Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we're gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's 6.30 in the afternoon. Welcome, staff, members of the public joining us virtually. Can we get a roll call, please?

Of course. Commissioner Cuevas?

Present.

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

Present.

And we do have a quorum. I'm able to proceed with tonight's item.

Thank you so much. Next item of business is to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Can we please stand?

Ready?

Again.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much. Next item is 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 is a public comment. Director Pellomi, can you help me with the statement, please?

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 not within the Planning Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the Planning Commission from acting or entertaining extended discussion on a topic that is not listed on tonight's agenda. Please direct all comments to the Chair. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Our next item is staff communications.

There are no staff communications tonight.

Thank you so much. The following item is to approve the planning commission minutes from September 1st, 2026.

I'll go ahead and motion the approval of planning commission minutes from September 1st, 2026. I'll second.

Thank you so much. Can we get a roll call, please?

Of course.

Commissioner Cuevas.

I'll abstain from that vote.

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

Aye.

And motion passes.

Thank you so much. Our next item is the public hearing. Can we get a staff report?

Yes, thank you again, Chair, Commissioners. Item two is a public hearing item regarding a recommendation on proposed amendments to the Monument to Municipal Code. Viviana Esparza, our planning manager, will provide the presentation, and we are both here to answer questions.

Good evening, Chairperson Medina, members of the Planning Commission. The item before you tonight is a city-initiated request to amend various provisions of the city's municipal code, specifically Title 17 related to development standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs and JADUs, the implementation of the state's updated model water efficiency landscape ordinance, and the establishment of a citywide prohibition on artificial intelligence data centers, also known as AI data centers, and revisions to the city's zoning definitions. Collectively, the proposed text amendments are intended to update the city's zoning code to modernize the city's development regulations while supporting implementation of the city's general plan and maintaining compliance with state law. to provide you some background on why these proposed amendments are before you. The city is a municipal corporation as a municipal corporation operates under the laws of the state of California and is authorized to regulate the land use development and zoning within the city, which it does through Title 17 of the city's municipal code. The city reviews and updates Title 17 to maintain consistency with applicable state laws to implement the goals and policies of the city's general plan to address emerging land uses and provide clear and effective development regulations. There have been recent changes in state legislation that are requiring local agencies to update their municipal code, specifically policies related to accessory dwelling units and landscape water conservation. Additionally, there have been advances in artificial intelligence technologies that have resulted in increasing demand for large-scale computing facilities, commonly referred to as AI data centers. These facilities typically require substantial electrical infrastructure, extensive cooling systems, and significant utility resources, which may have land-use environment and infrastructure implications extending beyond the primary building footprint. For your consideration tonight, there are four proposed amendments. The first request is to amend section 17.10.280 of the Montebello Municipal Code titled Design and Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units to update the standards for the development of ADUs and JADUs in residential zoning districts. In response to California's ongoing housing shortage, the California State Legislative has enacted several laws since 2016 to reduce barriers to the construction of ADUs with the intent to increase housing supply, promote infill development, and provide homeowners with additional housing opportunities. The city previously adopted local regulations to comply with earlier state legislation governing ADUs and JADUs. However, since that time, this legislature has continued to amend the government code to further streamline the approval process and limit the ability of local agencies to impose standards that could unreasonably constrain the development of ADUs. The purpose of the requested amendment is to update and align the city's ADU and JADU development standards with current state law. This amendment will update the city's development standards and help clarify application and review procedures, provide clear design and development standards, and facilitate additional housing opportunities within existing residential neighborhoods. The second request is to amend chapter 17.65 of the Montebello Municipal Code titled Water Conservation and Landscaping Regulations to incorporate and implement the updated provisions and standards of the State of California Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance consistent with the California Department of Water Resources. In 1990, the Water Conservation and Landscaping Act was enacted, which required the Department of Water Resources to develop the state's first model water-efficient landscape ordinance, also known as MWELA, to promote efficient water use and improve drought resilience in California. MWELO provides a standard for the design, installation, management, and maintenance of landscape to use water efficiently with minimal wastewater. It establishes statewide requirements for water-efficient landscaping in new development and rehabilitated landscaped areas. The MWELO was adopted and went into effect January 1, 1993, and it required all local agencies to adopt the MWELO or water-efficient landscape ordinance as efficient as the MWELO. The city currently regulates water conservation through chapter 17.65. While the existing regulations promote water efficient landscaping practices, amendments are necessary to ensure full consistency with current state MLO standards. As proposed, this amendment would adopt in its entirety THE CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AS SET FORTH BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ADOPTING MWILLOW BY REFERENCE PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE AND UNIFORM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT ALIGNS OUR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH STATE LAW WHILE REDUCING THE NEED FOR DUPLICATING OR INCONSISTENT MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS. The third text amendment request before you tonight is to amend Appendix A, index of primary uses within Title 17 of the Monobattle Municipal Code to establish a classification for artificial intelligence, also known as AI data centers. PROHIBITING AI DATA CENTERS WITHIN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AND TO CORRECT MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE FOOTNOTES OF APPENDIX A. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT LAND USE REGULATION AND PROTECT THE CITY'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OVERALL COMMUNITY CHARACTER. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure have increased demand for AI data centers. These facilities are associated with intensive electrical consumption, significant cooling and water demands, continuous operation noise, and potential land use incompatibilities when located near sensitive receptors such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals. Across California and the nation as a whole, local governments are increasingly confronted with proposals for AI data centers that were not contemplated under their existing zoning frameworks. In many jurisdictions, these facilities have resulted in strain on local electrical grids and water supplies, increased greenhouse gas emissions and heat generation, noise and air quality impacts from backup generators and cooling system, and conflicts with surrounding land uses. The city's municipal code does not currently contain a specific definition, use classification or development standards that directly address AI data centers or other similar intensive computing facilities. As a result, the existing zoning regulation do not specifically contemplate the unique operational characteristics and infrastructure demands associated with these facilities. nor do they provide a clear regulatory framework for determining where such uses may be appropriately located within the city. The city has been considering the potential land use and community impacts associated with AI data centers. And in response to these concerns on February 11th, 2026, the city council adopted interim urgency ordinance number 2491 that would temporarily prohibit or restrict the establishment, expansion, or intensification of AI data centers within the city while the city evaluated appropriate long-term policies and regulations governing these types of facilities. The potential demands associated with AI data centers including substantial electrical consumption, utility infrastructure requirements, cooling and mechanical equipment, water consumption, emergency power generation, continuous operations, noise, emissions, and other related impacts warrant a city prohibition of AI data centers at this time. The proposed amendment establishing a city-wide prohibition on AI data centers is intended to provide a clear and consistent long-term land use standard and to protect the city's infrastructure capacity, water resources, environmental quality, and overall community character. Establishing a specific definition and land use classification for AI data centers will provide greater clarity regarding the nature of the use, its treatment under the zoning regulations. In alignment with the proposed text code amendments presented tonight, the fourth text code amendment request is to amend chapter 17.08 of the Montebello Municipal Code titled definitions, specifically section 17.08.022 titled accessory dwelling unit to update the definition for accessory dwelling unit and to establish a new definition for junior accessory dwelling unit. as well as add section 17.08.081 to establish a definition for artificial intelligence data centers. The city's municipal code currently contains an outdated definition of an ADU that does not fully reflect the terminology and requirements established under current California law. The municipal code also doesn't contain a corresponding definition for junior ADUs. To provide clarity regarding this distinct type of residential unit and how it's distinguished from a conventional ADU. The proposed text amendment also includes adding Section 17.08.081 to establish a definition for AI data centers. Establishing a specific definition would provide a clear and consistent basis for identifying facilities that fall within the use category and distinguishing them from other types of data centers or technology related uses. This amendment to chapter 17.08 would update the municipal code definitions to align with current state law and establish a clear definition of AA data centers for the purpose of the city's land use and zoning regulations. Collectively, the proposed text amendments presented tonight are consistent with and support the goals, policies, and objectives of the general plan. Collectively, the proposed amendments implement the plan by promoting housing opportunities, supporting efficient use of water resources, protecting established neighborhoods and land use patterns, and ensuring that the future development is compatible with the city's long-term planning goals. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed text amendments do not constitute as a project under CEQA guidelines section 15378, in that there is no potential for resulting in either a direct change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The text amendments would also be exempt under the common sense exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061 , because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments may have a significant impact on the environment. At this time, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve recommendations one through five, Adopting resolution number 17-26, approving text code amendment numbers PC-2026-0017-TCA, PC-2026-0019-TCA, PC-2026-0027-TCA, and PC-2026-0017-TCA, 0028-TCA. Recommending that the City Council introduce and adopt ordinance numbers 2493, 2494, 2497 and 2492, amending provisions of Title 17 of the City of Montebello Municipal Code related to development standards for accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, implementation of the state's updated model water efficient landscape ordinance, establishing a city prohibition on AI data centers, and revisions to the zoning definitions, and determine and find that the proposed text amendments do not constitute as a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378, and are also exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption under section 15061B3. And this concludes my presentation, and if the commissioners have any questions for staff, Director Palumby and myself are here to answer those.

Thank you so much. Any questions for staff?

Just a point of clarification for maybe some folks watching from home because there is nobody here besides us. To clarify, the first couple of items in regards to the development standards for ADUs and junior ADUs and also the water conservation standards are basically to update our local municipal code to match those existing standards and to be consistent with the state.

That's correct.

Okay. And then some of the definitions that are also not consistent with the way our current code language exist in the municipal code is to also update that information that is correct and then to outlaw the or not allow the data centers that's correct and that's not with state law but the the first two are consistent with state law yes thank you for clarifying that yes okay just want to clarify because there was a lot of information and even when I first got here I was like oh my god this is a lot And I had read some of it when I was home, but it was still a lot, but that really helped. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I have a quick sort of follow-up question to that. So these updates that we're doing to our municipal code, do they supersede state law or does the state law still stay in effect? Or in other words, do we have both state law and ordinances that relate to ADU?

Yeah, I'll take that question. It's a great question. I think the city attorney maybe can help support that, but They actually are consistent with state law. So we worked with the city attorney's office to make sure that we have a municipal code that is consistent with state law. So that way we're not in conflict with state law. We've been actually honoring state law through in approving ADUs. And then we just want to make our code consistent with what we've been doing. And it is a program that is outlined in our housing element that was approved in 2014. 2022, the sixth cycle, I believe. So we're just, again, updating it to comply with that program that is identified in the housing element.

Is establishing an ordinance part of the state law? I guess I'm trying to understand why the redundancy. Why do we need state law and local ordinance if they're both saying the same thing?

YES, IT IS CORRECT TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND ACTUALLY LET THE HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT. WE WILL SEND THEM A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE ONCE IT IS HOPEFULLY ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I GUESS JUST ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE DATA CENTERS. SO WE ARE ADOPTING OR WOULD POTENTIALLY BE ADOPTING A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD not necessarily prohibit, but not allow data centers or AI data centers in any zone in the city. That is correct. The prohibition is citywide. Gotcha. But that wouldn't stop, say, a potential applicant to apply through a CUP to be able to establish such a facility.

The prohibition would not allow anyone to apply for even a CEP. A CEP would have to be prescribed as per the appendix and the municipal code. So you would have to have that ability through the code to apply for a CEP. And the variance is no, you can no longer apply for a variance on the use per state law. So there would be no options for any applicant to apply for a data center application. Going forward if this is ultimately up is approved understood.

Thank you so much Any more questions from or to for staff?

Not a question necessarily, but I would like to thank the city staff for clarifying within our municipal code that there is nothing that previously just in general allowed or even defined artificial intelligence to be able to you know, even apply, like you said, within the city code. I want to thank the city staff for being proactive in this sense in protecting the city when it comes to artificial intelligence, because from, you know, other states, what I've, you know, read, you know, and seen in the news, it's something that I do not think would be that I don't agree with. And I think that a lot of our community would stand with that. So I appreciate the city staff for making sure that you're protecting our communities. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Any questions or comments for staff? No? Okay. So in that case, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Close the public hearing. WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR LETTERS OR ARE THEY IN OPPOSITION OR?

AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I GUESS THAT BRINGS IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONERS HERE ON THANKING STAFF FOR SORT OF BEING PROACTIVE WITH THIS SUBJECT. I'M REFERRING TO THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF DATA CENTERS. IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS LATELY. I THINK IT IS WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS THE FUTURE AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING NOW. But I don't think anybody can disagree that we have to be careful on how we address that. And as a city, I think we're on the right track in giving us that opportunity to think about how these data centers could potentially affect us. So those are my two cents. Any other comments, commissioners?

you know, how we're seeing how AI is coming into, how we're applying it into accessory dwelling units, into residential and commercial as well. Actually, it's not a question, but does, or yes, it could be like a question. Would this be also an amendment that later on would be applied to like apartment complex for those that are, where you can convert the carport area into ADUs? Will this be something that they will later on, a data center that will be applied?

So the ADU question, yes, you would be able to, in compliance with state law, as long as it complied with the building and safety regulations. And I think planning does have some discretion, but very little based on the guidelines in state law. So you would be able to do that. Now, with regard to the data centers, you would not be allowed to establish any type of data center within the city. And I think just, I mean, Mr. Chair appointed, we did, the city council did approve an emergency ordinance back in February. And we had 10 months to study this. And our staff's been working very hard. You know, we've been in coordination with city manager's office and really keeping everybody involved. But we have learned a lot. And I think there's a lot more to learn. But I think as of right now, there are a lot of issues. And I think staff articulated those issues. So we're... We're bringing this forward because the 10-month clock has been ticking, and I believe it would be December of this year when the urgency ordinance would be expired. So we're trying to get this forward before that happens.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Any other points of discussion?

No?

In that case, can I entertain a motion?

I will go ahead and motion to approve amendments to Title 17, zoning of the City of Montebello Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units and eight junior accessory dwelling units, developing standards, implementation of the state's updated water-efficient landscaping ordinance, establishment of citywide prohibition of artificial intelligence, data centers, and revisions to the zoning definitions with recommendations one through five.

And I will second.

Thank you so much. Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Cuevas?

Aye. Sorry, aye.

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

Aye.

And motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. There are no other items. Sorry, no other public hearing items. Our next item is the Planning Commission Orals. Any Planning Commission Orals? No. Maybe a quick thank you again for staff for being proactive with stuff like this. Again, I recognize that this is sort of the future, but I want to say that the burden is on the developers to make sure that not only the users, but the communities that engage in these AI data centers are safe. And until they can prove that to us, I think we're in the right spot. So thank you.