapter shall be prohibited.

21.14.040 Principal uses. The principal uses shall be permitted as follows:

Administrative and professional offices;
Beauty salon or barber shop;
Bookstore;
Cellular phone, telephone and pager store
Coffee shop;
Computer store, sales and service;
Confectionary shop;
Data processing facility;
Delicatessen;
Employment agency;
Financial institutions' corporate offices, no retail banking; ''
General research facility, not involving testing, manufacturing, fabrication or processing or sale of products, nor the use of a hazardous material that has a degree of hazard rating in health, flammability or reactivity of Class 4 as ranked by U.F.C. Standard 79-3 or succeeding standard; Gift shop;
Ice cream parlor;
Import and export offices;
Investment service offices, stock brokers;
Jewelry store, sales and service;
Legal offices;

Page 155 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ 1_9_33 __

Page 3 ends

Mail box and service store;
Medical equipment and supplies, sales and service;
Notary public;
Photocopying and blueprinting;
Public utility customer service office
Real estate offices and title companies;
Restaurant, tearoom and cafe;
Service businesses;
Stationery;
Studio, art, dance, martial arts, photography;
Tax consulting;
Tobacco store;
Travel agency;
Video sales and rentals;

21.14.050 Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall be uses specifically enumerated in Section

21.70.030.

21.14.060 Standards of development generally. All premises in the 0-P zone shall comply with the following s,tandards of dev~lopment as set out in Sections 21.14.070 through 21.14.190.

21.14.070 Lots. (a) Lot area. The minimum lot area of each lot shall be five thousand square feet.
(b) Lot width. The minimum width of each lot shall be fifty feet. (c) Lot depth. The minimum depth of each lot shall be one hundred feet.

21.14.080
(a)
(b)
as follows:
( 1)
depth.

Yards. The following minimum yards shall be required on all lots:

Front yard. No minimum front yard is required.

Side and rear yards. Every lot shall have and maintain minimum side and rear yards \Vhen the side yard is adjacent to a street, the yard shall be at least fifteen feet in (2) When adjacent to a R-zone, the yard shall be no less than fifty feet, plus five feet in depth for each story above one story of building or each ten-foot increment above fifteen feet in height of building on the 0-P zoned lot. \Vhere there is an opening, including but not limited to \vindows, pedestrian doors and roll-up doors, in any building on the 0-P zone facing a yard adjacent to a R-zone, the yard shall be no less than one hundred feet from any opening to the R zoned lot. The yard may be used for parking, excepting a minimum fifteen foot wide area abutting the R-zone which shall be landscaped and maintained in such a condition so as not to violate Section 9.54.010. The required landscaping shall also conform to the standards set forth in Section

21.14.140. When the 0-P zoned lot is separated from a R-zone by an alley, a rear yard setback of forty feet shall be provided, as measured from the centerline of the alley. A minimum three-foot wide landscaped planter shall be installed and maintained along the alley, excepting at any vehicular access driveway.

Page 156 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ 1_9_33 __

Page 4 of 8 ends

(3) When adjacent to a commercially-zoned or M zoned lot, no yard is required.

21.14.090 Building height. No building or structure in excess of forty feet or three stories shall be located on any lot. Buildings or structures exceeding the height limits may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.100 Floor area ratio (FAR). The floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5 when the lot is less than ten thousand square feet in area. When the lot is between ten thousand and twenty thousand square feet in area, the floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.65. When the lot is more than twenty thousand square feet in area, the floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.8. The floor area ratio may be increased to a maximum of 1.0 for all lots, upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.110 Off-street parking and loading. Each 0-P zoned lot shall have and maintain off street parking and loading facilities as required by Chapter 21.40.

21.14.120 Required walls. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 21.48, the following standards shall apply: (a) Where any part of the front yard or street side yard of a 0-P zoned lot is used for parking or loading, a masonry wall compatible in color with the commercial building and/or sight-obscuring hedge a minimum of three feet in height shall be erected and maintained within a landscaped area a minimum of three feet in width adjacent to the sidewalk at the front or side yard property line as required by Section 21.40.180. · (b) When any 0-P zoned lot has a common side or rear lot line with any R-zoned property, a six-foot solid decorative masonry or concrete block wall compatible in color with the commercial building shall be constructed and maintained along all such common side or rear lot lines. Where an easement exists, abutting the common property line, the said decorative wall may be constructed along the boundary of the easement on the commercial lot. A minimum three-foot wide landscaped planter with automatic irrigation system shall be placed adjacent to j:.he wall, planted with trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines. Where a parking lot on the 0-P zoned lot abuts a R-zoned lot, the additional parking lot landscaping requirements of Section 21.40.180 shall apply.

21.14.130 Trash facilities. Each 0-P zoned lot shall be provided with fc:.:ilities for the storage and collection of trash as follows:
(a) Any outdoor trash facility shall be enclosed by a minimum five-foot high solid masonry, brick or concrete wall except for the access way which shall be enclosed with solid decorative gates of the same height. ·
(b) Location and size shall be subject to approval by the planner. \\"hen any 0-P zoned lot has a common property line with a R-zoned lot, no trash facility sha!i be located within the required building setback.
(c) Open vehicular and pedestrian access to and from such trash fa(:ility shall be provided.

No parking spaces shall block such access to the trash facility. (d) Trash facilities shall be maintained in a closed manner at all times to prohibit visibility from public rights~of-way or adjacent property.

Page 157 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ 1_9_33 __

Page 5 of 8 ends

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, all existing uses, buildings and structures in the 0-P zone which do not conform to this Section shall provide a fully enclosed trash facility within six months of the effective date of this ordinance unless providing such trash facility will eliminate any existing required off-street parking spaces.

21.14.140 Buffering and maintenance of landscaping and easements. For 0-P zoned lots with side or rear yards that are adjacent to an R zoned lot, the following buffering provisions shall be provided and maintained: ·
(a) Landscaping, irrigation and maintenance plans shall be required and the plans shall be subject to approval of the design review board under the provisions of Chapter 21.72. The plans shall incorporate, but not be limited to, fifteen-gallon minimum trees at time of planting, interspersed shrubs, ground cover, raised earthen berms and automatic sprinkler systems. The City may require the maintenance plan to include a bonafide service agreement with a City licensed landscaping service business. Maintaining an active service agreement on file with the Community Development Department shall be the responsibility of the owner of the subject property or by his authorized agent.
(b) All landscaped areas and easements shall be maintained in good condition, weed and disease free, and in compliance with Chapter 9.54.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, all 0-P zoned lots that abut a R zone and do not have landscaping, irrigation and maintenance plans that have been approved by the design review board pursuant to requirementS of Chapter 21.72 shall submit a landscaping, irrigation and maintenance plan for design review board approval within six months of the effective date of this ordinance.

21.14.150 Compressors, air-conditioning units or similar mechanical equipment. Each 0-P zoned lot which has compressors, air-conditioning units or similar mechanical equipment, located on the roof and outside of the exterior walls of any building or structure, shall comply with the following:
(a) All such equipment shall be installed with permanent sound proofing measures, including but not limited to, enclosures, parapet and sound attenuating walls and screens. All such equipment shall comply with noise standards set forth in Chapter 9.53. The location, type and scope of soundproofing measures for such equipment shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
(b) All such equipment shall be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent collection of litter and filth, emissions of dust or fumes, vibration or electrical disturbances.

21.14.160 Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be located and shielded so as to prevent the direct spillage of light or glare onto adjacent lots and streets.

Page 158 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. _......::1:..;::.9.:::.:33::___

Page 6 ends

21.14.170 Exceptions. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any use, building or structure which is in existence or for which a permit has been issued, as of the effective date hereof, and which conformed to all zoning regulations of the city then in effect at such time, shall not be rendered nonconforming within the meaning of Chapter 21.68, solely by reason of the application of the development standards as set forth in this chapter; provided that any such existing use, building or structure shall comply with the provisions hereof upon a change in use, or upon use, building or structure expansion or reconstruction, in whole or in part.

21.14.180 Site development plan approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or business license for any use, building or structure to be located on any lot, as to which the provisions of this chapter apply, the provisions of Chapter 21.72, with regard to site development plans shall be complied with.

21.14.190 Limitations on permitted uses. Every use permitted in the 0-P zone shall comply with the following:
(a) All uses shall be conducted totally within a completely enclosed building, except for those uses which are customarily conducted in the open, as determined pursuant to Section

21.06.060 or Section 21.74.030. Those uses conducted in the open shall be no closer than one hundred feet to any R zoned lot, except for parking.
(b) No outdoor storage shall be allowed unless the same is enclosed by a view-obscuring fence or wall, provided that no stored material is visible above the fence or wa'tl, that the fence or wall is approved by the Department of Community Development, and that such storage shall be limited to the accessory storage of items sold or utilized in the conduct of a permitted use on the premises. \Vhere the 0-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, no outdoor storage shall be permitted within one hundred feet of a R zoned lot.
(c) No loading and unloading shall be permitted in any required side or rear yard. (d) Where the 0-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, no deliveries of goods and commodities nor loading or unloading shall be conducted during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(e ) There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles, except those vehicles used in conjunction with a permitted use.
(f) Driveways may not exceed thirty feet in width or sixty percent of the lot frontage. (g) No use shall be permitted which produces or causes or emits any dust, gas, smoke, glare, noise, fumes, odors, electromagnetic emanations or vibrations which are or may be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and peace of the city and its residents arid businesses. (h) No use shall be permitted vvhich uses or stores a hazardous material that has a degree of hazard rating in health, flammability or reactivity of Class 4 as ranked by U. F. C. Standard 79- 3 or succeeding standard. A business materials usage and operations form shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to the approval of a certificate of occupancy.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, all 0-P zoned businesses that do not have a business materials usage and operations form on file shall submit a form within six months of the effective date of this ordinance.

Page 159 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. _.....;1=9=33::::....__

Page 7 ends

(I) No person shall, at any location within the 0-P zone, create nor allow the creation of noise which causes the noise level to exceed the applicable noise standards set forth in Chapter

9.53. Where the 0-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, the noise level at the property line of the R zoned lot shall not exceed the allowable noise level for residential properties.

SECTION 3. The People hereby amend Section 21.70.030 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (MPMC) by adding the following conditionally permitted uses:

Use Zone in which allowed subject to
Conditional Use Permit
Auditorium, not within 300 feet of a R-zone 0-P
Buildings exceeding height limit . . • . • . . 0-P
Business college (office or medical, dental). 0-P
Child care center,
\..- not within 300 feet of a R-zone . . . . . . . . 0-P Commercial office or service units which are shared by more than one independently owned ~ business enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-P Commercial developments of five or more units or with an area of more than one acre, and within '300 feet of a R-zone .......... .'. . . . 0-P
Financial institution (retail banking) . . . . . 0-P
Floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0 . . . . . . . 0-P
Government or public facility, except those owned or operated by the City of Monterey Park . . . . . . . . . . . 0-P
Gymnasium, reducing. salon and health center 0-P
Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-P Lot size over an acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-P Places of entertainment,
except as otherwise provided in this title . . 0-P
SECTION 4. The People APPROVE General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the Land Use Element from Industrial to Commercial for the area set forth in the attached map incorporated herein by this reference, based on the following findings:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community as the amendment provides for a land use more compatible with surrounding single family residential development.

2. The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects the conditions of the community and are in keeping with the character of the area. The proposed land use designation of commercial is more compatible than the existing manufacturing designation with the surrounding single family residential areas ..

Page 160 of 792 ends

ORDINANCE NO. __ 19_3_3 __

Page 8 ends

SECTION 5. The People APPROVE the Zone Change to change the land use classification from M to 0-P for the area set forth in the attached map incorporated herein by this reference.
(1997\0P-.ORD)
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE APRIL 14, 1998,

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK REV; llfJ0/97

11.4SA.M.

Page 161 of 792 ends

....... ()
(J) .__,
0 L-

0..

Page 162 of 792 ends

Staff Report
April 9, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
August 14, 2019 Letter - 1977 Saturn

Page 163 of 792 ends

Page 164 of 792 ends

Page 165 of 792 ends

Page 166 of 792 ends

Page 167 of 792 ends

Page 168 of 792 ends

Staff Report
April 9, 2024

ATTACHMENT 3
Land Use Element -
Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map

Page 169 of 792 ends

24 LAND USE PLAN | Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element Æ2Æ2Æ2
East Los Angeles College
California State University,
Los Angeles
§¨¦
710
§¨¦
710
@z
@z
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
10 South
San Gabriel
East Los Angeles
El Sereno

CITY OF

ALHAMBRA

CITY OF

MONTEBELLO

CITY OF

ROSEMEAD

CITY OF

LOS ANGELES

CITY OF

SAN GABRIEL

CITY OF

MONTEBELLO

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Alhambra Wash
Luguna Channel
Luguna Channel
Garvey Reservoir
Sa
turn S
t
E Rig
gin St
S Wil
cox
Ave
S Orange Ave
Crest Vista
Dr
W Verde Vista Dr
S Bradsha
we Ave
W Elmgate S
t
Bri
ghtwood
St
Jackson Ave
Sheriff Rd
E Grave
s Ave
Del Mar Ave
S Atlantic B
lvd
E 3
rd S
t
S Garfield Ave
S Fremont Ave
W Valley Blvd
Emerson Pl
Hellman Ave
W Floral Dr
E Garvey Av
e
E Emerson Ave
N Montebe
llo Blvd
W Pomo
na Blv
d
N New Ave
N G
arfi
eld A
ve
Monterey
Pass Rd
N Findlay Ave
N Wilcox Ave
S New Ave
W Emerson Ave
Corporate Center Dr
Cesar
E C
have
z Ave
N Param
ount Blvd
E Hellman
Ave
S Mednik Ave
W
Newmar
k Ave
N Mednik Ave
N Atlantic Blvd
W Linc
oln Ave
E Pomona Blvd
S Alhambra AveN Alhambra Ave
Hill Dr
S Almansor St
Findlay Ave
Garvey Ave
Potrero Gran
de Dr
Potrero Gra
nde D
r
W Garvey Ave
N San Gabriel Blvd
S Atlantic Blvd
W Hellman Ave
N Garfield Ave
E Be
verly B
lvd
S Garfield Ave
W Be
verly Blvd
S Atlantic Blvd
W Rig
gin St
° 0 ½1¼
Mile
October 2019
Sources: City of Monterey Park and MIG, 2019.

Resurrection Cemetery
Land Use Designations
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Corporate Center
Innovation/Technology
Public Facilities
Open Space
Housing Overlay I
Housing Overlay II
Note: Also see Regulating Plan

LAND USE POLICY MAP
Base Map Features
Monterey Park Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Metro Gold Line and Stations
Watercourses and Channels
Garvey Reservoir
Æ2
FIGURE LU-3:

Page 170 of 792 ends

City Council Staff Report
DATE: June 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Jessica Serrano, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt an urgency ordinance implementing interim development regulations for Saturn Park upon a four-fifths vote
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting an Urgency Ordinance upon 4/5 vote pursuant to Government Code § 65858 establishing a moratorium on new development within Saturn Park for 45 days; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On June 5, 2024, the City Council directed that the City Manager and City Attorney prepare a draft moratorium governing Saturn Park for consideration on the June 18 th meeting agenda. If adopted, the draft urgency ordinance would prohibit new permits being issued for development within Saturn Park for at least 45 days. This would allow the SPARC to receive public input regarding recommended land uses as part of the drafting of a Saturn Park Specific Plan (“SPSP”) implementing the 2020 Land Use Element adopted by voters via Measure JJ. The moratorium may be extended up to a total of two years.

CEQA REVIEW:

Adopting the Urgency Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes rules and procedures for operation of existing facilities; minor temporary use of land; minor alterations in land use; new construction of small structures; and minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities. The Urgency Ordinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301; 15303, 15304(e); 15305; and 15311. Further, the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making. This Ordinance does not authorize any new development entitlements, but simply establishes New Business - 5A

Page 171 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 2 of 3 ends

June 18, 2024

policies and procedures for allowing the previously approved project to be constructed.

Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this Ordinance will be subject to CEQA review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The Ordi nance will not adversely impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for consideration pending the SPARC’s efforts to solicit public input for drafting the SPSP. It is anticipated that the SPARC will wrap up its efforts in August or September 2024. Consequently , should the City Council adopt this urgency ordinance, it may need to consider extending a moratorium following a noticed public hearing before August 2, 2024.

As noted in the draft urgency ordinance, a review of existing zoning for Saturn Park shows that it is inconsistent with Measure JJ that voters approved in 2020. Measure JJ adopted the Land Use Element to the Monterey Park General Plan (the “2020 LUE”).

The 2020 LUE designates land uses in Saturn Park as “Innovation/Technology.” A description of those land uses are included as an exhibit to this staff report. Measure JJ specifically authorizes the City Council to adopt zoning regulations needed to implement this land use designation.

One of the complementary land uses contemplated by the Planning Commission and the City Council for Saturn Park is a residential component. It is anticipated that the SPARC will consider the feasibility of this land use as it considers public input regarding the SPSP.

Residential use is desirable as it would help facilitate the City’s adherence to its Certified Housing Element; reflects the California Legislature’s ongoing efforts to increase housing opportunities; and implement s the overall goal of the 2020 LUE as to providing flexible zoning to improve the City’s livability.

The need for a moratorium is underscored by interest from private property owners within Saturn Park who already filed applications with the City seeking approvals via Chapter

21.14 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”). This Chapter was added by voters in 1998 but is now inconsistent with the Monterey Park General Plan, i.e., the 2020 LUE.

For land use regulations to be legal, California law (Government Code § 65860) requires that there be consistency between the General Plan and the City’s zoning. Voter enacted regulations cannot overcome this requirement.
1 Adopting a moratorium will provide the SPARC an opportunity to give the City Council an informed recommendation regarding the SPSP. If adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council, the urgency ordinance would impose a temporary moratorium on issuing permits for land use entitlements within Saturn Park. The temporary moratorium would expire on August 2, 2024 unless extended before that time.

1 See, e.g., Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531.

Page 172 of 792 ends

Staff Report

Page 3 of 3 ends

June 18, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts with adopting the draft urgency ordinance.

Respectfully submitted by:

Diana Garcia,
Assistant City Manager
Jessica Serrano,
Community Development Director
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
Attachment(s)

1. Draft Urgency Ordinance

2. 2020 LUE – Innovation/Technology Land Use

Page 173 of 792 ends

Staff Report
June 18, 2024
AT
TACHMENT 1
Draft Urgency Ordinance

Page 174 of 792 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PERMITS FOR LAND

USE ENTITLEMENTS WITHIN THE MCCASLIN BUSINESS PARK

TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A SATURN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE

GENERAL PLAN
The City Council for the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code §§ 36937, 65858, and other applicable laws.

SECTION 2: Findings. The City Council finds, determines and declares as follows:

A. The City may adopt and enforce all laws and regulations not in conflict with the general laws and the City holds all rights and powers established by California law.

B. On June 17, 2020, the City Council approved the Land Use Element to the Monterey Park General Plan (the “2020 LUE”).

Thereafter, the 2020 LUE was placed onto the November 3, 2020 ballot as Measure JJ. Following voter approval on November 3, 2020, the 2020 LUE (via Ordinance No. 2198) became effective on December 2, 2020.

C. Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 authorizes the City Council to implement the 2020 LUE by, among other things, adopting zoning regulations. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2198 provides that Measure JJ must be interpreted to be consistent with all applicable law; Section 6 of Ordinance No. 2198 provides that Measure JJ must be broadly construed to achieve the voter’s intent in approving Measure JJ.

D. Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 21.14 was added by Measure D on April 14, 1998 (via Ordinance No. 1933).

Measure D provided zoning regulations for the area identified as McCaslin Business Park.

E. The Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3 to the 2020 LUE) renamed this area as “Saturn Park” with a designated land use of “Innovation/Technology.” Goal 25 of the 2020 LUE directs the City Council to revitalize Saturn Park as a destination business park for high-quality service industry, research and development, and

Page 175 of 792 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

emerging industry jobs. This directive is further refined via Policy Nos. 25.1 to 25.3.

F. The 2020 LUE also provides that the City Council should ensure flexible zoning regulations; support local businesses; maintain a proactive economic development program; and invest in
commercial corridors (Policy Nos. 1.1 to 1.4).

G. The City’s Housing Element reflects the City’s desire to encourage construction of housing that is attainable for households of all income levels. Among other things, the City Council determined that the City should take proactive actions to increase the availability of dwelling units on underutilized properties (see, e.g., Section 5(C) of Resolution No. 2022-R90, adopted November 16, 2022).

H. It is anticipated that the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (“SPARC”) will consider incorporating a residential component into the SPSP to help enhance the Innovation/Technology land use designation by the 2020 LUE. Among other things, this would:

1. Allow employees to live near their workplace, reducing vehicle trips.

2. Allow companies to offer subsidized housing as an
employee benefit and amenity to attract talent.

3. Facilitate a live-work-play environment where residential, office, and recreational spaces coexist.

4. Foster closer social connections and a sense of community among employees who can interact more freely outside of work.

5. Align with the post-pandemic shift towards more flexible and hybrid workplace models.

I. Such efforts are reflected in “real world” developments such as the West Edge in Los Angeles (https://westedgela.com).

J. Additionally, the California Legislature is seeking various methods for promoting housing such as AB 1532 (Haney, 2023) which, were it approved, would allow office conversion projects by right within all zones. While this “Office to Housing Conversion Act” failed to advance within the Legislature, it represents the latest legislative path taken by the Legislature to encourage more housing within

Page 176 of 792 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

local jurisdictions.

K. A review of the 2020 LUE, the Certified Housing Element (March 30, 2023), and MPMC Chapter 21.14 shows that the existing zoning regulations are inconsistent with the voters’ vision for Saturn Park; the zoning regulations must be reconciled with the most recent voter directives in Measure JJ, the California Legislature’s directives (as reflected in the City’s Certified Housing Element), and California law.

L. In April 2024, the Planning Commission considered conceptual renderings and land uses for Saturn Park during two meetings.

Thereafter, on May 22, 2024, the City Council created the SPARC to receive and implement community input for drafting a Saturn Park Specific Plan (“SPSP”).

M. On May 23, 2024, representatives from 1980 Saturn met with the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, and Community Development Director to plan for a data center at that location – which is a permissible use pursuant to MPMC Chapter

21.14 but inconsistent with the 2020 LUE land use designation for Saturn Park. Additionally, on January 11, 2024, the City’s Community Development Department received applications for a conditional use permit and design review for a data center proposed at 1977 Saturn Street.

N. As set forth in the City Council staff report dated June 5, 2024, it is anticipated that the SPARC would conclude its meetings in August or September of 2024 and provide the City Council with its recommendations regarding the SPSP at that time. The SPSP would implement the 2020 LUE as to Goal 25 and the
Innovation/Technology land use designation.

O. Without the enactment of this Ordinance, the voter’s vision for revitalizing Saturn Park via Measure JJ and the 2020 LUE would be thwarted: pending applications for land uses currently allowed by MPMC Chapter 21.14, if approved, would lock in certain types of land uses for the foreseeable future.

P. The City Council determines that the MPMC requires updating to protect the public against health, safety, and welfare dangers caused by multiple applicants relying upon outdated land use regulations. The City needs additional time to prepare, evaluate and adopt reasonable regulations to implement the voter’s direction in Measure JJ and to ensure such regulations are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Page 177 of 792 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

Q. To prevent frustration of these studies and the implementation of new regulations, the public interest, health, safety, and welfare require enactment of this Ordinance. The absence of this Ordinance would impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated MPMC amendments, and any further authorization of these uses within the City during the period of the moratorium may conflict with or frustrate the contemplated updates and revisions of the MPMC.

R. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that that this Ordinance is necessary in order to protect the City from the potential effects and impacts of outdated land uses and the accompanying impacts from traffic and commerce on City streets, impacts on parking availability in the business areas of the City, the aesthetic impacts to the City, and other similar or related effects on property values and the quality of life in the City’s neighborhoods.

S. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any business that currently seeks to utilize MPMC Chapter 21.14.

T. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is authorized by the City’s police powers. The City Council further finds that the length of the moratorium imposed by this Ordinance will not in any way deprive any person of rights granted by state or federal laws, because the moratorium is short in duration and essential to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes rules and procedures for operation of existing facilities; minor temporary use of land; minor alterations in land use; new construction of small structures; and minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities. This Ordinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301; 15303, 15304(e); 15305; and 15311. Further, the adoption of this Ordinance is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making. This Ordinance does not authorize any new development entitlements, but simply establishes policies and procedures for allowing the previously approved project to be constructed. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this Ordinance will be subject to CEQA review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The Ordinance will not adversely impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

Page 178 of 792 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

SECTION 4: Interim regulations. The following provisions are adopted as interim requirements for issuing permits pursuant to the MPMC for land uses within Saturn Park, and any construction or operation in the City in conflict with these provisions is expressly prohibited:

A. Restricted Activities. For a period of 45 days after adoption of this Ordinance, the City will not issue a permit or land use entitlement to any person for constructing, placing, or operating within the McCaslin Business Park, i.e., Saturn Park utilizing MPMC Chapter

21.14. The City Manager, or designee, must review any application for a permit or land use entitlement to determine compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. City employees, and City boards and commissions, are directed to refrain from accepting, processing, or approving any application for any land use entitlement, including, without limitation, use permits, variances, building permits, licenses and certificates of occupancy, necessary for constructing, placing, or operating within the Saturn Park area, and to refrain from processing and issuing approvals for any land use entitlement for any pending applications already received.

These restrictions do not apply to construction projects with active building permits and any emergency repairs or replacement of an element of a building, structure, utility system, or equipment that is essential to protect the public health, safety and welfare. These prohibitions will remain effective for 45 days following adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 6: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the MPMC does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7: Validity of Previous Code Sections. If this entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or amendment of the MPMC or other city ordinance by this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such previous MPMC provision or other the city ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.

SECTION 8: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is

Page 179 of 792 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the city council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 9: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 10: Report. Pursuant to Government Code § 65858, the City Manager, or designee, must prepare a report for City Council consideration describing the measures taken to address the conditions which led to adoption of this Ordinance. This report must be provided to the City Council so that it may be considered and issued not later than 10 days before this Ordinance expires.

SECTION 11: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective immediately upon adoption pursuant to Government Code §§ 36937 and 65858 for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.

Pursuant to those statutes this Ordinance is adopted by a four-fifths vote.

SECTION 12: Expiration Date. After adoption, this Ordinance will be repealed by operation of law on August 2, 2024, unless a subsequent ordinance is adopted by the City Council that extends this date.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2024.
____________________________
Thomas Wong, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Page 180 of 792 ends

Staff Report
June 18, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2
2020 LUE – Innovation/Technology Land Use

Page 181 of 792 ends

70 GOALS AND POLICIES | Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element A list of all land use designated
DENSITIES & INTENSITIES is
provided in Table LU-1.

INNOVATION/

TECHNOLOGY
USES

MONTEREY PASS
FAR: 0.65
HEIGHT (FT.): 35

SATURN PARK
FAR: 0.60
HEIGHT (FT.): 40

CORPORATE PLACE
FAR: 1.00
HEIGHT (FT.): 50

INTENSITIES

Page 182 of 792 ends

Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element | GOALS AND POLICIES 71 Technology will continue to evolve rapidly, changing how people work and do business. The City aims to
accommodate and encourage new businesses that
promote innovation and advances in technology, creating places for high-skilled and knowledge workers. The
Monterey Pass Road corridor and Saturn Park district (on Saturn Street) provide prime properties, easy access to arterial roadways and freeways, and locations near housing perfect for new, clean technology, and creative industries.

The Monterey Pass Road corridor and Saturn Park
district historically have been areas where a range of
industrial businesses—including intensive manufacturing operations—have thrived. However, in Saturn Park, uses
transitioned in the latter 1990s to lighter industrial and offi ce enterprises in response to public concerns about the proximity of heavy industrial uses to residential
neighborhoods. Along Monterey Pass Road, warehousing,
trucking, and auto repair uses increased because of the distance from neighborhoods and relatively easy freeway access. While these uses have provided service-oriented jobs, the City is interested in attracting industries that off er higher-paying jobs and attract people of diverse interests, incomes, and talents who wish to both live and work in
Monterey Park.

Properties along Monterey Pass Road and south of
Davidson Drive between Monterey Pass Road and
Corporate Center Drive have interesting and unique
industrial buildings that can be retroﬁ tted for creative offi ce, research and development, and even commercial space
such as breweries. The City’s goal is to phase out trucking- intensive uses in favor of more environmentally sensitive businesses. Also, the City aims to improve the physical appearance of the corridor with increased landscaping,
improved signage, identity lighting, and other public realm interventions. Finally, to provide for better interaction among land uses along the corridor, the City will provide better accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists and
control cut-through traffi c, as described in the Mobility Element.

Saturn Park will continue to function as a business park, focused on offi ce-type and research and development
uses, with supportive commercial businesses. Private
reinvestment in properties will be encouraged through
higher development intensity allowances. In turn, the City will require greater attention to landscaping, creative site design, and building quality.

Page 183 of 792 ends

Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element | GOALS AND POLICIES 73 GOAL 25 Saturn Park as a destination business park
for high-quality service industry, research and
development, and emerging industry jobs
Policy 25.1 Zoning. Ensure that zoning regulations applicable to Saturn Park permit the range of uses necessary to achieve land use goals, including prohibition on uses involving the storage and use of hazardous materials having a Class 4 ranking (UFC Standard 79-3 or succeeding ranking). Prohibit uses that conﬂ ict with the goals.

Market. Market the Saturn Park district as a premier location in the San Gabriel Valley for emerging technology businesses.

Identity. Create a distinct physical identity for the Saturn Park district.

Policy 25.2
Policy 25.3

Page 184 of 792 ends

Exhibit No. 3
Willdan Meeting
Summaries/Notes

Thursday, July 29, 2024
Monday, August 12, 2024
Monday, August 19, 2024
Thursday, August 29, 2024

Page 185 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 1

Page 1 of 3 ends

SPARC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NO.1 (July 29, 2024)

PUBLIC & COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND IDEAS RECEIVED

POTENTIAL USES FOR THE FUTURE

1. Multi-use/mixed use complexes

2. Birthday venues/entertainment facilities

3. Live/work places

4. Variety of eating establishments

5. Higher end grocery stores like a Trader Joe’s

6. If housing is the plan, it should be single family residential

7. Dog park

8. Open space/park space

9. Entertainment options

10. Retail

11. Arts district

12. Residential/Mixed use

13. CoƯee shops

14. Senior day care center, with programming activities

15. AƯordable housing opportunities

16. Community serving uses

POSSIBLE GOALS FOR THE FUTURE

1. Missing uses for young kids.

2. Close to freeway with easy access.

3. Maybe consider office conversion to residential.

4. Increase the local tax base. In other areas, for example, places have residential over retail, increases the tax base.

5. I support residential and there are ways to minimize issues.

6. Walkable neighborhoods results in less traƯic, fewer cars.

7. The area could serve the 25 to 50 year old age groups, including parents, kids. We need more live/work areas. Monterey Park should be more proactive in providing walkable areas.

8. Multi-modal transportation where cars are less important.

9. This is an opportunity to reverse suburban spawl, provide aƯordable housing, and build a walkable area. The hope is to look at zoning in a diƯerent way. Need to move away from Euclidean zoning where cities are sectioned oƯ by uses. Thriving metropolitan cities have mixed uses.

10. Great opportunity to re-envision Monterey Park. Opportunity to address urban sprawl.

11. Opportunity to re-envision area with an open mind.

12. I want to see development. One example is the commercial center developed from a former trash site.

13. As time goes on we should make land use changes to better ﬁt the community.

14. There are lots of options. We need to reinvent the area for the next 40 to 50 years into the future.

Page 186 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 1

Page 2 of 3 ends

15. We should look at the highest and best use along with what the public wants.

16. Economy is shifting dramatically and fundamentally.

17. There are economic opportunities.

18. Need higher density.

19. Re-invent and identity.

20. Need a better vision to be eƯective the next 50 years. Positive/tax base/generates business.

21. AƯordability is important. Residents seek to keep younger family members close by.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUTURE

1. Don’t want 10-story buildings.

2. Not excited about new residential development.

3. Data centers bring noise and power issues, what can they provide.

4. Bringing in retail, will bring in more trucks and noise.

5. Concern, if mixed use, safety issues, plus what can the buildings be used as.

6. If we do pursue open space and dog parks, how do we pay for that, does it impact our taxes.

7. Funds could be used to beneﬁt the community with higher end grocery stores, which could generate more taxes as well.

8. Data centers are useful, but bring issues such as noise, energy use, utilities.

9. If we allow housing, the demand for more schools, for example, will go up.

10. Concern from existing businesses if zoning changes, what does this mean.

11. Will citizen’s taxes go up.

CHALLENGES TODAY/EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. Safety is a concern, area feels dangerous. The site is a creepy place. Nothing is going on. At night the area feels dangerous.

2. There are no sidewalks. The area lacks pedestrian access.

3. Parking lots are empty.

4. Saturn Park used to be vibrant in the 1970s to 2000s. At one point Saturn Park was full.

Saturn Park stalled. In the 1980s it was vibrant. Deterioration occurred over the years.

5. There are high vacancies. Vacancy rate at 70 percent currently, therefore the reason for this Committee.

6. OƯice space is not coming back.

7. What uses can come if buildings can’t support it.

8. Breweries have a host of problems.

9. Nothing is happening at the site.

10. As a property owner since 2008, we have a tenant lease. Land owners need to make a proﬁt, but are willing to put money into the site.

11. We are on pause, to realize the future opportunity, the economy has shifted, such as the work from home model. We need to look at trends, and we need to know what to be informed about.

12. We don’t have aƯordable housing in the city.

13. Data centers do not help residents.

14. Need to drive out of city to enjoy uses.

Page 187 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 1

Page 3 of 3 ends

15. Area is stalled with no life. Doing nothing results in deterioration.

16. Data centers are useful but bring issues such as noise, energy use, utilities.

17. Site has large empty buildings.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. We could do better with outreach. Outreach should have been better.

2. There are other areas within the city (vacant lots) that currently have proposed uses/mixed uses.

3. Why not look at other areas of the city, such as Garﬁeld, Atlantic for example.

4. This is a loophole. Voters already approved land uses which do not include housing. Trying to get around what the voters enacted.

5. City has been able to generate revenue with development of the Marketplace.

6. Want to learn more about data centers -- Data center applicant at 1977 Saturn presented the project. Advantages, next to So Cal Edison is a great site, capacity is great for high electricity use.

7. Something needs to be done to improve this area.

8. Suggested inviting retailers and mixed use developers to present to SPARC.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. How have existing properties been marketed, as data centers?

2. Have any proposed uses been submitted.

3. What types of inquiries have been received from developers? Answer - one pending application, plus a second expressing interest.

4. Inquiries have been received for housing, oƯice, and data center development/occupancy.

5. Marketing has been for data centers.

6. Love the city, access, would data centers require a zone change?

7. We are keeping an open mind. Nothing has been determined.

8. The city is rezoning the whole city, piece by piece.

9. 1980 Saturn is listed for sale. Data center, retail, housing, are all expressing an interest in the property.

10. How are we moving forward with land we do not own. Is the City using eminent domain to take over properties and build? How does the city dictate land use without owning the properties? Answer – we as the city are providing the framework for allowing certain uses per the general plan and other planning rules. We are not purchasing or taking any property under ownership.

11. Can the buildings be converted to residential.

Page 188 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 1 of 6 ends

SPARC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NO. 2 (August 12, 2024)

GROUP TABLE DISCUSSIONS & EXERCISES

Meeting focused on the following potential future uses:

1. Innovation/Technology (current zoning)

2. Housing/Residential (possible future)

3. Commercial (possible future)

4. Public (possible future)
Discussion was guided by the “Strengths” , “Weaknesses” , “Opportunities” , and “Constraints” the site poses.

Working group tables:

Table participants included about 10 community members and 2 SPARC members, all providing input. The four table discussions were simultaneous and facilitated by:

1. Juliet Arroyo, Willdan

2. Sal Lopez, Willdan

3. Jennifer Maria, Willdan

4. Chad Brown, Willdan

Page 189 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 2 of 6 ends

INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY
Table 2
Table included mostly residents of the
residential neighborhood located northwest of
the site and two SPARC members. The general
sentiment of the residents is to keep the area
as is and were not supportive of any new
development and feel the area should remain
untouched. The group is very sensitive to new
development and concerned with the impacts
it could bring on their surrounding community.

The SPARC members actively heard resident’s
concerns and stated their support for a new
vision for Saturn Park, which included
residential, neighborhood serving
retail/commercial, open space and economic
vitality. The general comments received
include: they chose to buy/live in this area
because of its quiet environment; with new
development comes undesirables and unsafe
conditions; noise and nuisance impacts
associated with new commercial development
such as delivery trucks at rear docking
locations, potential for rodents and trash,
crime, etc..They are ok with driving to access
services and want to see the area stay the
same.

Table 1
The group discussion seemed to focus on two
areas:

1) It didn’t seem like Monterey Park is the type
of place for the type of development
envisioned under this zoning category. There
are no big universities in the area that would
attract this type of development.

2) Data Centers. The group was not necessarily
for or against data centers, but they are
concerned about the current proposal at the
site. The issue of employment came up and
that data centers did not employ many people
and that was a negative. The current proposal
could be better if it integrated more of a public
component, had better buƯering, and ﬁt in
better.

Table 3
The participants initially felt that there were no
uses proposed on the list of 16 proposed uses
that fall under this category. Some individuals
wanted to know what uses were already in
place at the site. There was an eventual
consensus that a data center was an
appropriate use to place under this category.

There were mixed feelings on whether data
centers should be an allowed use at the site. It
was highlighted that data centers could
generate increased revenues for the city, as
well as brand the city as innovative. Some
considerations introduced were the potential
impacts to traƯic conditions and levels of
energy consumption. Some additional ideas
were brieﬂy introduced for consideration, such
as a Life Science business and Medical Device
manufacturing.

Table 4
Suggestions included:
 Expansion of cemetery
 Tech incubator
 Edison training area
 Technology related school
 Tech job
 EV charging
 Maybe low density

SPARC member mentioned: 400 million in
upgrades for the data center, tax on the power.

Data center makes sense in, interest in data
center uses, potential impacts, environmental
impacts. Comments about not liking the
electrical infrastructure adjacent and crossing
the area. Undergrounding power lines.

Page 190 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 3 of 6 ends

HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL
Table 2
 Minimal support of housing/residential
 Would consider low-density single-
family development. There was some
discussion on lot sizes
 Feel that the area is too small for
aƯordable housing
 Not supportive of aƯordable housing
and density. Inquired about the
meaning of aƯordable housing and if it
meant Section 8.
 Not supportive of residential densities
such as apartments and townhomes.

Concerned about building heights and views,
traƯic, noise.

Table 1
There is already residential in the area around
the site, any new residential should be low
impact and blend with the existing. Condos
and townhomes would be ok. Retail uses and a
walkable area seemed to be desirable but
concerns about vacant retail on the bottom
came up. Medium density housing would be
ok. Three-story townhomes would be ok.

City has a RHNA housing goal that should be
taken seriously. The group was against high
density. The participants felt that housing in
Monterey Park is very unaƯordable ($1 million
for a house), and this is an issue to be
addressed, especially for families. Retail
should be walkable. Can walk to Costco but
not back. Local businesses like coƯee shops
should be walkable. Existing streets are
designed wrong for housing. Amenities should
include trails and pathways, would be good for
residents. Overall, there seemed to be
consensus among the table that townhomes
would be ok and that medium density would be
ok, but the table seemed to be mostly against
high density residential.

Table 3
Initial discussions at the table surrounded the
topic of RHNA numbers and the city’s current
progress with meeting State requirements.

After a brief discussion of this topic, there were
preferences expressed both in favor of and
against aƯordable housing projects. Interest
was expressed for mixed-use developments to
create additional housing and convenience of
access to retail & food services, as well as
freeways. Senior housing was introduced and
some consensus amongst the table members
was expressed. It was expressed that this
proposed use could make the site livelier and
increase the tax base. A consideration
mentioned during the discussion was the
proximity of site to So Cal Edison.

Table 4
Residential, yes and no. One of the table
participants is a business owner in the area
and was worried about housing impacting on
his business, the traƯic to and from it, and his
ability to sell his business in the future. It was
my understanding that he wasn’t opposed to
housing, but wary of its potential impacts and
relationship to his business. Mixed Use: Not in
favor of mixed use. Would like to be able to
keep current uses, in particular existing
businesses. Community commentary: More
ﬁre protection desired, questions about police.

How all this is funded. TraƯic fear. Would like to
have ample parking for any use. Fear that high
density residential would bring undesirable
conditions.

Page 191 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 4 of 6 ends

COMMERCIAL
Table 2
 Not supportive of commercial
development
 No retail development
 No entertainment
 Existing infrastructure/street grid
cannot support new development.

There will be traƯic and noise impacts
on the adjacent residential streets
 Asked if there was a plan to expand
Potrero Grande and made comment
about site accessibility
(ingress/egress) due to current
conﬁguration, such as the one-way
segment that limits access to south of
the 60.

Table 1
Desire for an arts district – In a portion of the
site, where there are local businesses, small,
like a bodega, and small services. A pavilion
that had rotating uses. An art walk event could
be included. Building an art center, include an
art space easement. Small, family oriented
businesses. “Cool” area. An area that deﬁnes
Monterey Park with foot traƯic.

No big box retail, Monterey Park is mom and
pop businesses. Montebello has the big box
retailers. Business interests have their own
strategies, consider an area that meets their
interests. Commercial can be family-oriented,
and can help to keep schools open. Stores can
be on main roadways. Commercial should be
in moderation. Townhomes and commercial
could mix. The area could help to grow
businesses from very small to medium size.

Table 3
Initial conversation about commercial uses
involved what the group deﬁned as
commercial. Some participants expressed that
they were not interested in any commercial
uses at the site whatsoever. Concerns were
raised about preserving the residential feel of
the area, the possibility of a high volume of
commercial vacancies over time, as well as
potential noise pollution created by semi
trucks delivering goods. Other participants
expressed an interest in commercial
businesses that can bring in higher-end retail,
Amazon Fresh, food services and medical
device manufacturing. The conversation
evolved into an opportunity to promote local
businesses with the opportunities to provide
services to the community, making it much
more welcoming to residents living near the
site. It was discussed that adding commercial
uses to the site could bring in new tax revenue
and create new jobs for residents.

Table 4

Strength: sales tax, more revenue, potential
revitalization, jobs.

Weaknesses: no retail demand, traƯic, trash,
increased crime, theft, noise, inability to ﬁll
current spaces, most worried about high
density or any density that abuts the business,
fear of pedestrians being impacted by traƯic,
there are no sidewalks.

Opportunities: investment in pursuing the data
center (“feels natural”), possible.
environmental impact. Maybe focus on
bringing in more complimentary industries.

Since the data center is putting in so much
money, surely other businesses may generate
oƯ of it.

Desired: Whole foods, Trader Joes, Amazon
Fresh, and Sprouts, not Ralphs.

Page 192 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 5 of 6 ends

PUBLIC
Table 2
 General support for open space
 Would be open to park space that’s
sensitive to the outlying residential and
recommended an open space barrier
to protect the surrounding residential
neighborhoods
 Open to indoor/covered open spaces
 Other outdoor recreational facilities
such as pickle ball and a free public
pool

Table 1
Would like to see a recreation area for
exercising (portion of site). Trails that meander
along the site. On the back side of site, next to
housing, can be walking trails. Can include a
dog walk. Circular trails for strolling and
jogging.

Almanor Park in Alhambra is a good example.

A pocket park would be ﬁne, it does not have to
be a big park. Demonstration gardens and
botanical gardens would be good, with native
California plants.

Table 3
A regional sports center to bring in access to
such sports as tennis, pickleball, racquetball,
but more importantly a swimming pool that
would beneﬁt the local High Schools, as well
as allow for swim competitions. The current
facilities are somewhat run down and there is a
risk of losing access to the existing local pool
due to its condition. The closest regional sports
center is diƯicult to gain access to because of
how far it is from Monterrey Park. A robust
conversation ensued about the diƯiculty to
secure publicly accessible open space given
the private ownership of each property at the
site. It was explained that the city has no
intention of purchasing or gaining ownership of
any properties at the site. It was also explained
that property owners would need to allow
public access to their property or donate
property to the city to create open space at the
site. Concerns regarding impacts to traƯic
conditions and increased congestion were
voiced. The idea of creating additional roads
was explored, but the group came to the
conclusion that this would not alleviate any
increases in traƯic congestion. It was
proposed that the data center under review
could perhaps create a publicly accessible
park with a playground and/or a dog park. It
was also suggested that it would be nice for the
data center to oƯer ﬁber optic capabilities to
residents residing in close proximity to the site.

Table 4
Dog park was stated as a potentially public
use. There was confusion about how we could
have public uses if everything on the site was
already private. Mayor and facilitator helped
shift from “what we don’t want” to what would
you like to see, what could you appreciate in
the area.

Desires expressed: Man-made lake with
recreation, pickle ball court, community
theater, playhouse, ﬁne arts center,
amphitheater, musical, enclosed area. Group
wants a buƯer with residential.

Page 193 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 2

Page 6 of 6 ends

Wall charts, Post-It notes, direct quotes
The following were transcribed from handwritten notes placed on each category by participants

INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY

1. Tech Incubator, should be, close to Cal Tech, for example research center.

HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL

1. Some rental/some condominiums.

2. We would not want aƯordable housing.

3. Mixed-use housing (medium to high density).

4. Bunker Hill Apartments (example).

5. Mixed-use housing (medium to high density).

6. Medium density, one acre for 10 to 12 townhouses, or 70 acres designed well can carry 500 to 600.

7. Single family use, no high-density housing.

8. Mixed-use housing!

COMMERCIAL

1. Tell the State of California to stop being anti-business. Chevron moved to Texas after being in California for 100 years.

PUBLIC

1. Green space near Edison powerlines.

2. This is such an important topic and change. After antics, we have little time for actual impact.

3. “Smorgasburg” concept, weekend public market, high end market, retail Emerging themes
The following themes and topics appeared to emerge as prominent and reoccurring from the table discussions combined.
 Mixed Use (mixed reactions)
 Density (mixed reaction to low and medium density, opposed to high density)  Open Space/Parks/Trails/Recreation (want)
 Retail vacancies (concern)
 Grocery stores (want)
 No change to current zoning (mixed reactions)
 Arts pavilion (want)
 Blend site uses with surrounding areas and create buƯers (want)  TraƯic and streets don’t support new development (concern)

Page 194 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 3

Page 1 of 5 ends

SPARC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NO. 3 (August 19, 2024)

RANKING EXERCISE & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

PRESENTATION
Sal Lopez from Willdan provided a summary of the two previous meetings and explained the ranking exercise developed for this workshop. He stated that the task is simply asking for public feedback and not to design a project. There are two paths, one path is for no change to the current zoning and the other path seeks a change to the zoning and allowable uses. He mentioned that low intensity development emerged as a theme from Workshop No. 2. Questions from the attendees asked if housing is for renters or owners, if distance from Southern California Edison considers EMFs, and about the visioning process.

He explained the following seven use categories that emerged providing visual illustrations and density ranges (pursuant to the City’s General Plan) for residential categories.

USE CATEGORY Currently
Allowed
Not Currently
Allowed
Innovation/Technology X
Low Density Residential X
Medium Density Residential X
High Density Residential X
Mixed Use X
Neighborhood Serving Commercial X
Public/Open Space X
RAN

KING EXERCISE AND RESULTS
Mr. Lopez asked participants to place one of three stickers on the board for each category. The green sticker indicating personal general support for development within the category, the yellow sticker indicating some support but with reservations, and the red sticker indicating general disfavor of development within that category. The following results were recorded.

Page 195 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 3

Page 2 of 5 ends

USE CATEGORY Green Yellow Red Total
Innovation/Technology 19
(47.5%)
11 (27.5%)
10 (25.0%)
40 (100%)

Low Density Residential 12
(31.6%)
6 (15.8%)
20 (52.6%)
38 (100%)
Medium Density Residential 12
(31.6%)
4 (10.5%)
22 (57.9%)
38 (100%)
High Density Residential 10
(25.6%)
4 (10.3%)
25 (64.1%)
39 (100%)
Mixed Use 15
(38.4%)
9 (23.1%)
15 (38.5%)
39 (100%)
Neighborhood Serving Commercial 14
(35.9%)
11 (28.2%)
14 (35.9%)
39 (100%)
Public/Open Space 11
(28.2%)
2 (05.1%)
26 (66.7%)
39 (100%)
Note: “Total” reﬂects the total number of stickers placed for each use category and does not necessarily reﬂect the number of persons that participated in the exercise.

The results show mixed reactions to possible future development within each category. It appears that a signiﬁcant number of participants see the current zoning favorably, giving “Innovation/Technology” 47.5 percent of stickers for “Green” . The category of “Public/Open Space” received the highest percentage of “Red” or unfavorable ranking at 66.7 percent. Among the residential categories, “High Density Residential” received the highest percentage of disfavor, followed by “Medium Density Residential” then “Low Density Residential” . “Mixed Use” and “Neighborhood Serving Commercial” received equal favorable and disfavorable ratings. See photos below showing ﬁnal results.

Participants were also provided Post-It notes to additionally add any comments. The following single comment was provided.

1. Regional Sports Center

Page 196 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 3

Page 3 of 5 ends

PHOTOS OF USE CATEGORIES

AFTER RANKING EXERCISE

WITH FINAL RESULTS

Page 197 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 3

Page 4 of 5 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT
During the meeting the public had the opportunity to give oral comments at the speaker’s stand.

The Chair stated that public comments are taken at each meeting and that there is a fourth meeting next week and then a City Council meeting where opportunity for comments will also be given. In addition, the Chair stated that written comments can also be provided by emailing City elected oƯicials, staƯ, or Willdan. The Chair explained the process and reiterated that the SPARC wants ideas, but also understands that doing nothing is an option.

The following comments were provided:

An attendee asked for more information about the square footage of the proposed data center in Saturn Park. StaƯ mentioned that it is 203,491 square feet on a 14.5 acre site.

An attendee mentioned a complaint that the youth don’t have a place to go in Monterey Park.

An attendee mentioned that open public space is not very practical. Low density and medium to high density could be considered given surroundings.

An attendee mentioned that the problem in Saturn Park is that the property owners are asking too much money for the land, sites are too expensive and developers are going elsewhere and gave a comparison with Atlantic Square.

An attendee mentioned that kids have limited options, the pool is closed, and water damage at a city gym. City has to ﬁx facilities.

One attendee mentioned dog parks and Trader Joe’s when scouting for locations.

Another attendee mentioned decreased school enrolment and if schools are going to close. Need to meet housing goal of 5,200 units, a moral obligation, a burden all of the city should share. A home valued at $1 million is not aƯordable and the city needs to attract families.

An attendee mentioned that a rezone was not a part of the plan in the Land Use element and the 2020 General Plan.

An attendee mentioned that there are lots of empty retail shops.

An attendee mentioned that the current infrastructure and circulation at and surrounding the site is not made for more uses.

An attendee asked generally those that don’t support change, what they have to present as an option, seeing the city as stagnant with a lack of investment.

An attendee asked for clariﬁcation, will the City Council decide or will the voters get to decide.

StaƯ mentioned that there have been inquiries from persons about housing, retail, data centers and mentioned that the moratorium is temporary and that 1980 Saturn Avenue is currently for sale.

An attendee asked where the density ranges come from. It was clariﬁed that ranges are from the City’s General Plan

Page 198 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 3

Page 5 of 5 ends

An attendee asked for more clariﬁcation, if moving forward with a rezone, would Saturn Avenue be a dividing line, with diƯerent zoning north of the demarcation versus south of the line. Would recommendations allow diƯerent zoning in diƯerent directions.

An attendee mentioned that the voters already decided on zoning with approval of Measure JJ and is concerned about a precedent being set.

SPARC member expressed that the map showing vacancy is misleading because it shows land area but only some of the sites are vacant and for sale. StaƯ clariﬁed that the vacancy rates are for buildings.

An attendee, a resident since 1983, appreciated having this opportunity to give input and give residents a chance to speak. The city should have the chance to change the rules to make improvements.

Page 199 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 4

Page 1 of 5 ends

SPARC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NO. 4 (August 29, 2024)

SPRC RECOMMENDATION & COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
The ﬁnal meeting of the four meeting workshop series concluded in a SPARC recommendation to City Council with the following public testimony, presentation, and motion by the SPARC.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Chair of the SPARC opened the meeting to public comments. The following comments were heard.
1 – The language in the ordinance, in the resolution, from 2021, with zoning regulations, considers the most recent reconcile. The ordinances, with voters, had a vision with Measure JJ. 2 - In my option more public space is needed, such as an indoor stadium. Monterey Park lacks indoor recreation. The Library and City Hall provides for young people. An open area, a learning room, sports area, ping pong, indoor for all kinds of sports. 3 - Please consider the future for the kids. School enrollment is down. The younger generation is not coming to this city. No incoming families, kids coming from other aƯordable housing. 4- This is a part of the process, amend the General Plan and Saturn Park. City Council can make the ﬁnal decision, this is a part of the committee, voters should have the opportunity to decide. 5- Current school district is Montebello School District. New residents must change districts and not go to Hillcrest school. New homes must split districts. There are four districts. 6 – Parents have concerns. Five new English only students in one class. AƯordability in housing will help school enrolment.
7- Living on Clover Street, I visited door to door, and nobody knew what was going on. They had concerns about traƯic, not having an adequate thoroughfare making it diƯicult for current residents. We don’t feel heard.
8 – As a long-time resident, I see importance of keeping the same vibe, quiet, safe, good for walking.

I like idea of dog park, of pedestrian friendly. Paetro Grande is dangerous. I agree this is something we should vote on. I don’t think 500 feet notice is enough. Taylor Drive, Orange Avenue, should not be impacted, including Hillcrest school, should be safe for kids. 9 - Recreational use would be good, such as a regional community center, with pickle ball tournaments. This can generate money. Not against data center, buƯer a consideration, a store can bring revenue. Why is there a moratorium. Housing and schools should be considered. There are four school districts.
10 – As a long-time resident, 70 acres is a lot, can create an environment for gaining population and have an active place for residents, like a health and wellness center. I would like to see recreation and cultural spaces.

Page 200 of 792 ends

Workshop No. 4

Page 2 of 5 ends

11- To clarify total square footage, look at unoccupied buildings versus land area. 12 - Mixed use, with housing above retail, but retail is vacant. But housing creates a walkable community for necessities. I want a welcoming mixed use and aƯordable housing area, and to push for that zoning.
13 – For the 1977 Saturn Avenue data center proposed project, the area is a good ﬁt. We have been working with the City for months. The plans allow data centers by right. Proximity to So Cal Edison is an advantage. We are close to ﬁnalizing a development agreement and the CEQA process. This process provides valuable input. We feel data centers are appropriate for the site. 14 - This City is park poor and should make investments in public spaces. The area feels unsafe.

The need to look at something for young families, for mom-and-pop businesses, we need mixed uses.
15 - Monterey Park residents are not familiar with this meeting. More noticing would help. I’m not in favor of a zone change. Why not work at attracting more under the permitted uses. A park would be great, but there is a funding issue. Mixed use can be considered but there are lots of vacant spaces already. No guarantee with a rezone.
16 - For Saturn Park, what comes into play are demographics for owners and developers. Not everyone is going to agree. Have voters decide. Public input is important. If we allow housing, it fulﬁls City’s requirements.

City staƯ mentioned that additional written comments have been received since the last meeting with ﬁve (5) expressing support for keeping the existing zoning in place, eight (8) in favor of expanding land uses, and one (1) in support of a data center.

PRESENTATION
Mr. Salvador Lopez from Willdan provided a summary of the three previous meetings. He reiterated the purpose of the workshop series, the role of Willdan as outreach facilitators, information about the subject site (Saturn Park), and the agenda of the meeting this evening. He summarized the ranking exercise results from Meeting No. 3, which did not reveal an overwhelming and clear consensus among the meeting participants.

SPARC COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
The SPARC Chair, Thomas Wong, provided the opportunity for each member to voice their comments, the following was heard:

Mr. Johnny Kwock - Supports expanded uses. The site has been largely vacant for a long time which does not beneﬁt residents or owners. I only see two owners participating. Expanding zoning beneﬁts owners and residents. I support expanding and allowing ﬂexibility. We should discuss with all of the owners. These are privately owned parcels.

Mr. Philip Chang – Appreciates everyone’s comments and feedback. There are lots of owners and one developer. If you own, you should be here.

Page 201 of 792 ends

Ms. Maychelle Yee- Sees confusion at what is at stake. Trying to overturn the General Plan, approved by voters. The excuses for doing this is based on lies. Instead of ﬁxing the code, this is taking advantage, overturning. The moratorium is 45 days plus extend to months. There were interested people but turned away. Why the election, then overturn, the process is a sham. The committee make up is tilted, two council members, two commissioners, one owner. Questions about ﬁnancial interest, conﬂicts. Sees attack on democracy, purpose of elections, sees it as not fair. We follow process, but it is a sham. Community to select, based on values and quality of life.

City does not own, intended to purchase in Saturn Park, they tried to buy property, conﬂict of interest. The negative public comments not reﬂected in notes. Housing and mixed use instead of the Land Use Element. Contractor used ugly pictures for existing permitted uses. Three tables of the four, for keeping the existing land uses. The majority want as is, based on stickers. StaƯ time, public time taken up. City should be abiding by voters. Please let the voters choose.

Chair Thomas Wong – Heard lots of misinformation from member Maychelle Yee. Vacancy predated moratorium and pandemic. City is moving ahead with rezoning for the whole city. He reminds participants, that the recommendation of the SPARC is not legally binding. This process is to collect feedback. He recognizes diƯerences in option. StaƯ and Willdan will package the feedback for City Council to consider. Nothing is predetermined. Process is not a sham; all feedback is taken seriously. Accupsations are frustrating. City looked at site for possible use, but did not pursue.

Some do not want to see changes to zoning, others are open to mixed use and housing. Discussion has been on expanding uses and not taking away from allowable uses.

Mr. Joe Leyva – As the only owner on the panel, we try to do business in the city, respect property owner’s rights. Commercial interests can go elsewhere. We have been fully occupied for 15 years and are good corporate citizens. Our tenants prefer a quiet area, and they respect residents.

Mr. Paul Lee- This is democracy, opinions are heard. I serve on the Parks/Recreation Commission.

This process is trying to get all perspectives. City has lacked vision. Hybrid work has changed businesses. This is an opportunity to set a vision, get creative, my vote would be to expand uses with outer limit of site designated and center of site maybe mixed use. With tax revenues, can work on a community center. Issues surrounding revenue generating.

Ms. Tammy Sam- Thanks public for participating in each meeting. I agree, I don’t want to restrict uses, but desire to expand uses. I don’t see Saturn Park as one zone. North of Saturn Avenue, keep the same and add townhomes, and parcels south of Saturn Avenue, designated for mixed use, creative space, and arts district. Kids should be in their own classes. Dual immersion students suƯer. County and State discussion about housing, population crisis, trying to house them, adaptive reuse is an option. Homelessness, mental health, and drug rehabilitation is a critical issue. I do not appreciate false news, lies and half-truths.

Ms. Victoria Chen Stapleton – Thanks neighbors for coming out. I look to the future and look at other parts of the city. Can not leave the site empty. Once something is built, you will love it and thank council. I pass site every day.

Vice Chair Vinh Ngo- Thanks the public for coming out to the meetings and voicing opinions and concerns. Our suggestion to council and council will decide. You have to ﬁgure out what is happening in Saturn Park. It is empty, a ghost town. How much longer does it have to remain in this Workshop No. 4

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 202 of 792 ends

state. I remember when the place was full, of businesses, now buildings are 40 and 50 years old, and obsolete. The interest of the city, the interest of the 12 to 15 owners, the interest to serve the city, a vibrant place. Something that works for everyone. Parcels are owned by diƯerent people. We know we need a vision for the city going forward. Keep businesses, keep occupancy up. High vacancy is no life. Mixed use commercial, improvements, set up the city for the next generation.

Think about what the site can do for the neighborhood. Standing still is not an option for me. I’m looking at what is better for the future than what is there today.

Ms. Maychelle Yee - For clarity, issue is not if we want a data center, or housing, what I’m explaining is it is not the city council, ﬁve people, to decide. It is the voter’s decision to decide.

Chair Thomas Wong - The fearmongering is not acceptable; we are re-zoning the whole city. We are discussing this site because of extra sensitivity, and it is a huge opportunity to re-imagine what can go into this part of the city. This is a community outreach process. I do not understand where this accusation is coming from. We are being honest and transparent in this process. For those against residential, there are State laws allowing owners to build housing to address the need. There is already a height limit, and we are not discussing this. I have heard from the community about looking at other uses, and what that might look like in a speciﬁc plan. On a personal note, I spent 10 years supporting housing development in the city through speciﬁc projects, for young families, for the next generation.

Mr. Paul Lee- I reiterate, sales tax revenues from tenant businesses, such as hotel tax, and raise revenue through property taxes.

SPARC MOTION
After discussion and testimony from SPARC members, the Chair asked the committee if a member wished to entertain a motion. Committee member Paul Lee made a motion to:
“Recommend that the Monterey Park City Council expand land uses for the Saturn Park area with consideration for areas and parcels above and west of Saturn Street versus the south of Saturn Street without eliminating any existing permitted land uses” The motion passed, with one member against.

A substitute motion by member Maychelle Yee, to allow the voters to decide on a change to the General Plan, was presented but did not get any support from the other members.

PUBLIC COMMENT
After the Motion/Recommendation, the SPARC opened the ﬂoor to hear additional public comments. The following comments were provided:
1 - If back to the voters, under the General Plan, how is the implementation plan table amended.

Amending zoning, have to refer to the General Plan, the bible. What about the voters. If Sacramento takes away, then let us know. Speaking about businesses, voters said no to a Casino. How can the General Plan be bypassed. There are speaking voices, what about Downtown, something is needed there. Let the community know. How can you bypass. If you can explain, I think it would put people at ease.

Workshop No. 4

Page 4 of 5 ends

Monterey Park City CouncilOctober 2, 2024

Monterey Park City Council
October 2, 2024