Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, can you hear me?

Can you hear me now?

Test, test, test. Test.

There we go.

Welcome everybody to the Planning Commission meeting for June 17th, 2025. I'm gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order.

Can I get help with the roll call, please?

Of course. Chair, I'm sorry. Commissioner Lopez?

Present.

Commissioner Cuevas?

Present.

Commissioner Morales? Present. Vice Chair Lomeli?

Present. And Chairperson Medina?

Present.

And we do have a quorum for tonight's meeting. Anybody to proceed?

The next item is really the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA?

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THERE ARE NO CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

Thank you so much. Next item would be the public comments. Can I get help reading the statement?

Yes, Mr. Chair. At this time, the public may address the planning commission on any items listed on the agenda, including non-agenda items that are within the planning commission subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the planning commission from acting or entertaining extended discussion on a topic not listed on the agenda for tonight's meeting. Please show courtesy to others while providing public comments and direct all comments to the chairperson. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comments? There are no public comments at this time, but we may have some for the items.

Okay, we can always do it on those items. In that case, we'll move on to the next item, which is the staff communications.

Mr. Chair, if I may, on staff communications, I would just like to acknowledge the planning team for receiving the 2025 Planning Excellence Award from the American Planning Association, Los Angeles section. It's a huge honor. And it's a great acknowledgement to the team, including our consultant team that helped us. They've acknowledged our general plan, the bicycle master plan, as well as the downtown specific plan. And we did get the award of excellence on all plans. So we will be receiving that next week at an awards gala. So we're excited. The city of Montebello should be excited as well.

Thank you. Congratulations. It's been a long time coming.

Absolutely.

Thank you for that. So I'm going to move on to our next item, which is the approval of minutes for the planning meeting held on May 6th, 2025. Can I get a motion?

I'll proceed to making a motion to approve the minutes from planning commission meeting held on May 6th of 2025.

Thank you so much, Commissioner LaMeli. Can I get a second, please?

I second.

Thank you so much. Roll call.

Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Commissioner Cuevas?

I will abstain since I was not here.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Lomeli? Aye. Chairperson Medina?

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you so much. And having no other items, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing.

Yes, Chair and members of the Commission. Item 2 on tonight's agenda pertains to a proposed conditional use permit to allow a massage establishment for the property located at 492 North Garfield Avenue. Grace Hayashi will present this item tonight.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission, and the public. The item before you is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a new massage establishment located within an existing multi-unit mixed-use building located at 492 North Garfield Avenue, submitted by Thomas Chu on behalf of Da Guang Sun. Per the Montebello Municipal Code chapter 1770, conditional use permit section 177030 when required, a conditional use permit is required but not limited to private concerns occupying or using city-owned property in any zone when the occupancy or use would otherwise require a conditional use permit. Appendix A, index of permitted uses within the Montebello Municipal Code, lists massage establishments only permissible through the CUP process in the C2 general commercial zone. As shown in the aerial before you, shown by the yellow star is the project site. The total lot area of the property is 10,090 square feet. The property is a C2 general commercial zone property and is designated neighborhood under the land use element of the general plan. The existing property is currently developed with a mixed use building containing four commercial units, each with two assigned parking spaces. Additionally, a residential dwelling unit is located on the second floor, along with a two-car garage, which is considered legal non-conforming. An exemption from the Montebello Municipal Code's minimum parking requirements for commercial uses is available pursuant to ordinance number 2377, which is available in attachment D of the staff report. The property currently consists of one legal non-conforming residential unit, three office spaces and one vacant commercial unit for the proposed massage establishment. The immediate surrounding land uses are compatible with the conditional use permit. It's not anticipated that this specific proposal will have an adverse impact on adjacent or abutting properties. This proposed massage establishment is within an already developed commercial building and it is just for the use for this proposal. The zoning map further illustrates that to the north of the subject property is a C2 zoned property. To the south, east, and west of the subject property are R1 commercially zoned, residentially zoned properties. The slide before you is the site plan of the property at 492 North Garfield Avenue. As previously mentioned, the project site is currently developed with a mixed-use building containing four commercial units with two assigned parking spaces each, totaling eight parking spots. The four commercial units consist of office or retail use, all consistent with allowable commercial uses. Additionally, a residential dwelling unit is located on the second floor with the two-car garage, which is considered legal non-conforming, meaning they can't make any modifications or add an additional residential unit. The slide before you is the proposed floor plan. The proposed massage establishment will occupy an existing 958 square foot commercial unit. The proposed massage establishment will operate by appointment only Monday through Sunday. And the proposed floor plan will include four private massage rooms, a waiting room, a laundry room, and a restroom that will all comply with any applicable standards within the Montebello Municipal Code and the building code subject to approval through the administrative plan check review process. The main entrance to the establishment will be located on North Garfield Avenue, and there will be an exit to the rear alley off of West Via Corona. There will be onsite parking available at the rear of the property, which will be the eight parking spots, and there is also additional street parking off of West Via Corona. PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 2377 THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND AT THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS APPROVED FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ALONG WITH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SITE BY RIGHT. It also exempts the site from Montebello Municipal Code minimum parking requirements. And pursuant to Chapter 5.48 of the Montebello Municipal Code, Massage Parlors, the applicant submitted additional information, including a live scan background check and an active copy of the State of California Massage Therapist Certification, which was required through the police department. During the administrative plan check review process, the Police of Chief will conduct further investigation. As part of the business license process, there will be an inspection conducted by all required departments to verify that this proposed massage establishment complies with all applicable provisions of the Montebello Municipal Code. Prior to employing any person who will be directly engaged in the massage parlor operation, they are required to file an information form relating to such proposed employee to the police department. Pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code Chapter 5.48, Section 5.4830, additional information required, the applicant and the chief of police were in communication for further investigation and certification requirements. There are conditions within the resolution ensuring that proper safety measures will be taken and the police department will be scheduling an inspection prior to business license issuance. Any police officer, code enforcement officer, fire inspector, or the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health are subject to inspect the premise at any given time. Case number PC-2025-0004-CUP is considered a project per the CEQA definition of a project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301. The project is considered covered by existing facilities, a Class 1 categorical exemption. On June 5th, the public hearing notice was mailed to owners within a 300-foot radius from the exterior boundaries of the subject site. And on that same day, the public hearing notice was published in the daily journal, Wager Daily News. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 07-25, approving the conditional use permit with conditions for the establishment of a new massage business located within an existing multi-unit mixed-use building at 492 North Garfield Avenue, and to determine and find that the project is exempt from the CEQA guidelines related to Class 1 existing facilities. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Both myself and the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you for that. Do we have any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Okay. I do have a quick question. I'm wondering if we can go back to the image where it shows the zoning around the property?

Yes.

So what we see in, looks yellow to me, what we see in yellow, that would be R1 zoning?

Correct.

But that includes the park that's there, right? Yes.

Then I believe the updated general plan, it is RA, meaning more parks, but it is still like a residential zoned property.

And the 300-foot radius includes all the areas that we see on the image on the screen?

Yes, correct.

Okay. And we did not receive any feedback from any of those?

We did not.

Thank you. And just to clarify, the conditional use is for the use of, as a massage establishment. It's not reducing parking or anything like that?

Correct, yes. Within the Montebello Municipal Code, under the index of primary uses, massage establishments is required to go through the CUP process for the use.

Gotcha, thank you so much. Do we have any more questions for staff? BECAUSE CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? YEAH. THEY'RE OPEN TO IT?

YEAH.

HELLO. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SO I CAN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

DO YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS THOMAS LASTING CHU. So I take it you have a lot of experience running these type of facilities, Thomas?

I'm helping them, but the owner has a couple other ones, and I'm kind of specialized in helping people applying massage establishment license through CUP. I work with LA for at least seven years now, so.

I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR EXACTLY. WHAT WERE THE HOURS OF OPERATION? APPOINTMENT ONLY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

TENDER TO PLEA IS 930 TO 9 O'CLOCK. 7 DAYS A WEEK.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant, Commissioner? Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may. Go ahead. Thank you. You represent the owner of the business. Are you aware of how many other businesses your client also has in the surrounding cities that are similar to this establishment?

I think he's running one more. He has one more. He just wanted to expand. Okay. In which city?

Not in our city.

West Covina.

West Covina? Yeah. Okay. So he has, this would be his second one. Yeah. Okay. So he has some prior experience coming into this business. Yes, he does. Thank you.

Any more questions, commissioners?

I have a comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Were you going to say something? No. Thank you. I think, Mr. Chair, you did ask about the surrounding area being R1 zone, but I think the two areas that are adjoining that are not commercial are maybe residential, but I think their park area there, there's no developed single family dwellings or any kind of residential in those two spaces adjoining or across the street on the, on the West side of the property across the street. I think there's a real estate office, right? And then an alley and then residential. Okay.

Just to clarify for the record.

Thank you.

And actually just to clarify as well, did no feedback from the tenant upstairs? Any more questions to the applicant or comments? Commissioner LaMeli, I think, no? Okay. Sounds good. Lost my train of thought.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I think you asked about the hours of operation, but I think the hours of operation are slightly different than what were stated by the owner's rep. I think the regular hours are from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and weekends and holidays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Oh, I'm sorry.

Can I clarify that? I believe is on the resolution and that is the allowable hours for construction.

So can we clarify the hours of operation then? I think I missed those.

Yes, should be in the resolution.

And just to follow up on that for staff, is that consistent with other established similar establishments?

Yes, I believe for any businesses within Montebello, we don't necessarily have required hours of operation unless they're serving alcohol. Then they would need like an extended hours permit. But typically for any other types of businesses, we don't necessarily have a cap on the hours of operation. I understand.

AND FOR OTHER CONDITIONAL USES, THERE'S STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS US TO REVISIT THE CONDITIONS OR THE COMPLIANCE OF THE CONDITIONS?

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

CAN YOU POINT ME TO THE LANGUAGE? OR DO YOU MIND READING IT FOR THE RECORD? YEAH. NO, FOR THE STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS US TO COME BACK AND REPORT.

I believe there's a specific condition and it says that the director of development at any given time, if they fail to comply with any of the conditions listed, then they can come back and the director of planning and community development can make that determination. Okay.

Just to clarify, that is also in our municipal code, specifically related to conditional use permits.

but that's only if the conditions of approval are violated, not based on complaint driven restudy or analysis.

I believe that if there is an issue, then we can revisit. If it becomes a nuisance, for example, we can definitely revisit that and bring it back to the commission for further review. Yes. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you for that. That was also one of my concerns as well.

And if I may, with regard to the hours of operation, on page eight or two of six of the staff report, they do reference the proposed massage establishment will feature four massage rooms and operate daily from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., Monday through Sunday. All right, yep.

Thank you, Director Filimi. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. I want to open up for discussion, Commissioners. Any thoughts?

No?

Okay. In that case, can I entertain a motion to approve the conditional use? Anybody?

I'll proceed to making a motion to approve conditional use permit case number PC 2025-004-CUP with recommendation to adopt resolution number 07-25 and determine and find that project ENV number 0725 is categorically exempt from the CEQA guidelines section 15301.

And I will second. Can we get a roll call, please?

Of course. Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Commissioner Cuevas?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chairperson Lumley? Aye. Chairperson Medina?

Aye.

And motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm gonna move on to item number three on the agenda. Can I open it up for the staff report?

Yeah. Should we close the public hearing on item two? I mean, do we need to do that or can we just leave it open? Close it, all right.

I take that back. Let's close public hearing for item two. and open the public hearing for item number three.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item three before you this evening is a request to adopt resolution number 08-25, recommending that the city council approve the zone code amendment, which proposes to add chapter 17.41, which is the view shed preservation overlay to the Montevideo municipal code. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED OVERLAY IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VIEWS OF NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS RIDGE LINES, HILLSIDES, AND CULTURALLY OR VISUALLY IMPORTANT LANDMARKS. THE OVERLAY WOULD ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. has done a great job along with Viviana to really bring this forward. We did receive, I believe, five comments via email, which have been provided to the commission. I believe all were in support and we do have three speaker cards. So Emily will present and then we will move on to the speaker cards. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission, and the public. This item is a city-initiated text code amendment to amend Chapter 17 of the Montebello Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.41, Viewshed Preservation, to protect and preserve significant public and private views. In effort to enhance the community and celebrate Montevideo's unique visual character, the city is taking steps to protect the scenic views that contribute to its identity and quality of life. This request is for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council for this ordinance to establish a viewshed preservation overlay. The viewshed preservation map highlights areas that are built on elevated slopes or have scenic views with the purpose to preserve views of mountainous areas, ridgelines, sky view vistas, city lights, and significant cultural landmarks that are valued by residents and visitors. The focus is to maintain the city's aesthetic character and access to scenic views through adding limitations on improvements that include new structures or additions that block views and to manage vegetation that grows into view corridors. Any proposed development, including new construction additions, alterations, or installation defenses, will undergo a review process as part of their submittal to determine any potential impacts to protected areas. Where seen applicable, the applicant may be asked to submit a visual impact analysis. If a project does require a visual impact analysis and is determined to have an effect on a view, the applicant will be required to incorporate measures that will minimize visual impact, such as adding setbacks or adding architectural features that blend to the natural environment. Now, this is an example of what a visual impact analysis can look like. As you can see, the analysis should show the view that will be affected with the addition of a structure or any type of fence. Case number PC 2025-006-ZCA is considered covered by the Common Sense Exemption 15061 as CEQA only applies to projects that have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. And then the public hearing was published in the Daily Journal on June 5th, 2025. Along with this meeting, the Planning Commission will have a booth at Summer Street Fest on July 26th to gain public opinion and to answer any questions regarding this ordinance. And additionally, we would like to have a pop-up scheduled for this ordinance to get more information as well. Now, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 0825, recommending that the City Council to amend Chapter 17 of the Montebello Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.41, View Shed Preservation Overlay, and find and determine that the item is exempt pursuant to 16061 Common Sense Exemption and Section 15303 related to the new construction or conversions of small structures. Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, Emily. Appreciate it. Before we open it up for questions, I just want to get clarification from the city attorney. I do own property. My primary residence is within the view shed zone. I just want to make sure that we are not in violation of any ethics rules that would force me to recuse myself. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And with that, I'm going to open up for comments. Commissioners, any thoughts or questions for, I'm sorry, for staff?

I'll just make a comment that I'm very glad we're doing this because I think it's very important to preserve, you know, the scenic views that we currently have and that we're very much known for. So thank you for this.

I do have a few questions. I'm wondering if the view sheds will change over time.

Like the ordinance or do you mean like the...

Yeah, so what we define as protected views. I wasn't quite clear in reading the document.

Yeah, and I think that's why we really left it open to have a case-by-case basis so that each property, whenever the request comes to the city, so if anyone was to put up a fence... at all. They have to come to the planning department to get our approval. So we're going to be looking at when it's added, how it affects the area around it, and any type of views. But I think that in the future, what may be a view today can change over the time, especially as we have this ordinance and we kind of open up more views. I think it definitely could change, like the line could change. understand from the statements it looks like it sounds like City Council has overall authority on defining which are protected views I do believe so I think they have the section does say that they have the power to change the map as well to change the areas that are affected in the in the overlay okay

I have a question if it's all right. Go ahead. How will this affect new housing, I guess, for a single family in those areas? Will they have to conform to a specific architectural style and will they have to go one story or two stories or less? I'm just wondering how that works.

Yeah, I think it will definitely depend and it'll be different for each property and each thing in each type of development that's proposed. Yeah, I think there's not just like one answer of like one certain height or one certain size, but it is as the projects come to us, if we see necessary, obviously we'll go out to the site and look at what's being proposed and see the surrounding area. And if we think that it needs a visual impact analysis, then we'll require that from them and then see what the analysis gives us.

That is a good question, if I may, because that could affect somebody's ability to build. But as a follow-up question to that comment, the appeal body for someone disagreeing with the planning department's interpretation as to the limitations, would that be the planning commission or would that be city council?

Yes, so we do have language in the ordinance that if someone would like to have a variance for this request, they would come to the Planning Commission.

Well, that's not a variance. That's just a disagreement with how that's interpreted. Because a variance, you're done. You agree that you're deviating with what's outlined in the ordinance. but an appeal is something that you're disagreeing with the interpretation and then you have a deciding body kind of like us, you know, agree with the department or disagree or agree with the applicant, right?

If I may, so in the ordinance, the draft ordinances before you, there are a couple, there's a section that allows for exceptions, which is a director's determination for unique situations, emergency situations. I believe if a project provides public benefit, right? That is appealable to the Planning Commission? But then there's also for new development to Commissioner Lopez's question, that would require a sort of a development plan review. And we did incorporate the variance findings to meet those findings so that it could come before the planning commission, because we believe those findings are consistent with what we would see in these situations where somebody was looking to build something that potentially could impact a view shed. So then that would come to the planning commission and that would be appealable to city council if the applicant or somebody was not happy with the decision.

A couple more questions, if I may. Okay. when it comes to adopting the ordinance, there's gonna be a lot of existing situations that are gonna be existing non-conforming to the new standards. A lot of these obstructions, though, are not the type of structures that trigger or would require a permit. How would that be enforced? Would it be based on complaint-driven or proactive code enforcement investigations?

That's a great question. We would go based on complaints. We don't have the resources to be proactive in these cases, but we would look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I have an additional question. I guess in terms of, because I remember what had just been said about architectural features that blend into the environment or, yeah, I assume that also means for fencing and stuff. Does that mean they have to be painted certain colors and maintenance kept up on certain trees that may exceed a certain height and such?

Yes, yes. So we do, whenever anyone comes to put up any type of fence, they do come to the planning department. And that is things that we look at. So we would just add kind of an extra step, looking at if they're in that overlay zone, and then seeing how it would affect the areas.

And for, I guess for residential projects that are, like I said, single family, would they have to employ, I guess, additional services for a viewshed analysis for how that might impact the viewshed?

Not always, not always, not for every type of fence that you're putting up. I think if it's on a slope, then that might be something that we would take more into consideration, visual impact analysis, but it would just be case by case, but not all the time.

Thank you. I have a follow-up. I think it's more of a comment, or maybe it is a question, but how would we make sure that... that residents do not experience or don't disappropriately experience hardship in order to maintain or to operate or to enlarge an existing property that would be otherwise deemed non-conforming because of the view shed. How would we handle situations?

If I'm hearing, you mean, for example, someone who may be, or a property owner that may be prohibited from doing something on their property because of the viewshed? Is that?

Yeah, like one of the things that comes to mind, say somebody has, right now has mechanical equipment in their roof.

Right. Right.

And should they need to do any upgrade or maintenance or, who knows, add another unit up there because they want to be colder. Would that trigger this now new compliance to remove that unit from the roof and put it on the floor where it doesn't block the views?

So in that situation, if it was pre-existing, I would have to research this a little bit, but I believe the non-conforming status would apply because the structure which had the, if it had a facility on the roof, as long as you're not, I think the way our non-conforming code reads is if you don't take the walls down, right? Or is it the walls, right? Yeah. You preserve the non-conforming status. Therefore, you could put the equipment back like for like. Okay. Based on that definition.

So it would default back to the non-conforming section of the code.

Yes. However, if you wanted to remove the structure and rebuild it, then you would have to comply with the regulations in the ordinance.

Okay. I THINK MY NEXT FEW ITEMS ARE REALLY MORE LIKE COMMENTS BASED ON SOME OF MY PAST EXPERIENCE IN REVIEWING OF THESE TYPE OF DOCUMENTS. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO create some sort of guidance document that allows residents, owners, or other stakeholders to find guidance in their development projects. I'm referring more to like a living document that can also track best practices, examples of what we're looking for, what is good practices, what are bad practices. And that also expands, like a living document, it expands on definitions, right? Because I guarantee you that any applicant is going to get hung up on how you define unfinished wood, right? for example, or reflective. What is reflective? What constitutes a reflective material? And it's all language that's in the report as well. Another language that's in there is harm. How would you define harm? At which point is something harmful? I'm assuming it's not relegated only to physical harm, right? It would be to harming the view or I don't know, I can't even necessarily put it to words. But the idea is there so that we can, in creating this living document, that we can allow more clarity for anybody who's looking to either develop, improve, or continue to operate their property. I would also say, I mean, this is sort of a stretch. I'm gonna ask for the world, but I don't know. It's not really more of an ask, it's more of a recommendation, and we can bring it up to the committee as well, is to possibly develop a committee, a committee that would specifically review these applications. The map, I don't know if we can, can we bring up the map again of the view shed areas? I'm sorry. Those, yeah. So that's a significant part of the city of Montebello. I want to say arguably that's maybe 30, 40% of Montebello. So I would imagine that developing a committee would be a helpful idea to be able to manage the applications that you're going to receive. Also, there's language in here on providing people the right to action. And I would just say that that in itself, maybe we could put in a little more clarity to allow when you have the right to action. I would say to limit it to an appeal period. so that it's not used as an opportunity for any grudges to come into play, right? So a neighbor doesn't like the other neighbor, and because of that, they're going to open a case for whatever reason. And my last comment, it sounds like you're already putting it into effect, is to make sure that there's an outreach done to the community as well, to not only to get their input, but get their buy-in on this effort. It sounds like you're doing it, you said July the 26th, July 26th would be?

Yes, at the Summer Street Fest, we'll have a booth there.

Perfect.

The Summer Street Fest.

and then an additional pop-up as well.

Thank you so much. And I would say maybe we can bring up those dates on the next meeting, just to reiterate, give the public an opportunity to keep in mind. I don't have any other comments, commissioners.

No, I just want to, well, second what you just said, Chair, about the outreaching, because that is going to be a big concern for the community, and we already have a few emails from a few of our residents concerning others in favor, and maybe one comment of you know, question about the views. So I think it's definitely important, you know, to provide to the community, you know, these renderings or materials that are going to be used or, or even landscape that's going to be in those surrounding areas. And I'm sure that's going to all be shown to the community.

I think it's also helpful to note that I think somewhere in the document, it also mentions that trees are exempt from this.

City trees.

City trees. Yes, thank you. That's a good point of clarification.

AND SOME WOULD ARGUE WHY CITY TREES YOU KNOW PROTECTED FROM THIS BECAUSE I MEAN WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS AND THAT THAT THAT'S ALSO A COMMENT I WANTED TO STATE THAT YOU KNOW YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OF THIS MR. CHAIR BUT. YOU KNOW WHAT ONE CONCERN IS YOU KNOW UP UP HAVING PEOPLE. people's opinion decide what you can do on your property can also be concerning to some folks. In general, I think it's a good plan and I think it's a good idea because protecting the view that a lot of the properties in our city have, you know, preserves the value of those properties and, you know, enhances the city in general. But just, you know, we have to be careful about having, you know, that overreach with some situations. And I don't even know what that looks like, but it could be problematic. So just, you know, be careful about, you know, going down this rabbit hole. Thank you.

No, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I really appreciate the feedback. This is why we're here. Obviously, public hearing is to get the community's input as well, and we do appreciate it. I just want to point out that in our general plan, this was one of the goals to protect the scenic views. Obviously, Montebello, it's in the name, I think, as was mentioned previously. And there is a premium on these views. I mean, we've learned from the new project up on the hill that they are charging significant premiums on views. We understand that. We understand that some residents that have been here for a very long time bought their house for the view. So. I think we're acknowledging that. And, you know, in the general plan as well, we have acknowledged that. So we're just trying to move this forward to do our best to, you know, protect the quality of life for I think everyone. So, all right. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Director Pellomi, appreciate it. I DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THIS TO DEATH, BUT THERE IS ALSO AN ITEM IN HERE THAT DEALS WITH A REQUIRED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE DEEMED THAT ARE, I DON'T KNOW, AFFECTING THE PUBLIC VIEW OR THE VIEW SHED. AND I JUST WANT TO, AGAIN, MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE THAT WE STRENGTHEN THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENTS. THAT THEY ARE USED AS A METHOD AND MEANS TO DISCOURAGE BAD DEVELOPMENT. But I want to make sure that these items are targeted to the specifics of the neighborhood. Because if we... We lost the map again, but the map itself was most striking is that it encompassed a very large area of Montebello. And starting from north all the way to south. So I want to make sure that we strengthen this document so that... that the true stakeholders of each project are able to voice their opinion without it being unreasonable for the applicant.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Questions or comments, commissioners? I think we've said our piece. We do have some speaker cards, so I'm going to thank you, Emily, appreciate your time. Should we open the public hearing? Go ahead and open public hearing?

Or close the item and open? No, we'll just open the public hearing. Open public hearing. Thank you. First speaker is Reiko Shibasaki. You want to sit? You want to come?

So, I'm Alexandra Briceño, but Ms. Shibasaki is not feeling too well, and she asked if I can read the public comment for her, if it's okay with you. Okay.

I'm sorry, did you state your name for the record?

So, the person's name is Reiko Shibasaki, okay, and she lives on North Marconi Street, okay. Good evening Planning Commission Chair, Commissioners, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this public hearing on behalf of Reiko Shibasaki who lives on North Marconi Street in North Montebello since 1964. Her father was an anesthesiologist at the Beverly Hospital for over 30 years. He purchased the house for his family because of its spectacular views of Orange County, Palos Verdes, and Catalina Island on a clear day. She definitely and wholeheartedly supports the view protection ordinance because it will help preserve North Montebello skyline views of the city scapes. And with this, I conclude Ms. Shibasaki's public comment. And thank you for that.

Thank you.

I don't know if I'm next.

With that, I will call Alexandra Briseño. Please state your name for the record. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, I'm Alexandra Briseño. I am a former commissioner and former chair, and I live in North Montebello. And, you know, I had something prepared for you. But I don't know. I think I'm going to go off track and just go with a different route. So I have a problem that happened with me, right? All the homes on my street have wall-to-wall glass facing downtown L.A., okay? And so this is in the Brighton Hills area. That's the old name. So all the homes had a small little three-foot masonry block wall, and then the rest was wrought iron so that you could see through it and, you know, through your glass windows or glass doors and then all of that. So I have a neighbor that decided that she would put a vinyl fence when I already had the wrought iron fence right next to it. And so now the home that took me 11 months to find, right? I searched and searched. I can write a book about the nightmare that I went through to find a home because my husband said I want a home where I can sit down in my living room and from a sitting position. see scenic views to downtown LA. It was very specific and it was very difficult. And we never even intended to move to Montebello. So it just so happened that we came to the Sizzler in Montebello back in 2004. The home was for sale. We were outbidded. It didn't go through escrow, and we got it, right? So I'm just trying to explain how these beautiful scenic views is what pulled us to Montebello. And it's very important. So we paid a premium. We sacrificed a backyard. We sacrificed the city we wanted to live in. Just a lot. And so we finally got the house after 11 months of searching. And, you know, an ordinance like this would have prevented, you know, that woman from putting up a vinyl fence to just block my view. So you're standing, you're looking at my glass walls, and I see a white vinyl fence. It would have prevented that. So, you know, and speaking with a lot of my neighbors, there's stories that neighbors are almost going at each other's throats, almost killing each other overnight. views, right? And so I just don't know how to articulate this, and I was hoping to find somebody that knows about photography, because I was thinking it has to be reasonable. So if you picture a picture frame where you can see your view, right, some kind of frame, there's got to be some kind of mathematical formula so that you could say, well, you know what, maybe the person can block maybe 30% and leave 70%. Some kind of mathematical formula THING THAT IS REASONABLE, SOME MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, I THINK IS VERY REASONABLE. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE TREES. AND SO MAYBE THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO KEEP THEM TRIMMED SO THAT YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THROUGH THEM. THERE'S THINGS THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT ARE REASONABLE, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO IT, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE VIEWS, AND THAT'S JUST WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OUR NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS MR. EDMOND ROBERT VELOS.

Good evening. My name is Edmund Beloz. I live at 907 Bluff Road, Montebello. And for those of you who go down there, you know that my view is a different one than hers. And it hopefully would be impossible for anybody to be able to obstruct the view that I have. But all the same, sometimes things happen and you just don't know. and maybe they might put in some kind of a fence there that really would be very detrimental to the view that I have. I would just say that I agree with this measure to be able to have the views that we have and that she would have. I go up there sometimes when I'm coming back from that meeting That shopping center up there on North, on Via Campo, I'll come back up on North Maple and go over the summit there. And it's a beautiful drive and beautiful hill. She's right up there. I guess she's right up near the top. I've never actually been there. I mean, I've been by there. But it is, on a clear day, it's really something to see. And I like, there's been a couple of times I've pulled over just to stop and look. And people would do that on Bluff Road too. So we're fortunate to have these things and hopefully we can always keep them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Edmund. That concludes our speaker cards. So next I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the commission. Director Pellomi, we discussed a few ways that we could potentially strengthen the ordinance. If we adopt this item today, is there a possibility that we can see it again? Or how can we best handle something like this? Our speakers definitely brought up good points that, you know, I don't think anybody necessarily disagrees with the importance of this ordinance, but I think it has to be applied in a fair and reasonable way.

Yes, absolutely. We can amend the draft ordinance and bring it back for the Planning Commission to review again. It would be the same, in essence, the same process. It would be a recommendation. But absolutely, we can make the revisions and bring it back at a future date. Would we have to set a date certain? Give you guys more flexibility. I mean, I think we could preserve the notice. Can we do that? If it's not the next meeting, can we say if we bring it back in August? Yeah. So how about we look at my team, we could commit to bringing it back maybe in the first meeting in August. and that way we can make the changes. So that would be, let's give a date. So what is the first Tuesday in August? Does anybody know? The 5th? So we would bring this back August 5th to the Planning Commission with the changes that were discussed today, and we can take another look. Thank you. And in addition to that, we will also prepare a fact sheet, which is what we do in cases where, for example, with accessory dwelling units and different things where state law, we prepare fact sheets, we put them up on our website to help guide the public through these processes. And then in addition to that, we make ourselves available, obviously. So we can prepare the fact sheet so that we can include that in the staff report. All right.

It's a great idea, but I have a comment on the issue that Ms. Presenio brought up. It sounds like multiple people or folks along that rich line are kind of at each other's throats. It doesn't sound like a pleasant situation, But I think she brought up a good point. Where do you draw the line? Because when the subdivision was built, it looks like they had in mind the protection of the view because of that three-foot wall. And then the rest of the wall was wrought iron, preserved that. if the neighbor below because of malice or because of privacy, you know, where do we as a city kind of find that, that balance? And I think it's good to, you know, at least to discuss it and bring it up as far as where we should go with that. I mean, I, I, you know, not because she's a, you know, former commissioner, but, you know, sorry, Ms. Briseño, but, you know, but it is a good point. You know, it's like, where do you draw the line, you know, um, with the intent to preserve that, you know, presenting this situation to the neighbor, um, next door or the neighbors, because it sounds like several of them, um, 50% is okay. I mean, like in her situation, it sounds like it's, you know, maybe 30% was completely blocked below because, I mean, unless you're laying on the ground, you're going to not have your view obstructed. But, you know, beyond that, if you're standing maybe 50%, if you're at least four feet tall, you should be able to see the view. I don't know, something for us to consider, maybe even kind of get that conversation going with the public as far as what they think is, you know, the right thing. I mean, we need to be fair. I mean, we shouldn't punish people on either side. So anyways, for further conversation. Thank you.

That's a good point. I think that this is just a thought, right? We could treat them like front yards, like we do front yards and limit the height of fences. unless they're see-through, right? Just a thought. Obviously, I'm not telling you guys how you do your job. You can do it very well without my help.

Mr. Chair, I mean, great comments. We've actually discussed this internally with our team of, you know, a three-foot wall, for example, if you wanted to have some protection maybe for your children and you had a, you know, depending on the slope. So those are things that we obviously are taking into consideration. I do like the percentage. I think, you know, what is the percentage you can actually obstruct? I think that makes a lot of difference, right? So we would look at that as well. And maybe when we come back, we will add some, SOME FORMULAS, WE'LL PUT OUR MATH CAP ON IT, WHICH I'M NOT TOO GOOD AT, BUT WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. AND WE'LL PUT THAT INTO EITHER THE DEFINITION OR THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

I'd also like to just bring up the fact of the financial hardship that the chair brought up before. Just, I guess, limitations of what would be considered financial hardship, you know, what's going too far with, say, untrimmed trees or fencing that's, you know, cost however much to build and then take down again and then replace with something else that's see-through. I think just, I guess having some kind of guideline limitation of that would be important.

And also, if I may, one last comment, promise. In the past, I remember coming to the planning department, inquiring about a fence wall, and the fence that I was discussing was, okay, it doesn't need a permit, but you need planning approval for you know the uh material the height and everything and i think that's a good standard to follow that maybe a lot of the fence walls wouldn't chain link or things of that sort probably would not trigger a permit but it require it should require planning approval because of this you know potential obstruction yes yes thank you TO PUT IT OUT THERE, I THINK THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THOSE THINGS. THEY GO BASED ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT OTHER MAJOR CITIES LIKE L.A. CITY OR L.A. COUNTY DO AND THEY'RE LIKE, NO, THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY KIND OF APPROVALS. WELL, IT DOES OR SHOULD, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD. MAYBE NOT A PERMIT BUT APPROVAL, YOU KNOW, IS NOT THE SAME THING. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, MAYBE CAN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REVISIT THE ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN AS OF AUGUST 5TH TO ALLOW, I DON'T KNOW, DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT OR CAN WE GO THROUGH IT ON THE 5TH?

ON THE 5TH, WE CAN ACTUALLY GO THROUGH WHAT THE UPDATES WERE. STAFF WILL PRESENT THE UPDATES AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW THOSE UPDATES AND MOVE FORWARD IF THAT'S THE CASE.

In that case, I will motion that we, what would be the right term?

Postpone. Postpone, continue? To continue.

That we continue. Give me a minute, I have to go back to the item. THAT WE CONTINUE ITEM THREE, WHICH IS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CODE, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, ZCA, TO MODIFY MONTOBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE MMC CHAPTER 17 AND ESTABLISH A VIEW SHED PROTECTION, I'M SORRY, A VIEW SHED PRESERVATION OVERLAY TO THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST, WHICH WOULD BE THE AUGUST 5TH, 2025.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

Can I get a roll call, please? Commissioner Lopez?

Excuse me, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

Commissioner Cuevas?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Lomeli? Aye. Chairperson Medina?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. I want to go ahead and thank the public for their input as well. It's good to hear where most of you stand. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next item, which is Planning Commission Orals. Do we have any Planning Commission Orals? No. I do want to take a quick second to again congratulate our Planning Department and our fearless leader, the Director Pellomi, for the Planning Excellence Award. I think it's well deserved.

Thank you.

If I may, I just want to, the team, we have an amazing team. Obviously, you know, nothing happens in a vacuum. We all work together and we're very excited. Just to put it in context, we beat out the city of Santa Monica, I believe, and Culver City. So, you know, yeah, we do feel we feel good. And this is again, it's a national American. It's the American Planning Association. So it is a it's a it's a huge recognition. It's in the Daniel Burnham category. And Daniel Burnham was a renowned urban planner. So to be acknowledged is a huge deal for the city of Montebello. And I'm just proud to be part of the team. So thank you. And thank you for your leadership. Those plans came before this decision-making body as well as the city council. We did do extensive community outreach. I believe there were 31 public meetings in total. So that really speaks to the level of effort we put into understanding, listening, and really bringing forward a plan or plans that make a difference. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. And there were some late nights.

I can attest to one of those, at least one of those. Okay. I'm going to move on to the next item, which is adjournment. Thank you so much.