Data center ballot measure

A 20-year resident against the data center who asked what the council's next steps are for a complete ban.

Called for a permanent citywide ban and spoke against AI's forced integration into daily life and its erosion of critical thinking.

A 30-year resident, she conditionally supports the ballot measure but demands the city close two loopholes and pass an immediate ordinance ban, saying she's fighting for her granddaughters' clean air and water.

Argued the city has ample legal basis to pass a zoning ordinance banning data centers now, and flagged loopholes in the ballot language — the under-one-acre exemption and the land-use-element-only amendment.

A 45-year resident who detailed the project's carbon footprint, electricity cost impacts and noise issues, and urged union members to side with neighbors over the developer.

Performed a satirical routine mocking HMC StratCap's community engagement, then urged the council to do both a moratorium and a ballot measure.

Called the moratorium a band-aid and pressed the council to pass a citywide ordinance now, noting the project has been in the works for two years with little public outreach.

A South San Gabriel resident who questioned what the data center would actually be used for and urged Monterey Park to set a precedent by banning data centers.

An East LA resident who framed the issue as environmental and class injustice, warning about air quality basin-wide and AI's impact on workers.

HMC StratCap representative who said the company prefers not to litigate and wants to work with the city on an alternative land-use plan for Saturn Park; asked the council to postpone the ballot measure.

Attorney for the applicant who submitted a letter warning of legal risks in the moratorium and ballot items and urged the city to work with the applicant instead.

Criticized the developer's town hall, saying the pocket park talking point and diesel generator comparisons fell flat, and conditionally supported the ballot measure.

A 50-plus-year resident who called the project the most destructive proposal she's heard and said she'd consider moving if it's built.

A communications professional and business owner who offered pro bono services to the city and said the developer's outreach was not real community engagement.

A planning professional who said a data center is an industrial use that doesn't belong near residences and urged the council to deny the project outright.

A student who compared the data center's economics to a McDonald's — more jobs, faster to build, more taxable output, a fraction of the energy use.

Spoke for union workers, saying data centers provide good union jobs and warning that labor will mobilize to defeat the ballot measure if it goes forward.

Said residents deserved transparency and that the council knew about the project long before residents did; asked for an ordinance to stop it.

A 25-year resident who's tired of fighting her own government; supports the ballot with loopholes closed and an ordinance adopted.

A Cal State Fullerton professor and union member who compared the developer's tactics to colonial exploitation and asked for a three-prong approach: moratorium, ballot, ordinance.

A 74-year-old retired teacher and four-generation resident who felt betrayed by learning of the project through social media, and said the fight is against corporations, not union workers.

Said HMC acted in bad faith from the start and urged the council to close the ballot loopholes and pass a permanent ban ordinance.

A resident and mental health advocate who urged the council to pass an ordinance, close loopholes, and ignore what he called frivolous litigation threats.

Co-founder of No Data Center MPK who laid out the 'belt and suspenders' strategy — ordinance now, ballot in June — and identified the two loopholes in the ballot language.

Co-founder of No Data Center MPK who systematically rebutted the council's stated reasons for avoiding an ordinance, saying the group's attorney found none of them accurate.

An El Monte resident facing a data center proposal near his mother's business who warned about electricity use and health impacts.

A lifelong resident speaking for those who can't vote, supporting the ballot only if loopholes on size, exemption and definition are removed with an explicit implementation timeline.

A resident whose family has been here since 1966; asked for a citywide ordinance and direct ballot language amending the municipal code by section number.

Detailed the project's pollution, seismic and fiscal concerns, and called it undemocratic for 19 SPARC participants to decide the future for 66,000 residents.

A 31-year District 5 resident who did the math: he estimates a 10% property value drop for homes near the site would cost homeowners $135 million collectively — far more than the promised revenue.

Supported the June ballot but pushed for closing the under-one-acre loophole, a one-month implementation timeline, and an ordinance now.

Representing Food and Water Watch, delivered a letter from 20 California climate organizations urging rejection of the project and a permanent ban.

An animation guild member who's seen AI devastate her industry's job market; urged the council to pass an ordinance banning data centers.

A San Gabriel resident who said the issue affects the whole San Gabriel Valley and criticized the applicant's litigation threats.

A resident since the late '70s who attended the developer's town hall and found key environmental and utility questions went unanswered.

A fifth-generation resident who invoked the city's founding fight against a sewage plant and the OII superfund site as reasons not to repeat past land-use mistakes.

A District 5 resident who said the developer will never genuinely engage and pressed the council to explain why it won't pass an ordinance.

An Alhambra resident who said the data center fight is regional, citing nearby environmental disasters, and urged a full citywide ban.

A college student at his first council meeting who asked the council to listen to residents worried about their future.

Questioned how the developer claims community support when only 19 people backed the project at SPARC while hundreds oppose it now.

A film industry graphic designer who lost work to AI; supports an ordinance banning data centers, citing water use during drought and fire risk.

An LA resident and educator who reminded the council that neighboring communities will breathe the same air and feel the impacts.

A 30-year resident who canvassed elderly neighbors — many of whom had no idea what a data center was — and demanded the June ballot with loopholes closed.

Learned of the project only last week through neighbors; praised resident passion and urged the council to be courageous and not back down to money or power.

A UNITE HERE Local 11 member who accused the developer of weaponizing union members against residents and praised the council's engagement.

A resident since 1966 who urged the council to read the attorney's letter and set a precedent against data centers.

Said the developer's town halls were dismissive and uninformative and questioned whether HMC has honestly addressed residents' risks.

Explained how AI language models actually work and argued the technology is oversold, so the city shouldn't sacrifice its environment for it.

A 30-year resident who returned to urge yes on the ballot and the moratorium, and ideally a permanent ban.

Spoke in support of all three data center items, raising privacy and data-broker concerns about what gets stored in data centers.

A fifth-generation resident worried about industrial heat, battery backup and Edison power impacts across the San Gabriel Valley.

A District 2 resident from Memphis who saw data center harms firsthand and asked the council whom they serve — residents or corporations.

A District 5 resident who cited health research on noise exposure, said HMC refused to answer questions about the 1980 Saturn property, and demanded an ordinance before supporting the ballot.

An Australian-born resident who accused HMC of recruiting union members for volunteer hours to fill seats, and asked for yes votes on the moratorium, ballot and ordinance.

Questioned the developer's safety claims and said the SPARC meetings didn't represent what the community wants.