Data center at 1977 Saturn Avenue

The developer's community engagement liaison introduced herself, promised a website, email contact, and community meetings, and said the team wants open dialogue.

A nearby resident of unincorporated East LA called the project an environmental, public-health, and ethical problem and urged the council to protect families.

A District 2 resident demanded a ban on data centers near homes, criticized the city's failure to notify residents, and raised blackout, water-pressure, and noise concerns.

A data center worker said the facilities create few local jobs and little community investment, and said he'd rather see a Trader Joe's or public space.

A college professor urged the council to move forward with the full EIR, noting how heavily the community relies on data centers.

He supported the moratorium and the developer's voluntary EIR, arguing the facility is air-cooled, pays its own infrastructure costs, and would bring needed tax revenue.

A District 3 resident said a mitigated negative declaration is insufficient and insisted on a full EIR for public review.

A District 3 resident and Amazon Teamsters member accused the project's backers of union-busting-style misinformation tactics and opposed the data center.

A District 5 parent living 500 feet from the site, with three kids at Hillcrest Elementary, urged rejection of the project and a maximalist, independent EIR.

A very close neighbor said residents were misled, described bone-penetrating low-frequency vibration, and led the audience in standing for housing over a data center.

A PSL organizer called the project implicit violence against a community of color and urged the council to side with people over billionaires.

An attorney resident asked the council to have the city — not the applicant — hire an independent CEQA consultant for the EIR, to strike a conflicting sentence from the moratorium ordinance, and to post applicant correspondence online.

She said she feels betrayed after trying to engage through the Spark process, questioned the council's vision, and warned of an obsolete 'empty hulk' in five years.

Co-founder of 'No Data Center in Monterey Park,' he reported a petition surging past 3,300 signatures and asked for clarity on the regulations referenced in the moratorium ordinance.

He lives on the street behind the site and asked why industrial-scale projects keep being proposed next to suburban homes, recalling the rejected hospital/heliport proposal.

A Climate Action Campaign fellow urged a yes vote on the moratorium, citing doubled energy use, polluting generators, and rising bills, and said Council Member Wong should recuse himself as a SoCal Edison employee.

A District 3 union member (AGVA and Local 33) said no private institution should harm a residential area for profit, despite the short-term construction boom.

Representing the San Gabriel Valley Progressive Alliance, she demanded a permanent ban rather than 45 days and warned the group will return at every hearing.

A second-generation homeowner said he needs to know how the city will fund parks, streets, police, and fire, and discouraged a moratorium before understanding the project.

A lifelong District 5 resident with family present said the community opposes the project and wants Monterey Park kept beautiful.

A District 5 homeowner said the project targets Monterey Park for its demographics, called the Spark process unrepresentative, and demanded a full stop to data centers.

A third-generation resident and triathlete who trains on streets near the site urged the council to reject the project and think of their grandchildren's legacy.

A public health researcher cited figures linking the project's CO2 to 19 premature deaths and $22 million in societal costs, and asked for community-vetted EIR contractors and a full health impact assessment.

A 30-year District 2 resident at her first council meeting declared a hard no on the data center and praised the informed young speakers.

A 25-year resident who raised five children here questioned the developer's revenue and jobs claims and told the story of a 94-year-old neighbor who couldn't afford to keep her lights on.

He spoke for friends and neighbors who couldn't attend, asking the council to keep thinking about the community after the meeting ends.

Born and raised in Monterey Park, she said she learned of the project only the night before and asked pointedly whether residents' lives matter to the council.

A UCLA environmental science graduate raised fire-and-water fears, explained the two-loop cooling system, and called for a ban on data centers.

Speaking with her grandmother, a 61-year District 2 resident and cancer caregiver, she cited research on data centers' water, energy, and health impacts and urged the council to align with the community.

A UA Local 398 plumbers and steamfitters rep supported the moratorium and EIR, but defended the closed-loop cooling system and the developer's skilled-and-trained, local-hire commitments.

A 20-year resident and Teresa's neighbor said she'd been 'misinformed' — she thought there were 14 diesel generators, not 24 — and vowed to work against any council member who approves it.

He asked that the community oversee the EIR process, that a health impact assessment be commissioned, and said the City Manager and Community Development Director should be removed from the process.

The owner of a 30-year mom-and-pop restaurant worried about elderly Vietnamese-speaking customers being left in the dark and asked whether the council serves residents or money.

A lifelong District 4 resident asked for an indefinite moratorium and to feel represented.

A utilities engineer and climate volunteer urged a yes vote on the moratorium and a complete ban, citing energy, water, air-quality, and job impacts.

A lifelong resident, teacher, and UTLA organizer said the land should address affordable housing and that all are watching whether the council stands with people or corporations.

He supported the moratorium and suggested extending it far beyond 45 days, citing that night's homeless count and the need for affordable housing.

A lifelong District 1 resident from a working-class immigrant family described her aunts' asthma, heat, and power-outage vulnerabilities and asked for a yes vote and a ban.

A District 1 resident who addressed Council Member Wong directly called data centers industrial extraction, not community development, and urged the council to draw a line.

He said the health costs outweigh any gains, the project creates no long-term jobs, and warned 'come November, we will eject you' if the council doesn't reject it.

She said the city re-zoned her Vega Road lot from residential to commercial without notice because of the data center, derailing her nearly finished home project at a cost of $100,000 to fix.

A resident with elderly parents and young sisters who learned of the project two weeks ago opposed data centers 'now or ever, with or without an EIR.'

A District 3 attorney living within half a mile urged a yes vote on the 45-day moratorium and said the council could place a permanent ban on the next agenda or put it to the voters.

A 35-year resident who worked at both Saturn Street buildings used the applicant's own MND numbers to argue the CO2 impact is physically impossible to mitigate, and urged the council to listen.

Speaking for a workers' organization, he supported the project because it creates union construction career pathways for at-risk youth and people seeking second chances.

A former resident one mile from the zone described family cancer diagnoses and layered pollution burdens, urging the council not to create an 'industrial hellscape.'

A District resident supporting the moratorium called a full EIR the bare minimum and asked Council Member Sanchez specifically for his opposition to the project.

A 35-year resident and first-time speaker who researched data centers online questioned the 250,000-square-foot size and asked why Monterey Park was chosen over wealthier neighbors.

A nurse who shifted topics to ICE enforcement in the community, criticizing wealth inequality and tying the data center to benefits for the ultra-wealthy.

A longtime District 1 resident cited journalism on data centers' water and electricity harms and deferred her remaining time to other speakers.

She opposed the data center for her family and friends in the area, warned the moratorium won't dispel public outrage, and demanded a complete ban.

A longtime District 3 resident cited the city's own water restrictions and usage figures to argue a hyperscale data center's one-to-five-million gallons per day is incompatible with the community.