Agenda — Monterey Park City Council, November 6, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

October 16, 2024

Starting in 2023, the City Council considered the Shopping Center in a series of meetings.

On March 26, 2024, the City Council created an ad hoc committee (comprised of Mayor Thomas Wong and Council Member Jose Sanchez) to meet with TRC representatives regarding the Shopping Center’s future. Following those meetings, the City Manager, City Attorney, and other officials negotiated the proposed Development Agreement between the City and TRC.

TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE)
Decision-Making Body: The City Council is the planning agency for this project pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 2.56.020(c). Additionally, the City Council is the sole decision-maker regarding activating the Business Recover Development Zone (“BRDZ”) pursuant to MPMC § 21.45.020(G).

Legislative: The recommended action includes an amendment to the zoning (the “BRDZ”) via an Ordinance. In considering such actions, the City Council acts in its discretionary legislative capacity (formulating rules that apply to all future cases). For the proposed zone change, the City Council must make these findings (MPMC § 21.38.050):

• That the proposed zone change is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan;

• That the proposed zone change will not adversely affect surrounding properties; and

• That the proposed zone change promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the MPMC’s zoning regulations.

These findings are included in the draft Ordinance; the facts upon which these findings rely are also included with the draft documents.

BACKGROUND:

If approved, the Development Agreement would both establish zoning for the Shopping Center (by activating the BRDZ as authorized by MPMC Chapter 21.45) and obligate TRC to develop certain uses (and buildings). This would reconcile the City Council’s concerns (expressed during multiple public meetings) regarding the lack of development in the Shopping Center’s north end with TRC’s desire to update its land use approvals to meet current economic conditions. This circumstance is one of the reasons that the City Council adopted the BRDZ in 2020 as part of the 2020 Monterey Park Business Recovery Program. As outlined in the City Council’s July 15, 2020 Staff Report:

163 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 5 ends

October 16, 2024

Here, the proposed Development Agreement for the Shopping Center would activate the BRDZ and govern the following:

• TRC may, at its own expense, construct a new traffic signal where Atlantic Boulevard intersects the northern portion of the Shopping Center.

• TRC will develop plans for a new drive drive- thru restaurant facility within the Shopping Center.

• TRC may add new restaurant, commercial and entertainment uses to the Shopping Center with the allowable use and development standards appropriate for each.

The uses are described in detail in Attached Exhibits D and E.

• The term of the Development Agreement would be five years from the date of execution.

Additionally, TRC would cause demolition of existing Building A and provide for improvements to Building C – both included in Exhibit H of the draft Development Agreement.

The Development Agreement identifies the following public benefits:

164 of 637
Staff Report

Page 4 of 5 ends

October 16, 2024

• Development of new and relevant land uses within the Shopping Center that is currently vacant.

• Development of land uses that will complement surrounding commercial land uses with low impacts on existing infrastructure and minimal burdens on surrounding properties.

• Generation of additional sales tax and property tax.

• Improvement of the public right of way along South Atlantic Avenue.

• Installation of enhanced landscaping along the Shopping Center’s northern portion and right of way.

• Construction of a traffic signal and other intersection improvements adjacent to the north side of the Shopping Center.

In addition to these public benefits, the Development Agreement would address a long- standing City goal of improving the S hopping Center in the City that the City Council previously identified as a development priority.

2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

This project meets the strategic plan goal to “Strengthen our local economy and enhance housing opportunities” because the Development Agreement and zone change would facilitate enhancements to Atlantic Square which would improve the aesthetic appearance of the Shopping Center, help fill vacancies, attract more businesses, and positively impact the City’s local economy.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with the Project are borne by TRC. It is paying for all costs associated with processing the Project application and is financially responsible for all improvements allowed via the Development Agreement including, without limitation, a proposed traffic signal. Future benefits include anticipated increases to sales tax revenue for the City.

165 of 637
Staff Report

Page 5 of 5 ends

October 16, 2024

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development

Jeffrey L. Stewart
Willdan Engineering
Reviewed by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Finance

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENT:

1. Ordinance No._____, including Draft Development Agreement between City and TRC and attachments referenced in the staff report.

2. Map of Atlantic Square area referenced in the staff report.

166 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: Novem ber 6, 2024
AGENDA
ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3C
TO:

The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Receive and file the Monterey Park Business Improvement District No. 1 (BID) 2024 Annual Report and approve the proposed BID assessment and budget for the 2025 program year.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the 2024 Annual Report with the City Clerk;

2. Approving the proposed BID assessment and budget for the 2025 program year; and

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

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

The Downtown Business Improvement District Advisory Committee (BIDAC) is presenting its 2024 Business Improvement District No. 1 (BID) Annual Report outlining activities and expenditures for 2024 and the proposed assessment for 2025. The BIDAC recommends maintaining the current assessment levels for 2025.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Business Improvement District No. 1 (BID), established in 1986, is required by California law to submit an annual report to the City Clerk detailing its activities, expenditures for the current program year, and proposed budget for the following program year. Additionally, BID assessments must be renewed annually. Per the California Streets and Public Highways Code 54954.6, an ongoing assessment, if imposed at the same or lower amount as any previous year, does not require a public hearing or resolution to adopt and may be approved by minute order.

BACKGROUND:

The Business Improvement District Advisory Committee (BIDAC), comprised of business and property owners within the assessed area, serves as an advisory board to the City Council, offering insights into the needs of BID businesses and is responsible for making a recommendation on the BID’s annual report.

In compliance with BID law, the BIDAC is presenting its 2024 Annual Report, outlining activities and expenditures for the 2024 program year and the proposed assessment, 167 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 3 ends

November 6, 2024

programs and budgets for 2025. The BIDAC recommends maintaining the current assessment levels for the 2025 program year.

The significant expenditures in 2024 were the installation of Holiday decorations on Garvey Avenue, janitorial services for the Downtown area, and a promotion program to increase foot traffic to the Downtown BID. The BID’s 2024 revenue is estimated at $56,000,and the estimated expenditures for 2024 total $48,607.

Key Goals for the 2025 BID Annual Report and budget include:
• Collaborate with BID businesses to enhance the attractiveness of the Downtown District.
• Continue funding janitorial services and street maintenance within the BID area. • Install, remove, and store Holiday lights and decorations along Garvey Avenue. • Partner with the City to offer BID business workshops and business assistance activities.
• Support City projects benefitting the BID area (e.g., parking structure discussions, wayfinding signage, security initiatives, among others). • Identify strategies to promote the BID businesses.

The BIDAC is proposing the following 2025 program year estimated budget:

Budget Item Description 2025 Estimated Budget
Administration Postage $400.00
Business Cards $150.00
Office Supplies $300.00

BID Promotion Incentives, marketing, & promotions $12,000.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday lights & decorations $9,425.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $23,322.00 Pressure washing $7,360.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES $52,975.00

2025 Estimated Revenue $56,000.00
Reserves as of 09/2024 $204,068

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the BID 2024 Annual Report and approve the 2025 BID annual assessment by minute order.

168 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 3 ends

November 6, 2024
2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL :

The BID annual assessment meets the 2024- 2025 Strategic Plan Goal of strengthening our local economy and housing opportunities by supporting and promoting the businesses in Downtown Business Improvement District No. 1.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Monies received are for a special assessment district and do not affect the City’s general fund.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community Development
Joseph Torres
Economic Development Manager
Approved by: Approved as to form: Karl Berger, City Attorney Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Solange Fortenbach
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. 2024 BID Annual
Report
169 of 637
Staff Report

Page 4 of 4 ends

November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
2024 BID Annual Report
170 of 637

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

2024 ANNUAL REPORT

JANUARY 2024 – DECEMBER 2024

171 of 637

DOWNTOWN
Garvey – Garfield

VISION STATEMENT

The Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) No. 1
was established to improve and preserve the business
community in the heart of the City.

The Downtown area of the City is an important destination point for the business community and residents of Monterey Park. Through continued efforts in organization, beautification, promotion, and revitalization, the City leaders and its business community will work together to preserve and improve the quality of life for future generations.

BID Board Members:

Elizabeth Yang, Chairperson
Gene Jeng, Vice Chair
Josephine Louie
Jesse Li
Zhen Wu

172 of 637

OVERVIEW

The Business Improvement District Advisory Committee (BIDAC) meets quarterly and during special meetings to discuss issues of concern to businesses located within the BID area. Programs addressing cleanliness, promotions, and marketing are all reflected in the budget for the BID. In addition to the issues discussed, the Committee also researches and plans innovative ways to promote businesses and maintain the goals and budget outlined in the Annual Report.

HISTORY

Comprised of approximately 343 small businesses, the Monterey Park Business Improvement District No. 1 encompasses the area extending along Garvey Avenue from Ramona Avenue to Nicholson Avenue and on Garfield Avenue from south of Newmark Avenue to Emerson Avenue (refer to Exhibit A). The Monterey Park City Council established the BID in 1986 at the request of local businesses and the Downtown Merchants Association (DMA) under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq.

The primary responsibility of the BIDAC is to make recommendations to the City Council on the methods and ways by which revenues derived from the annual assessment are used for the betterment of the BID businesses and the BID area.

The BIDAC comprises five (5) members appointed by the City Council for one year and may serve for up to eight (8) years if reinstated by a Council member. Each City Council member appoints one Committee member. The BIDAC meets quarterly and as needed and hosts an annual meeting of the BID members - at-large at the end of the year when needed before the following year’s assessments.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This section of the Annual Report reflects the activities during 2024 to promote or enhance the BID area and its businesses.

Holiday Promotion
Holiday decorations installed and displayed along Garvey Avenue and the medians to provide a bright seasonal atmosphere for shoppers in the downtown BID.

Janitorial Services
Valley Maintenance Corporation, taking over Chrysalis Corporation in December 2020, continues to perform the janitorial services in the BID area four days a week at a significantly reduced rate. In 2023, the City added the cleaning of the Downtown parking lot on Garvey and Garfield to the City’s Valley Maintenance contract with the same significantly reduced rate.

Taste of Downtown MPK Promotion
The Taste of Downtown MPK promotion will launch in November & December 2024 to boost foot traffic and stimulate economic activity for BID businesses.

173 of 637

BUDGET

2025 Program Year
The Annual Report contains an estimated budget for the BID for January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025, and is tied to the programs and activities scheduled during the calendar year.

The City budgeted approximately $59,147 in revenue from the BID for the program year 2024. Exhibit B reflects the actual expenditures for the program year 2024, and Exhibit D reflects the BID’s Estimated Annual Program Budget for the program year 202 5. The BIDAC voted to keep the BID assessment fee unchanged for 2025 (refer to Exhibit E).

GOALS for 2025
This section of the Annual Report shows the programs or activities intended for 2025.

• Collaborate with BID businesses to enhance the attractiveness of the Downtown District. • Continue funding janitorial services and street maintenance within the BID area. • Install, remove, and store Holiday lights and decorations along Garvey Avenue. • Partner with the City to offer BID business workshops and business assistance activities. • Support City projects benefitting the BID area (e.g., parking structure discussions, wayfinding signage, security initiatives).
• Identify strategies to promote the BID businesses.

Exhibits:

A: BID Area Map
B: 2024 Estimated Budget
C: 2024 Actual Expenditures
D: 2025 Estimated Budget
E: 2025 Fee Schedule

174 of 637

EXHIBIT A

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MAP

175 of 637

EXHIBIT B
Business Improvement District No. 1

2024 Estimated Budget

Budget Item Description 2024 Est.

Expenditures
Administration Postage $400.00
Business Cards $150.00
Translation Services $1,200.00
Office Supplies $300.00

BID Promotion Incentives, marketing, & promotions $12,860.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday light bulb replacement $500.00 Holiday light storage & installation $5,577.00

Trash Receptacles Liners & lids $200.00

Landscaping Additional planting supplies $1,000.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $ 21,840.00 Pressure Washing $15,120.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: $59,147.00

176 of 637

EXHIBIT C

Business Improvement District No. 1

2024 Actual Expenditures

Beginning Fund Reserves Balance: $173,192.00

Budget Item Description 2024 Actual Expenses
Administration Postage $0.00
Business Cards $0.00
Translation Services $0.00
Office Supplies $0.00

BID Promotion Taste of Downtown MPK $7,990.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday lights & decorations $9,425.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $23,322.00 Pressure Washing $7,360.00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $48,097.00

2024 Estimated Revenue $56,000.00

Reserves as of 09/2024 $204,068.00

177 of 637

EXHIBIT D

Business Improvement District No. 1

2025 Estimated Budget

Budget Item Description 2025 Estimated
Budget
Administration Postage $400.00
Business Cards $150.00
Office Supplies $300.00

BID Promotion Incentives, marketing, & promotions $12,000.00

Holiday Decoration Holiday lights & decorations $9,425.00

Custodial Contract Maintenance of the BID area $23,322.00 Pressure Washing $7,360.00

TOTAL: $52,975.00

178 of 637

EXHIBIT E

2025 BID Fee Schedule (same as last year)

Business Type
Fee Employee/Seat Formula

Retail $105.17 $13.52
Service (Includes Financial) $105.17 $13.52
Restaurant
Without ABC $105.17 $ 6.57 (1)
With ABC $105.17 $ 7.87 (2)
Professional (inc. Insurance) $105.17 $13.52
Theater $105.17
Wholesale $105.17
Manufacturing $105.17
Contractor $105.17
Commercial Rental $23.00 + .006574 sq. ft. (3)
Residential Rental $23.00 (4)
Hotel $23.00 per unit
Laundromat $105.17

1) 20 seats or less, no seat assessment fees. Over 20 seats, $6.57 per seat starting with Seat

21. Eg. For 50 seats, total charge is $105.17 (base fee) + $197.10 (30 seats x $6.57) = $302.27.

2) 20 seats or less, no seat assessment fees. Over 20 seats, $7.87 per seat starting with Seat

21. Eg. For 50 seats, total charge is $105.17 (base fee) + $236.10 (30 seats x $7.87) = $341.27.

3) Base fee is $23.00 per unit. For every additional sq. ft. over 2,000; multiply excess by $.006574. Eg. 2,500 sq. ft., total charge is $23.00 + $3.29 (500 sq. ft. x $0.006574) = $26.29 (calculations are rounded up)

4) If you own 1-3 units, there is no charge. If you own more than 3 units, you pay $23.00 per unit more than 3 units. Eg. You own 5 units. You pay $23.00 x 2 (5 units – 3 units) = $56.00

179 of 637
4882-0830-8877 v2
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3D
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements – Award of Public Works Contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION:

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 Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the contract amount of $169,000 for the 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements Project;

2. Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed $17,000 over the total contract amount; and

3. 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 Guideline § 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, alteration of existing public or private structures which involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed work will occur entirely within an existing structure. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) No. 96048 – 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements Project includes curb ramp construction at various street intersections. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2024-R48, the Public Works Director solicited bids for the 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements (Specification No. 2024-004).

The public bid opening for the 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements project was held on October 1 , 202 4. Seven bids w ere received : Onyx Paving, Kalban Inc, Aguilar and Calderon, NPL Construction, Komex Construction, CT&T, and Axiom . As required by HUD for the use of CDBG funds, staff held a pre- bid meeting and was attended by 10 potential bidders including Onyx Paving Company, Inc. It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Public Works contract with Onyx Paving Company Inc., the lowest responsible bidder , for the 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements project in the amount of $169,000, plus a contingency amount not to exceed $17,000. 180 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 3 ends

November 06, 2024

BACKGROUND
The proposed work includes the reconstruction of twenty (20) existing curb ramps in order to meet current ADA standards.

The public works bid was opened on October 01, 2024, and includes the following bid:

RANK BIDDER BASE BID AMOUNT
1 Onyx Paving Company, Inc. $ 169,000.00
2 Kalban Inc $ 178,128.00
3 Aguilar and Calderon $ 178,312.00
4 NPL Construction $ 189,932.00
5 Komex Construction $ 228,240.00
6 CT&T $ 248,288.60
7 Axiom $ 268,420.00
The bid submitted by Onyx Paving Company, Inc. is the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. Onyx Paving Company’s contractor's license was verified with the California State Contractor’s License Board to be current, active and in good standing.

Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) was verified.

Staff also checked the contractor’s references and received positive feedback.

Additionally, the contractor submitted all documents and met federal requirements.

It is recommended that the City Council awards the project to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for a total of $169,000.
2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
The curb ramps reconstruction project supports the City’s goal to maintain City facilities to support the current and future needs of our City and community.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project is budgeted in the 202 4-2025 fiscal year Capital Improvement Program under CIP 96048 funded by CDBG funds. There are sufficient funds to award the contract.

CIP 95048 – Curb Ramp Improvements Project
Curb Ramp Improvements
(Onyx Paving Company, Inc) $169,000
Contingency (not to exceed) $17,000
Construction management/Construction Inspection $10,000 Labor compliance $4,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $200,000
181 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 3 ends

November 06, 2024
Respectfully submitted and prepared by: Reviewed by:

Shawn Igoe
Director of Public Works
Martha Garcia
Director of Finance
Approved by: Approved as to Form: Karl H. Berger,
City Attorney
Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Solange Fortenbach
Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. Onyx Paving Company, Inc. Proposal – 2024 Curb Ramp Improvements 182 of 637
Staff Report
November 06, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Onyx Paving Company, Inc. Proposal
2024 Curb Ramp Improvements
183 of 637
184 of 637
185 of 637
186 of 637
187 of 637
188 of 637
189 of 637
190 of 637
191 of 637
192 of 637
193 of 637
194 of 637
195 of 637
196 of 637
197 of 637
198 of 637
199 of 637
200 of 637
201 of 637
202 of 637
203 of 637
204 of 637
205 of 637
206 of 637
207 of 637
208 of 637
209 of 637
210 of 637
211 of 637
212 of 637
213 of 637
214 of 637
215 of 637
216 of 637
217 of 637
218 of 637
219 of 637
220 of 637
221 of 637
222 of 637
223 of 637
224 of 637
225 of 637
226 of 637
227 of 637
228 of 637
229 of 637
230 of 637
231 of 637
232 of 637
233 of 637
234 of 637
235 of 637
236 of 637
237 of 637
238 of 637
239 of 637
240 of 637
241 of 637
242 of 637
243 of 637
244 of 637
245 of 637
246 of 637
247 of 637
248 of 637
249 of 637
250 of 637
251 of 637
252 of 637
253 of 637
254 of 637
255 of 637
256 of 637
257 of 637
258 of 637
259 of 637
260 of 637
261 of 637
262 of 637
263 of 637
264 of 637
265 of 637
266 of 637
267 of 637
268 of 637
269 of 637
270 of 637
271 of 637
272 of 637
273 of 637
274 of 637
275 of 637
276 of 637
277 of 637
278 of 637
279 of 637
280 of 637
281 of 637
282 of 637
283 of 637
284 of 637
285 of 637
286 of 637
287 of 637
288 of 637
289 of 637
290 of 637
291 of 637
292 of 637
293 of 637
294 of 637
295 of 637
296 of 637
297 of 637
298 of 637
299 of 637
300 of 637
301 of 637
302 of 637
303 of 637
304 of 637
305 of 637
306 of 637
307 of 637
308 of 637
309 of 637
310 of 637
311 of 637
312 of 637
313 of 637
314 of 637
315 of 637
316 of 637
317 of 637
318 of 637
319 of 637
320 of 637
321 of 637
322 of 637
323 of 637
324 of 637
325 of 637
326 of 637
327 of 637
328 of 637
329 of 637
330 of 637
331 of 637
332 of 637
333 of 637
334 of 637
335 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3E
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Approval of Change Order No. 19 to J.R. Filanc Agreement for Extended Overhead Costs to the Centralized Groundwater Treatment System RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Approving Change Order No. 19 to Agreement No. 1954-A with J.R. Filanc Construction Company, Inc. for the extended overhead costs; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

J.R. Filanc, the contracto r for the Centralized Groundwate r Treatment System (CGTS) project, is requesting $215,213.81 fo r exte nded costs due to the de lay in obtaining an operating permit from the State Wate r Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The 22-month time delay resulted in additional co sts to maintain the integrity of the new treatment equipment in addition to rewriting and resubmitting revisions to the permit application.

Staff is requesting approval of Change Order No. 19 to J.R. Filanc’s Agreement No. 1954- A for the cost of $215,213.81 due to the 22-month delay. The additional cost exceeds the current contract amount and contingency and thus requires City Council approval.

BACKGROUND:

The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has been challenged in developing guidelines for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) due to its resistan ce to wate r, g re ase, and heat. These a re known as "foreve r ch emicals" because the y do no t brea k down easil y and a re persisten t in the environment. The treatments for PFAS are relatively new nationwide and the acceptable technolog ies are still being researched. As such, DDW’s process to permit the City’s CGTS has been long and laborious. DDW has erred on the side of caution and requested additional testing and 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 §§ 15301 and 15302 exempt this matter from further environmental review as the proposed action would result in a minor alteration of an existing public structures involving no expansion of use located on the same site with substantially the same purpose and capacity. The proposed work will occur entirely within an existing structure. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required. 336 of 637
337 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 4 ends

November 6, 2024
Approved by: Approved as to form: Karl H. Berger,
City Attorney
Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Solange Fortenbach
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Change Order No. 19
338 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Change Order No. 19

339 of 637
340 of 637
341 of 637
342 of 637
343 of 637
344 of 637
345 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3F
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion – Various Projects
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on August 28, 2024, accepting the CIPP Lining at Various Locations Project completed by Southwest Pipeline and Trenchless Corp;

2. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on October 2, 2024, accepting the 2024 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation project completed by Sancon Technologies, Inc.;

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11701, the Public Works Director is authorized to record a Notice of Completion for Capital Improvement Projects ( “CIP”). The City recently completed CIP No. 9 9014 – CIPP Lining at Various Locations Project and CIP 99026 – 2024 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project . Upon completion, the work was inspected and approved by the City Engineer. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Notice of Completions recorded by the Public Works Director for these projects.

BACKGROUND:

On August 16, 2023, City Council awarded a contract to Southwest Pipeline and Trenchless Corp. for CIP 99014 — CIPP Lining at Various Locations. The work included the rehabilitation of 19,616 linear feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer main using Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining method. The final cost of the project was $673,744.50.

On March 26, 2024, City Council awarded a contract to Sancon Technologies, Inc. for CIP 99026 – 2024 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation. The work included the rehabilitation and coating of 13 manholes located across the City of Monterey Park. The final cost of the project was $168,545.
346 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 2 ends

November 6, 2024
2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The completion of projects supports the City’s goal to maintain, build and modernize infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of the City and Community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City’s FY 23 -24 Capital Improvement Plan includes a budget for each respective project. The following provides a breakdown of total costs for each listed project.

CIP No. Project Budget Actual
Expenditures
Balance
99014 CIPP Lining at
Various
Locations
$887,000 $673,744.50 $213,255.50
99026 2024 Sewer
Manhole
Rehabilitation
$300,000 $168,545.00 $131,455.00
Respectfully submitted by: Reviewed by:

Shawn Igoe
Director of Public Works
Martha Garcia
Director of Finance
Approved by: Approved as to form: Karl Berger, City Attorney Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Solange Fortenbach
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Completion – CIPP Lining at Various Locations

2. Notice of Completion – 2024 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation 347 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Notice of Completion
CIPP Lining at Various Locations

348 of 637
349 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Completion
2024 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation

350 of 637
351 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3G
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Spirit Bus Pilot Program
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Nomad Transit, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc. , without the need for competitive bidding, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for on-demand transit services for an amount not-to-exceed $573,689;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment with First Transit, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for fixed -route transit services for an annual amount not-to-exceed $2,064,537 for services through December 31, 2025;

3. Approving an additional appropriation of $ 123,946 from Prop A funds to the FY 2024-25 budget for services through June 30, 2025; and

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

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

The proposed pilot program was shared with the Traffic Commission on August 22, 2024 and with the Environmental Commission on August 28, 2024. Both Commissions had positive feedback regarding the proposed changes to the Spirit Bus program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City worked with Arcadis/IBI Consultants, Inc (Arcadis-IBI) to complete an evaluation of its Spirit Bus fixed -route transportation program . As a result of the evaluation, staff provided service recommendations to City Council on June 18, 2024 and requested City Council direction on the implementation of a pilot program for the proposed restructure of routes and implementation of on -demand services. City Council was supportive of the pilot program and requested staff conduct additional outreach regarding proposed changes prior to deploying a pilot program. At this time, staff recommends City Council approve a one -year pilot program and authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Via Transportation, Inc., without the need for competitive biddin g not to exceed $573,689 for on-demand (microtransit) services. Additionally, it is recommended that the City Council authorize an extension to the agreement with First Transit to continue fixed-route service through the end of the pilot program. 352 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

BACKGROUND:

On June 18, 2024, staff provided City Council results of the Spirit Bus evaluation completed by Arcadis-IBI, including recommended service improvement strategies. The service improvement strategies include changes to the fixed -route service and implementation of on-demand zones for microtransit services through a pilot program. A follow-up online community survey was released to gain feedback on the proposed program changes. The survey was introduced at the City’s Business Expo event held on August 8 th, and distributed to local school districts, shared through social media, Cascades, City website, posted at City facilities and Spirit buses.

There were 174 survey respondents, 70% were current Spirit Bus riders. When asked how proposed service improvements would affect their travel experience, 50 out of 65 thought it may make it worse. However, several of those respondents indicated they do not use the primarily affected routes 3 and 4. When asked if the proposed changes would make them more or less likely to ride Spirit Bus, 85% indicated more li kely (71%) or no change (14%).

Fixed-route Service
The Spirit Bus service operates five local routes and the LINK shuttle service on weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to approximately 6:30 p.m. Routes 1 to 4 are loop alignments that link various residential neighborhoods (Brightwood, Highlands, Garvey Ranch) to commercial areas. Route 5 provides service between Atlantic Square/East Los Angeles College (ELAC) and the Metrolink commuter rail station at Cal State Los Angeles (CSULA). The LINK operates as a shuttle service between the LA Corporate Center and the CSULA Metrolink Station.

As a result of community feedback received through survey research and community engagement and analysis of existing Spirit Bus services, key service improvement strategies are recommended to restructure existing route s for enhanced public transportation program. The recommended route restructuring, as listed below, intends to reflect a more linear configuration and better connectivity to major trip attractors/generators while complementing use of microtransit service for single -family residential neighborhoods that have low fixed-route ridership.

• Route 1: Change from one-way loop to linear bi-direction route along Atlantic Blvd.

Change is directional only, there is no change to area covered or scheduled stops. • Route 2: Change from one-way loop to linear bi-direction route along Garfield Ave.

Change is directional only, there is no change to area covered or scheduled stops. • Route 3: Eliminate service south of Graves to Garvey Ranch and extend route east to Atlantic Blvd.
• Route 4: Eliminate route and provide coverage to service area through on-demand service.
• Route 5: Expand service to connect with Metro E Line Station at Atlantic and Pomona and eliminate service east of Atlantic and Riggin. Provide additional 353 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024
coverage through on-demand service along Riggin Road, including service to the Monterey Park Marketplace Shopping Center.

A few respondents from the follow-up survey expressed concern about how the proposed changes to fixed routes would impact students, specifically those attending Mark Keppel High School and Brightwood Elementary School. With the proposed changes, Route 1 would continue to provide coverage for service to Mark Keppel High School. Brightwood Elementary would be served by on-demand microtransit service providing for direct, curb- to-curb service, thereby limiting the distance students may have to walk to catch a bus.

Additionally, transfers between fixed -route and on -demand microtransit service would also be available for all bus customers in the Spirit Bus service area.

Staff has been in discussions with First Transit—the City’s current Spirit Bus operator for the proposed restructuring of routes. To proceed with the changes, the City will need to extend its current agreement with First Transit for services through the end of the proposed one-year pilot program. Currently, the term of the agreement with First Transit is through December 31, 2024, with the option to continue service on a month -to-month basis until June 30, 2025. It is recommended that the term be extended through December 31, 2025.

Microtransit (on-demand) Service
As part of the service improvement strategies, two on-demand zones are recommended to provide public mobility options in areas not covered by fixed -route service. Pilot Zone 1 (East) will address the discontinuance of Route 4 and Pilot Zone 2 (West) would address the discontinuance of the reservoir loop segment of Route 3 and expand coverage to the Marketplace Shopping Center . Both zones would complement fixed-route services with first and last mile solutions.

Microtransit is an on-demand transit option that is more flexible than fixed shuttle routes and appointment-like paratransit and is powered by technology to route and schedule trips in real-time. The routing software uses live, on-the-ground information to add people traveling in the same direction into the same vehicle, allowing passengers to be picked up and dropped off in a continuous stream that results into a system that is highly efficient and environmentally friendly. Riders will be able to book a tr ip using a smartphone application or by calling the program’s call center and will also be able to track their vehicle, similar to other rideshare services like Uber or Lyft.

Other local agencies such as LA Metro, City of San Gabriel, and City of West Covina have implemented microtransit programs . The City researched microtransit options and connected with Via Transportation, Inc. (Via) , who recently worked with City of West Covina on their microtransit program. Via provides public mobility option s such as microtransit and paratransit in over 40 countries . Via provided the City a proposal for implementation of a microtransit program based on the service improvement strategies recommended by Arcadis-IBI’s Spirit Bus study.

354 of 637
Staff Report

Page 4 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

The proposed program includes the following:

Pilot Program Duration 12 months
Operating Days per Week Monday - Friday
Average Service hours per Day 12 hours (6:30 am – 6:30 pm) Fleet 2 vehicles
Wait times Not-to-exceed 15 minutes

The City explored electric vehicle (EV) options to deploy as part of the pilot program, however, the upfront cost for needed EV infrastructure is not cost effective for a short - term program such as this. Staff recommends the City further explore EV options when preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for services next year.

Based on Via’s proposal, staff recommends the City enter into an agreement with Via, in a form approved by the City Attorney, without the need for competitive bidding per Monterey Park Municipal Code (MPMC) 3.20.50(4) Cooperative purchasing. Staff proposes awarding a contract to Via based on the recently awarded contract by City of West Covina and competitive bidding process prepared by King County. The cost for a one-year agreement is not-to-exceed $573,689.

One-year Pilot Program
If approved, the proposed pilot program would be for one-year with a proposed 6-month period of free fare for microtransit service . Via’s solution would be a turnkey program inclusive of driver hiring and training, vehicle acquisitions, live service monitoring, customer service, and rider marketing and community engagement. Staff will work with Via to develop a marketing strategy to pr omote the pilot program and use of the City’s transportation options. While the pilot program is running , staff will also collect key data to measure the effectiveness of on-demand microtransit in the City. Key performance indicators would be used to prepare an RFP for soliciting fixed-route and/or microtransit services for the community at the conclusion of the pilot.

2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The proposed pilot program supports the City’s strategic goal to maintain fiscal stability of our City’s financial resources. Results of the Arcadis-IBI’s evaluation identified service improvements that would maximize the use of City’s financial resources when providing public transportation. The proposed pilot program would not only provide expanded coverage for service areas but would replace route segments that are not cost effective due to low ridership. Additionally, the change in services would improv e the system’s efficiency and offer sustainable public transportation options.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 2024-25 budget includes $ 2,064,537 for fixed route services. The updated cost for the restructured Spirit Bus service is $1,738,560 per year. The cost for the proposed on-demand service from Via is $ 573,869. An additional appropriation of $ 123,946 from Prop A funds to the FY 2024-25 budget would be needed for services through June 30, 355 of 637
Staff Report

Page 5 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024
2025. Costs for FY 2025-26 services will be budgeted as part of the annual budget process.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Shawn Igoe
Director of Public Works
Xochitl Tipan
Administrative Manager
Reviewed by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Finance
Approved by: Approved as to form: Karl Berger, City
Attorney
Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Solange Fortenbach
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Spirit Bus Service Improvement Strategies

2. Via Transit as-a-Service Service Order
356 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Spirit Bus Service Improvement Strategies

357 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
1 of 13
City of Monterey Park
Implementation of Spirit Bus – Recommended
Service Improvement Strategies

Recommendations:
i. Routes 1 and 2 – Restructure for bi-directional travel. ii. Route 3 – Restructure by eliminating service south of Graves to Garvey Ranch (to be replaced by on-demand service) and extending route east to Atlantic Blvd. iii. Route 4 – Discontinue and provide coverage to service area through on-demand service. iv. Route 5 - Restructure to expand service to connect with Metro E Line Station at Atlantic and Pomona and provide additional coverage through on-demand service along Riggin Road, including service to the Monterey Park Marketplace Shopping Center. v. On-Demand Microtransit Pilot Program – 2 zones.

Service Evaluation Update - 2024
• Initial Sprint Bus service evaluation – completed
in June 2022 based on pre-Covid ridership data
(2019)
• Service suspended in April 2020
• Recap: ridership had been decr easing since
2017.

FY Revenue
Hours Boardings Boarding/
Revenue Hour
2017 18,904 299,033 15.8
2018 18,769 260,101 13.9
2019 18,828 232,775 12.4
2020 (July-Apr) 13,738 162,427 11.8
April 2020 to June 2022 No Service
2023 (reduced service) 9,454 26,210 2.8
1st Qtr. 2024 (July-Oct) 6,466 19,017 2.9

o Modified service hours (July 2022 to June 2023), ridership (boarding/revenue hour) decreased by 80% from pre-pandemic levels. (Of note: Montebello Bus Lines also saw a dramatic decrease (58%) to pre-pandemic ridership for its route in Monterey Park.) o Spirit Bus operating costs have risen substantially due to increases in driver salaries and bus maintenance.
▪ Cost per Vehicle Service Hour: July 2019: $59.31. Post pandemic commencing July 1, 2022, the rate increased to $104.01, a 75% increase. ▪ With declining ridership, the total cost per boarding in 2019 was an average of $4.39 while the total cost per boarding for 2023 increased to $57.82.

Conversely, the Dial-A-Ride service for Monterey Park seniors has seen a return to pre-pandemic ridership levels: 10,312 boardings in fiscal year 2023 compared to 10,572 boardings in fiscal year • Important step in the Covid-19
recovery phase
• Target to:
o Provide better transit services
o Grow ridership base
o Respond to changing customer
expectations & demand)
o Identify financially sustainable
changes (with existing resources)
358 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
2 of 13
2019. This data is encouraging and supports the use of door-to-door/on-demand service to supplement/replace current fixed-route service in areas that have low ridership.

The development of Spirit Bus service improvement strategies has been informed by past and present service evaluations (including Spirit Bus ridership/boardings by route segments - presented in Exhibit 1); operational and financial performance; and robust community engagement and survey research endeavors.

The following presents a summary of: What Had We Heard; Key Design Issues; and Recommended Service Improvement Strategies.

What Had We Heard
Key takeaways from the initial (2022)
community engagement and survey
research endeavors are:

Why People are NOT Using Spirit
Bus:
▪ Infrequent service
▪ Not close enough (home or
destination)
▪ Need to transfer
▪ Takes too long
▪ Don’t know what bus to take

Type of Improvements:
▪ Better information
▪ Mobile phone app - real-time info.
▪ Weekend service
▪ Earlier morning service
▪ On-demand ride hailing service
▪ More frequent bus service
▪ More direct service / fewer
transfers required

A follow-up on-line survey was
conducted from August to mid-
October 2024. Key takeaways from
this survey include:
• Of the 146 respondents, 70% were current Spirit Bus riders. • When asked how proposed service improvements would affect their travel experience, 50 out of 65 thought it may make it worse. Of note, several of those respondents do not use the primarily affect routes 3 and 4.
359 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
3 of 13
• Conversely, when asked - Do proposed changes to the service make you more or less likely to ride? 85% indicated More Likely (71%) or No Change (14%). • Several respondents expressed concern about how the on-demand microtransit service would work.1
• Potential Impact on Students: a few respondents expressed concern about how the proposed changes will impact students, specifically those attending Mark Keppel High School and Brightwood Elementary School.

Route 1 will continue to provide coverage (including service to Mark Keppel High School).

Brightwood Elementary will be served by on-demand microtransit service providing for direct, curb-to-curb service, thereby limiting the distance students may have to walk to catch a bus.

As is the case with all bus customers in the Spirit Bus service area, transfers between fixed- route and on-demand microtransit service will be available.

Existing Conditions – Key Design Issues

1. Routes 1-4 are designed primarily to connect residential neighborhoods to Downtown Monterey Park.
• Impedes productivity by discouraging two-way passenger traffic across the service day.

Limited demand for AM travel away from Downtown and PM travel toward Downtown. • Excessive circuity in Downtown area alignments.

2. Need to simplify or redesign Routes 1 and 2 presently operating one-way loops in opposite directions on similar alignments to create bi-directional service to customers. • Confusing to customers because the routes are not the same and so travel times are not the same in opposite directions.
• Route 2 loop through the Monterey Highlands is a significant inconvenience to most customers using the route.

3. Route 4 should be modified to address Metro’s discontinuation of Route 258 service on Monterey Pass Road.

4. Only Route 5 connects directly to the CSULA Metrolink and Metro J (Silver) Line stations. • Most residents (except Riggin Street) need a two-seat bus ride (i.e., transfer between Spirit routes) to travel from residence to the stations.

5. Spirit’s main transfer point at City Hall for Routes 1-4 is not served by regional bus lines. • Discourages transfers between Spirit and Metro/MBL buses. • Location adds travel time for transferring customers.

6. Spirit does not connect directly to the E (Gold) Line terminal station on 3rd Street west of Atlantic Boulevard.

1 It is important to note that Via Transportation, the provider of the on-demand service, will be responsible for providing a robust marketing, communication, and education program to not only promote the service but to ensure the community is familiar with how it works.
360 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
4 of 13

7. Service to McCaslin Business Park is limited to one morning and one afternoon trip on the Route 5 timetable.
• Currently designed to shuttle reverse commuters to and from the CSULA Metrolink and Metro J Line stations.

8. Currently no Spirit Bus service to Marketplace Shopping Center (Costco, Home Depot, restaurants) – an emerging destination.

Recommended Service Improvement Strategies
Based on the design issues noted above, the technical team presents recommended service improvement strategies (illustrated in Exhibit 2).

The recommended service improvement strategies are designed to improve service by replacing poorly performing, infrequent, and circuitous routes with more flexible service that still meets the needs of residents that live in areas that are not well suited to fixed route transit. It would also provide a new connection for residents to regional transit and to an important commercial destination and improve service frequency for Route 3 while adding service through a relatively densely populated neighborhood.

These improvement strategies were further informed by the following:
• Review of pre-pandemic ridership data and a comparison to ridership data gathered since all 5 Spirit Bus routes resumed service in July 2023.
• Review of service cost increases and ridership/revenue decreases • Community outreach and feedback gathered initially in 2022 and updated through additional survey research in August 2024.

The recommended service improvement strategies are listed by route below. 361 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
5 of 13
Route 1
Ridership is down along the
downtown segment from 75-100
riders per day pre-pandemic to
about 50 riders per day in
October 2023. This is still one of
the higher ridership segments.

Other segments have recovered
to pre-pandemic ranges but with
lower ridership. Confusion in
directionality for passengers
suggests route could be
restructured from a one-way
loop to a linear route along
Atlantic.
• Restructure service
routing to accommodate
bi-directional travel.

Route 2
Ridership along the Atlantic
Boulevard, Downtown, and
Garfield segments represent
only 24-40% of pre-pandemic
ridership numbers. Ridership
along the Hillside and Riggin
St. segments has recovered
but remains low at 13-18
passengers per day on
average. Confusion in
directionality for passengers
suggests route could be
restructured from a one-way
loop to a linear route along
Garfield.
• Restructure service
routing to accommodate bi-directional travel.
• Eliminate residential loop north of Floral Drive to improve travel times and reduce circuity.

362 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
6 of 13
Route 3
Route 3 ridership has returned
to within pre-pandemic ranges
along all segments and carries
83 passengers per day in the
downtown core as of October
2023. However, the reservoir
loop impedes two-way
passenger travel and is the
lowest ridership along the route
at 35 passengers per day.
• Eliminate of fixed-route
service south of Graves
Avenue.
• Redirect current route
to travel north on
Alhambra Avenue from
Graves Avenue to
provide new service to relatively dense residential neighborhoods and increase service frequency.
• Provide on-demand ride hail service within a defined zone south of Graves Avenue to provide more flexible travel options to existing passengers. • Potentially extend existing route farther east to Atlantic Avenue in combination with service changes proposed for Route 4 (below).

Route 4
No segment along Route 4 is
generating more than 57% of
ridership compared to pre-
pandemic. Monterey Pass and
Corporate Center segments
are getting less than 5
passengers per day. Downtown
loop is duplicated by other
routes.
• Eliminate existing fixed
route transit service.
• Provide on-demand
microtransit service
within a defined zone
along Monterey Pass Road and in the residential neighborhoods to the north that are currently served by Route 4.
• Provide connectivity through on-demand service to CSULA Metrolink and Metro J (Silver) Line stations.

363 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
7 of 13
Route 5
Data by stop is limited due to
unresolved issues with onboard
technology. Overall data by route
shows an average of 21
passengers per day along the
whole route in October 2023.

Ridership along E Riggin St. and
McCaslin Business Park
segments was low in 2019 and is
now likely lower. Route 5 does
provide a key connection to
CSULA Metrolink Station and
could be altered to serve ELAC
transit center and Metro E Line.
• Eliminate existing fixed
route transit service east
of Atlantic and Riggin that
currently operates for only
two daily trips.
• Expand service to
connect with Metro E Line
Atlantic Station/Kaiser Permanente East Los Angeles Medical Offices. • Expand existing Monterey Park Dial-a-Ride service to allow trips within a defined service area along Riggin Road and providing connectivity to the southeastern corner of the city, including service to the Monterey Park Marketplace Shopping Center.

Spirit Bus - Service & Operating Characteristics
Frequency Annual Operating Cost $
Days of Week Hours - Span Day Annual (headway) (@ $109./hr.) (Span)
1 ** M - F 6:30AM - 6:30PM 12 3,084 45 min. 0.67 (40 min.) $336,156 2 ** M - F 6:30AM - 6:30PM 12 3,084 45 min. 0.67 (40 min.) $336,156 3 ** M - F 6:30AM - 6:30PM 12 3,084 30 min. 0.42 (25 min.) $336,156 4 5 *** M - F 6:30AM - 6:30PM 12 3,048 45 min. 0.67 (40 min.) $332,232 TOTAL 48 12,300 $1,340,700
discontinue
(Rt. 3 - modified route)
Level of Service Revenue HoursRoute * Run Time - Hrs
** No service: Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, & New Years Day *** No service: Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, & New Years Day * Excludes costs for LINK

364 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
8 of 13
Implementation Considerations
In moving forward, City staff will enter into discussions with their current operating contractor, First Transit who will be responsible for building the runs/developing blocks and driver paddles for the operation of the respective routes and frequencies.

Pilot Program – On-Demand Microtransit (x 2 zones)
Recommendation: Implement a one-year pilot program to provide a proof of concept (PoC) of on- demand microtransit.

As illustrated on the following page, the deployment of the pilot program would provide on-demand microtransit in two service areas. Pilot Zone 1 to address the discontinuance of Route 4 and Pilot Zone 2 to address the discontinuance of the reservoir loop segment of Route 3.

On-demand services would operate on the same days of the week and hours of the day as Spirit Bus service: Monday to Friday, 6:30AM – 6:30PM.

365 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
9 of 13

On-Demand Microtransit Pilot Zones

The City has undertaken preliminary discussions with Via Transportation (provider of advanced public mobility solutions - software and operations for flexible public transit) for the deployment of the recommended pilot program. Key characteristics from Via’s proposal for the pilot include:
• Via’s app allows for trips to be scheduled via phone; the app also integrates with regional transportation for trip planning.
• Service options for pick up and drop off areas are based on City’s policy decision. Via recommends doing pick up/drop off within a zone to/from a zone. • Wait times with the proposed model of 2 vehicles is a not-to-exceed 15 minutes. • Via requires a one-year commitment for the pilot.
• Implementation for the pilot is approximately 12 weeks. • City may consider piggybacking off Via’s King County or City of West Covina contracts.

The latter point is based on Via having provided a copy of their contracts with King County Metro and the City of West Covina. While either of these contracts would need to be tailored to the specifics of the City of Monterey Park’s service zones and operating parameters, both contracts clearly articulate the scope of services, data reporting, performance monitoring, etc. 366 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
10 of 13
Via’s proposal provides for a not-to-exceed annual cost (gas vehicles) of $570k.

It is important to note that Via Transportation will be responsible for providing a robust marketing, communication, and education program to not only promote the service but to ensure the community is familiar with how it works.

On-Demand Microtransit Pilot Program - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Designed to prove the concept of on-demand microtransit, it is important to look beyond ridership (and subsidy levels), it is important to consider the customer experience, including improved mobility/access, equity and customer satisfaction. The following table presents recommended KPIs for the pilot program.

BUSINESS

FUNCTION SAMPLE KPIS REQUIRED DATA
Mobility/
Service
Operations
• Riders per hour
• Ridership by service area/zone
• On-time performance
• Service reliability
• Number of booked and completed trips
• Number of no-shows and cancellations
• Vehicle revenue hours and miles
• Number of trips originating /terminating
within a zone or predefined location
• Number of passenger trips that are shared.
• Trip details, Origin-
Destination
• Ridership
• Payments and Payment
Methods
• Vehicle travel time and
schedule adherence data

Equity
• Trips delivered to variety of community
segments
• Increased access to destinations in the city
• Trip requests by mobile app vs. telephone
requests through call-center
• Trip details
Customer
Satisfaction
• Number of customer complaints
• Passenger wait time
• Average on-board time
• Average trip length
• Number of service denials
• Trip details; Origin-
Destination
• Ridership
• Payments
• Vehicle travel time and
schedule adherence data
• Missed connections
Finance
• Revenue trend
• Trends in cash and non-cash payments
• Cost/trip
• Subsidy/trip
• Cost/revenue hour
• Cost/revenue mile
• Cost and revenue data

367 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
11 of 13
Implementation Schedule
If City Council approves going forward with the recommended service improvement strategies in mid-October, it is anticipated that the respective contract documents will be prepared and executed by early December with the issuance of a notice to proceed at that time (as illustrated below in the Implementation Schedule). Via and First Transit will have three-months to prepare for a go-live date by early March 2025. The pilot will operate for a twelve month period, to March 2026.

The schedule also includes reference to the preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) document and solicitation process (noted in RED). It is important to note that the RFP document, in addition to noting standard caveats (i.e., rights to not award, etc.), may also include an optional scope of work reflecting an expanded, city-wide on-demand microtransit service2.

Task / Activity Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March Negotiations/Contract
Development - Via
Transportation & First Transit
Via Transportation - Notice to
Proceed
Via Transportation - Pilot
Program Set-Up
First Transit - Building
Runs/Driver Paddles &
Training
Go Live
On Demand Microtransit
PILOT (& route restructuring
deployment)
Operating Contract RFP:

Document Preparation
RFP - Issue, Mtgs., Q&A,
Evaluation, Award
Contractor Start-Up
2024
on going program monitoring
20262025

2 The continuance of Spirit Bus fixed route services will have future capital cost implications for the City with the requirement to replace an aging fleet.
368 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
12 of 13

Exhibit 1: Spirit Bus Boardings by Route Segment – 2019 & 2023

369 of 637
Implementation of Spirit Bus - Service Improvement Strategies

October 2024
13 of 13

Exhibit 2: Recommended Service Improvement Strategies

370 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Via Transit-as-a-Service Service order

371 of 637

Transit as-a-Service (TAAS) SERVICE ORDER1

Date: October 11, 2024

1. P urpose; Scope

By this service order (the “Order”), Nomad Transit, LLC (“[Nomad”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc. (“Via”) and City of Monterey Park (“Customer”) agree to collaborate towards the initiation of Customer’s demand response transit service in Monterey Park (as agreed upon by the parties during the planning and design stages of the Pilot) for 12 months following launch thereof, subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties.

In accordance with the Agreement, Nomad will provide Customer with technology and technology- enabled integration services (the “Services”), acting as a broker coordinating the services of third party service providers to effectuate the on-demand transit service (the “Pilot”). Nomad will contract with third party service providers to effectuate such integration, including with fleet managers, vehicle suppliers, driver partners, background check providers, customer service support agencies, a payment processor and insurance brokers and underwriters . Nomad’s Services will include:

●
Localization of a proprietary cloud-based dynamic vehicle routing and real- time passenger aggregation system;
● Access to the Via mobile rider application (iOS and Android) for individuals using the Customer’s service (“Riders”) to book and pay for rides through a smartphone;
● Access to booking via a dedicated phone line for Riders who do not have access to a smartphone;
● Access to the Via mobile driver application for drivers to route and service rides through a smartphone or tablet;
● Establish relationship with vehicle rental company (“Vehicle Partner”) to provide access to vehicles on a rental basis to independent contractor driver partners
(“Driver Partners”) who shall provide transportation services; ● Accompanying technical and operational support service; ● Marketing and outreach initiatives as described herein. ● Data sharing and reporting as described herein.

1 All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Master Terms and Conditions for Via Transit as a Service signed by Via and Customer (the “Terms”). 372 of 637

Conflicts between this Service Order and any other terms and conditions or written agreements between the parties shall be resolved in favor of this Service Order.

2. Duration & Launch Date

The duration of the Pilot shall last for a period of 12 months following the launch date (the “Initial Term”), subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties on terms to be agreed (including any increase in monthly fees for additional months).

The Customer will provide written notice to proceed to Nomad at least [12 weeks] prior to service launch. For the avoidance of doubt, notice to proceed can only be written by Customer once the contract and appendices (including the Order) are final and signed, and any necessary local and regulatory approvals have been received or registrations completed. Upon receipt of such written notice to proceed, Nomad will commence local preparation for launch (“Launch Preparation Period”). Service operation will begin on a mutually agreeable date, no earlier than January 15, 2024, unless Nomad and the Customer define an alternative mutually agreeable date in writing (“Launch Date”).

3. Fees

The Fees for the service described in this Order are:

The table below outlines the payment structure, in which Customer would be charged an upfront fee, ongoing monthly fees based on vehicle hours. All regulatory fees related to the service will be charged as a pass -through cost. The Pilot shall include a fleet of vehicles as described in Section 4, Service Parameters, subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties on terms to be agreed (including any change in fees). The total contract value shall not exceed $573,689 for the 12 month contract term.

373 of 637

Customer will be billed for the above fees as described below. Fees assume Launch Date occurs within four months of contract signing. If the Launch Date is delayed beyond four months of contract signing, Nomad may opt to renegotiate the fees. Ongoing Invoice Fees will be billed payable in advance on the first of the month and as further specified below. Customer shall pay the following fees to Nomad:

Fixed (Upfront) Costs
Customer shall pay to Nomad a non-refundable installation fee of $64,000, which will be payable in full upon signing of this Order . In addition to technology localization costs, installation fee includes 2 rear-/side-]entry WAV retrofits at a cost of $15,000 each and 3 vehicle wraps at a cost of $3,000 each, which will be treated as a pass-through. Should Customer require additional WAV retrofits or vehicle wraps, Nomad will bill Customer as incurred as a pass-through.

Ongoing Invoice Fees
Customer shall be responsible for monthly ongoing fees of $85.98 per vehicle hour (the “Monthly Subscription Fees”). A vehicle hour is defined as each hour during which a driver is paid on the Via platform. Notwithstanding the number of vehicle hours incurred per month, Customer shall be responsible for a minimum Monthly Subscription Fee of $15,000 per month (the “ Minimum Monthly Fees”). The Minimum Monthly Fees shall be payable in advance on the first of the month provided that the first Minimum Monthly Fees shall be due upon execution of this Order.

In the event that the Monthly Subscription Fees for any month exceed the Minimum Monthly Fees paid hereunder, the Customer shall be responsible for paying such difference (the “Monthly True- up”) on a monthly invoice basis. All fees set forth herein shall be payable by Customer on a net City of Monterey Park: Via Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Value Price per
Vehicle Hour Total Price
Fixed (Upfront) Costs N/A $64,000
Total Upfront Cost $64,000
Project Management & Other Operations* $31.82 $188,629
Driver Pay (Incl. WAV) $49.66 $294,384
Customer Service $4.50 $26, 676
Total Cost per Vehicle Hour $85.98 $509,689
Total Not-to-Exceed Cost to City of Monterey Park $573,689 * Includes IT hosting, technology access, operations support, and other miscellaneous costs.

Vehicle Hours Summary:

Total Implied Vehicle Hours 5,928
Total Implied Vehicle Hours (Weekly) 114
Service Hours Summary:

Total Implied Service Hours 3,120
Total Implied Service Hours (Weekly) 60

C O N F I D E N T I A L
Note: Pricing excludes all taxes and assumes service hours of 7am-7pm M-F. Pricing assumes launch within 4 months of contract signing.
374 of 637
fifteen basis. If Nomad does not receive timely payment, Via Entity may charge the maximum monthly interest allowed by law or one percent, whichever is greater, suspend Via Entity’s performance and seek cost of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Nomad will provide Customer with an invoice statement showing the calculation of the Monthly Subscription Fees incurred based on the actual number of vehicle hours that Driver Partners performed during that month in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Customer hereby agrees that the sample invoice form set forth on Exhibit A is satisfactory to Customer, both in substance and format, and sufficient to process invoicing such that questions regarding invoice or invoice support format will not delay payment to Nomad. If Customer requires additional invoice support, Nomad can use best efforts to provide it, and additional costs of $1,500 per custom request will apply.

Should changes in applicable federal, state or local law result in a significant change in Nomad’s costs, Nomad or Customer may opt to renegotiate the ongoing monthly fees. Should changes in applicable market dynamics result in an increase in Nomad’s cost per hour of 10% or more to any of the following categories, compared to costs at the time of contract signing, Nomad may amend the ongoing on-demand vehicle hour rate accordingly:
● Labor (driver pay)
● Vehicle rental
● Fuel

Should Nomad elect to adjust the per vehicle hour rate, supporting documentation of the relevant cost increases will be provided to Customer, and the contract will be amended to reflect the new Fee structure and per vehicle hour rate so that, at the discretion of the Customer, either:

1. The total not-to-exceed contract value is adjusted such that the total not-to-exceed number of vehicle hours remains unchanged, or

2. The total not -to-exceed number of vehicle hours is adjusted such that the total not -to- exceed contract value remains unchanged.

Fare Revenue

If Customer chooses to implement a fare, Customer shall collect and own all revenue from service fares, net of service fees, starting upon launch of the Pilot.

Launch Delay
If the Launch Date is delayed [for more than a month] by Customer for any reason, Customer shall be responsible for paying Nomad for any actual out of pocket costs incurred by Nomad in preparation for launch (the “Upfront Costs”) and a $2,000 monthly technology fee for the cost of maintaining the technology infrastructure for Customer’s deployment during the period of delay (the “Technology Fee”). The Upfront Costs shall be payable within fifteen days from the date Customer notifies Nomad of the delay and the Technology Fee shall be payable monthly at the beginning of the month in which it is incurred.
375 of 637

4. S ervice Parameters

Nomad will provide access to a platform service (the “ Platform”) through which Riders will be able to book and pay for rides on a shared and on-demand basis; and dedicated vehicles will be offered by the Vehicle Provider to Driver Partners on a rental basis.

● Geographic Coverage Zone: Approximately 2 square miles coverage zones in Monterey Park, CA
● Service Days/Hours: Monday through Friday, 7am to 7pm ● Rider Fare: The rider fare will be free. During the duration of the Pilot, rider fare may be amended by mutual agreement between Customer and Nomad. ● Payment: Nomad will ensure acceptance of Rider payment through the app via credit cards and pre-paid debit cards.
● Vehicle Fleet: The Vehicle Provider will offer a fleet of up to 3 branded, licensed and insured vehicles, including 2 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAV) to be made available to independent contractor Driver Partners, who will be able to gain access to these vehicles after being registered onto the Platform. If the branded vehicle fleet is not sufficient to meet service requirements for any reason, Nomad has the flexibility to (1) supplement the fleet with a temporary fleet that would include other makes and models, and/or (2) allow for Driver Partners to drive their own personal vehicles, to be deployed for temporary short term periods, as necessary in order to increase the supply of vehicle hours. Such may be unwrapped and identified by magnets.

Nomad will ensure the execution of the necessary registrations and licensing to perform the Services, with the cooperation and assistance of the Customer.

Parking: Customer shall identify and make available a depot or parking lot with ample overnight parking for the dedicated fleet. The depot/lot must be in a safe and lighted area inside the boundaries of the service zone

5. P roject Team & Governance

Nomad will be responsible for the integration of all relevant elements of the Pilot on a continuous basis during the course of the Pilot and will designate a project manager for this purpose (the “Nomad Project Manager”) who will lead Nomad’s Project Team .

Customer will designate a project manager to be the primary point of contact with Nomad throughout the duration of the Pilot (the “Customer Project Manager”). The Nomad Project Manager will be in regular contact with the Customer Project Manager through informal and scheduled project meetings.

The Nomad Project Manager will be empowered to enact day -to-day decisions related to the Services and will serve as the primary point of contact with the Customer Project Manager on an ongoing basis. The Nomad Project Manager will appoint members to the 376 of 637
Project Team to assist in the integration of the various elements of the Pilot, to include personnel with expertise in service scoping, independent contractor driver outreach and registration to the Platform, fleet maintenance procurement, marketing, and d ata analytics. For the avoidance of doubt, the Nomad Project Manager will have no power to serve notice or amend the Agreement, or this Order.

Leading up to the launch of, and during the course of the Pilot, Nomad ’s Project Team, led by the Nomad Project Manager, will liaise with the Customer Project Manager over the key deliverables of this Order and to endeavor to maximize ongoing service optimization.

6. D
river Partner Registration & Supply Management

Nomad will source Driver Partners to provide transportation services to Customer through the Platform. Nomad will engage in a good faith effort to register Monterey Park residents as Driver Partners.

Nomad will ensure that Driver Partners have appropriate licenses, permits, and insurance required for the type of vehicles being operated. As part of Driver Partner registration for access to the Platform, all Driver Partners will be introduced to Nomad with the following areas covered: familiarization with the Pilot service areas; hours of service; Customer’s expectations; use of the Driver App; and reporting incidents and delays in service.

Nomad will be responsible for ensuring that there is adequate driver supply for each service zone within designated hours to meet demand with optimal quality of service, given constraints.

7. R
ider and Driver Partner Support

Nomad will ensure the provision of customer service and support for Driver Partners and Riders on issues that arise in connection with use of the Platform.

Following each ride, the Rider will be prompted to submit a ride rating with feedback in the app. If an issue arises for a Rider or Driver Partner before, during, or after a ride, these parties will be able to reach customer support staff by phone, or by submitting an email ticket, which will be replied to promptly by such customer support staff through Via’s global consolidated queues.

8. M
arketing , Promotions, & Press
377 of 637

Nomad shall work closely with Customer to determine a unified marketing and promotional program that increases community awareness of the service and maximizes its success.

The Pilot, including the rider app will be co-branded as “powered by Via”. The “powered by Via” banner must be used only in the exact format provided by Nomad, and will be prominent on all assets promoting the Pilot, including (but not limited to) printed collateral, digital materials, websites, and any vehicle wraps. The “powered by Via” banner will have equal prominence on all marketing materials to any additional partner logos or trademarks. Nomad may provide pre-approved brand assets and guidelines that must be complied with in all marketing communications distributed by the Customer.

All Customer-developed content that pertains to Via’s brand, technology, and operations must be reviewed and approved in writing (i.e. email) by Nomad before distribution. A minimum of five business days review time must be provided in advance to Nomad for its review.

Nomad shall provide marketing strategy for the Pilot, including the following activities and tactics:

● Develop a marketing plan to guide the overall strategy and tactics to drive Rider awareness, acquisition, and growth.
● Design key marketing collateral (print and digital). ● Design vehicle branding/graphics in coordination with the Customer. ● Create virality by providing an intuitive and frictionless referral program with customizable incentive structures that creates opportunities for Riders to become the service’s biggest ambassadors.
●
Develop street marketing programs to effectively drive hyper-local awareness of the service.
● Manage digital marketing campaigns to build awareness and drive service adoption. ● Propose and implement in-app promotional programs to drive Rider activation, retention, growth.
● Customer shall assist with the execution of the marketing plan and promotion of the Platform to Riders, and will coordinate closely with Nomad in all respects, including the following activities:
● Develop a media relations plan to drive publicity for the service unique to this area, including a press release and kick-off event that is planned in conjunction with Nomad.

All key project messaging used for public relations purposes is to be developed in collaboration with Nomad. Any media announcement on the Pilot will be made available for Nomad’s review and approval prior to the Launch Date. 378 of 637
● Implement community outreach plan by meeting with key organizations and community members ahead of Launch Date and throughout the duration of Pilot to educate, build awareness, and garner support for the service.
● Engage with local city leaders and politicians; request support in reaching out to their communities through their own communication channels.

9. Data Sharing & Reporting

Nomad will share data from the Pilot as set forth in Appendix 1 (the “Pilot Data”).

The Pilot Data shall be made available in formatted numerical and graphical reports.

For the avoidance of doubt, the information above constitutes proprietary trade secrets of Nomad and Via, and shall be subject to the confidentiality obligations set forth in the Agreement.

10. M
aster Services Agreement

This Order shall be governed by the terms set forth in the Terms and Conditions of the Services Contract between Nomad Transit LLC and King County, Washington, with Customer replacing the “County” in all such references, subject to the following modifications:
• Customer agrees not to exercise its right to terminate for convenience in Section 9(a) during the term of the Pilot.
• The parties agree to add the following language: NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE

FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, RELIANCE, OR

PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR LOST OR IMPUTED PROFITS OR LOST DATA EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OTHER THAN WITH

RESPECT TO FEES PAID OR PAYABLE BY CUSTOMER UNDER THE
AGREEMENTS, EACH PARTY’S TOTAL LIABILITY FOR ALL CLAIMS ARISING IN

CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO DIRECT DAMAGES IN

AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE FEES PAID OR PAYABLE TO NOMAD DURING THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSERTION OF THE CLAIM.
• The parties agree to disregard all references and requirements resulting from Washington state, Seattle, or King County law or regulation.
• The parties agree that this Order and the agreement between the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue for any disputes shall be Los Angeles, California.
• Nomad shall comply with all applicable requirements of California law in providing the Services.
• All references in the Terms and Conditions to the Washington Public Records Act shall be replaced with references to the California Public Records Act. The California Public 379 of 637
Records Act shall govern the Customer’s obligations with respect to disclosure or potential disclosure of any documents or information.
• The insurance requirements set forth in Addendum 3 shall be replaced by the following, which will be provided in a COI naming Customer as an additional insured:
o Minimum limits
 General Liability: $5,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, and for those policies with aggregate limits, a $10,000,000.00 aggregate limit. CG 00 01 current edition.
 Auto liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit  Cyber liability / Technology E&O $1,000,000 per claim or occurrence / aggregate
 Umbrella/excess liability of $5,000,000
 Fidelity / Crime Coverage with $1,000,000 limit
 Workers Compensation as required by statute.

VIA: NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC

CUSTOMER: CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

____________________________________
Authorized Signature

____________________________________
Printed Name

____________________________________
Title

____________________________________
Authorized Signature

____________________________________
Printed Name

____________________________________
Title

___________________________________
Date Signed

____________________________________
Date Signed

380 of 637
Appendix 1 to Service Order

Data Sharing

Authorized Users - C ontract

The below exhibit sets forth the members of the Customer’s “Core Team” who are designated authorized users of the Via Solution and Pilot Data. Any usage beyond the members of the Core Team would be in violation of the confidentiality provisions in the Terms.

Exhibit 1.

Core Team
Title Name
[Customer to fill out] [Customer to fill out]

Data Sharing Plan - A ppendix

As part of the service, Nomad will make below data available to members of the Customer’s Core Team, for the purpose of performance tracking and program evaluation. The data to be shared will be available in the Via Operations Center and only available to members of the Core Team identified to require access. Underlying data may not be shared through any other method than Via Operations Center access. The data is considered trade secret by Via, and is subject to the confidentiality and other protective provisions set forth in the Terms.

To protect Via’s intellectual property and the privacy of Riders, Nomad will provide the following data tables and dashboards in the form of aggregated Via Operations Center reports that will be provided for Customer’s access. These reports will be refreshed daily. The reports are aggregated, de-identified and do not include any personal information of Riders.

Section A: STANDARD REPORTING SET
Dashboard Data / Graphs provided
381 of 637
Top Level Service
Operations Metrics
Key service metrics
filterable by time period
● Total ride requests: the total number of attempts by riders to book a ride (or delivery) from an origin to a destination. ● Requests during service hours: “Total ride requests”
made during service hours.
● Met Demand: the total number of Ride Requests that
received a ride proposal.
● Met Demand Rate: ‘Met Demand’ out of ‘Total ride
requests,’ as a percentage.
● Completed rides: the total number of riders (including additional passengers) successfully transported.
● Completed Rides Rate: ‘Completed Rides’ out of ‘Total ride requests,’ as a percentage.
● Utilization: the average number of passengers transported per vehicle per hour.

Service Operations Metrics
Graphs
Graphs/visualization of key
metrics by day, week,
month, or specific days of
the week
● Met Demand: total number of Ride Requests broken out
by met demand and rides unable to fulfill.
● Detailed Ride Requests Status: A detailed breakdown of the outcome for each Ride Request (e.g., completed,
cancelled, no show)
● Utilization: the average number of passengers transported per hour by day
Rider Experience
Snapshot of quality of
service and rider
experience
Top Level Metrics
● Average Ride Duration: average time in minutes from
pickup to dropoff (displayed for completed rides only). ● Average Ride Rating: average ride rating provided by
riders (out of 5 stars).
● Average Pickup Walking Distance: walking distance from the origin requested by the rider to the actual pickup
location assigned.

● Rider Experience Graphs (filterable by day, week, month) ● Average Ride Duration
● Average Ride Distance
● Average Ride Rating
● Average Pickup Walking Distance
Data Generator: Ride
Request Table
Data Columns in Table
● Request Creation Date
● Request Creation Time
382 of 637
Detailed table of every ride
request made for the
service
● Request ID
● Request Status
● Rider ID
● Wheelchair Accessible
● Number of Passengers
● Origin Address
● Origin Latitude
● Origin Longitude
● Destination Address
● Destination Lat
● Destination Lng
● Ride Price
● Ride Distance
● Ride Duration (min)

Exhibit A
Invoice and Data Backup

CONFIDENTIAL

Invoice

Date
Nomad Transit, LLC Invoice # Via Transportation, Inc.
383 of 637
114 Fifth Ave, Floor 17 Terms Net 15 New York, NY 10011 Due Date United States PO # Billing Period
Bill To
City of Monterey Park
320 West Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park CA 91754

Description Rate Quantity Amount
Total Vehicle Hours

Total

Please make checks payable to:
[__]
P.O. Box
7410493
C
hicago,
IL 60674-
0493

Wire Instructions:

Bank of America, N.A.
222 Broadway,
New York, NY
10038 Wire
Routing # -
026009593
ACH Routing # -
021000322
Account # -
483065995955
Swift Code - BOFAUS3N

384 of 637

[Partner] - Vehicle Hours Support

S
upport for all invoicing shall be provided using the template below. The table shall include vehicle hours and corresponding vehicle ID per vehicle for each day of the month in which the deployment and such vehicle is in service. This template is standard and will contain the information shown: Sample Vehicle Hours Support File.

385 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024

AGENDA ITEM
NO: Public Hearing - 4A
TO: The H
onorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt regulations governing data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 (adopted by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020).

RECOM
MENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Opening the public hearing and taking testimonial and documentary evidence;

2. After closing the public hearing and considering the evidence submitted during that public hearing:
a. Adopting an Urgency Ordinance (Attachment 1) upon 4/5 vote pursuant to Government Code § 65858 amending Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 21.14 to add regulations governing data centers in accordance with Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 (adopted by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020);
b. Introducing and waiving first reading of Ordinance No. _____ (ZCA -24-02) (Attachment 2) amending Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 21.14 to add regulations governing data centers in accordance with Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 (adopted by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020); and
c. Adopting Resolution No. _____ (Attachment 3) adopting design guidelines for data centers in accordance with MPMC Chapter 21.14; and

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

CEQA
(California Environmental Quality Act):

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”), the City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations . No additional environmental review is required for these regulations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). These regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review because the regulations would amend existing zoning to govern data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with the voter enacted Land Use Element. This will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not make physical changes to the environment.

Additionally, the regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review under the 386 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

commonsense exemption that it will not affect the environment. Any future data center project applications will require separate environmental review as required by applicable law.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 2, 2024, the City Council considered the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee’s (“SPARC’s”) recommendation regarding potential future land uses as part of implementation of the Land Use and Urban Design Element (“LUE”) to the General Plan. The City Council directed staff to draft amendments to MPMC Chapter 21.14 affecting properties within Saturn Park , including conducting research and developing regulations governing data centers to address concerns related to energy, water, air quality, noise and building design.

ZCA-24-02 proposes regulations for data centers within Saturn Park which implement the LUE. As a separate document, design guidelines for data centers are included for City Council consideration.

BACKGROUND:

TYPE OF ACTION: LEGISLATIVE
Decision-Making Body: Pursuant to MPMC § 2.56.020(c), the City Council is the City’s Planning Agency for this matter. In considering the recommended actions, the City Council acts in its discretionary legislative capacity (formulating rules that apply to all future cases).

For the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, the City Council must make the findings in MPMC § 21.38.050:

• That the proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan;

• That the proposed text amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties; and

• That the proposed text amendment promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the MPMC’s zoning regulations.

These findings are included in the draft o rdinances; the facts upon which these findings rely are also included with the draft documents.

EXISTING DATA CENTER REGULATIONS
The current regulations within MPMC Chapter 21.14 were enacted by the voters in 1998 and are generally identified as “Office Professional” or “O -P.” To avoid confusion with other zoning regulations that were adopted by the City Council in 2013, the regulat ions affecting Saturn Park were designated as “O-P (Voter Enacted).” 387 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

The City is currently processing an application for a “data center” at 1977 Saturn. One of the City Council’s topics of discussion – which was also discussed by the SPARC – is the public interest in regulating data centers within Saturn Park. While the proposed use at 1977 Saturn was classified as a “data processing facility,” voters in 1998 could not have contemplated a “data center” use.

CURRENT AND PROPOSED DEFINITIONS
The MPMC does not current define a data center; data processing facilities are defined as

“a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of buildings primarily used for the processing, storage, and management of electronic data on less than an acre of land. This type of facility typically involves activities such as data entry, storage, conversion, and analysis for onsite use.”

Should the proposed regulations be adopted, the MPMC would be amended to include the following definition of a “data center”:

“a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of structures located on one or more acres of land used to house a large group of networked computer systems used for data storage and processing for off -site users, to be used for the remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data. Such facilities may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, back-up batteries, fire suppression systems, enhanced security features, and other associated utility infrastructure to support operations. This definition does not apply to smaller data processing facilities that are located on less than one acre of land and where such facilities are accessory or incidental to another primary use.”

This definition more accurately describes the data centers utilized nationwide for cloud storage; data transmissions; and other internet related activities. It also reflects the resource intense nature of such land uses.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The proposed regulations would help mitigate the impact of data centers on both surrounding land uses and on environmental resources. These efforts are reflected in:

• Aesthetics – the proposed design guidelines would craft data center buildings that are more than a box with wires. Such structures should help enhance the Saturn Park community and its surroundings with attractive architectural.

• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED®”) certified building designs for sustainable construction – this will help alleviate the impact of data 388 of 637
Staff Report

Page 4 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

centers on energy, water, and other resources. The intent is to encourage use of renewable resources and reduce electrical use.

• Public benefits – the regulations would require data centers to execute a development agreement with the City to ensure that the community benefits from the presence of these land uses. Because data centers do not “sell” anything, they are not generally a significant source of tax revenue (other than limited property taxes). A development agreement will help not only protect the investment of data center developers but also provide a vehicle by which benefits may flow to the City.

• Green technology – among other things, data center would be required to provide onsite electric vehicle charging stations. Additionally, such uses must ensure that noise emanating from generators, etc., are reduced to the extent practicable.

LEGAL NOTIFICATION:

The legal notice of this hearing was posted at City Hall, Monterey Park Bruggemeyer Library, and Langley Center and published in Monterey Park Press on October 24, 2024, with affidavits of posting on file.

2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The proposed code amendments meet the 2024- 25 Strategic Plan Goal to “ Strengthen our local economy and enhance housing opportunities” by providing a framework from which data centers will be allowed to be built in a sustainable way that will create benefits to the community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with adopting the Ordinance itself (other than costs associated with codifying the Ordinance).

Respectfully submitted and prepared
by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development

389 of 637
Staff Report

Page 5 of 5 ends

November 6, 2024

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Urgency Ordinance No. ____ amending the Monterey Park Municipal Code

2. Regular Ordinance No. ____ amending the Monterey Park Municipal Code

3. Resolution No. ____ adopting design standards that apply to data center developments

4. Data Center Research:
a. County of Fairfax, Virginia – Data Centers Report and Recommendations, dated January 9, 2024
b. Article – As Data Centers Zap Power, Some Pols Ponder The Unthinkable: Pulling The Plug, dated October 9, 2024
c. Article – Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County, dated May 20, 2024

5. Notice of Determination

390 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Urgency Ordinance No. ____ amending the
Monterey Park Municipal Code
391 of 637
ORDINANCE NO.

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.14 (ZCA-24-02) TO AMEND

REGULATIONS GOVERNING DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3(A) OF ORDINANCE NO. 2198
(ADOPTED BY VOTERS AS MEASURE JJ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020).

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

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the voters’ directives in Ordinance No. 2198, as adopted November 3, 2020 via Measure JJ.

B. Based upon recommendations of the Saturn Park Advisory Review Commission (“SPARC”), the City Council will be considering expansion of uses within Saturn Park.

C. As a preliminary matter, however, the City Council finds that there is a current interest by developers to construct “data centers” within Saturn Park. A review of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) confirms that the “data center” land use is not considered as part of the current zoning regulations. While a “data processing facility” is listed as an allowed land use within Saturn Park, that term is not defined. Additionally, since this term was added to the MPMC in 1998, it was well before the concept internet commerce emerged as the “new economy”; the term did not encompass the scope of uses contemplated by contemporary data center developers.

D. It is plain that data centers – as they have developed in the 25 years since the Saturn Park regulations were first added to the MPMC – are energy hungry land uses that are generally aesthetically displeasing and provide few public benefits. Current data show that, overall, buildings consume 74% of all electricity in the United States.

E. Goal 2 of the City’s Environmental Justice Element provides that “Community health and the reduction of exposure to environmental pollutants is a priority and part of all planning and policy practices.” Additionally, Goal 3.1 provides that the City should “[m]aximize the use of the City’s existing open space network and recreation facilities by enhancing those facilities and providing connections, particularly from disadvantaged neighborhoods.”

F. These Goals and Policies reflect the City Council’s overall intent to provide for a cleaner, greener, and more enjoyable community both for our current 392 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 2 of 14 ends

residents and for future generations.

G. Requiring data centers to adhere with green building principles is a form of climate action that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions, relies on energy efficiency and renewable resources, conserves water, optimizes material use, provides healthy and biodiverse environments, and bolsters an equitable society.

H. Third party rating systems characterize the lifecycle considerations for green buildings. These programs can offer credibility, transparency, and consistency to project teams in pursuit of an elevated and well-defined performance standards for data centers.

I. It is in the public interest to update the MPMC as to data centers while also considering additional uses for Saturn Park as contemplated by Measure JJ, SPARC, and the City Council.

J. Without the enactment of this Ordinance, the voter’s vision for revitalizing Saturn Park via Measure JJ would be thwarted: anticipated 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.

K. The City Council determines that the MPMC requires updating to protect the public against health, safety, and welfare dangers that may result from allowing applicants for data centers to rely upon outdated land use regulations.

L. The City Council 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.

M. Based on the foregoing, and, in accordance with Government Code §§ 36934 and 36937(b) and the City’s police powers, the City Council finds that that this Ordinance should be adopted on an urgency basis to preserve public peace, health, safety and welfare.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to MPMC § 21.38.050, the City Council finds as follows:

A. Land Use and Urban Design Element: This Ordinance complies with Policy 4.2 (Sustainable Practices); Policy 4.3 (Environmental Burden); Policy 4.4 (Freeway Buffer Greening); Policy 4.5 (New Development); Policy 4.6 (Active Transportation); Policy 11.1 (Privacy); Policy 12.1 393 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 3 of 14 ends

(Compatibility); Policy 12.2 (Comprehensive Design); and Policies 25.1,

25.2, and 25.3 (specific as to Saturn Park).

B. Environmental Justice Element: This Ordinance complies with Policy No.

2.1 (limiting environmental pollution); Policy 2.2 (promote enhanced health outcomes and improved quality of life); and Policy 3.2 (work with local business community to expand green space programs).

C. These regulations will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Such regulations will operate citywide and will not affect a change in the use or the intensity of use of property in any zone.

SECTION 3: Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) for the following reasons: (1) it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15060(c)(2); (2) there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3); and (3) the ordinance, by itself, does not constitute a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378).

SECTION 4: Renaming of Zone; Amendment of Zoning Map; Amendment of MPMC §

21.02.210. All references to “O-P—OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE (VOTER ENACTED)” within the MPMC are amended to read “S-P – SATURN PARK INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY ZONE.” All references to the “O-P zone” within MPMC Chapter 21.14 are amended to read “S-P zone.” The reference to the “McCaslin Business Park (O-P Voter Enacted)” in the Zoning Map is amended to read “Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone.” MPMC § 21.02.210(B) is amended to add the “Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone” to the table of Zone Designations.

SECTION 4: MPMC Chapter 21.14 is amended to read as follows:

“Chapter 21.14

S-P – SATURN PARK INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY ZONE

21.14.010. Purpose.

In order to provide for the development of innovation and technology uses that exhibit a diversity of business activity from both revenue and service quality standpoints, and which are compatible and responsive to abutting land uses, including residential developments, the following regulations apply to all properties classified in the S-P zone.

21.14.020. Definitions.
394 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 4 of 14 ends

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

“Data center” means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of structures located on one or more acres of land used to house a large group of networked computer systems used for data storage and processing for off-site users, to be used for the remote storage, processing, or distribution of large amounts of data. Such facilities may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, back-up batteries, fire suppression systems, enhanced security features, and other associated utility infrastructure to support operations. This definition does not apply to smaller data processing facilities that are located on less than one acre of land and where such facilities are accessory or incidental to another primary use.

“Data processing facility” means a building, dedicated space within a building, or group of buildings primarily used for the processing, storage, and management of electronic data on less than an acre of land. This type of facility typically involves activities such as data entry, storage, conversion, and analysis for onsite use.

“Director” means the City Manager or designee. Unless otherwise designated by the City Manager, the Community Development Director is the Director.

“Green Building Rating System” means an assessment tool, created and managed by LLED, a reputable organization in good standing and recognized by the building industry as meeting the standard of care, that includes the following general characteristics, at a minimum:

A. Holistic approach to program requirements, with established and comprehensive sustainability metrics for measuring performance in a range of impact areas, such as energy; environmental justice; human and environmental health; integrative process; materials; site and surrounds; and water;

B. Independent third-party verification;

C. Mechanism for consistent evaluation and communication of achievement or levels of achievement;

D. Standardized processes for project data tracking and project team support; and

E. Commitment to continuous improvement with clearly delineated and transparent methods for program updates.

395 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 5 of 14 ends

“Green Business Certification Inc.” or “GBCI” is the global certification body for the LEED green building program and other sustainability rating systems, as well as the administrator of related professional credentials. (www.gcbi.org)

“Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” or “LEED®” is an internationally recognized and third-party verified green building rating system developed by the U.S.

Green Building Council. (www.usgbc.org/leed)

21.14.030. Permitted Uses.

It is unlawful for any person to use, nor may any property owner permit the use of any lot classified in any S-P zone for any use, other than the following as set out in this chapter.

21.14.040. Prohibited Uses.

All uses not permitted in this chapter are prohibited.

21.14.050. Principal Uses.

The principal uses are 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;
Mailbox and service store;
396 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 6 of 14 ends

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 café; Service businesses;
Stationery;
Studio, art, dance, martial arts, photography; tax consulting; Tobacco store;
Travel agency;
Video sales and rentals.

21.14.060. Conditional uses.

Conditional uses are uses specifically enumerated in this chapter.

21.14.070. Standards of Development Generally.

All premises in the S-P zone must comply with the following standards of development as set out in this chapter and as may be adopted by city council resolution.

21.14.080. Lots.

A. Lot Area. The minimum lot building on the S-P zone area of each lot is 5,000 square feet.

B. Lot Width. The minimum width of each lot is 50 feet.

C. Lot Depth. The minimum depth of each lot is 100 feet.

21.14.090. Yards.

The following minimum yards are required on all lots:

A. Front Yard. No minimum front yard is required.

B. Side and Rear Yards. Every lot must have and maintain minimum side and rear yards as follows:

1. When the side yard is adjacent to a street, the yard must be at least 15 feet in depth.

Page 7 of 14 ends

building on the S-P zoned lot. Where there is an opening, including, without limitation, windows, pedestrian doors and roll-up doors, in any facing a yard adjacent to an R-zone, the yard must be not less than 100 feet from any opening to minimum width of the R zoned lot. The yard may be used for parking, excepting a minimum 15 foot wide area abutting the R zone which must be landscaped and maintained in such a condition so as not to violate this code. The required landscaping must also conform to the standards set forth in Section 21.14.150.

3. When the S-P zoned lot is separated from an R zone by an alley, a rear yard setback of 40 feet must be provided, as measured from the centerline of the alley. A minimum three-foot wide landscaped planter must be installed and maintained along the alley, excepting at any vehicular access driveway.

4. When adjacent to a non-residential zone, commercially-zoned or M zoned lot, no yard is required.

21.14.100. Building Height.

No building or structure exceeding 40 feet or three stories may be located on any lot.

Buildings or structures exceeding the height limits may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.110. Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

The floor area ratio may not exceed 0.5 when the lot is less than 10,000 square feet in area. When the lot is between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet in area, the floor area ratio may not exceed 0.65. When the lot is more than 20,000 square feet in area, the floor area ratio may 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.

21.14.120. Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Each S-P zoned lot must have and maintain off-street parking and loading facilities as required by this title.

21.14.130. Required Walls.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter the following standards apply:

Page 8 of 14 ends

feet in height must 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 this title.

B. When any S-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 must be constructed and maintained along all such common side or rear lot lines. Where an easement exists, abutting the common property line, the 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 must be placed adjacent to the wall, planted with trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines. Where a parking lot on the S- P zoned lot abuts a R zoned lot, the additional parking lot landscaping requirements of this chapter apply.

21.14.140. Trash Facilities.

Each S-P zoned lot must provide facilities for the storage and collection of trash as follows:

A. Any outdoor trash facility must be enclosed by a minimum five-foot high solid masonry, brick or concrete wall except for the access way which must be enclosed with solid decorative gates of the same height.

A. Location and size are subject to approval by the Director. When any S-P zoned lot has a common property line with a R zoned lot, no trash facility may be located within the required building setback.

B. Open vehicular and pedestrian access to and from such trash facility must be provided. No parking spaces may block such access to the trash facility.

C. Trash facilities must be maintained in a closed manner at all times to prohibit visibility from public rights-of-way or adjacent property.

21.14.150. Buffering and Maintenance of Landscaping and Easements.

A. For S-P zoned lots with side or rear yards that are adjacent to an R zoned lot, the following buffering provisions must be provided and maintained:

Page 9 of 14 ends

berms and automatic sprinkler systems. The City may require the maintenance plan to include a bona fide service agreement with a City licensed landscaping service business. Maintaining an active service agreement on file with the Director is the responsibility of the owner of the subject property or authorized agent.

2. All landscaped areas and easements must be maintained in good condition, weed and disease free, and in compliance with this code.

21.14.160. Compressors, Air-Conditioning Units or Similar Mechanical Equipment.

Each S-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, must comply with the following:

A. All such equipment must be installed with permanent sound proofing measures, including, without limitation, enclosures, parapet and sound attenuating walls and screens. All such equipment must comply with noise standards set forth in this code. The location, type and scope of soundproofing measures for such equipment are subject to the approval of the Director.

B. All such equipment must be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent collection of litter and filth, emissions of dust or fumes, vibration or electrical disturbances.

21.14.170. Lighting.

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

21.14.180. Site Development Plan Approval.

Site development plans must be approved by the Director in accordance with this code before the Building Official issues a building permit.

21.14.190. Limitations on Permitted Uses.

Every use permitted in the S-P zone must comply with the following:

A. All uses must be conducted totally within a completely enclosed building, except for those uses which are customarily conducted in the open. Those uses conducted in the open may not be closer than 100 feet to any R zoned lot, except for parking.
400 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 10 of 14 ends

B. No outdoor storage is allowed unless the same is enclosed by a view- obscuring fence or wall, provided that no stored material is visible above the fence or wall, that the fence or wall is approved by the Director and that such storage is limited to the accessory storage of items sold or utilized in the conduct of a permitted use on the premises. Where the S-P zoned lot is adjacent to a R zoned lot, no outdoor storage is permitted within 100 feet of a R zoned lot.

C. No loading and unloading is permitted in any required side or rear yard.

D. Where the S-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. Overnight parking of vehicles is prohibited, except those vehicles used in conjunction with a permitted use.

F. Driveways cannot exceed 30 feet in width or 60% of the lot frontage.

G. No use is 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 and businesses.

H. No use is permitted which 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 must be filed with the Public Works Director before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy.

I. No person may, at any location within the S-P zone, create nor allow the creation of noise which causes the noise level to exceed the applicable noise standards set forth in this code. Where the S-P zoned lot is adjacent to an R zoned lot, the noise level at the property line of the R zoned lot may not exceed the allowable noise level for residential properties.

21.14.200. Conditional Uses.

Auditorium, not within 300 feet of an R zone
Buildings exceeding height limit
Business college (office or medical, dental)
Child care center, not within 300 feet of an R zone
401 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 11 of 14 ends

Commercial office or service units which are shared by more than 1 independently owned business enterprise
Commercial developments of 5 or more units or with an area of more than 1 acre, and within 300 feet of a R-zone
Financial institution (retail banking)
Floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0
Government or public facility, except those owned or operated by the City of Monterey Park
Gymnasium, reducing salon and health center
Hotel
Lot size over 1 acre
Places of entertainment, except as otherwise provided in this title.

21.14.210. Data Centers – Development Agreement Required - Requirements

A. Data centers are permitted only with a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 21.44 of this code.

B. For new buildings, modifications to existing buildings, and/or additions to existing structures greater than 25,000 square feet in building area or located on sites greater than 30,000 square feet in land area, projects must comply with the following:

1. Primary and secondary facades. Buildings must have identifiable primary and secondary facades. Public-facing facades must have dimensions, use mixed materials, and provide identification for the facility through the placement and design of entrances, lighting, canopies, artwork, signage, and other special features. Screening and enclosures must be installed to disguise outside mechanical equipment and storage. Rooftop equipment, stairwells, and features must be designed as integral to the building and enhance the form of the site. Ventilation and air-handling equipment must be screened from view with materials designed to attenuate noise.

2. Pedestrian access. Sites must be designed and constructed in a pedestrian friendly manner. The design must be harmonious with the surrounding built and natural environments and identifiable with the site’s location. Pedestrian walkways must be considered before designing vehicle driveways and parking areas for the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians.

3. Landscape. Landscaping must be harmonious with off-site and 402 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 12 of 14 ends

streetscape landscaping. Where adjacent properties contain residential or other noise-sensitive uses, a minimum 15-foot-wide landscaped buffer must be placed along the property line in addition to any required boundary masonry block wall or fence.

4. Parking. Minimum parking requirement for data center uses is one parking space per 250 square feet of office/meeting/technician workspace, plus one parking space per each 5,000 square feet of floor area or fraction thereof, devoted to computer equipment space.

5. Noise Study. A noise study must be conducted by a third-party acoustic engineer to document baseline sound levels and include expected maximum noise output with all mechanical, electrical, and any other noise generating equipment operating simultaneously at full operational load.

C. In addition to any other public benefits provided in a development agreement, data center projects must provide the following public benefits:

1. Rating requirement. Applicants must submit documentation demonstrating achievement of LEED “Gold” certification by GBCI.

2. Indoor water use reduction. Applicants must submit documentation verifying that a project meets maximum prescriptive fixture flow rates in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. The project must also achieve the LEED WE Prerequisite Indoor Water Use Reduction (WEp2) and a minimum 30 percent reduction in the use of indoor potable water, as calculated to meet the LEED WE credit Indoor Water Use Reduction (WEc2).

3. Construction waste management. Applicants must submit documentation verifying the diversion of a minimum 75 percent of the project’s construction and demolition waste, as calculated to meet LEED MR Prerequisite Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning and LEED MR Credit Construction and Demolition Waste Management.

4. Monitoring. Applicants must submit documentation verifying that a project will meet the criteria necessary to achieve California Building Code and Option 1 of LEED EA credit (Enhanced
Commissioning), in addition to LEED EA Prerequisite (Fundamental Commissioning) and Verification.

5. Light pollution reduction. Meet LEED SS Credit Light Pollution 403 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 13 of 14 ends

Reduction.

6. Prohibitions. CFCs and halons are not allowed in HVAC, refrigeration and fire suppression equipment. Meet LEED EA Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management, and additionally document that all HVAC refrigeration, and fire suppression systems do not contain CFCs or halons.

7. Electric vehicle charging. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Title 15 of this code, applicant will provide an additional 10% electric vehicle charging stations.

8. Such additional design standards that may be adopted by city council resolution.”

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: 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 7: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its Application is 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 8: Recordation. The City Clerk, or designee, 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 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 9: Effective Date. Based on the findings in Section 1, this urgency ordinance is adopted by a four-fifths vote for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and becomes effective immediately pursuant to Government Code § 36937(b).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2024.

____________________________
Thomas Wong, Mayor
404 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 14 of 14 ends

ATTEST:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

405 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
Regular Ordinance No. ____ amending the
Monterey Park Municipal Code

406 of 637
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 21.14 (ZCA-24-02) TO AMEND REGULATIONS GOVERNING

DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
3(A) OF ORDINANCE NO. 2198 (ADOPTED BY VOTERS AS MEASURE JJ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020).

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

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the voters’ directives in Ordinance No. 2198, as adopted November 3, 2020 via Measure JJ.

B. Based upon recommendations of the Saturn Park Advisory Review Commission (“SPARC”), the City Council will be considering expansion of uses within Saturn Park.

F. These Goals and Policies reflect the City Council’s overall intent to provide for a cleaner, greener, and more enjoyable community both for our current 407 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 2 of 13 ends

residents and for future generations.

I. It is in the public interest to update the MPMC as to data centers while also considering additional uses for Saturn Park as contemplated by Measure JJ, SPARC, and the City Council.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to MPMC § 21.38.050, the City Council finds as follows:

25.2, and 25.3 (specific as to Saturn Park).

B. Environmental Justice Element: This Ordinance complies with Policy No.

2.1 (limiting environmental pollution); Policy 2.2 (promote enhanced health outcomes and improved quality of life); and Policy 3.2 (work with local business community to expand green space programs).

C. These regulations will not adversely affect surrounding properties. Such regulations will operate citywide and will not affect a change in the use or the intensity of use of property in any zone.

SECTION 4: Renaming of Zone; Amendment of Zoning Map; Amendment of MPMC § 408 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 3 of 13 ends

SECTION 4: MPMC Chapter 21.14 is amended to read as follows:

“Chapter 21.14

S-P – SATURN PARK INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY ZONE

21.14.010. Purpose.

21.14.020. Definitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

“Director” means the City Manager or designee. Unless otherwise designated by the City Manager, the Community Development Director is the Director. 409 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 4 of 13 ends

B. Independent third-party verification;

C. Mechanism for consistent evaluation and communication of achievement or levels of achievement;

D. Standardized processes for project data tracking and project team support; and

E. Commitment to continuous improvement with clearly delineated and transparent methods for program updates.

“Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” or “LEED®” is an internationally recognized and third-party verified green building rating system developed by the U.S.

Green Building Council. (www.usgbc.org/leed)

21.14.030. Permitted Uses.

It is unlawful for any person to use, nor may any property owner permit the use of any lot classified in any S-P zone for any use, other than the following as set out in this chapter.

21.14.040. Prohibited Uses.

All uses not permitted in this chapter are prohibited.

21.14.050. Principal Uses.

The principal uses are permitted as follows:

410 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 5 of 13 ends

21.14.060. Conditional uses.

Conditional uses are uses specifically enumerated in this chapter.

21.14.070. Standards of Development Generally.

All premises in the S-P zone must comply with the following standards of development as set out in this chapter and as may be adopted by city council resolution.

21.14.080. Lots.
411 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 6 of 13 ends

A. Lot Area. The minimum lot building on the S-P zone area of each lot is 5,000 square feet.

B. Lot Width. The minimum width of each lot is 50 feet.

C. Lot Depth. The minimum depth of each lot is 100 feet.

21.14.090. Yards.

The following minimum yards are required on all lots:

A. Front Yard. No minimum front yard is required.

B. Side and Rear Yards. Every lot must have and maintain minimum side and rear yards as follows:

1. When the side yard is adjacent to a street, the yard must be at least 15 feet in depth.

2. When adjacent to an R-zone, the yard must be not less than 50 feet, plus five feet in depth for each story above one story of building or each 10 foot increment above 15 feet in height of building on the S-P zoned lot. Where there is an opening, including, without limitation, windows, pedestrian doors and roll-up doors, in any facing a yard adjacent to an R-zone, the yard must be not less than 100 feet from any opening to minimum width of the R zoned lot. The yard may be used for parking, excepting a minimum 15 foot wide area abutting the R zone which must be landscaped and maintained in such a condition so as not to violate this code. The required landscaping must also conform to the standards set forth in Section 21.14.150.

4. When adjacent to a non-residential zone, commercially-zoned or M zoned lot, no yard is required.

21.14.100. Building Height.

No building or structure exceeding 40 feet or three stories may be located on any lot. 412 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 7 of 13 ends

Buildings or structures exceeding the height limits may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit.

21.14.110. Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

21.14.120. Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Each S-P zoned lot must have and maintain off-street parking and loading facilities as required by this title.

21.14.130. Required Walls.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter the following standards apply:

A. Where any part of the front yard or street side yard of an S-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 must 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 this title.

21.14.140. Trash Facilities.

Each S-P zoned lot must provide facilities for the storage and collection of trash as follows:

A. Any outdoor trash facility must be enclosed by a minimum five-foot high 413 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 8 of 13 ends

solid masonry, brick or concrete wall except for the access way which must be enclosed with solid decorative gates of the same height.

B. Open vehicular and pedestrian access to and from such trash facility must be provided. No parking spaces may block such access to the trash facility.

C. Trash facilities must be maintained in a closed manner at all times to prohibit visibility from public rights-of-way or adjacent property.

21.14.150. Buffering and Maintenance of Landscaping and Easements.

A. For S-P zoned lots with side or rear yards that are adjacent to an R zoned lot, the following buffering provisions must be provided and maintained:

1. Landscaping, irrigation and maintenance plans are required and the plans are subject to approval of the planning agency. The plans must incorporate, without limitation, 15 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 bona fide service agreement with a City licensed landscaping service business. Maintaining an active service agreement on file with the Director is the responsibility of the owner of the subject property or authorized agent.

2. All landscaped areas and easements must be maintained in good condition, weed and disease free, and in compliance with this code.

21.14.160. Compressors, Air-Conditioning Units or Similar Mechanical Equipment.

Page 9 of 13 ends

B. All such equipment must be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent collection of litter and filth, emissions of dust or fumes, vibration or electrical disturbances.

21.14.170. Lighting.

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

21.14.180. Site Development Plan Approval.

Site development plans must be approved by the Director in accordance with this code before the Building Official issues a building permit.

21.14.190. Limitations on Permitted Uses.

Every use permitted in the S-P zone must comply with the following:

C. No loading and unloading is permitted in any required side or rear yard.

D. Where the S-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. Overnight parking of vehicles is prohibited, except those vehicles used in conjunction with a permitted use.

F. Driveways cannot exceed 30 feet in width or 60% of the lot frontage.

G. No use is permitted which produces or causes or emits any dust, gas, smoke, glare, noise, fumes, odors, electromagnetic emanations or 415 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 10 of 13 ends

vibrations which are or may be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and peace of the City and its residents and businesses.

21.14.200. Conditional Uses.

Auditorium, not within 300 feet of an R zone
Buildings exceeding height limit
Business college (office or medical, dental)
Child care center, not within 300 feet of an R zone
Commercial office or service units which are shared by more than 1 independently owned business enterprise
Commercial developments of 5 or more units or with an area of more than 1 acre, and within 300 feet of a R-zone
Financial institution (retail banking)
Floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0
Government or public facility, except those owned or operated by the City of Monterey Park
Gymnasium, reducing salon and health center
Hotel
Lot size over 1 acre
Places of entertainment, except as otherwise provided in this title.

21.14.210. Data Centers – Development Agreement Required - Requirements

A. Data centers are permitted only with a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 21.44 of this code.

416 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 11 of 13 ends

3. Landscape. Landscaping must be harmonious with off-site and streetscape landscaping. Where adjacent properties contain residential or other noise-sensitive uses, a minimum 15-foot-wide landscaped buffer must be placed along the property line in addition to any required boundary masonry block wall or fence.

C. In addition to any other public benefits provided in a development agreement, data center projects must provide the following public benefits:

1. Rating requirement. Applicants must submit documentation 417 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 12 of 13 ends

demonstrating achievement of LEED “Gold” certification by GBCI.

5. Light pollution reduction. Meet LEED SS Credit Light Pollution Reduction.

7. Electric vehicle charging. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Title 15 of this code, applicant will provide an additional 10% electric vehicle charging stations.

8. Such additional design standards that may be adopted by city council resolution.”

SECTION 6: 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 418 of 637
Ordinance No.

Page 13 of 13 ends

this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 9: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after second reading and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2024.

____________________________
Thomas Wong, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

419 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. ____ adopting design standards
that apply to data center developments

420 of 637

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DATA

CENTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 21.14.

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Authorizations. This Resolution may be referred to as the “Data Center Development Standards.” It is adopted in accordance with Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 21.14.210(C)(8). The City Manager is authorized to promulgate administrative policies and procedures (“AP&P”) to implement this Resolution.

SECTION 2: Standard Development Standards . The standards set forth in attached Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, constitute the Data Center Development Standards that represent public benefits required of any person executing a development agreement with the City.

SECTION 3: Contracting Authority. The City Manager is authorized to solicit bids, award contracts, and execute on-call contracts to ensure uniform application of the Data Center Development Standards.

SECTION 4: If any part of this Resolution or its application is 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 Resolution are severable.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto.

SECTION 7: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ON THIS __ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.

Thomas Wong, Mayor

421 of 637

City of Monterey Park
Resolution No. ___

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attest:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

422 of 637
Exhibit A - page. 1
RESOLUTION NO.___

EXHIBIT A

Design Guidelines
(Data Centers)

Data Centers must comply with the following to the Director’s satisfaction:

1. Building Orientation: Prioritize public -facing elevations, screen less appealing elements, maximize daylighting.

2. Access: Provide pedestrian and bicycle access along primary frontages, limit vehicle access width to 20 feet.

3. Parking and Loading: Locate to the rear, separate from pedestrian/bicycle access.

4. Landscaping: Use native plants, create transitions between private/public spaces, buffer sensitive areas.

5. Lighting: Highlight features, prevent light spillage, use downward- directed lights with shields.

6. Security: Incorporate crime prevention and natural disaster protection measures.

7. Screening: Use architecturally compatible screening for mechanical/utility equipment.

8. Amenities: Include elements like outdoor seating, water features, vertical gardens, or artwork.

9. Signage: Keep unobtrusive but functional

10. Hierarchy: Identify primary, secondary, and ancillary structures.

11. Architecture: Balance proportions, avoid monolithic scale, promote human-scale elements.

12. Facades: Compose identifiable segments, design corner lots with two public-facing facades.

13. Roofs: Use identifiable, proportionate roof forms.

14. Materials: Incorporate at least 2-3 materials, select colors for depth and dimension. 423 of 637
Exhibit A - page. 2

15. Context: Ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood in scale and design.

16. Walls/Fences: Use compatible materials, break up long expanses, avoid chain link or barbed wire.

Sample Data Center Designs:

The following photographs provide examples of designs which integrate the intent of these Design Guidelines. These are merely sample designs and are not intended to be used as protypes.

424 of 637
Exhibit A - page. 3

425 of 637
Exhibit A - page. 4

426 of 637
Exhibit A - page. 5

427 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4
Data Center Research
428 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.a
County of Fairfax, Virginia – Data Centers
Report and Recommendations, dated
January 9, 2024

429 of 637
Department of Planning and Development
12055 Government Center Parkway
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 January 9, 2024

DATA CENTERS
Report and Recommendations
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH TOPICS..................................................................................................................... 2

1. Land Use and Site Design.................................................................................................... 3

2. Energy Demand ................................................................................................................... 6

3. Water Demand ................................................................................................................... 10

4. Water Quality..................................................................................................................... 11

5. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 14

6. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 15

7. Building Design ................................................................................................................. 18 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS.............. 19 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................... 23 ATTACHMENTS......................................................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION
On May 9, 2023, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved a Board Matter that recognized data centers as an evolving industry that merits further research and analysis.1 The Board Matter directed staff to provide a report with research, findings, and recommendations on topics including environmental issues and mitigation; locational guidelines for siting facilities; how data centers should be permitted; and where any new guidelines should be located, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

Research has included a review of written materials, site visits, and meetings with stakeholders and the community. In addition, staff engaged Clarion Associates for background research; Clarion’s report is provided as Attachment 3. Engagement with key stakeholders was critical for staff to understand the data center industry in Northern Virigina and to collect feedback from the 1 Board’s Board Matter: “Guidelines for Data Centers” https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning- development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/pdf/5-9-2023-board-matter.pdf 430 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

variety of interests. In addition to hosting a general community input session, over 20 meetings were held with various stakeholders, including representatives of the following:
• Dominion Energy
• Fairfax Water
• Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
• Fairfax County Environmental
Quality Advisory Committee
(EQAC)
• Fairfax County Tree Commission
• Nature Forward
• Sierra Club
• Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions
• Various data center consultants
• Noise consultant
• Amazon
• CoreSite
• Stack Infrastructure
• Data Center Coalition
• Fairfax County’s Land Use
Attorneys Work Group
• Northern Virginia Building Industry
Association (NVBIA)
• Northern Virginia Commercial Real
Estate Development Association
(NAIOP)
A project webpage and email address for public comment were created. Presentations were also provided to the Board’s Land Use Policy Committee on October 17, 2023, and the Planning Commission’s Land Use Process Review Committee on October 26, 2023.2 This report is intended, in part, to address questions and feedback that have been shared by the community and industry. It is based on the work of an interagency staff team consisting of staff from the Planning, Zoning Administration, and Zoning Evaluation Divisions within the Department of Planning and Development, the Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination, the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, the Operations and Building Divisions in Land Development Services, and the Stormwater Management and Wastewater Management Divisions in the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services.

RESEARCH TOPICS
Information is presented below according to seven topic areas: land use and site design; energy demand; water demand; water quality; air quality; noise; and building design. Each topic area includes a summary of current regulations and guidelines followed by a discussion of research and recommendations. These sections are followed by a summary of recommendations for the Board’s consideration.

A data center is a facility that houses computer servers and their network connections. This report focuses on data centers as a principal land use, not those cases where an accessory server 2 Project webpage with information about the community input session, and Board and Planning Commission committee meetings: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/data-centers 431 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

room is located within another business facility or office. Data centers can be developed as stand-alone buildings or as part of a complex that may include other uses. The growth of digital data has expanded exponentially in recent years, resulting in a rapid increase in data center facilities that is anticipated to continue. This growth is needed to support the increased online population as well as business applications in all sectors, including finance, entertainment, healthcare, and education. Major factors contributing to data center growth in Northern Virginia include the long history of a robust fiber optic network in the area and reliable electric power.

Some of the benefits that data centers bring are job creation with good wages, few impacts to transportation systems or schools, and positive tax revenues. Individual businesses can benefit from the scale of cloud computing services where they share in the use of data center resources.

Data centers are designed with optimal cooling and other systems to support computer servers and for 99.999% reliability. Data centers can provide better computer processing, storage, data security, and energy efficiency than if each individual business were to manage its own servers.

However, data centers are industrial uses that may affect surrounding uses (through noise and visual impacts), or affect energy demand and associated greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and water supplies.

1. Land Use and Site Design
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance3 currently4 allows data centers in the zoning districts shown in Table 1 below.5 These districts are currently located across the County, with industrial districts primarily in the western portion of the County along Route 50 and Route 28, in the Herndon and Reston areas along the Dulles Toll Road, in the Merrifield/Mosaic areas between I-66 and Route 50, near the intersection of I-495 and I-395, and along I-95 in the southern portion of the County. Zoning districts can be viewed by using the Zoning District Analyzer or JADE.6 Additionally, the locations of existing, approved, and proposed data centers with surrounding zoning districts are identified in Attachment 1. As shown on these maps, existing data centers are located in the I-3, I-4, I-5, and PTC Districts, and pending data center applications are in the I-5 and PDC Districts.7 3 Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/index.aspx 4 Before the new Zoning Ordinance (re-adoption effective May 10, 2023), starting in 2000, data centers were considered by interpretation to be telecommunication facilities which were allowed by right in all C and I districts, in all P districts when shown on an approved development plan, and with SE approval in all R districts. Par. 5 of Sect. 9-101 and Sect. 9-102.
5 Abbreviations used in the table: SF – square feet; GFA – gross floor area; FAR – floor area ratio. 6 Zoning District Analyzer:
https://fairfaxcountygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e64b68aa834d46b0ad0e6cd4d831f843 or JADE:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/GeoApps/Jade/Index.html?configBase=https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/GeoApps/Ge ocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/Jade/viewers/Jade/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default 7 Pending (in-progress) data centers include those with site plan and building permit approval for at least one building.
432 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

Zoning District By Right Special Exception (SE)
C-3 (Office)
C-4 (High Intensity Office)
Up to 40,000 SF of GFA;
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;
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 feet and FAR
of 0.5)8
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 Permissions
Setbacks vary according to the zoning district. In the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts, the front setback must equal the building height (but be at least 40 feet) and there are no minimum side and rear setbacks. In addition to building setbacks, the Zoning Ordinance requires transitional screening and barriers on the lot of a more intense use when it is located next to a less intense use, as prescribed in Table 5108.2.9 Transitional screening yards are required to be 25, 35, or 50 feet wide and planted with trees and shrubs in accordance with Zoning Ordinance standards. Currently, a data center is required to provide a 35-foot transitional screening yard when located next to single-family detached or attached dwellings, or a 25-foot transitional screening yard when located next to certain other uses, such as multifamily dwellings, religious assemblies, and child care centers. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for Landscaping and Screening, the transitional screening requirements would be the same for most industrial uses, including data centers, and would require 50 feet of screening (the maximum) next to all residential uses and 25 feet next to most public, institutional, and community uses and commercial uses.10 8 FAR is also subject to the provisions of the Route 28 Highway Transportation Improvement District, and the Dulles Phase I and Phase II Transportation Improvement Districts. 9 Transitional screening and barriers: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx#secid- 3017
10 Webpage for the proposed Landscaping and Screening Zoning Ordinance amendment:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zoning-ordinance/landscaping-screening 433 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

Appendix 12 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan’s Policy Plan includes guidelines for certain uses, including data centers, that propose higher intensities than what is shown on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.11 The guidance in this Appendix applies during the review of a rezoning or SE and provides an option for higher-intensity development in designated industrial areas, while ensuring proposals are compatible with surrounding uses and can be supported by existing infrastructure. The criteria used to review such proposals are organized into five topic areas: transportation, mitigation of noise and other impacts, building design, lot size and parcel consolidation, and site design. The use of this option for additional intensity is not meant to supersede any site-specific Plan guidance for intensity and applies only to areas with a baseline Plan recommendation for industrial use.

Research and Recommendations
As outlined above, data centers are currently allowed by right in certain zoning districts.

However, as further discussed under the topic areas below, data centers have the potential for impacts to surrounding uses, environmental resources, and infrastructure, and the SE process may provide for a more site- and application-specific review of impacts and mitigations. As indicated in subsection 4102.1.F(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, the SE process is appropriate for certain uses which by their nature or design can have an undue impact upon or be incompatible with other uses of land. Requiring SE approval for data centers in the C-3, C-4, and I-2 through I-6 Districts would allow the Board to consider land use impacts and mitigations through a public process. In the Planned Districts—where the use is allowed if represented on the approved development plan—the current standards could remain because the current process provides for an in-depth, site-specific review. However, the Board could consider clarifying the requirement for a data center to be specifically shown on the development plan, including its location, size, height, and setbacks.

While data centers could continue to be allowed by right with additional standards or conditions, some of the recommendations included in this report—such as reviewing building design and noise studies and encouraging increased open space, tree planting, and stormwater treatment—may be more appropriately and effectively implemented through an SE review in accordance with SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. Applications for rezoning are reviewed for conformance with the applicable guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, and SEs must be found to be in harmony with the Plan. The SE review process also allows for consideration of flexibility through Board modification of standards where appropriate.

A new appendix to the Land Use Element of the Policy Plan could be created with updated performance criteria that would apply in the review of all data centers undergoing a rezoning or SE review, not just those seeking additional intensity. As shown on the maps in 11 Land Use Appendix 12: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning- development/files/assets/compplan/policy/landuse.pdf#page=39 434 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 6 ends

Attachment 1, some industrial districts are close to residential districts. Revised guidelines in a new Policy Plan appendix and SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance could bolster existing guidelines and regulations. These could address land use compatibility with existing and planned uses for the property and surrounding properties, including the size of the proposed data center, and the distance of the proposed building and generators from surrounding development. Setbacks and buffering can serve to minimize visual, noise and other impacts; therefore, guidelines could encourage enhanced buffering for data centers near residential development, other noise-sensitive uses, and environmentally sensitive areas.

As industrial uses, data centers are currently allowed in industrial zoning districts, and Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan provides guidelines for additional intensity in areas that are planned for industrial use; however, additional investigation may be warranted for consideration of data centers in areas that are planned in the Comprehensive Plan for future residential or mixed use. Although this report is focused on the potential impacts of larger data centers, smaller data centers with upgraded equipment and design features may be appropriate in areas not planned for industrial use if they meet certain performance criteria.

Additionally, as discussed below, due to the energy demands of data centers, they are typically located near a substation that is connected to major transmission lines. To reduce the need for new transmission lines and substations, a new Plan appendix could include consideration of the distance from and availability of a substation and transmission lines to serve a proposed data center.

2. Energy Demand
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not include regulations for energy use and efficiency. As noted above, data centers are typically located close to an electrical substation, which is considered a light utility facility under the Zoning Ordinance and is allowed by right in the I-3 through I-6 Districts; with SE approval in all other conventional zoning districts; and in planned districts if shown on the development plan or with SE approval. When a substation is located in a residential area, the Zoning Ordinance requires a finding that there is no alternative site in a commercial or industrial district. Substations are also subject to the 2232 review process for public facilities.12 Data centers also need to be located close to electrical transmission lines which, if over 138kv and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), are not subject to the Zoning Ordinance.13
12 The public facility 2232 process is summarized at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/public- facilities-review/process
13 If the voltage exceeds 138kv, SCC approval satisfies the requirements of local zoning and Virginia Code Sect.

15.2-2232 for the transmission line. Virginia Code Sect. 56-46.1(F). The locality retains jurisdiction to enforce local zoning over “associated facilities.” For any transmission line of 138kv and associated facilities, a public utility must either obtain a certificate of public necessity from the SCC or obtain approval under 15.2 -2232 and the local zoning ordinance where the transmission line will be located. Virginia Code Sect. 56-265.2(A)(2). 435 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 7 ends

Starting on January 18, 2024, the newly approved 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code (VECC)14 will require data centers to comply with “ASHRAE 90.4 - Energy Standard for Data Centers,” which will include several changes to the design and construction of these facilities. Prior to the 2021 VECC, there were no specific enforceable requirements for energy conservation related to data centers. With the adoption of the 2021 VECC, a new data center will be treated like any other commercial building for the purpose of energy conservation. ASHRAE 90.4 is a performance-based standard and will encourage a more efficient design, presumably leading to less energy usage.

The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the design and construction of new buildings and associated landscapes to use energy and water resources efficiently and to minimize short- and long-term negative impacts on the environment and building occupants. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that development within designated Industrial Areas incorporate green building practices sufficient to attain certification through LEED-NC, -CS or equivalent. Additional recommendations exist within the Comprehensive Plan guidance for certain Suburban Centers, Transit Station Areas (TSAs), and other development centers. The Environment Element does not contain existing guidance for the evaluation or consideration of energy demand.

Research and Recommendations
Data center operations rely on large amounts of electricity from the electrical grid. Although there is not a consistent correlation between square footage and energy demand (expressed in megawatts, MW), a data center of about 400,000 square feet would likely have a capacity of 48 to 60 MW. Also, with the advent of more powerful computer chips, future data centers may need even more energy. For comparison, the energy demand for 250 homes is approximately 1 MW, the Fairfax County Government Center uses about 2 MW, a typical hospital uses 3 to 4 MW, and the Noman Cole wastewater treatment facility uses 5 to 6 MW.

As discussed below, the large energy demand of data centers poses several concerns: a) the availability and reliability of energy for existing and planned development; b) the potential need for clearing and construction of new major transmission lines and substations and related costs relayed to rate-payers; c) potential water quality and air quality impacts of large numbers of diesel backup generators (see Water Quality and Air Quality sections below); and d) increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Availability and reliability: Most of Fairfax is served by Dominion Energy, and a portion of the western part of the County is served by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative (NOVEC). Both Dominion and NOVEC purchase power from the Pennsylvania-New Jersey- Maryland Interconnection (PJM), the regional transmission organization. Concerns have 14 Land Development Services Technical Bulletin, No: 23-07:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/23 -07-adoption- 2021-virginia-uniform-statewide-building-code-usbc.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery 436 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 8 ends

been raised by the public that the uniquely large energy demands of data centers could present a challenge in planning for reliable power to all customers. However, in meetings with staff, Dominion has indicated that data center growth does not pose a risk in terms of reliability to residential and other customers. Dominion has also stated that PJM has sufficient power available, and the risks of inadequate transmission capacity would be borne by the data center customer. While the planning for power infrastructure falls to PJM and the utility companies, with regulation by the SCC, land use approvals for data centers are the purview of the County. Therefore, staff recommends that the County pursue discussions with Dominion and NOVEC on enhancing coordination on data center applications through the review of energy capacity analyses. Communication about proposed data centers could facilitate planning for utility service and inform County land use decisions. Energy capacity analyses would allow an assessment of regional power supplies into the future and a common understanding of the power demands of data centers. The growth in data centers and their associated electricity load could be compared against the ability of the existing infrastructure to satisfy those forecast load demands to identify needed transmission infrastructure upgrades, and potential reliability issues, including the timeframe and duration of any electricity delivery shortages. The analyses could also state whether electricity constraints may impact other electricity customers.

Transmission lines and substations: Because of their energy demands, data centers need to be located near a substation that is near a major transmission line. If sufficient substation and transmission line infrastructure does not exist, the utility company will have to plan for and construct the necessary infrastructure to serve its customers. Construction of substations and transmission lines usually involves land clearing. Once constructed, the utilities can have visual and noise impacts and, depending on their location, impacts on natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. Although utility infrastructure is usually separate from a data center project, and the infrastructure is part of the larger grid that supports other customers, the need for certain infrastructure can be directly attributed to data center development. Therefore, when a proposed data center is proposed, related needs for utility infrastructure and its impacts should be evaluated as part of the new coordination process suggested above. Dominion has indicated that the costs of infrastructure projects are absorbed across the system’s customers, with some of the costs covered by PJM as well.

Because of the need for proximity, some data center developers seek land near existing transmission lines or include enough land area to support a substation. A substation typically has a 300 MW capacity, so a data center campus may need to provide a new substation. Data center developers may coordinate with the utility company in various ways to facilitate the development of a new substation, if needed, including selling or donating land. As noted above, a new Plan appendix could include consideration of the distance from and availability of a substation and transmission lines to serve a proposed data center.

Greenhouse gas emissions: Increased electricity demand also increases GHG emissions, which may make it harder to meet the state and County GHG emission reduction goals:
437 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 9 ends

o The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) establishes mandatory renewable portfolio standards for Dominion Energy to deliver electricity from 100% renewable sources by 2045 and Appalachian Power by 2050.
o Fairfax County’s Community-wide Energy and Climate Action Plan (CECAP) sets a goal for the entire community to be carbon neutral by 2050. Based on the 2020 GHG inventory, 48% of emissions come from the use of energy in buildings (25% commercial plus 23% residential).

Approximately 25% of GHG emissions in Fairfax County comes from commercial buildings.

Fairfax County community-wide GHG emissions have decreased by 30% between 2005 and 2020, despite a 12% growth in population.15 This decline in GHG emissions reflects a strong and consistent effort across multiple sectors, especially increased energy efficiency and conservation in residential and commercial buildings, cleaner vehicles travelling fewer miles, and a greener electric grid. Strategies to reduce energy use and related GHG emissions include improving energy efficiency and transitioning to clean, renewable energy.

Energy Efficiency: A review of best practices indicates that data centers can improve energy efficiency with current technology. Data centers typically measure their power utilization efficiency (PUE), which is the total facility power including cooling systems divided by IT equipment power. The PUE is a performance metric, with a PUE of 1.1 to 1.3 or less representing an efficient facility. To promote energy efficiency, a PUE standard or another performance metric could be included in the new appendix in the Policy Plan for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review. The ability for staff to review this standard would need to be considered. Additionally, given the substantial energy demands of data centers, proposed data centers could be encouraged to achieve LEED-Data Center Silver certification or greater. Under Section C405.12 of the 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code, data centers will be required to monitor their energy consumption. The County could pursue partnerships with data center operators for the voluntary sharing of that information with the County, which could assist in measuring the achievement of CECAP goals.

Renewables: Regarding the use of clean, renewable energy sources, data centers rely on the power grid and are not able, at this time, to generate sufficient power onsite through solar or other renewable sources. As previously noted, a data center of about 400,000 square feet would likely have a capacity of 48 to 60 MW. With current solar panel technology, approximately 5 acres of solar panels would be needed to produce 1 MW of power.

Therefore, a 48 MW data center would need at least 260 acres of solar panels to be self- sufficient. Nevertheless, data centers should be encouraged to install onsite solar and invest in offsite renewable energy. Some data center operators have sustainability goals. For example, Meta states that they have maintained net zero GHG in global operations since 15 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summaries, MWCOG:
https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2022/12/27/community-wide-greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventory-summaries- featured-publications-greenhouse-gas/
438 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 10 ends

2020, primarily by purchasing 100% renewable energy. Meta has an additional goal to reach net zero emissions across its value chain by 2030.16 Amazon states that it is the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy and is on target to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025 and to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.17

3. Water Demand
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate water demand. The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan provides limited recommendations on water demand topics through the discussion of water conservation for buildings sufficient to attain certification through LEED-NC, -CS, or equivalent. A majority of water-related recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan are related to exterior stormwater management mitigation and best practices.

Research and Recommendations
The amount of water used by a data center depends on the type of cooling system used. There are reports of data centers in other jurisdictions that use large amounts of water. However, since water demand is highly variable according to the technology used onsite and the climate of the area, the analysis in this report relies primarily on water use data and recommendations provided by Fairfax Water, which are included in Attachment 2.

Fairfax Water reviewed water use by data centers located on Sunrise Valley Drive and found that they use an average of approximately 38,000 gallons per day (gpd) which equals about 90 to 100 gallons/1,000 square feet. This is higher than the planning values Fairfax Water uses for office uses (60 gallons/1,000 square feet), but lower than retail (140 gallons/1,000 square feet) or hotel (180 gallons/1,000 square feet). Fairfax Water also compared water usage information from the Prince William County Service Authority and Loudoun Water and found comparable average water usage by data centers. Fairfax Water has concluded that with its periodic planning process, it is well prepared to address overall water supply needs.

Typically, it has been reported that air cooling systems use more energy but less water, while evaporative cooling systems use more water and less energy. However, not all data centers with evaporative cooling systems use large amounts of water. Techniques that data centers may use to reduce water consumption include, but are not limited to, rainwater harvesting and closed-loop cooling systems. The direct evaporative cooling systems being employed by newer data centers do not require chillers or cooling towers and the water usage is reported as approximately ten percent of older evaporative cooling systems. For example, Amazon has indicated that its typical data centers (250,000 square feet) use an average of approximately three million gallons of water per year, which equals only 8,220 gpd. [While recent articles 16 Meta sustainability: https://sustainability.fb.com/2023-sustainability-report/ 17 Amazon: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/products-services/the-cloud?energyType=true 439 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 11 ends

regarding a proposed Amazon data center campus in central Virginia reported a projected use of approximately 21 million gallons per building per year based on 640,000 gpd, Amazon has indicated this report is a miscalculation because the 640,000 gpd is the peak day demand, with an estimated average number of ten peak days per year.] According to industry sources, a data center with direct evaporative cooling systems in Virginia only needs to use water during the hot summer months.

Some data center companies have goals to reduce their water demand. For example, both Meta and Amazon have a water positive goal to return more water to communities than they use in data center operations by 2030.18 One approach to reducing water usage is to use recycled or reclaimed water systems for non-potable water uses, such as industrial cooling.

Loudoun Water operates such a system serving over 50 data centers. Fairfax has a reclaimed water system available in the Lorton area, but to date, no data centers are using that system.19 Based on this information, staff has not identified any potential Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendments related to water demand at this time. As Fairfax Water noted, it is possible that the declining per capita and per employee water use trends could change; therefore, staff recommends that monitoring of data centers and coordination with Fairfax Water continue, and the issue of water demand be revisited on a regular basis.

4. Water Quality
Current Regulations and Guidelines
Stormwater runoff: The County’s Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 124 of the County Code20) is designed to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts from all impervious cover regardless of land use type. Runoff from a data center building is no different than runoff from any other building. Additionally, development that requires a site plan and occurs within the Water Supply Protection Overlay District21 must provide water quality control measures designed to reduce the projected phosphorus runoff pollution by one-half for the proposed use. Stormwater impacts can also be mitigated by other measures, such as preservation of open space, floodplain protection, and landscaping and screening as required 18 Meta: https://datacenters.atmeta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Water-Stewardship.pdf; Amazon:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/aws-water-positive-by-2030 19 Fairfax reclaimed water system: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/wastewater/water-reuse 20 Chapter 124:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH124ST MAOR
21 WSPOD: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc-viewer.aspx?tocid=001.004.004.005#secid- 2542
440 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 12 ends

under the Zoning Ordinance, as well as tree preservation as required under the Tree Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 122 of the County Code22).

Additionally, to ensure that stormwater is appropriately managed (water quality and water quantity), the Comprehensive Plan promotes site design and low-impact development (LID) techniques that reduce stormwater runoff volumes and peak flows; increase groundwater recharge; and increase the preservation of undisturbed areas. Developments are expected to optimize stormwater management and water quality controls through the use of innovative infiltration techniques, nonstructural BMPs and bioengineering practices, and infiltration landscaping. The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan also identifies Environmental Quality Corridors (EQCs) as an integrated network of ecologically valuable land and surface waters that should be protected and enhanced for the present and future residents of Fairfax County. The policy categorizes characteristics of EQCs including habitat quality, connectivity, pollution reduction capabilities, hydrology, stream buffering, and stream protection; the policy recognizes that EQCs are delineated through the entitlement process based on policy criteria. The Plan also recommends protecting and restoring the ecological integrity of streams and protecting the Chesapeake Bay from the avoidable impacts of land use activities.23
Diesel tanks for backup generators (spills): Federal, state, and County regulations address the fuel storage tanks for backup generators:
o Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements – Aboveground Storage Tanks | Virginia DEQ24
o Fairfax County Fuel Storage Tank requirements – Fuel Storage Tanks | Planning, Permitting and Construction (fairfaxcounty.gov)25
Research and Recommendations
Water quality impacts can include: a) cooling system discharges to the wastewater system; b) spills or leaks from diesel tanks; and/or c) stormwater runoff.

Cooling systems: According to data center industry sources, most newer interior cooling systems utilized by data centers, even those that use water, do not have cooling towers that discharge to wastewater or stormwater systems. However, for those that do have cooling 22 Chapter 122:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH122TR COOR
23 Objective 2, 3 and 9: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Policy Plan, Environment:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning- development/files/assets/compplan/policy/environment.pdf 24 VDEQ storage tank requirements: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/land-waste/petroleum- tanks/aboveground-storage-tanks
25 County storage tank requirements: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/plan2build/fuel-storage- tanks#:~:text=Tank(s)%20capacity%20of%20500,and%20plan%20reviews%20may%20apply 441 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 13 ends

towers, evaporative cooling concentrates salts in the water that must be periodically discharged to the wastewater system. Even if no other chemicals are added to the system, the discharge has concentrated sodium, a constituent of concern in drinking water. If the facility is in the sewer collection area of the Upper Occoquan Service Authority (UOSA), the treated wastewater discharges to the Bull Run River upstream of the Occoquan Reservoir, which is a potable water source. Although this is true of any commercial or industrial use that employs a cooling tower, the extensive cooling systems needed by data centers heighten the potential concern. Currently, the County prohibits the use of bromide as a treatment additive in cooling water systems that discharge to UOSA based on direction from UOSA.

As noted in the attached comments from Fairfax Water, their facility for treatment of raw water from the Occoquan Reservoir is not designed to remove salts or other emerging contaminants of concern. Although the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a health advisory of 20 mg/L for sodium levels in potable water,26 an advisory is not an enforceable federal standard and the UOSA pre-treatment requirements do not include a standard for sodium. Consideration could be given to establishing Comprehensive Plan guidance to encourage data centers to monitor their discharges and, if needed, provide for pre-treatment. Additionally, to reduce the potential for impacts to potable water, within the UOSA service area, the Plan could encourage the use of non-chemical/non-water-based cooling systems or systems that do not discharge to the wastewater or stormwater systems.

Diesel tanks for backup generators (spills): Typically, depending on the size of the generator, about 5,000 to 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel are stored in individual, above-ground, double-walled tanks below each generator to provide sufficient fuel for 24 to 72 hours.

Existing state regulations include procedures to prevent pollution of state waters, lands, and storm drain systems from the discharge of fuel from aboveground storage tanks that are 25,000 gallons or more. Further analysis could be done to determine whether these existing regulations could be enhanced. Consideration could also be given to including SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance (or amending another chapter of the County Code) for tanks smaller than 25,000 gallons for proper surface grading, berms, or other additional containment practices to protect surface water and ground water by ensuring that if the tank were to fail or if a spill were to occur during filling, the fuel does not enter the stormwater system or open space areas.

Stormwater runoff: Regarding stormwater runoff, data centers are similar to other nonresidential uses with expansive impervious surfaces. With the provisions in place to address stormwater runoff as described above, in staff’s opinion no additional recommendations are necessary for data centers. However, in general, water quality on industrial sites would benefit from site designs that include green roofs, increased open space and native tree and plant vegetation. Projects subject to rezoning or SE review should be 26 EPA advisory on sodium: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014- 09/documents/support_cc1_sodium_dwreport.pdf
442 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 14 ends

encouraged to exceed minimum requirements for open space, tree preservation and planting, and stormwater treatment.

5. Air Quality
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not directly regulate air quality. Through the Comprehensive Plan, the County seeks to preserve and improve air quality and expects that state-of-the-art technologies will be applied to minimize emissions from stationary sources of air pollution.27 For data centers, backup generators are the source of air pollutants that are a concern, and these emissions are regulated by DEQ. DEQ monitors criteria air pollutants across the state, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, a federal law that provides for the protection of human health and the environment. Data center projects require Minor New Source Review (NSR) permits from DEQ for their backup generators, which are powered by diesel fuel. Minor NSR permits in Northern Virginia receive stricter scrutiny due to non-attainment of air quality standards in the Washington, DC region. Over the past decades, the EPA has developed a tiered regulatory system that applies to backup generators (non-road diesel engines):28 o Tier I – phased in from 1994 to 1997
o Tier II – phased in from 2000 to 2005
o Tier III – phased in from 2006 to 2008 for smaller engines with 50 to 750 hp o Tier IV – phased in from 2008 to 2015 and requires a 90% reduction of certain emissions with reductions made possible through newer control technologies.

Research and Recommendations
Potential pollutants released into the air from generator use include nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), all of which are regulated by DEQ. DEQ maintains 36 monitoring sites across the Commonwealth to measure air pollutants. One air quality monitoring station is located in Loudoun County and two are located in Fairfax County:
o Broad Run High School: Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: O3, NO2, and PM2.5
o Franconia District Park: Franconia, Fairfax County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: SO2, O3, PM2.5, and PM10
o 6831 Backlick Road: Springfield, Fairfax County, Virginia - Pollutants measured: CO, NO2, and PM2.5
27 Objective 1: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Policy Plan, Environment, Amended through 6 - 28-2022, Pages 2-5
28 EPA: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-emissions-heavy-equipment- compression
443 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 15 ends

Due to the current and expected growth of the data center industry in Northern Virginia, additional monitoring may be beneficial in tracking air quality near large numbers of data centers.

Along with lower emissions, Tier IV generators provide increased fuel efficiencies, incorporate modern pollution-control technologies, require less maintenance, and reduce operating costs. These emission reductions are typically achieved by using advanced exhaust gas after-treatment technologies, with most Tier IV engine families using urea-selective catalyst reduction filters (SCR) for emissions control. The use of diesel generators for backup is the current industry standard. Until cleaner alternatives become more available, staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan encourage the use of Tier IV generators and state- of-the-art technology to reduce GHG emissions.

Renewables: As energy providers are able to produce more power from renewable sources, air pollutants and GHG emissions from non-renewable sources will decrease over time.

Dominion does not allow commercial consumers to choose the generating source for the power they consume, since all types of energy sources are placed into the entire grid; however, as noted above under Energy Demand, data center operators should be encouraged to invest in renewable energies to offset their carbon footprint. Through the Virginia Clean Economy Act, Dominion Energy Virginia and Appalachian Power are required to retire electric generating units located in the Commonwealth that emit carbon as a by-product of combusting fuel to generate electricity; the utilities are also required to construct, acquire, or enter into agreements to purchase generating capacity located in the Commonwealth using energy derived from sunlight or onshore wind.29

6. Noise
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Fairfax County Noise Ordinance (Chapter 108.1 of the County Code) regulates sound generation for all uses, including data centers. Among other standards, the Noise Ordinance limits the maximum sound levels that can be generated when the sound is measured at the property boundary or at any point within another property affected by the sound. The standards in the table below apply according to the use and zoning district of the property impacted by the noise (not the property generating the noise).30 29 Virginia House of Delegates Bill 1526, adopted as the Virginia Clean Economy Act 30 Section 108.1-4-2 of the Noise Ordinance:
https://library.municode.com/va/fairfax_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=THCOCOFAVI1976_CH108.1 NOOR
444 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 16 ends

Maximum Sound Levels
Use and Zoning District
Classification
Time of Day Continuous Sound
(dBA)
Impulse Sound
(dB)
Residential areas in
residential districts
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60 100
Residential areas in
residential districts
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 80
Nonresidential areas in
residential districts
All 60 100
Mixed use area 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65 100
Mixed use area 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 60 80
Commercial districts All 65 100
Industrial districts 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 72 120
Industrial districts 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 65 100
Table 2: Noise Ordinance Standards
Section 108.1-5-1(g) of the Noise Ordinance exempts the operation of backup generators during power outages from storms or other emergencies as well as the testing and maintenance of generators between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. for up to two hours per day. Separately, DEQ does not allow for generator testing between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. from May 1 to September 30 to minimize impacts on air quality from ozone. Therefore, during those months, generator testing would be limited to the evening hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

To reduce noise impacts, a use standard for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance requires all equipment for cooling and backup generators to be contained within an enclosed building, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts.31
The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy Plan currently provides guidance and recommendations only for transportation-related noise, such as motor vehicle and airport-related noise. There are no other policies for non-transportation-related noise uses.

Research and Recommendations
Noise from data centers, which can be significant if not mitigated, is primarily generated by two sources: the cooling systems and the backup generators. The potential impacts vary considerably according to the type of equipment, location (proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive uses), site design, and the mitigation measures employed. Related infrastructure such as electric substations may also generate noise. 31 Subsection 4102.6.A(1) of the Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc- viewer.aspx#secid-2854
445 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 17 ends

Data centers require substantially more cooling as compared to other uses due to the heat produced from densely packed servers. To provide context, a data center server room might require 100 tons of cooling (per 10,000 square feet, using a median total heat number) as compared to a shopping mall which would require 40 tons, or an office which would need 29 tons. Cooling systems generate a continuous noise, and concerns have also been noted in articles about the low frequency of the noise generated by certain cooling equipment.

Generally, the sound from lower frequencies propagates farther than that from higher frequencies and may be felt, even if it is not audible. As noted above, the use of diesel generators for backup is the current industry standard. To provide for backup in the case of power interruption, data centers have large numbers of generators as compared to other uses.

For example, a hospital would typically have three to five backup generators, while a data center typically has over 20 generators.32 Although the generators are only for emergencies, each one needs to be tested and maintained, requiring a runtime of about five to 15 minutes per generator each month. It appears that in the past, the emergency use of backup generators in Fairfax and surrounding areas has been infrequent. One data center representative indicated that backup generators are typically used for emergency purposes a few hours each year while another stated that the generators are typically used for about 53 total hours per facility per year. Consideration could be given to amending the Noise Ordinance for uses such as data centers with large numbers of backup generators to remove the exemptions for testing and maintenance of generators, as well as the full emergency use of backup generators.

A review of noise studies submitted as part of rezoning or SE applications for data center projects in Fairfax County indicated that measures were consistently needed to reduce the potential noise to comply with the Noise Ordinance. A variety of measures were proposed in those cases, including upgraded equipment, sound-attenuating enclosures for generators, acoustical barriers and louvers, silencers on air handling equipment, attenuators on both the intake and exhaust for generators, and the location of the mechanical yard. Given the need for noise mitigation and the variety of options that may be tailored for each site and facility, consideration could be given to providing guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the review of noise studies for projects undergoing rezoning or SE review and for amending the Zoning Ordinance to include noise study submission requirements for zoning applications.

Noise studies could be submitted as part of a rezoning or SE application and updated pre- construction (prior to building permit approval) and post-construction (prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit) to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The noise modeling could address the worst-case scenario, including all cooling equipment at full operational load, as well as the maximum number of generators that may be tested at one time. In addition, the noise modeling could address the emergency use of backup generators 32 The number of generators varies according to the energy demand of the data center. For example, one data center in Fairfax with approximately 400,000 square feet of gross floor area has 20 generators with a total capacity of about 45 MW. Another campus project with over 2 million square feet is planned to have over 100 generators with a total capacity of about 259 MW.
446 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 18 ends

and include the frequency octave band limits. Comprehensive Plan guidance could be considered for noise studies to include particular attention to impacts on residential uses and sensitive habitats. Noise mitigation equipment could be considered to avoid noise impacts to both the human environment and the habitats of local fauna.

As previously noted, the Zoning Ordinance requires all equipment for cooling and backup generators for data centers to be contained within an enclosed building, except in the I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts.33 The exemption of these industrial districts recognized other industrial uses allowed in those districts. However, given the potential noise impacts from data centers because of their unique cooling requirements and use of generators, consideration could be given to requiring equipment enclosures for all data centers and other similar industrial uses.

As noted above, the maximum sound levels apply to all uses, whether that be the cooling system for an office building, the trucking associated with a freight distribution facility, or a contractor’s storage yard. It has been suggested that lower sound levels should apply to data centers; however, staff does not have information that the dBA for a data center should be regulated differently from that for other uses. On the other hand, further research and consideration could be given to establishing standards for lower frequencies, perhaps measured as dBC.34

7. Building Design
Current Regulations and Guidelines
The Zoning Ordinance does not currently have any regulations regarding the architectural design of data centers. Architectural design standards are included in the Ordinance for large retail sales establishments and goods distribution hubs when approved by SE, to minimize the impacts of building bulk through variations in roof lines and setbacks, landscaping, and enhanced architectural treatments such as windows. Standards are also included for self- storage facilities in certain zoning districts to require that storage bay doors or lighted hallways not be visible from the outside, and the building must be multistory and office-like in appearance. The I-4, I-5, and I-6 Districts limit the maximum building height to 75 feet and the FAR to 0.5, without SE approval. For projects undergoing rezoning or SE review, Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan specifies criteria for building design, including the need for high-quality design and materials that complement the architecture of surrounding uses.

Loading areas should be screened, and visual impacts should be minimized by avoiding undifferentiated facades and providing variation in height, fenestration, materials, patterns, textures, colors, and accent materials.
33 Subsection 4102.6.A(1) of the Zoning Ordinance: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fairfaxcounty-va/doc- viewer.aspx#secid-2854
34 Generally, dBA is intended to match typical human hearing; dBC does not have the weighting applied for dBA and may be more appropriate for consideration of low frequencies. 447 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 19 ends

Research and Recommendations
The development of large data centers raises concerns regarding building design and aesthetics because of their bulk and height. They are typically constructed of concrete with minimal fenestration. Larger data centers are often 75 feet in height or more. Also, data centers have related equipment, which, in addition to backup generators, may include water towers and electrical substations.

As identified in the attached report from Clarion Associates, certain other jurisdictions have or are in the process of adopting zoning standards for building design, including Prince William and Loudoun Counties, and Atlanta, Georgia. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan guidance, the standards are intended to provide for variation and interest in design, such as requiring façade changes for height, recesses, fenestration, building and accent materials, and a defined main entrance, as well as mechanical screening.

Given the potential impacts of the bulk of larger data centers, the current guidelines for building design in Appendix 12 of the Policy Plan could be reviewed and considered for all data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to improve the view of the data center and related equipment from public roads and nearby residential uses. Additionally, submission requirements for rezoning or SE applications could be added to the Zoning Ordinance for architectural elevations (for consideration of the large massing and scale impacts), proposed materials and color palette, and provision of sight line studies with renderings or perspectives from surrounding roads and residential areas.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Below is a summary of the recommendations included in the text of this report. These recommendations are presented for Comprehensive Plan guidelines and Zoning Ordinance standards that could be established for data centers to be approved by SE in conventional zoning districts and rezoning/development plan approval in planned districts, where permitted. As previously noted, data centers could continue to be allowed by right; however, some of the recommendations, such as a review of noise studies and building design and encouraging increased open space, tree planting, and stormwater treatment, may be more effectively implemented through an SE review. The SE review process would ensure a robust County review with careful consideration of potential impacts and allow for public hearings to solicit community feedback.

1. Land Use and Site Design
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider revising permissions to require SE approval for data centers, regardless of size, in the C-3, C-4, and I-2 through I-6 Districts. In addition to recommendations included below under other topic areas, standards for special exception review should include the 448 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 20 ends

consideration of the size of a proposed data center and its distance (buildings and generators) from surrounding existing and planned residential development. • Where data centers are allowed in the Planned Districts, add a standard to clarify that the use must be specifically identified on the approved development plan, including the location, size, height, and setbacks.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Create a new appendix to the Land Use Element of the Policy Plan for data centers with updated performance criteria. The new appendix should include guidelines that would be utilized in the review of all data centers through the rezoning or special exception process, not just those seeking additional intensity in industrial areas. The guidelines could include consideration of compatibility with future planned uses for the property and surrounding properties.
• Consider recommendations for enhanced buffering for data centers located near residential, noise sensitive uses, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Consider guidelines for distances from existing or planned substations or transmission lines that can service the data center.

2. Energy Demand
Zoning Ordinance:
• Add zoning application submission requirements for rezoning and SE applications for assessments of future energy needs that will be used in staff’s review in accordance with Comprehensive Plan guidelines.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Consider adding an energy performance standard like PUE to promote energy efficiency data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.
• Encourage LEED-Data Center Silver certification or greater for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.
• Encourage data centers to install onsite solar and invest in offsite renewable energy to offset their energy demand and carbon footprint for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review.

Other Recommendations:
• Establish a new process for coordination with Dominion and NOVEC about proposed data centers during the review of zoning applications, which may include assessments of future energy needs as it relates to existing and planned power infrastructure. • Pursue partnerships with data center operators for the voluntary sharing of facility energy consumption to assist the County in measuring the achievement of CECAP goals. 449 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 21 ends

3. Water Quality
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding SE standards in the Zoning Ordinance (or amending another chapter of the County Code) for fuel tanks smaller than 25,000 gallons for proper surface grading, berms, or other additional containment practices to protect surface water and ground water by ensuring that if the tank were to fail or if a spill were to occur during filling, the fuel does not enter the stormwater system or open space areas.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Encourage data centers to address potential water quality concerns through the monitoring of cooling system discharge into the wastewater system and, if needed, providing pre-treatment.
• To avoid potential impacts on potable water, within the UOSA service area, encourage the use of cooling systems that do not discharge to the wastewater or stormwater systems, or non-chemical and non-water-based cooling systems.
• Encourage projects subject to rezoning or SE review to exceed minimum requirements for open space and tree preservation and planting.

4. Air Quality
Comprehensive Plan:
• Encourage data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to minimize air quality impacts through a variety of approaches:
o Apply state of the art technology to minimize air pollution from backup generators. o Encourage the use of Tier IV backup generators, and replacement of existing Tier II generators with Tier IV generators.

Other Recommendations:
• Request DEQ to install additional air quality monitoring stations in Fairfax County.

5. Noise
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding zoning application submission requirements for data centers undergoing rezoning or SE review to quantify the increase in noise on adjacent uses, support review in accordance with Comprehensive Plan guidelines, and demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
• Consider expanding the current Zoning Ordinance equipment enclosure requirement to apply in all zoning districts where data centers and other similar industrial uses are allowed.
450 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 22 ends

Noise Ordinance:
• Consider amending the Noise Ordinance to remove exemptions for uses with large numbers of backup generators and require the testing and maintenance as well as the full emergency use of backup generators to comply with the Noise Ordinance standards.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Noise studies for projects undergoing rezoning or SE review could include an evaluation of impacts on residential uses and sensitive habitats. Noise mitigation equipment should be considered to avoid noise impacts to both the human environment and the habitats of local fauna.
• Consider amending the Plan to recommend that data center proposals evaluate and mitigate potential noise impacts:
o Noise studies could be submitted as part of a rezoning or SE application, for pre- construction (prior to building permit approval) and post-construction (prior to issuance of a Nonresidential Use Permit) to quantify the increase in noise on adjacent uses and demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance. o Noise modeling could address the worst-case scenario, including all cooling equipment at full operational load, as well as the maximum number of generators that may be tested at one time.
o Noise modeling could also address the backup use of backup generators. o Noise modeling could include the frequency octave band limits.

Other Recommendations:
• Conduct additional research on establishing standards for lower frequencies in the Noise Ordinance.

6. Building Design
Zoning Ordinance:
• Consider adding submission requirements for rezoning and SE applications to include:
o Architectural elevations (to address the large massing and scale of data centers) o Materials and color palette
o Sight line studies, including renderings or perspectives from the right-of-way and nearby residential uses.

Comprehensive Plan:
• Review the current guidelines for Building Design in Appendix 12 and consider applying them to projects undergoing rezoning or SE review, including consideration of façade variation, a defined entrance feature, screening of equipment, and other techniques to improve the view of the building from public roads and nearby residential uses. 451 of 637
Data Centers Report and Recommendations
January 9, 2024

Page 23 ends

NEXT STEPS
Data centers are important facilities to support the modern, digital world – particularly in the Northern Virginia region where data center infrastructure is significant. Given their unique characteristics, careful consideration of their location, design, and impacts (including potential mitigation measures) is needed to ensure that data centers are compatible with the surrounding community. This report presents research and related recommendations for possible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, and potentially other chapters of the County Code. While staff will use these considerations in the review of any data center entitlement applications in the context of our current guidelines and regulations, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to begin work on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other chapters of the County Code to facilitate implementation of the recommendations as outlined above and any others the Board might recommend.

Additionally, staff would support future direction from the Board on a closer evaluation of legislative authority for related topics in which the County currently lacks sufficient regulatory authority. Examples of this could include addressing energy efficiency (e.g., PUE), salinity in water discharges, and air quality.

The County’s One Fairfax policy would provide the framework to consider equity in the development of any future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or other chapters of the County Code. This could include enhanced outreach to ensure diverse perspectives are heard and respected. An equity impact analysis could include consideration of the location of vulnerable areas within the County and their relationship to potential data center locations.

If requested, staff is available to present these recommendations at an upcoming Land Use Policy Committee meeting. Questions and comments can be directed to Carmen Bishop at 703-324-1314, and Katie Hermann at 703-324-1280, or by email to ffx-data- [email protected].

ATTACHMENTS

1. Data Center Maps

2. Fairfax Water Comments

3. Clarion Report
452 of 637
1 Attachment 1: Data Center Maps
453 of 637
Fairfax Data Centers
Name Address Tax Map Zoning
District
Square Feet of
Gross Floor Area
Zoning Case or By Right
Existing
11 Coresite VA3 12379A Sunrise Valley 17-3 ((1)) 32A I-5 332,957 (existing) 943,600 (total
approved by SE)
RZ 2017-HM-032 & SE 2017-HM-030;
Rezoning & increase in FAR
2 Coresite 12100 SV &
12098 SV
12098 Sunrise Valley 17-3 ((8))(3A) 1A I-4 423,341 (existing) SE 2011-HM-019 for increase in FAR 3 Faraday Building 1807 Michael Faraday 18-3 ((5)) 10 I-5 30,609 (existing By right 4 Digital Realty/Lemur
Properties
1780 Business Center 18-3 ((8)) 9A I-3/I-4 264,888 (existing) By right 5 Elias DC Assets 1764A Old Meadow 29-4 ((6)) 97F PTC 69,089 (existing) Pre-existing use before rezoning to PTC under RZ -2014-PR-021
6 Roosevelt Building 1755 Old Meadow 29-4 ((6)) 105 PTC 72,546 (existing) Pre-existing use before rezoning to PTC under RZ -2014-PR-021
7 Lafayette Business
Data Center
4030 Lafayette Center 33-2 ((1)) 10D I-4 145,409 (existing) By right 8 AWS Virginia Mallory 3980 Virginia Mallory /
14501 Avion
34-1 ((3)) 13 I-5 542,942 (existing)
768,392 (approved by
site plan)
By right
9 AWS Westfax B 4100 Westfax 34-3 ((9)) 3A I-5 95,000 (existing) By right 10 AWS Westfax A 4101 Westfax 34-3 ((9)) 4 I-5 95,000 (existing) By right 11 Equinix 7990 Quantum 39-2 ((1)) 13D I-3 202,500 (existing) By right In Progress2
12 Renaissance
Technology Park
13860 Redskin 24-2 ((14)) 1 - 6 I-5 2,136,040 (approved by SE)
2,130,000 (approved
by site plan)
SE-2021-SU-00017 for increase in height
13 Perspecta Datacenter
Campus/AWS
13600 EDS 24-4 ((1)) 6B7,
6B8
I-5 1,046,632 (approved
by site plan)
By right
1 Numbers correspond to maps
2 In progress includes projects where any necessary zoning entitlement has been approved, or for by right projects, a site plan has been approved, but a certificate of occupancy has not been issued.
454 of 637
Name Address Tax Map Zoning
District
Square Feet of
Gross Floor Area
Zoning Case or By Right
14 Parkstone Tech Park 5140 Parkstone 43-4 ((6)) 37B PDC 500,000 (approved by RZ)
419,410 (approved by
site plan)
RZ-2021-SU-003
15 AWS Loisdale Station 7951 and 7961 Loisdale 99-2 ((1)) 8A I-5 240,000 (approved by RZ/SE)
235,422 (approved by
site plan)
RZ-2021-LE-015 & SE-2021-LE-010;
Rezone & increase in height
Proposed
16 Chantilly Premier None 33-2 ((1)) 6 pt I-5
(proposed)
402,000 (proposed) RZ-2022-SU-00019 & SE-2022-SU-00038; Rezone & increase in height
455 of 637
4 (1)
(4)
(11)
Electric Lines
Data Centers:
7, 8, 9, 10, 14,
16 Data Centers:
1, 2, 3, 4
Data Centers:
12, 13
Data Centers:
5, 6, 11
Data Center:
15 456 of 637
5 Dulles
International
Airport
457 of 637
6 Dulles
International
Airport
458 of 637
7 459 of 637
8 460 of 637
9 461 of 637
462 of 637
463 of 637
464 of 637
465 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.b
Article – As Data Centers Zap Power, Some
Pols Ponder The Unthinkable: Pulling The
Plug, dated October 9, 2024

466 of 637
October 9, 2024 By Dan Rabb and Maddy McCarty
It isn’t every day that Texas legislators liken an industry to pigs at the trough or accuse it of “crashing our grid and turning the lights off.”
But it is happening in the famously business-friendly Lone Star State as lawmakers turn increasingly hostile toward a real estate asset class playing an outsized role in nearly doubling (https://apnews.com/us-news/texas-state-government-texas-general-news- d8f648128b1661d0c86865eab788b4e5) statewide demand on its mostly self-contained power grid (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/power-grid) over the next six years.

As Data Centers Zap Power, Some Pols Ponder The
Unthinkable: Pulling The Plug
467 of 637
Data centers (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/data-centers), which house thousands of servers providing the computing power for major corporations, are a booming industry in Texas. Much of the growth is fueled by demand from the world’s largest tech companies — Amazon (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/amazon), Microsoft
(https://www.bisnow.com/tags/microsoft), Google (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/google) and Meta (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/meta) — which need facilities to support their massive cloud (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cloud) businesses and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/artificial-intelligence).

Texas has also emerged as the undisputed U.S. capital for bitcoin (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bitcoin) mines, specialty data centers devoted to processing cryptocurrency (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cryptocurrency) transactions.

All that growth is expected to account for more than half of a projected power demand spike that hit legislators like a ton of bricks this summer when the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas presented new and startlingly higher numbers.

And it came as the state was making progress toward shoring up its grid after a catastrophic 2021 winter storm shut it down, killing hundreds and wreaking billions (https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/infrastructure/project-eyes-a-link-of-ercot-grid- with-other-southeastern-states-122278) in property damage.

Texas isn’t alone in worrying about energy stability. National projections show usage from data centers will double by the end of the decade and rise even further in industry hot spots like Dallas-Fort Worth. Some jurisdictions have imposed limits (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/loudoun-countys-new-data-center- rules-leaving-some-developers-in-limbo-115766), and the Biden administration made developing new solutions to the industry’s increasingly acute energy crisis (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/were-not-even-close-data-center- power-crunch-gets-worse-with-no-end-in-sight-122415) a national priority.

Yet the unexpected surge has Texas lawmakers reeling, asking questions about the worth of huge power consumers to the economy and calling for ways to put the brakes on an industry speeding ahead faster than anywhere else in the U.S. outside of Northern Virginia. “I’m more interested in building the grid to service customers in their homes, apartments, and normal businesses and keeping costs as low as possible for them instead of for very niche industries that have massive power demands and produce few jobs,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lt.-gov.-dan-patrick) said on social media platform X (https://x.com/LtGovTX/status/1800968003636408657?lang=en) after ERCOT (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ercot) presented the new projections. “We want data centers, but it can’t be the Wild Wild West of data centers and crypto miners crashing our grid and turning the lights off.”
The debate has refocused attention on the state’s fragile grid and limited energy infrastructure.

And the avalanche of new demand is spiking fears of massive bills ahead for residents and businesses.
468 of 637
“It has huge policy implications,” Texas Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Democrat from Dallas, said at a June hearing. “And every assumption that we've made over the past four years is now called into question.”
From Dozens Of Megawatts To Hundreds
Dallas is the country's second-largest data center market and one of the industry’s traditional hubs. More data center firms are headquartered in Dallas than any other city.

At the end of the second quarter, there were 966 megawatts of total inventory, with 339 MW under construction and 3,091 MW planned in DFW, according to JLL (https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/research/na-data-center-report). The total number of megawatts in use by data centers in the Dallas market is up 77% since 2020, according to CBRE (https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/north-america-data-center- trends-h1-2024).

Meanwhile, the Austin-San Antonio region is considered the largest of the nation’s “secondary” data center markets. It was the fastest-growing data center market through the first half of this year, the CBRE report says, and its combined under-construction activity more than quadrupled from a year earlier.

Data centers are attracted to sites with low power costs, targeted tax incentives and robust optical fiber network infrastructure nearby. Many parts of Texas hit all these marks. 469 of 637
But the new wave of data center demand caught ERCOT and utilities across the nation (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/more-skin-in-the-game-power-utilities- say-data-centers-must-foot-the-bill-for-billions-in-grid-upgrades-124385) by surprise.

Data centers will represent 6.6% of electricity (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/electricity) consumption in the U.S. by 2028, up from just 1.5% in 2018, according to TD Cowen (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/td-cowen-data-centers-share-of-us- energy-use-to-quadruple-124474). Other studies (https://carboncredits.com/us-data-centers- power-requirement-will-double-by-2030/) predict the industry’s share of power use will be as high as 9.1%.

In Texas, 60% of the 40 GW of new load expected in the months ahead consists of new data centers and bitcoin mining (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bitcoin-mining), according to Texas Public Utility Commissioner Lori Cobos. But what is catching providers most off guard is that each new facility is using far more power than ever before.

The size of data center campuses, measured in the amount of energy they consume, has shot up over the past four years from dozens of megawatts to hundreds, with major tech companies now looking to deploy more than a gigawatt of capacity at a time.

The reason is AI (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ai). High-performance computing equipment, such as the graphics processing units made by companies like Nvidia (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/nvidia), use far more power than traditional data center servers. A Google search using AI computing consumes around 10 times more energy (https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power- demand)
than a traditional search.
“We're not talking about 50-MW data centers anymore,” said Enchanted Rock Chief Commercial Officer Allan Schurr, whose firm partners with large energy users to locate on-site power generation. “We're talking about 500-MW or gigawatt-scale data centers.” ‘Too Many Pigs At The Table’
“Five years ago, we didn't see AI-type data centers coming on the grid. No one was talking about that,” ERCOT Chief Operating Officer Woody Rickerson told lawmakers at a June Senate Business and Commerce Committee hearing when lawmakers first learned expectations about future power demand had been upended.
“Those are extremely large. Just for comparison's sake, the city of Lubbock is about 700 MW, and some of these AI data centers are over 2,000 MW, so we're talking about putting three Lubbocks in 24 months at a site.”
When Texas demand hit a new high of 85 gigawatts in 2023, the hottest year recorded in the state, ERCOT expected demand to rise to 110 GW by 2030. After changing its projection methodology (https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/ercot-long-term-planning- procress/269-adf87150-d459-42cb-b826-029b506bcb20)
in April, it raised that number to 150
GW.
470 of 637
The new projection brought worries about the health of the Texas grid to a head, seemingly sending some lawmakers into panic mode. Some wondered aloud whether the state could stop data centers and bitcoin mines from coming at all.
“AI’s just come on the scene, but who knows what’s next, even after that, that will consume even more?” said Sen. Donna Campbell, a Republican whose district includes parts of Austin and San Antonio. “Can we just say, ‘No, you can’t come’? Can we just say no? Too many pigs at the table just run out of food if they don’t come with their own trough full of food.” Much of the concern stems from 2021's Winter Storm Uri
(https://www.bisnow.com/tags/winter-storm-uri), which laid bare the Texas grid's vulnerability. More than 4 million homes and businesses were left without power amid freezing temperatures.

Power demand before Uri-related blackouts began was 69 gigawatt-hours (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cc48fcfebfae414b99b3d18f86c72c27/page/Power- Demand-During-Uri/), a new winter high. The Texas grid can typically handle 70 GWh, but 14 GW of natural gas and coal-fired power plants were offline for maintenance (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cc48fcfebfae414b99b3d18f86c72c27/page/Power- Supply-During-Uri/), a common practice during winter months.

But this time, disaster ensued. In addition to loss of life, by March 2022 (https://www.tdi.texas.gov/reports/documents/feb2021-tx-winter-weather-summary- mar2022.pdf), the Texas Department of Insurance had tallied 510,772 freeze-related insurance claims, with an expected payout total of $11.2B. The average incurred loss for commercial property was about $149K.
471 of 637
ERCOT, the Public Utilities Commission and lawmakers responded by going all out to ensure adequate generation resources would become available when the system is under stress. But with the gears of that fraught process in motion, the unexpected wave of electrical demand from data centers and bitcoin mines tossed a new wrench in the works.

There is a chance the state is “building a system that won’t fit,” said state Sen. Robert Nichols, a Republican from Jacksonville.
“This is so far different from anything we’ve ever seen.” Fear And Black Swans
But is the influx of data centers actually increasing the risk of catastrophic blackouts across Texas? The answer is complicated.

On one hand, experts refute the notion that a data center with the power consumption of a small city could suddenly switch on and take grid operators by surprise, plunging large swaths of Texas into darkness. Connecting a data center to the ERCOT grid isn't a free-for-all — it requires an extensive approval process, and permission is only granted once sufficient infrastructure is in place.

Still, energy experts like Enchanted Rock’s Schurr acknowledge that the ERCOT grid becomes more vulnerable as the addition of data centers and other large industrial power loads keeps demand on the grid in the upper range of its capacity. Grid operators must make sure there is always enough capacity operating or ready to operate for anticipated power demand, with extra in reserve in case of plant failures or other unforeseen events.

The problems come when an event like Uri reduces grid capacity, but data centers are already encroaching on the reserve margins of extra power, Shurr said. “We have to plan for the extreme events, the black swans,” he said. “If data centers are the cause of squeezing that reserve margin, then the reliability during those extreme events can be at risk.”
Many in the industry are quick to point out that data centers have their own backup electricity sources on-site, typically in the form of diesel or natural gas generators, allowing facilities to remain fully operational off grid. Nearly every data center in Texas remained online (https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/data-center/despite-arctic-inspired-panic- texas-data-centers-are-doing-alright-107802) during Winter Storm Uri, and their on-site power meant they didn’t contribute stress on the already overmatched ERCOT system.

But much of the concern around data centers’ impact on the Texas power grid has focused on one contentious corner of the broader data center ecosystem: bitcoin mines.

Unlike traditional data centers, bitcoin mining facilities don’t use the same amount of power all the time. As long as a miner’s power costs are less than the price of bitcoin, a facility will run at full tilt. But during times of energy scarcity, when the price of power goes up, bitcoin miners typically shut down entirely, pulling potentially hundreds of megawatts off the grid. 472 of 637
This pattern of electricity usage aligns with what ERCOT’s operators want. Yet it can also raise the risk of catastrophic grid failures. ERCOT and utilities have little transparency into bitcoin miners’ operations, making real-time predictions about energy demand challenging.

And if grid operators don’t correctly anticipate when bitcoin miners will shut down during periods of high demand, disaster can follow.
“It's a little bit of a hold-your-breath moment when we go into scarcity, not knowing for sure what that demand response is going to look like from one day to the next,” ERCOT’s Rickerson told lawmakers in June.

However, the characterization of bitcoin mining as an inherently destabilizing force on the state’s energy infrastructure has also received pushback from miners and ERCOT leadership, who say bitcoin miners can be part of the solution.

ERCOT has implemented demand response programs, in which major power consumers agree to effectively give their allotted power back to the grid by dramatically reducing electricity consumption during times of peak demand — for a price. Bitcoin mines are a natural fit for demand response.

But only about a third of Texas bitcoin mining operations are in such a program, according to Texas Blockchain Council President Lee Bratcher.

ERCOT leadership and mining groups like Bratcher’s are aligned in wanting to see all miners become so-called controllable load resources, giving ERCOT transparency into their operations and a say in when they disconnect during periods of high demand. These facilities could become an important stability resource, effectively adding gigawatts of emergency capacity to the grid. 473 of 637
Who’s Stuck With The Bill?
Texas lawmakers aren’t just worried about data centers and crypto mines making the state’s electricity less reliable. They’re also worried about them making it more expensive.

The flood of massive data centers and bitcoin mining developments seeking connections to the ERCOT grid far exceeds the capacity of Texas’ existing power infrastructure, particularly the transmission lines and substations needed to deliver power to these projects. ERCOT and its associated utilities, like all U.S. power providers, are legally obligated to fulfill these requests.

That means spending billions to expand grid capacity.

ERCOT already has $14B worth of transmission projects in some stage of preconstruction or development, and a significant increase in spending is needed to meet the wave of demand projected to be just around the corner, ERCOT’s leadership told lawmakers. In theory, the cost of these capital projects will be covered by data centers paying for the power they use.

But if billions of dollars are spent building transmission lines for a data center campus that never ends up being built or uses just a fraction of the electricity its developers asked for, the huge cost of these projects would be borne by all Texans in their power bills.

State lawmakers were quick to raise concerns about the potential for higher power rates, which they said would have the greatest impact on the state’s most vulnerable households. “I want to make sure that we don't increase the cost of everybody who can least afford it for a specialized project that’s for industries that are very profitable,” Sen. Jose Menendez, a San Antonio Democrat, told ERCOT leadership at the hearing.

Clouding the issue, ERCOT has little insight into how much of its record interconnection queue will materialize. In the data center industry and among utilities, there is broad consensus that much of the projected increase will never come to fruition — as much as 80% of ERCOT’s projection, Bratcher said.

A data center developer might apply for interconnections for 100 MW in five potential locations but only plan on building at one of them. That looks like 500 MW to ERCOT, but in reality it would only be 100 MW, Bratcher said.

Adding to this “phantom load,” landowners or developers with no relevant experience have made large connection requests for properties to boost land values and potentially flip the parcels to data center firms.
“In every single market, we've seen a flood of private equity guys and landowners who go to the utility and get a power study for 500 MW for a farm just so that land’s worth six times as much,” JLL U.S. Data Center Managing Director Andy Cvengros (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/andy- cvengros) said. “Utilities are looking at us to help them understand who's real and who’s not.” 474 of 637
Some steps are already being taken to help ERCOT make more accurate demand projections and separate the wheat from the chaff, hoping to lower the risk Texans will be stuck with the bill for billions in unneeded transmission infrastructure.

Oncor (https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/news/data-center/data-center-demand- continues-to-boom-in-dfw-even-as-other-assets-falter-119757), which transmits and delivers electricity to much of the Dallas-Fort Worth region and parts of the Permian Basin (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/permian-basin), started taking advantage of a law passed last year allowing transmission providers to give input on which loads they felt were likely to connect, Oncor Vice President Ellen Buck said during the Senate hearing.

Oncor determined that only 25 GW of the 47 GW seeking connections were likely to move forward after examining whether the requesting entity was legitimate, like a major tech firm or known developer, and whether they had started making financial commitments toward their projects, such as securing property or ordering equipment. “What we're looking at is, what's the customer's evidence of skin in the game?” Buck told the committee.

There is also support for charging potential connectors (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/the-machete-approach-a-fight-between- data-centers-and-an-ohio-utility-may-preview-more-turmoil-ahead-125992) large fees, securing another form of collateral or requiring expensive studies as part of the application to request a connection. Those measures, widely used in other markets, could make speculative requests less likely.
475 of 637
“As a data center industry, as a bitcoin mining industry, we are all supportive of ERCOT charging fees for loads to be in the interconnection queue because we understand how important it is for them to have an accurate picture of what load is coming,” Bratcher said. “If that hurts our bottom line, then so be it.”
Reaching A ‘Tipping Point’
The increasingly hostile rhetoric from Texas lawmakers may signal a changing political landscape for the data center and bitcoin mining industries, which until recently were welcomed with open arms.

The severest suggestions floated by elected officials, banning bitcoin mining or new grid connections for data centers, have yet to manifest as concrete legislative proposals. But more limited bills were introduced, including a measure to limit bitcoin miners’ participation in demand response programs (https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/05/30/texas-bill-that- would-limit-miners-participation-in-cost-saving-grid-programs-stopped-in-house- committee/)
.

Meanwhile, there is a sense that the tone of the conversation around data centers and crypto mining in Austin is taking a rapid turn toward the negative. “Suddenly they flipped on crypto a few months ago,” said University of Houston (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/university-of-houston) energy fellow Ed Hirs, who predicted in 2013 (https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/texas-suffers-from-soviet-style- electricity-4301693.php)
that ERCOT’s deregulated grid would result in power generation and distribution shortfalls. “I guess they read the pieces I've been putting out.” Texas would hardly be the first place where data centers have worn out their welcome. That pattern has played out (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/an-expensive- lesson-facing-growing-local-hostility-data-center-developers-are-finally-trying-to-win-hearts- and-minds-122476) in a growing number of development hotbeds, where a data center building boom has sparked political efforts (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data- center/virginia-lawmakers-look-to-eliminate-data-centers-as-by-right-use-125001) to control or limit the industry’s growth.

While specific grievances driving opposition vary by market, concerns over the impact of skyrocketing electricity demand have led government officials and utilities in places like Columbus, Ohio (https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/the-machete-approach- a-fight-between-data-centers-and-an-ohio-utility-may-preview-more-turmoil-ahead- 125992)
, and Dublin (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/11/27/data-centre- moratorium-could-strangle-digital-growth-and-impact-carbon-targets/) to pursue what are effectively moratoriums on new data center development (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/data- center-development).

The risks data centers pose to the reliability and price of electricity in Texas may be solvable through policy and regulatory changes. But industry players like Bill Thomas, chief energy officer at data center campus developer CleanArc (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cleanarc- data-centers), caution that lawmakers and ERCOT could follow other jurisdictions' lead and decide that data centers just aren’t worth the trouble. 476 of 637
“I don't know what that tipping point is,” Thomas said. “Everything's bigger in Texas, but I think they've probably reached it.”
Check out Bisnow early next week when Data Centers Reporter Dan Rabb takes a closer look at crypto mining. The industry has been maligned by some politicians, but industry leaders say they can be part of the state's energy solution.

Contact Maddy McCarty at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) See Also: Europe’s Largest Property Lender To Pull Back From New Ofﬁce Loans (/london/news/capital-markets/europes-largest-property-lender-to-pull-back-from-new-ofﬁce-loans- 126242)
Related Topics: JLL (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/jll), University of Houston (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/university-of- houston), Nathan Johnson (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/nathan-johnson), Ed Hirs (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ed-hirs), Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lt.-gov.-dan-patrick), Andy Cvengros (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/andy- cvengros), ERCOT (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ercot), Texas grid (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/texas-grid), Enchanted Rock (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/enchanted-rock), Oncor (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/oncor), CleanArc Data Centers (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/cleanarc-data-centers), Woody Rickerson (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/woody-rickerson), Lori Cobos (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lori-cobos), Sen. Donna Campbell (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/sen.-donna-campbell), Bill Thomas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/bill-thomas), Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/electricity-reliability-council-of-texas), Allan Schurr (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/allan- schurr), Public Utility Commission of Texas (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/public-utility-commission-of-texas), Robert Nichols (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/robert-nichols), Lee Bratcher (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/lee-bratcher), Texas Blockchain Council (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/texas-blockchain-council), Ellen Buck (https://www.bisnow.com/tags/ellen- buck)
477 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 4.c
Article – Recommendations for Proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data
Center Impacts in Fairfax County, dated
May 20, 2024

478 of 637

(https:/ /www.facebook.com/GreatFallsVaSierraClubChapter) 
(https:/ /www.meetup.com/Sierra-
Club-
GFG-
Meetup/)
Recommendations for Proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for
Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County

Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County
May 20, 2024
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, We are writing to share our recommendations to address the impacts of accelerated growth of the data center industry in Fairfax County. We appreciate that the county has studied and issued “Data Centers – Report and Recommendations.” At the same time, the public deser
ves stronger protections than those that have been proposed in the Staff Summary dated April 23, 2024 with draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) language and the May 17, 2024 Staff Report in order to ensure that county policies adequately mitigate the myriad of negative environmental and public health impacts of this use.

Our concerns about the magnitude of future data center development focus particularly on the massive energy demand, water consumption and resu lting increases
in carbon emissions. In addition to the few standards offered in this draft ZOA in order to obviate the significant environmental impacts, it is essential that the county require:
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 1/12 479 of 637
comprehensive building energy efficiency; procurement of new renewable energy by companies; the use of sustainable building materials, avoiding highly toxic diesel generator pollution and other natural resources protections.

In order to try to meet the unique set of impacts associated with data centers, we recommend that:

1. The county take a comprehensive regulation approach to the data center “use” and also expand “use-specific stand
ards” as part of this effort.

2. Data centers be regulated so that environmental and health mitigations are proportional to harmful impacts.

3. All data center proposed developments be subject to a Special Exception (SE).

Impacts of Virginia’s Data Centers
With the acceleration of computing and cooling demands from artificial intelligence and other rapidly- changing technologies, data centers now require far more energy and water to run. Today, the industry seeks data cente
rs that are larger and often taller to
pack in more servers to run more energy and water intensive applications. Yesterday’s data centers use far fewer resources compared to those planned to host artificial intelligence and other new applications, which could require at least 10 times the power to run.

Fairfax County has recently begun to approve larger facilities in tandem with market deman
d and their impacts won’t be fully understood until they come online. Those facilities (such as Chantilly Premier and Renaissance) are not in operation but appear to be more in line with data centers built in neighboring jurisdictions, giving us a reasonable basis for predicting impact.

We are deeply concerned about the projected total demand of energy to service data centers. With revised forecasts from PJM, the region’s grid pr ovider, the data center
industry in Virginia is now expected

Page 2 ends

9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 2/12 480 of 637
to need over 25,000 MW (25 GW) just to service Virginia’s data centers by 20391.

This would be the equivalent of 28 coal plants (the size of Clover Power Plant in Hallifax County, still in operation at 877 MW.) Newly approved transmission lines are expected to bring coal to Virginia already delaying coal plant closures.2 Dominion has also
revived pre-pandemic plans to build a natural gas peaker plant in Chesterfield County to meet growing grid demand in the coming years, due to data center growth. Data center developers, rather than the ratepayer or taxpayer, should bear the expense of infrastructure needed to operate their facilities so that Fairfax County residents do not shoulder the burden.

Because the
data center growth is driving Dominion’s reliance on fossil-fueled generation,3 Dominion has projected to double greenhouse gas emissions to 36,000,000 metric tons by 2048.4 That Loudoun County’s GHG emissions have increased by over 50% due to data centers5 is a serious concern for the region and the state and foreshadows what will happen in other jurisdictions if mitigating protective measures aren’t enacted. The energy trajectory created with this unprecedented industrial build out could reverse the ongoing work to deliver a cleaner grid, which will also undermine the county’s ability to meet its Community-wide Energy an d Climate
Action Plan (CECAP) goals. All of this is to say that the increases in carbon we are seeing makes clear that effective local policies to mitigate these impacts are imperative.

Recommendations for Data Center Use Standards
Screening/Enclosures:

We support requiring equipment enclosures. Does this include enclosing diesel generators? Is that considered “mechanically feasible” or would we expect a waiver on those? We recommend that generators and
HVAC equipment be located away from
(not adjacent to) residential, public and commercial uses, in order to reduce pollution, noise and aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties.

Maximum Size:

Data Centers are rapidly growing in size and server capacity. For instance, newly built or proposed data centers in Loudoun County are generally over 200,000 square feet and increas
ingly as much as 1,000,000 square feet. Demand for hyperscale size buildings reflect market conditions post 2023, thereby precluding the need for by right 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 3/12 481 of 637
standards under 80,000 square feet. (The currently under review by right Plaza 500 Bren Mar proposal is for 461,244 sf and Chantilly Premier was approved at 402,000 sf and other recent projects are over 1 million sf)
Likewise, we believe that the demand for and speculation around data center development does not warr
ant a credit for repurposing under a by right standard.

Repurposing of underperforming commercial properties for data centers is already underway at an accelerated pace in other jurisdictions, so the incentivizing redevelopment for data centers is unnecessary. Further, a possible 200,000 square foot addition is a substantial 2.5 times the s
quare footage that is proposed as a by right
maximum. Either way, our strong recommendation is to require the data center use to be subject to a Special Exception across the board so that proffers can be offered to mitigate impacts.

While there are some similarities in transportation, freight, warehouse and distribution- related industrial facilities, the data center use differs significantly fr om other industrial
uses in the sheer magnitude of its impact on land, energy and water resources. The possibility that under certain conditions it could
1 https:/ /www.pjm.com/-/media/planning/res-adeq/load-forecast/load-forecast- supplement.ashx
2 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/data-centers- internet-power-source-coal/
3 (https:/ /www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2023/05/dominion-announces-future- energy-production-customers- and-its-bleak)
4 Dominion Energy’s 2023 IRP, page 7, preferred plans B and C summary. https:/ /www.dominionenergy.com/- /media/pdfs/global/company/desc- 2023-integrated-resource-plan.pdf
5Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Page 3 ends

function as a power plant must also be taken into consideration. This concept, to provide an air quality variance for diesel generators in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties, was floated last year by the Department of Environmental 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 4/12 482 of 637
Quality.6 And while it was later withdrawn, it could be revived due to energy and transmission constraints. One must consider that Fairfax County is highly populated and quickly urbanizing, and with the majority of I-5 districts residing directly adjacent to residential areas, the health hazards to adding thousands of diesel generators near population centers cou
ld be harmful to far larger numbers of residents based on proximity.

Further, since the county’s Policy Plan does not currently have adequate standards for data centers, a Special Exception gives the board flexibility to address issues such as green building and renewable energy, stormwater, water use that also cannot adequately be regulated under by right conditions
.

Noise Impacts:

We support pre and post construction studies with adequate standards to protect adjacent properties 24/7. Further, we believe data center noise should not be audible over the property line and the ZOA and/or county Noise Ordinance should provide for this. This measure would protect neighbors from the continuous low humming noi ses
as well as noise from generators. Generators should not run from 8 pm to 8 am. This is a health issue, as well as a comfort issue for residents.

Setbacks:

Setbacks should not only be from residential areas, they also should be from schools, hospitals, parks and other public amenities. We generally suggest a buffer of 500 feet.

In terms
of noise and disturbance, the usefulness of a protective buffer adjacent neighbors and uses is also predicated on the efficacy of the noise ordinance and/or noise mitigations required by the county and provided by the developer for the combined impacts of the building, cooling systems and generators. In order the achieve the property line measurement under “noise impacts,” buffers may have to be expanded and
natural barriers, such as mature trees planted.

It was shocking to learn that a new substation for the Plaza 500 by right data centers, currently under review by the county, is proposed a very short distance of 80 feet from residential townhomes. While the state plays a large role in approving substations, localities must have protections in place so that major energy infrastructure is far from
homes, schools, hospitals and other public spaces. There is no way such placement could “minimize adverse visual impacts” as well. On the other side of this proposed development, transmission lines are planned to be constructed in the Resource 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 5/12 483 of 637
Protection Area of Turkeycock Run. In this current situation, a small buffer of 200 feet would be wholly inadequate to protect adjacent properties. We suggest that additional protective language be included in this ZOA to avoid these situations.

Distance from Metro:

Data Centers should be sited at least 1 mile from TSAs and major transit hubs such as Metro stations. Siting Data centers within walking di
stance of 15-20 minutes of transit
undermines the County’s smart growth goals to populate residential, employment centers and mixed-use residential near transit. Data Centers employ few people and if near transit, take up valuable space, reducing the utility of critical county transit infrastructure. Current data centers near the Reston Town Center and Loudoun Station Metros are example
s of this. For the same reason, even under an SE, at least a 1-mile standard should be in force. Further, the SE process would allow the county to ensure that data centers are not sited in industrial zones a mile or more from major transit near incompatible development. For instance, the Mosaic District is a mile or more from the Dunn Loring Metro and there are similar areas nea
r the Springfield Metro where
existing industrial areas or commercial areas that would qualify for larger data center development by repositioning under this proposed ZOA would be incompatible with other uses
6 https:/ /www.deq.virginia.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/971/17

Page 4 ends

and/or would reduce the potential to build for transit use. So, instead of a (5) “lesser” distance, a holistic look at a transit area might call for a greater distance.

Zoning Districts:

We support the option to remove permission for data centers in the PRC District. This use seems incompatible with the PRC focus on green open space.

Use-Specific Standards addressed in the Study, but not in the draft ZOA Several significant issues wer
e addressed in the January 9, 2024 Data Center Study
that are excluded from the draft ZOA language. Deferring the implementation of use- specific standards contributes risk to the power grid, increases in carbon emissions, 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 6/12 484 of 637
depletion of local water resources and public health. The county should be prepared now to address the emerging and more intense resource demands and environmental impacts of any proposed development. There should be a pause in approvals of the data center use until the following critical issues are adequately addressed.

Diesel Generator Impacts:

We ask that you avoid the use of
unhealthy diesel fuel or natural gas for back-up
generators. Alternatively, we ask that you require on-site microgrids for back up for each building with solar and battery storage. We recommend that if diesel is allowed, a requirement be established for Tier IV generators or the best available/highest standard technology that is the least pollu
ting. These generators should be treated as
having the potential to be used as power plants (see above), so their cumulative effects to public health should be well understood.

One Fairfax/Equity Protections
We urge the county to protect vulnerable populations under One Fairfax from health and pollution harms. Has DPD or other agencies conducted a formal analysis of the potential impact on neighborhoods likely to see data center development? Low-income a
reas which already suffer or may suffer from neighborhood conditions that challenge public health should be protected from the polluting effects of data centers and not located near them. Such protections should be integrated into this ZOA.

Energy Impacts:

We must require state-of-the-art building and cooling efficiency to address the massive energy demand associated with this use. Given the extent of potential use for the purpo
se, Fairfax County data centers should be at least in the top 10% nationwide for efficiency and water use. As mentioned in the Study, a Power Utilization Standard (PUE) performance metric should be required to promote energy efficiency. We suggest a PUE of 1.12 or less with a method of third-party certification be required under a Special Exception.

It is our understanding that LEE
D-silver does not ensure that the building will deliver the needed level of energy efficiency. LEED-DC Gold or stronger certification with ASHRAE 90.4 is needed. All buildings must be constructed and operated using best practices or better in the industry with respect to building construction, noise attenuation, and cooling technologies. We suggest that third party certification be 9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 7/12 485 of 637
required of the building’s design and construction according to the standards which are utilized. We ask that you benchmark renewable and total energy use for data center reporting requirements and make the information public. We recommend the following best practices language for energy efficiency in any data center application:

Best Practices for Energy Efficiency: All buildings on the Property must be constructed and operated using best practices or better in the industry with respect to building construction, noise attenuation, and cooling technologies. All data center buildings must be constructed to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) “Gold” standards for Building Design and

Page 5 ends

Construction, achieving at least 16 of the 18 points available in the Optimize Energy Performance section of the Energy and Atmosphere category or a recognized industry equivalent such as EnergyStar certification, with a certification score of at least 90 points. Prior to the issuance of the permanent certificate of occupancy for such building, a licensed engineer or architect must provide the Planning Department with certification that such building was
constructed according to the standards specified under LEED Gold or EnergyStar certification at the 90-point scoring level. Any other recognized building industry equivalent that may be used for the building design and construction must produce equal or better energy efficiency performance than the two standards mentioned above. The operation and maintenance of all data center buildings must be consistent
with generally recognized industry energy efficiency standards and guidelines for data centers (i.e. ASHRAE Standard 90.4), to the maximum extent possible.

Carbon Costs:

Data Centers are a climate issue. Strong proffers could also reduce future climate mitigation costs resulting from emissions associated with data centers. Projects of this magnitude should require thorou
gh impact analyses of its impact on the county's
carbon footprint. Since we know that emissions increases are associated with the data center use, and it will increasingly depend on going “back to coal” to meet energy demand, what will the county do to ensure that its carbon emissions do not increase if new and data centers come online?
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 8/12 486 of 637
Water Impacts:

It is imperative to have a solid understanding of the water quantity needed for operation of the centers, as well as water quality issues presented. When data centers are serviced by public water sources, the public should have an understanding of water demand and quality impact.

Jurisdictions servicing data centers with AI applications have seen huge increases in
water consumption. This is an emerging area of concern and discussion by the industry and in many local communities. Based on limitations of air cooling for AI applications and what might have been an industry standard in the past, the use of liquid cooling is increasing by necess
ity.7 The experience of Des Moines, Iowa gives us a peek into water usage8 and the additional strain that can be placed on the region’s drinking water supply.

Therefore, water impact studies should be performed before any approvals and the data should be made publicly available sufficiently in advance to allow for public consideration and comment; water pollution prevention measures should protect soils and capture chemical residue; outflows should protect fr om residue such as bromine
and salt; a significant percentage of water should be recycled or reclaimed and should neither deplete nor imperil surface or groundwater sources needed for drinking water; and drinking water for residents should be designated as a priority use during drought con
ditions.

Transportation Impacts:

The traffic analysis and plan should take into consideration the impact on transportation and imperative of safe delivery of diesel fuel and that the time of delivery should not impact nearby neighborhoods.
7 https:/ /www.datacenterknowledge.com/industry-perspectives/data-center-liquid- cooling-moving-niche- mainstream#close-modal
8 https:/ /apnews.com/article/chatgpt-gpt4-iowa-ai-water-consumption-microsoft- f551fde98083d17a7e8d904f8be822c4

Page 6 ends

Conclusion
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 9/12 487 of 637
Last year (2023) was the hottest year in 170 years of record keeping, even exceeding scientists' predictions. The fact that climate change is an existential threat to all of us requiring swift action of every level of government has been repeated so often that scientists sound like a broken record. And yet, this is an existential issue and so their warnings must be heeded.

The land use regulatory power at the local level is foundational to ensuring data center developers are held accountable for short and long-term impacts and therefore are pr
otecting ratepayers and Fairfax County residents from the long-term costs for carbon mitigation, and the impacts on air quality, and energy and water bills.

As always, we are happy to discuss these recommendations at any time.

Thanks,
Ann Bennett
Land Use Chair, Sierra Club Great Falls Group Virginia Chapter Data Center Issues Chair
Susan Bonney
Chair, Sierra Club Great Falls Group
CC: John Morrill OEEC, Rachel Flynn, DCE
Carmen Bishop, DZA Katherine Hermann, DPD

9 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/20/upshot/carbon-dioxide- growth.html

Sign Up for Email Updates from the Great Falls Group.
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 10/12 488 of 637
first name
last name
email
zip
By signing up, you are opting in to receive periodic communications from the Sierra Club.

Sierra Club News
Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells Are a Huge Source of Greenhouse Gases (/sierra/2024-3- fall/notes-here-there/orphaned-oil-and-gas-wells-are-huge-source-greenhouse-gases) This company is racing to fix Pennsyvania's leaking wells Meet the Mainers at the Bleeding Edge of the Home Electrification Revolution (/sierra/2024- 3-fall/notes-here-there/meet-mainers-bleeding-edge-home-electrification-revolution) Progressive state incentives, plus the IRA, allow Maine to install heat pumps faster than any other state
Electrify Your Wheels: Check Out the New Range of E-Bikes (/sierra/2024-3-
fall/feature/electrify-your-wheels-check-out-new-range-e-bikes) What kind of cyclist are you?
Electrify Your Wheels: Here Are the Latest EVs for Bargain Hunters (/sierra/2024-3- fall/feature/electrify-your-wheels-here-are-latest-evs-bargain-hunters) There are more affordable EVs than ever before
How to Navigate the Clean Energy Transition (/sierra/2024-3-fall/feature/how-navigate- clean-energy-transition)
Some tips for electrifying your home and transportation More Sierra Club news (/articles)
Sign Up
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 11/12 489 of 637
9/18/24, 8:04 AM Recommendations for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Data Center Impacts in Fairfax County | Sierra Club https://www.sierraclub.org/virginia/great-falls/recommendations-proposed-zoning-ordinance-amendment-data-center-impacts 12/12 490 of 637
Staff Report
November 6, 2024
ATTACHMENT 5
Notice of Determination

491 of 637
Notice of Exemption From: City of Monterey Park Planning 320 W. Newmark Avenue
To: Monterey Park, CA 91754
x Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
 Los Angeles, County Clerk
Environmental Filings
12400 Imperial Highway #1201
Norwalk, CA 90650
Attn: Business Filings and Registration

Project Title: Data Center Regulations
Project Location - Specific: Citywide
Project Location - City: Monterey Park
Project Location - County: Los Angeles

Description of Project:

Adopt regulations governing data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with Section 3(A) of Ordinance No. 2198 (adopted by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020).

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Monterey Park Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Monterey Park

Exempt Status: (check one)
 Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
 Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
 Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3)  Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:

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”), the City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations. No additional environmental review is required for these regulations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). The se regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review because the regulations would amend existing zoning to govern data centers within Saturn Park in accordance with the voter enacted Land Use Element. This will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not make physical changes to the environment. Additionally, the regulations are exempt from additional CEQA review under the commonsense exemption that it will not affect the environment. Any future data center project applications will require separate environmental review as required by applicable law.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Jessica Serrano Telephone (626) 307-1463

If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?  Yes  No

Signature: _________________________________ Date: 11/6/24 Title: Director of Community Development

 Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
 Signed by Applicant
492 of 637
City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: New Business - 5A
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance setting speed limits based upon certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey for speed limits effective through October 2031 and the 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey of 26 Locations for speed limits through October 2038
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing and waiving first reading for an Ordinance setting speed limits throughout the City; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

This Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because it consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing code of speed control regulations established in accordance with California law and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. This Ordinance, therefore, is an action being taken for enhanced protection of the environment and that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. Consequently, it is categorically exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301 as a minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving no expansion of use; 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land use or density; and 15308 as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by California law to assure maintenance or protection of the environment.

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

The Public Works Director presented a draft engineering and traffic survey evaluating safe and reasonable speed limits 26 segments citywide, including its recommendations, to the Traffic Commission on October 17, 2024. The Traffic Commission was informed that the item would be presented to the City Council for consideration, and it did not express any questions or concerns.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
493 of 637
Staff Report

Page 2 of 7 ends

November 6, 2024
The City’s consultant, Transtech Engineers, Inc., assessed and certified 45 segments listed in the City’s 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey and determined that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred on these segments, (see Attachment 2) including, without limitation, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, and therefore the posted speed limits are valid for 14 years from the adopted date of the survey effective between October 2017 through October 2031.

Twenty-six of the original 73 segments from the 2017 City-wide speed survey were separately reviewed and a new Engineering and Traffic Survey (“ETS”) was completed for these segments.

Transtech Engineers completed the ETS pursuant to California law including, without limitation, Vehicle Code § 627, for the purpose of establishing safe and reasonable speed limits. These may be enforced using radar at pre-determined locations . The ETS recommends reducing the speed limit on the following 14 of the 26 segments included in the ETS:
• Alhambra Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Atlantic Boulevard between Harding Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Atlantic Boulevard between El Repetto Drive and Floral Drive • Avenida Cesar Chavez between West City Limit and Atlantic Boulevard • Floral Drive between Monterey Pass Road and Atlantic Boulevard • Garfield Avenue between Graves Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Garfield Avenue between El Repetto Drive and Riggin Street • Orange Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Orange Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Orange Avenue between Graves Avenue and Metro Drive
• Orange Avenue between Metro Drive and Saturn Street
• Pomona Boulevard between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue • Pomona Boulevard between Garfield Avenue and Markland Drive • Potrero Grande Drive between Markland Drive and Arroyo Drive Accordingly, the Public Works Director (“Director”) recommends that the City Council consider introducing and waiving first reading of the attached Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

On November 1, 2017 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2144, approving the 2017 Traffic Speed Zone Survey for 73 segments within the City. On September 4, 2024 the City adopted Ordinance No. 2248 establishing speed limits for 2 of the 73 segments along Hellman Ave. As part of the evaluation of the Citywide speed limits, Transtech evaluated 45 segments of the City’s 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey and determined that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred on these segments , indicated on the following list, including but not limited to changes in adjoining property or 494 of 637
Staff Report

Page 3 of 7 ends

November 6, 2024
land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, and therefore the posted speed limits are valid between October 2017 through October 2031.

The following table lists the 45 segments recertified:

Table 1: City of Monterey Park 14-Year Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits
2017 Adopted Speed Limits are Effective until October of 2031 ID Primary Location Limits Street
Classification
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Abajo Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Drive Local 25
2 Ackley Street Fulton Avenue Orange Avenue Collector 25 3 Ackley Street Orange Avenue Arroyo Drive Secondary 25 4 Brightwood Street Crest Vista Drive Atlantic Boulevard Local 25 5 Cadiz Street/Crest
Vista Drive Ridgecrest Street Atlantic Boulevard Collector 25 6 Casuda Canyon Drive Garvey Avenue Alzado Street Collector 25 7 Casuda Canyon Drive Alzado Street Corporate Center
Drive
Collector 30
8 Coral View Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Collector 25 9 Corporate Center
Drive
Ramona Boulevard Casuda Canyon
Drive
Secondary 40
10 Corporate Center
Drive
Casuda Canyon
Drive
Floral Drive Secondary 40
11 Crest Vista Drive Ridgcrest Street Floral Drive Collector 25 12 El Repetto Drive Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 25 13 Emerson Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Secondary 25 14 Emerson Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 25 15 Findlay Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 25 16 First Street West City Limit Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35 17 Fulton Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local/Collector 25 18 Fulton Avenue Coral View Street Floral Drive Collector 30 19 Fulton Avenue Floral Drive Pomona Boulevard Collector 25 20 Grandridge Avenue Garfield Avenue El Repetto Drive Local 25 21 Graves Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 22 Harding Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Ramona Avenue Secondary 25 23 Hillside Street Ridge Crest Street Floral Drive Local 25 24 Kempton Avenue Lincoln Avenue Fulton Avenue (s) Local 25 25 Markland Drive Riggin Street Potrero Grande Local/Collector 25 495 of 637
Staff Report

Page 4 of 7 ends

November 6, 2024
Drive
26 McPherrin Avenue Garvey Avenue Harding Avenue Local 25 27 Monterey Pass Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Road Secondary 40 28 Monterey Pass Road Vagabond Road Floral Drive Secondary 40 29 New Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Principal Arterial 35 30 New Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Secondary 35
31 Newmark Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 30 32 Newmark Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Collector 30 33 Ramona Avenue Garvey Avenue Garfield Avenue Collector 25 34 Ramona Boulevard West City Limits North City Limits Secondary 35 35 Ridgcrest Street Hillside Street Floral Avenue Local 25 36 Riggin Street Atlantic Boulevard Findlay Avenue Secondary 35 37 Riggin Street Findlay Avenue Garfield Avenue Secondary 35 38 Riggin Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Secondary/Loc al
30 39 Saturn Street Atlas Avenue Potrero Grande
Drive
Secondary 40
40 Verde Vista Drive Casuda Canyon
Drive
Abajo Drive Local 25
41 Wilcox Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local 25 42 Wilcox Avenue Coral View Street Riggin Street Local/Secondar y
25 43 Wilcox Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 35 44 Ynez Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Collector 30 45 Ynez Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Local 25
Twenty-six segments were separately studied. Out of those, 14 segments are proposed to be changed as shown in Table 2 below.

When a speed limit is to be posted, it is established to the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed limit of free-flowing traffic. Allowed exceptions are:
• Option 1: A 5 MPH Reduction in 85th% speed by 5 MPH for Rounding Down to Nearest Posted Limit if no further reduction is used.
• Option 2: A 5 MPH from the 85th% speed due to road conditions, high concentration of pedestrian and bicyclist, senior center and land use. • Option 3: A 5 MPH lower than 85th% speed based on a higher-than -expected collision rate, land use and roadway conditions.

These options were considered as part of the Engineering and Traffic Survey performed. 496 of 637
Staff Report

Page 5 of 7 ends

Monterey Park City CouncilNovember 6, 2024

Monterey Park City Council
November 6, 2024