Agenda packet — Montebello City Council, August 14, 2024 (part 1 of 8)

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2024 AT 6:00 PM

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1600 WEST BEVERLY BOULEVARD

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA

CITY COUNCIL
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
Salvador Melendez, Mayor Pro Tem
Angie M. Jimenez, Councilmember
Georgina Tamayo, Councilmember
David N. Torres, Councilmember

CITY MANAGER
Raul Alvarez

CITY TREASURER
David Matanga

CITY ATTORNEY
Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

CITY CLERK
Christopher Jimenez

DEPARTMENT HEADS
Assistant City Manager
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Director of Finance
Director of Human Resources
Director of Planning/Community Development
Director of Public Works
Director of Recreation and Community Services
Acting Director of Transportation
Arlene Salazar
Fernando Pelaez
Paul Espinosa
Michael Solorza
Ramon Figueroa
Joseph Palombi
Cesar Roldan
David Sosnowski
John Soria

Page 1 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 2 of 9

NOTICES
This City Council Meeting ("Council") will be held in person and will meet at City Hall – City Council Chambers, 1600 West Beverly Boulevard, Montebello, California. The meeting will be live streamed and can be watched on the City’s website and YouTube Channel via the following link: https://www.montebelloca.gov, and may also be viewed on Spectrum Public Access Channel 3 for all Spectrum cable subscribers.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) any person with a disability who requires special accommodations in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Administration Office at (323) 887-1437 Monday-Thursday from 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Please call 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II 1203). If you require translation services, please contact the City Clerk’s office 72 hours before this meeting. Si necesita servicios de traducción, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal 72 horas antes de esta reunión. 如果您需要翻译服务，请在会议前 72 小时联系市书记员办公室.

RULES OF DECORUM:

Pursuant to Section 54957.95 of the Government Code, the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting, or their designee, is authorized to remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting.

Any such removal will be preceded by a warning to the disruptive individual by the presiding member of the legislative body or their designee that the individual’s behavior is disrupting the meeting and that the individual’s failure to promptly cease their disruptive behavior may result in their removal.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

In-Person: For those interested in participating during the Public Comment period(s) or public testimony period for Public Hearings of the City Council meetings, you may address the City Council in person only the day of the meeting.

Speakers will be required to fill out a speaker card provided at the door and submit it to City Clerk staff prior to each Public Comment announcement period. Staff will number and call each speaker card in the order received. Closed Session begins at 6:00 p.m. and Regular Session begins immediately thereafter; if there is no Closed Session, Regular Session will begin at 6:00 p.m.

AGENDA MATERIALS: The agenda and/or agenda packet are available for public inspection at City’s website at:

Agendas, Minutes, and Videos,

Page 2 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 3 of 9

IN CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS, PLEASE TURN OFF, OR MUTE, ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
At this time, the public may submit a speaker card to the City Clerk staff for Closed Session items, prior to the beginning of this statement. Speakers will be called in the order received. Please be aware that the maximum time allotted for members of the public to speak on Closed Session items shall not exceed three (3) minutes per person. State Law prohibits the City Council from taking action or entertaining extended discussion on a topic not listed on the agenda. Please show courtesy to others and direct all of your comments to the Mayor and City Council.

CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney shall provide a briefing on the item listed for Closed Session as follows:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
BKK Class I Landfill Cost Recovery Efforts (one matter)

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 602, 604, 608 and 610 Whittier Boulevard, Montebello, California Agency negotiators: Raul Alvarez, Joseph Palombi
Negotiating party: Weber Properties
Under negotiation: Price and terms of sale

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
NASA Services v. City of Montebello
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21 STCP01969

4. INSURANCE LIABILITY CLAIM
Government Code Section 54956.95
Claimant: Arlene Salazar
Agency claimed against: City of Montebello

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Significant exposure to litigation in one case

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
J. Carrera v. City of Montebello
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21 STCV 24612

7. CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO AN AUDIT BY CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S OFFICE
Government Code Section 54956.75

Page 3 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 4 of 9

REGULAR SESSION - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - CITY MANAGER

CEREMONIAL ITEMS/PRESENTATIONS

8. CITIZEN OF THE MONTH - YVETTE FIMBRES

9. ASHIYA JAPAN STUDENTS

10. ADVENTIST HEALTH WHITE MEMORIAL PRESENTATION

11. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL WELLNESS MONTH

12. TREASURER'S MONTHLY UPDATE
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (30 MINUTES)
At this time, the public may submit speaker card(s) to the City Clerk staff, for both agenda and non-agenda items, prior to the beginning of this statement; Public Hearing items do not require a speaker card.

The City Council will address non-agenda items during this section and speakers will be called in the order received. Those persons not accommodated during this 30-minute period will have an opportunity to speak under “Public Comments – Continued”, after all scheduled matters have been considered. Public Hearing, Regular Business and/or Consent Calendar items will be addressed at the time that matter of business is heard, in the order received.

Please be aware that the maximum time allotted for members of the public to speak shall not exceed three (3) minutes per speaker. State Law prohibits the City Council from taking action or entertaining extended discussion on a topic not listed on the agenda. Please show courtesy to others and direct all of your comments to the Mayor and City Council.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

PUBLIC HEARING

13. APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF DENIAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ZONE

VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR REDUCED LOT SIZE, REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND LOT

COVERAGE, AS WELL AS THE DENIAL OF A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (“VTTM”) NO. 084478 TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LEGAL LOT RESULTING IN THE CREATION OF 16 LEGAL LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 15 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS INCLUDING A COMMON PARCEL FOR STREETS, UTILITIES, AND A PRIVATE PARK (CASE NO.

PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 JACMAR DRIVE.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider all matters presented at the public hearing, uphold the Planning Commission denial of PC-2024-0002/SPR/ZV/TTM, and direct staff to bring back a City Council Resolution containing findings supporting the Planning Commissions denial of PC-2024-0002- SPR/ZV/TTM; or

2. Conduct a public hearing to consider all matters presented at the public hearing, adopt a resolution overturning the Planning Commission decision to deny PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM and approving PC2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM, which would become effective after City Council’s findings are referred to the

Page 4 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 5 of 9
Planning Commission and the Planning Commission provides a further report on the matter per Montebello Municipal Code 17.78.130 “Council decisions contrary to planning commission action;” and

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

REGULAR BUSINESS

14. ADOPT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR THE SENIOR CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT (CP 925) AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH BID ADVERTISEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve Environmental Assessment pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,

2. Approve Level of Environmental Review Determination via the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

Categorically Excluded per 24 CFR 58.35(a), and subject to laws and authorities at §58.5: (3) Rehabilitation of buildings and improvements when the following conditions are met: (iii) In the case of non-residential structures, including commercial, industrial, and public buildings: (A) The facilities and improvements are in place and will not be changed in size or capacity by more than 20 percent: and (B) The activity does not involve a change in land use, such as from nonresidential to residential, commercial to industrial or from one industrial use to another; and,

3. Adopt the 100% completed plans, specifications and engineer’s estimate for the Construction of the Senior Center Renovation Project at 115 S. Taylor Avenue Improvements Capital Project 925; and

4. Authorize staff to proceed with bid advertisement for construction; and

5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. Any items a member wishes to discuss, including any items the public submitted speaker cards for, should be designated at this time. All other items may be approved in a single motion. Such approval will also waive the reading of any Ordinance.

15. APPROVE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT TO MASTER RETAINER AGREEMENT NO. 3919 WITH AIM

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE RENOVATION PROJECT PHASE 3 (CP NO. 894-3) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve Task Order No. 6.1 via an Engagement Letter under Master Retainer Agreement No. 3919 with AIM Consulting Services for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Golf Course Renovation Project Phase 3 for a not-to-exceed-amount of $469,692; and,

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Letter of Engagement; and,

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

16. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) CYCLE 7 VARIOUS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT 851 – FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL5247(024) TO ALFARO COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND REJECT ALL OTHER BIDS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Award construction contract (Attachment B) to Alfaro Communications Construction, Inc. for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 Capital Project 851 – Federal Project No. HSIPL-5247(024) for the amount of $1,134,591; and,

2. Approve a 10% construction contingency of $113,459; and,

3. Reject all other bids and authorize the City Clerk’s Office to release bidders’ bonds; and,

4. Accept Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc.’s bid withdrawal letter dated July 25, 2024 (Attachment A); and,

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any subsequent change orders; and,

6. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

Page 5 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 6 of 9

17. APPROVE AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4219 TO G2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.

TO INSTALL FULL CAPTURE STORM DRAIN TRASH DEVICES ON CITY-OWNED CATCH BASINS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve by a four-fifths vote of the City Council the urgency fabrication and installation of Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) and Automatic Retractable Screen (ARS) units at thirteen locations per Municipal Code Section 3.20.050(D) - Conformance with bidding procedures (exceptions); and,

2. Award Professional Services Agreement No. 4219 to G2 Construction, Inc. to install thirteen catch basins with screen devices for stormwater quality protection for a not-to-exceed amount of $104,479; and,

3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget by increasing appropriations by $104,479 in the Measure W Fund, Account No.229-30-315-6040.55 (Measure W, Public Works, Stormwater, Water System Maintenance); and,

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City; and

5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

18. APPROVE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT TO MASTER RETAINER AGREEMENT NO. 3922 WITH PSOMAS CONSULTING SERVICES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) CYCLE 7 – FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5247(024)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve a Letter of Engagement to Master Retainer Agreement No. 3922 between the City of Montebello and PSOMAS Consulting Services for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 (CP 851) – Federal Project No. HSIPL-5247(024) for a notto-exceed amount of $360,051; and,

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Letter of Engagement on behalf of the City; and

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

19. REJECT BIDS RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DOG PARK AT ACUÑA PARK (CP 922) IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 22038(A)(1) AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO

PROCEED WITH READVERTIZING AND REBIDDING THE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Reject bids received for construction of a dog park at Acuña Park (CP 922) in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22038(a)(1); and

2. Authorize staff to modify the project scope of work in conformance with all applicable engineering standards; and

3. Authorize staff to re-advertise the Notice Inviting Bid in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22038(a)(1); and

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

20. ADOPT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE (PS&E) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIO HONDO RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CP 924) AND AUTHORIZE BID ADVERTISEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt the 100% completed plans, specifications and engineer’s estimate (PS&E) for the Construction of the Rio Hondo River Access Improvement Project - Capital Project 924; and,

2. Approve Environmental Assessment pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 11 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,

3. Authorize staff to proceed with bid advertisement for construction; and,

4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget by increasing appropriations by $110,850 in Account No. 221- 70-742-6040.96 (Measure A, Parks and Recreation, Rio Hondo River Access Project, Engineering Design); and,

5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

Page 6 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 7 of 9

21. APPROVE GRANT REA PARK PETTING ZOO LICENSE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve a new Petting Zoo Operator License Agreement with WRW Inc. (“Licensee”); and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City; and

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

22. APPROVE ISSUING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 24-20 FOR POLICE AND GENERAL

VEHICLE UPFITTING
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize issuing Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 24-20 for Police and General Vehicle Upfitting; and,

2. Take such additional, and related, action that may be desirable.

23. WAIVE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2478 AMENDING CHAPTER 10.68

OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2478 amending Montebello Municipal Code (“MMC”) Chapter 10.68 to establish new regulations regarding oversized vehicle parking including containers and unattached trailers Citywide; and

2. Determine and find that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption; and

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

24. RECEIVE AND FILE THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR); and

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

25. TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2024 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024 (Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2023-24); and,

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

26. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 26, 2024, CITY COUNCIL MEETING; JULY 24, 2024, CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve said Minutes as is.

27. PAYMENT OF BILLS: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-63 APPROVING THE CITY WARRANT REGISTER OF DEMANDS DATED AUGUST 14, 2024
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:...

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-63 approving the Warrant Register dated August 14, 2024.

Page 7 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 8 of 9

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONTINUED
AB 1234 TRAVEL REPORTS
Members will provide a brief report on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency as required by Government Code Section 53232.3(d).

COUNCIL/AGENCY ORALS
Announcements and requests for future agenda items.
• David N. Torres, Councilmember

1. Request for council consensus to establish a Fireworks Ad Hoc committee to analyze current ordinances and recommend updates that will discourage illegal activity and improve community safety.

2. Request for staff update on establishing an ordinance to address vacant commercial properties.

3. Requesting council consensus directing staff to develop an ordinance requiring establishments accept cash as payment in Montebello.

4. Request for council consensus to designate, by ordinance, truck routes in the City of Montebello for the health of residential streets and enforcement against improper routes.

5. Request for council consensus to develop an ordinance for the preservation of historic architecture and other culturally significant features in Montebello.

6. Request for council consensus to calendar further discussions on a policy to guide council and commission procedures.
• Salvador Melendez, Mayor Pro Tem
• Angie M. Jimenez, Councilmember
• Georgina Tamayo, Councilmember
• Scarlet Peralta, Mayor

1. Request a study session to develop an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

2. Request consensus to create the Community Beautification Awards Initiative, recognizing residents who take pride in the appearance of their homes.

3. Launch Operation City Pride in partnership with Caltrans:
- Integrate the Caltrans Customer Service Request Portal and Support Services into the City App and platforms.
- Organize community cleanups in partnership with Caltrans.

CLOSED SESSION - CONTINUED

ADJOURNMENT
The City of Montebello will adjourn to the next Regular Meeting on August 28, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., which can be livestreamed at https://www.montebelloca.gov (Click on Live Stream).

I, Kimberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk for the City of Montebello, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda has been posted on or before Sunday, August 11, 2024, no later than 6:00 p.m.

Kimberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk

Page 8 of 1206 ends

August 14, 2024: City Council Meeting Page 9 of 9

EXHIBIT - CITY OF MONTEBELLO FORECASTED AGENDA
Please note, the attached exhibit is a draft version that is to be used for reference purposes only; agenda items, information, and dates are subject to change. The exhibit will be placed at the end of the Agenda Packet. • CITY OF MONTEBELLO FORECASTED AGENDA

Page 9 of 1206 ends

ITEM # 13

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Joseph Palombi, Director of Planning & Community Development Arnold Glasman, City Attorney
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF DENIAL OF

SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ZONE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR

REDUCED LOT SIZE, REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND

LOT COVERAGE, AS WELL AS THE DENIAL OF A

RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (“VTTM”) NO. 084478

TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LEGAL LOT RESULTING IN THE CREATION OF 16 LEGAL LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 15 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

UNITS INCLUDING A COMMON PARCEL FOR STREETS, UTILITIES, AND A PRIVATE PARK (CASE NO. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 JACMAR DRIVE.

DATE: August 14, 2024
RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the City Council:

2. Conduct a public hearing to consider all matters presented at the public hearing, adopt a resolution overturning the Planning Commission decision to deny PC2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM and approving PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM, which would become effective after City Council’s findings are referred to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission provides a further report on the matter per Montebello Municipal Code 17.78.130 “Council decisions contrary to planning commission action;” and

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

Page 10 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 2 of 11 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact regardless of which action recommended above is taken by the City Council.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2024, William Molinari (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City in an effort to allow for the construction of a total of 15 residential dwelling units and the subdivision of one lot to 16 lots at the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive (the “Project”). On June 4, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and subsequently continued the item to June 18, 2024 to allow more time to review the Project.

The Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on June 18, 2024 to further consider the Project, at which time the item was continued to July 16, 2024. The Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on July 16, 2024 and voted to deny the Site Plan Review and the Zone variance requests and recommend denial to the City Council regarding the Tentative Tract Map.

On July 24, 2024, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of PC-2024-002-SPR/ZV/TTM pursuant to Montebello Municipal code 17.78.070. The appeal seeks review and consideration from the City Council to overturn the Planning Commissions decision of denial.

On August 1, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Montebello News. In addition, the Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed Project Site on August 1, 2024 (Please see Attachment E).

The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residential home located at 301 Jacmar Drive and construct 15 residential dwelling units and related amenities consistent with plans included under Attachment C. The subject site is approximately 60,101 square feet (1.38 acres) within the R-1 (Single-Family residential zone). The subject site currently has a one-story, single-family residence with a swimming pool, landscaping, and mature trees. The subject site is generally west of South Bluff Road and north of Washington Boulevard. The subject site is bordered north, east, south, and west by residential properties zones R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-3 (MultiFamily Residential).

The Applicant sought approval from the Planning Commission for Site Plan Review and related variances to accommodate the construction of 15 single-family residential dwelling units that would include the subdivision of an existing improved site with a comprised lot area of approximately 60,101 square feet (or 1.38 acres). In addition, the Applicant sought a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding TTM No. 084478. The Site Plan Review is required for all residential projects resulting in three or more dwelling units. The Project will result in 15 dwelling units pursuant to the proposed subdivision; therefore, Site Plan approval is required.

Page 11 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 3 of 11 ends

The units will have between 3 and 4 bedrooms and either 2.5 or 3.5 bathrooms. Each unit will be two stories, have one living room, kitchen, dining room and two car garages.

A Zone Variance is required when wanting to deviate from the Montebello Municipal Code. The standard size requirement for single family lots is 5,000 square feet per unit.

The proposed residential units would range from 2,420 to 3,428 square feet. The Applicant is also deviating from the lot coverage standards. For the R-1 Zone, the allowed lot coverage is 40%, and the Applicant is proposing lot coverages ranging from 41.68% to 47.82%. The standards for setbacks include 20 feet in front, 5 on each side and 10 feet from the back. The proposed project complies with the established setback requirements for all side and rear yard setback, but the Applicant seeks relief to allow reduced front yard setbacks ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 feet. A Tentative Tract Map application is required for any subdivision that results in five or more parcels.

The Project, would permit the construction of a total of 15 residential dwelling units and related amenities for the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive. This matter was presented to the Planning Commission on June 4, June 18, and July 16, 2024. The Planning Commission on July 16th, 2024, voted to deny the proposed project on July 16, 2024
On July 16, 2024, staff provided a report to the Planning Commission for Case No. PC2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM (Please see Attachment D). The Planning Commission received public comments and took testimony from the Applicant. Subsequently, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 2-1-2-0 to deny Case No. PC-2024-0002- SPR/ZV/TTM.

On July 24, 2024, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision with the City Clerk’s office in a timely manner resulting in a public hearing being scheduled before the City Council pursuant to MMC Section 17.78.080.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the proposed Site Plan Review, Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM ENV 02-24-CE, is considered a “project,” per the (CEQA) definition of a “project.” The Project is considered a Class 32 and Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), and none of the limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

In order to qualify under an exemption pursuant to Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In Fill Development Projects), the following environmental findings must also be made:

1. The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

Page 12 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 4 of 11 ends

The proposed Project conforms to the Montebello General Plan, Land Use Element in that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site for the R-1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning designation.

2. The proposed development occurs within the City limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The proposed development shall occur on a 60,101 square-foot (1.38 acres) lot located on Jacmar Drive within City limits and thus, is less than the maximum five acres specified in Section 15332(b) for this exemption. The site is surrounded by existing developed industrial properties.

3. The Project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The proposed Project is currently developed with an existing single family home. The subject property is surrounded by additional housing developments and is consistent with the land use designation.

4. Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The proposed Project shall not have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the site is currently developed with an existing residential unit.

5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed Project has been reviewed by City staff, and it has been determined that the project can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

ANALYSIS:

The Project conforms to the following goals and policies of the Montebello General Plan.

General Plan Goal to Encourage urban infill and compact development A2.7a states a goal “Promote infill development on vacant and underutilized sites….” General Plan Goal for development that will create diverse and walkable neighborhoods A3.4b states a goal “Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle-friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds.”

Page 13 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 5 of 11 ends

General Plan Goal to retrofit suburban development P3.6 states the goal to “Integrate more housing choices in existing subdivisions”.

The proposed Project conforms to the City of Montebello General Plan Land Use Element as the proposed use will allow the Montebello community to benefit from the addition of the 15 new Single-Family residential homes, providing future Montebello residents with more housing choices in existing residential neighborhoods. The current Project site has one home on the lot and the lot size can be utilized for more homes, growing the community. With this increase in housing, it is supporting the General Plan goals by responding to the needs of the community and by reflecting the density standards that are outlined in the housing element of the General Plan.

REQUIRED FINDINGS MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE
SITE PLAN REVIEW (MMC Chapter 17.74 et seq.)
The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to minimize or preclude potential adverse impacts to the public interest or on abutting properties and adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, resulting from the design or layout of a proposed development.

Section 17.74.030 explains that a Site Plan Review is required for all residential projects resulting in the construction of three or more units.

Pursuant to Section 17.74.070 of the MMC, before any Site Plan Review shall be granted, all the following findings must be made:

1. That the proposed design for improvement complies with all requirements of the Montebello Municipal Code;
The 15 proposed units will all have a two-car garage, and heights will not exceed 25 feet, access to all units will be via a driveway, the units will have open space and the setbacks will be landscaped. The Applicant is requesting a zone variance from the R-1 standards regarding the minimum required setbacks, lot sizes and the lot coverage percentage per unit. A Site Plan is required due to the Project resulting in three or more units according to Section 17.74.030.

2. That the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the general plan; and The proposed Project site is consistent with the general plan and reflects the goals that were set in place when designating certain zoning areas with different housing types. The Project site has the capacity for more development and the density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have also been approved in the close vicinity. The current plans are for 15 units with full roads, fire department turn around, and a small park for the residents to enjoy. The zone variance will not cause

Page 14 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 6 of 11 ends

substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

3. That the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare.

The proposed addition will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties as the surrounding area is currently developed with an existing single-family unit. The zone variances and subsequent development would not be harmful to the general welfare of the neighborhood, City or create problems for the public health or safety. It would increase the welfare by first supporting investments, bringing in construction and related jobs, and providing housing to the community. The current use is R-1 single family residential, and the proposed residential zoning will not change. All the immediate surrounding land uses are consistent with residential housing. The addition of this Project will be consistent with the surrounding land uses and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.

REQUIRED FINDINGS MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE
VARIANCES (MMC Chapter 17.72 et seq.)
The sole purpose of the variance is to ensure that no property, because of special circumstance applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. No variance shall be granted by other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

A Zone Variance is being requested to deviate from the development standards within an R-1 Zone. The Applicant is requesting to deviate from the standards for lot size, setback, and lot coverage. According to the MMC section 17.10.020 development standards for new development, new development of a single-family residential unit, the lot size must be 5,000 square feet. The front setback must be 20 feet, the rear 10 feet, and sides 5 feet and the lot coverage standard is also 40 percent. The Applicant is seeking to deviate from all three of the stated requirements.

Zone Variance Requests
Standard Request

1. Lot Sizes 5,000 Square feet 2,420 to 3,428 Square Feet

2. Lot Coverage 40% 41.68% to 47.82%

3. Front Setbacks 20 Feet 4.5 to 6.5 feet
Pursuant to section 17.72.060 of the MMC, before any variance shall be granted, the Planning Commission shall satisfy that the Applicant has demonstrated the following facts:

A. Describe the special major unusual circumstance applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Unlike other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, the subject site is very large for

Page 15 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 7 of 11 ends

a single-family home. It is a unique 1.38-acre lot. There is not another house like it in the neighborhood. Currently, the unit is providing very little benefit to the neighborhood with so much land being underutilized. Without the zone variance request in this application, the Applicant believes they would be deprived of maximizing the market value of their property. The increased property values of this new residential development would increase property tax revenues for the City. Further rejection of the Zone Variance requests would deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications by not being able to fully utilize the Project site.

1. The lot sizes: This single-family residential lot is special to the neighborhood as there is no other lot in the surrounding area that is the same size, making it difficult to design the homes on such a unique sized lot to optimize the area for each unit, resulting in reduced lot sizes.

2. Lot coverage: As a result of the lot sizes being smaller than usual, which is not typical, the Applicant requests to use as much space as possible causing the lot coverage to be more than usual.

3. Front setbacks: With the reduced sizes and the lot coverage being above that typically allowed; this unusual case has put the Applicant in the position to design the houses in a way that would best benefit the future homeowner. Although the design of the house can allow the Applicant to have a larger front yard, the Applicant has decided to use the space to allow for a larger private backyard for each of the residents and apply for the zone variance.

B. Detail how due to the special or unusual circumstance described above, strict application of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships or would deprive the property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

1. The lot sizes: If the lot sizes were up to standard, there essentially would not be enough room on the lot to accommodate as many homes as the Applicant is requesting. The Applicant is trying to utilize the lot and has retained inspiration from surrounding developments that have similar lot sizes. Without the minimized lot sizes, the Project would not be possible.

2. Lot coverage: If the Applicant would design the houses using the MMC requirements,

Page 16 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 8 of 11 ends

the houses would be extremely small and not suitable for a growing family, which the Applicant hopes to house.

3. Front Setbacks: If the Applicant were to abide by the front yard setbacks, the future homeowners would have a large front yard and an extremely small backyard. The Applicant decided to utilize the space and provide a larger backyard to optimize the space in the best way.

C. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.72.060.C., explain how the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right to allow a reasonable use of the subject property, which is possessed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

To properly utilize the future lots, the Applicant is requesting to apply these zone variances to properly utilize the area on the lot and to design each lot to properly maintain the most use out of the Project site that is being redeveloped.

1. Lot sizes: The lot sizes being smaller than required allows for more units which gives the Applicant a mechanism to provide more housing options to Montebello residents.

2. Lot Coverage: Being able to build more on each lot provides the units with a bigger house for bigger rooms, kitchen and bathroom areas providing a more comfortable, more attractive home to any future residents.

3. Front setback: Having a smaller front setback allows the residents to enjoy more space in the backyard of the units which is necessary with many of the new housing developments having such a small backyard. Although the Applicant will take away from the front setback, every unit will also have an attached garage for two cars.

D. Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.

1. Lot sizes: The variance of lot sizes will not affect the surrounding users as there currently are units in the surrounding area that are similar sizes and have no effect on the surrounding properties.

2. Lot coverage: Although the lots will be above the allowed lot coverage, and the lots will

Page 17 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 9 of 11 ends

be fully built out, every unit will be of a similar design, the consistency will ensure no unit will stand out from the others.

3. Front setback: Although the lots will have a very small front yard, the units will still each have a two-car garage for the residents. This will help with any concerns regarding the limited driveway that will result from the front setback variance.

E. Describe how the granting of the Zone Variance will be consistent with the general plan and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

The proposed Project provides single family homes in a neighborhood that also has single family units keeping the use consistent with the current zoning and type of development with similar square footage. The proposed Project has been properly notified and will be consistent with the general plan as the Project site has been designated for residential units.

REQUIRED FINDINGS MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (MMC Chapter 16.12 et seq.)
A. Describe how the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and Specific plans as described in California Government Code Section 65451.

The proposed Project that would be allowed through this subdivision would result in over 23,000 square feet of open space and medium cost for 15 families. The zone is consistent with the general plan and provides additional housing in the R1-Zone that is designated for single family housing developments making the Project consistent with the general plan.

B. Describe how the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable general and specific plans;
The general plan seeks to balance open space with developed space, and to group uses in neighborhoods for mutual enjoyment of the occupants and the residents. The Project provides open space and a private park as well as houses for sale. The development will allow the future resident to enjoy quality housing in a safe and secure environment. The development will also allow for modest growth in the City that will benefit business and the school system.

C. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The existing property has been developed as a single-family home since 1938. The house is aging and is in disrepair. Since its original construction, the community has grown around the house, and many of the developments around it have now have much greater density. The combination of the property’s size as well as the denser development around it makes it suitable for this type of housing. The Project will have 16 parcels, with 15 single family homes on each separate parcel with a parcel for streets, utilities and a private park which will be owned by all of the homes and managed by a home owners association that will be set upon completion of construction.

Page 18 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 10 of 11 ends

D. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development;
The site is suitable for the proposed density as many of the developments in the surrounding neighborhood also have similar densities and the square footage of the lot can be designed to provide 15 homes. The now underutilized lot will provide housing to Montebello residents.

E. Describe how the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife and their habitat;
The existing house has been built since 1938 as a single-family home, there is no wildlife on the property that can be impacted.

F. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
According to a study conducted by the Applicant, the Project is estimated to produce less than 113 trips per day including 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 during the PM peak hours. The modern construction techniques employed for the Project with lessen the likelihood of termites and other insects that have the potential of appearing because of the Project.

G. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; and
The height of the Project will not exceed 25 feet in elevation; thus, it will not conflict with any neighbor’s rights with respect to blocking views. The utility easement on the west side of the property for electrical and communication cabling will be maintained. The utility engineering for the Project will likely create or renew utility access for the Project location itself as well as for the neighborhood.

H. Describe how the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will ensure that the construction of these units will not be of great impact to the sewer systems.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.78 (Public Hearing, Notices and Appeals), the following noticing was performed:

Page 19 of 1206 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2024

Page 11 of 11 ends

• On August 1, 2024, the Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within the 300-foot radius from the exterior boundaries of the Project Site. • On August 1, 2024, the Public Hearing Notice was published in the Montebello News.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A- RESOLUTION 24-61 uphold Planning Commission Denial

2. Attachment B- RESOLUTION 24-62 overturning the Planning Commission Decision

3. Attachment C- Site plan Floor Plans and Elevations

4. Attachment D- Planning Commission Staff Report July 16, 2024

5. Attachment E- Public Hearing Notice

6. Attachment F- Public Comment letters, Speaker Cards for 301 Jacmar Drive

7. Attachment G - Brochure

8. Attachment H- Tentative Tract Map

9. Attachment I- CEQA Notice of Exemption

10. Attachment J- Planning Commission RESOLUTION 07-24

11. Attachment K- Update for June 18, 2024 PC Meeting

Page 20 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ZONE VARIANCES (PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) AND DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION (NO. 084478) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 15 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 16
LEGAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 JACMAR DRIVE

RECITALS
WHEREAS, On January 22, 2024 William Molinari (“Applicant”) submitted an application (PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) to the City in an effort to allow for the construction of a total of 15 residential dwelling units and the subdivision to subdivide one lot to 16 lots at the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code (“MMC”) Chapters 16.12,

17.72 and 17.74, the Project required Tentative Tract Map approval, three Zone Variances related to reduced lot size, lot coverage, and setbacks, and Site Plan Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, which was continued to June 18, 2024 and July 16, 2024, and on July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 2-1-2-0 to deny the Site Plan Review and Zone Variances and recommend denial of the Tentative Tract Map to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2024, Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decisions in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.78 (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to MMC Section 17.78.80, the City Council shall consider the appeal for the Site Plan Review and Zone Variances during a duly noticed public hearing and shall make the same findings and consider the same criteria as required of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to MMC Chapter 16.12, once the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Tentative Tract Map application has been issued, the City Council shall consider the application, staff report, and all relevant evidence, and shall be governed by the same standards as the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal and Tentative Tract Map application.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

Attachment A

Page 21 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 2 of 8 ends

SECTION 1. RECTIALS. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as substantive findings in this Resolution.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS. With independent consideration of the application and all associated materials, the reports provided by staff, public testimony, and information provided in the record of the Planning Commission related to this Project; the City Council hereby makes following findings:

A. GENERAL PLAN
The Project conforms to the following goals and policies of the Montebello General Plan.

General Plan Goal to Encourage urban infill and compact development A2.7a states a goal “Promote infill development on vacant and underutilized sites….”
General Plan Goal for development that will create diverse and walkable neighborhoods A3.4b states a goal “Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds.”
General Plan Goal to retrofit suburban development P3.6 states the goal to “Integrate more housing choices in existing subdivisions”.

B. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 17.74.070 of the MMC, before any Site Plan Review shall be granted, all the following findings must be made:

Page 22 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 3 of 8 ends

variance from the R-1 standards regarding the minimum required setbacks, lot sizes and the lot coverage percentage per unit. A Site Plan is required due to the Project resulting in three or more units according to Section 17.74.030.

2. That the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the general plan; and
The proposed Project site is consistent with the general plan and reflects the goals that were set in place when designating certain zoning areas with different housing types. The Project site has the capacity for more development and the density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have also been approved in the close vicinity. The current plans are for 15 units with full roads, fire department turn around, and a small park for the residents to enjoy. The zone variance will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

3. That the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare.

C. VARIANCES
Pursuant to section 17.72.060 of the MMC, before any variance shall be granted, the Applicant has demonstrated the following facts:

1. Describe the special major unusual circumstance applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Unlike other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, the subject site is very large for a single-family home. It is a unique 1.38-acre lot. There is not another house like it in the neighborhood. Currently, the unit is providing very little benefit to the neighborhood with so much land being underutilized. Without the zone variance request in this application, the Applicant believes they would be deprived of maximizing the market value of their property. The increased property values of this new residential development would increase property tax revenues for the City. Further rejection of the Zone Variance requests would deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications by not being able to fully utilize the Project site.

Page 23 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 4 of 8 ends

a. The lot sizes: This single-family residential lot is special to the neighborhood as there is no other lot in the surrounding area that is the same size, making it difficult to design the homes on such a unique sized lot to optimize the area for each unit, resulting in reduced lot sizes.
b. Lot coverage: As a result of the lot sizes being smaller than usual, which is not typical, the Applicant requests to use as much space as possible causing the lot coverage to be more than usual.
c. Front setbacks: With the reduced sizes and the lot coverage being above than typically allowed, this unusual case has put the Applicant in the position to design the houses in a way that would best benefit the future homeowner.

Although the design of the house can allow the Applicant to have a larger front yard, the Applicant has decided to use the space to allow for a larger private backyard for each of the residents and apply for the zone variance.

2. Detail how due to the special or unusual circumstance a described above, strict application of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, or would deprive the property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

The existing property is in some disrepair, and it is the goal of the Applicant to revitalize the lot which would result in the demolition of the existing house and replacing it with modern housing. The house is currently 85 years old and no longer the best use for a lot that size for the city for housing density. The zoning code does not allow the Applicant to best utilize the lot with its unique size the Applicant is requesting to optimize their lot, allowing the future homeowners to use as much of their lot as possible.
a. The lot sizes: If the lot sizes were up to standard, there essentially would not be enough room on the lot to accommodate as many homes as the Applicant is requesting. The Applicant is trying to utilize the lot and has retained inspiration from surrounding developments that have similar lot sizes. Without the minimized lot sizes, the Project would not be possible. b. Lot coverage: If the Applicant would design the houses using the Montebello Municipal code requirements, the houses would be extremely small and not suitable for a growing family, which the Applicant hopes to house. c. Front Setbacks: If the Applicant were to abide by the front yard setbacks, the future homeowners would have a large front yard and an extremely small backyard. The Applicant decided to utilize the space and provide a larger backyard to optimize the space in the best way.

3. Explain how the Zoning Variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right to allow a reasonable use of the subject property, which is possessed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Page 24 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 5 of 8 ends

To properly utilize the future lots the Applicant is requesting to apply these zone variances to properly utilize the area on the lot and to design each lot to properly maintain the most use out of the Project site that is being redeveloped. a. Lot sizes: The lot sizes being smaller than required allows for more units which gives the Applicant a mechanism to provide more housing options to Montebello residents.
b. Lot Coverage: Being able to build more on each lot provides the units with a bigger house for bigger rooms, kitchen and bathroom areas providing a more comfortable to provide a more attractive home to any future residents. c. Front setback: Having a smaller front setback allows the residents to enjoy more space in the backyard of the units which is necessary with many of the new housing developments having such a small backyard. Although the Applicant will take away from the front setback, every unit will also have an attached garage for two cars.

4. Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.

Based on the testimony provided by the public at the Planning Commission hearing and hearing conducted by the City Council, the City Council finds that the proposed design will have a significant effect on the public welfare as the size of the proposed lots are not consistent with the surround area and zoning. a. Lot sizes: The variance of lot sizes will affect the surrounding users as there currently are no units in the surrounding area that are similar sizes. b. Lot coverage: The lots will be above the allowed lot coverage, and the lots will be fully built out, every unit will be of a similar design, this will result in the houses standing out compared to other lots in the surrounding area. c. Front setback: The lots will have a very small front yard; the units will still each have a two-car garage for the residents. But the driveway will be limited.

5. Describe how the granting of the Zone Variance will be consistent with the general plan and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

Page 25 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 6 of 8 ends

D. TENATIVE TRACT MAP

1. Describe how the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and Specific plans as described in California Government Code Section 65451.

The proposed Project that would be allowed through this subdivision would result in over 23,000 square feet of open space and medium cost for 15 families.

The zone is consistent with the general plan and provides additional housing in the R1-Zone that is designated for single family housing developments making the Project consistent with the general plan.

2. Describe how the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable general and specific plans; The general plan seeks to balance open space with developed space, and to group uses in neighborhoods for mutual enjoyment of the occupants and the residents. The Project provides open space and a private park as well as houses for sale. The development will allow the future resident to enjoy quality housing in a safe and secure environment. The development will also allow for modest growth in the city that will benefit business and the school system.

3. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The existing property has been developed as a single-family home since 1938. The house is aging and is in disrepair. Since its original construction, the community has grown around the house, and many of the developments around it now have much greater density. Based on testimony from the surrounding neighbors and how dense the rest of the neighborhood is, the Planning Commission hearing and hearing conducted in the City Council, finds that the proposed number of units is too large for the lot size as this number of units is resulting in many zone variance requests.

4. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development;
The site is suitable for the proposed density as many of the developments in the surrounding neighborhood also have similar densities and the square footage of the lot can be designed to provide 15 homes. The now underutilized lot will provide housing to Montebello residents.

5. Describe how the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife and their habitat; The existing house has been built since 1938 as a single-family home, there is no wildlife on the property that can be impacted.

Page 26 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 7 of 8 ends

6. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems; According to a study conducted by the Applicant, the Project is estimated to produce less than 113 trips per day including 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 during the PM peak hours. The modern construction techniques will be employed for the Project will lessen the likelihood of termites and other insects that have the potential of appearing because of the Project.

7. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; and The height of the Project will not exceed 25 feet in elevation; thus, it will not conflict with any neighbor’s rights with respect to blocking views. The utility easement on the west side of the property for electrical and communication cabling will be maintained. The utility engineering for the Project will likely create or renew utility access for the Project location itself as well as for the neighborhood.

8. Describe how the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will ensure that the construction of these units will not be of great impact to the sewer systems.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the proposed Site Plan Review, Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM ENV 02-24- CE, is considered a “project,” per the (CEQA) definition of a “project.” The Project is considered a Class 32 and Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), and none of the limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

SECTION 3. DECISION. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, and the findings included herein, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application for Site Plan Review and Zoning Variances and denies the application for Tentative Tract Map approval.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.

Page 27 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-61

Page 8 of 8 ends

_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-XX was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 14th day of August 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

Page 28 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ZONE
VARIANCES (PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) AND APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION (NO. 084478) FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF 15 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 16
LEGAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 JACMAR DRIVE

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

Attachment B

Page 29 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 2 of 17 ends

SECTION 1. RECTIALS. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as substantive findings in this Resolution.

A. GENERAL PLAN
The Project conforms to the following goals and policies of the Montebello General Plan.

General Plan Goal to Encourage urban infill and compact development A2.7a states a goal “Promote infill development on vacant and underutilized sites….”
General Plan Goal for development that will create diverse and walkable neighborhoods A3.4b states a goal “Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds.”
General Plan Goal to retrofit suburban development P3.6 states the goal to “Integrate more housing choices in existing subdivisions”.

B. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 17.74.070 of the MMC, before any Site Plan Review shall be granted, all the following findings must be made:

Page 30 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 3 of 17 ends

2. That the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the general plan; and
The proposed Project site is consistent with the general plan and reflects the goals that were set in place when designating certain zoning areas with different housing types. The Project site has the capacity for more development and the density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have also been approved in the close vicinity. The current plans are for 15 units with full roads, fire department turn around, and a small park for the residents to enjoy. The zone variance will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

3. That the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare.

The proposed addition will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties as the surrounding area is currently developed with an existing single-family unit. The zone variances and subsequent development would not be harmful to the general welfare of the neighborhood, city or create problems for the public health or safety. It would increase the welfare by first supporting investments, bringing in construction and related jobs, and providing housing to the community. The current use is R-1 single family residential, and the proposed residential zoning will not change. All the immediate surrounding land uses are consistent with residential housing. The addition of this Project will be consistent with the surrounding land uses and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.

C. VARIANCES
Pursuant to section 17.72.060 of the MMC, before any variance shall be granted, the Applicant has demonstrated the following facts:

1. Describe the special major unusual circumstance applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Page 31 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 4 of 17 ends

to the neighborhood with so much land being underutilized. Without the zone variance request in this application, the Applicant believes they would be deprived of maximizing the market value of their property. The increased property values of this new residential development would increase property tax revenues for the City. Further rejection of the Zone Variance requests would deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications by not being able to fully utilize the Project site. a. The lot sizes: This single-family residential lot is special to the neighborhood as there is no other lot in the surrounding area that is the same size, making it difficult to design the homes on such a unique sized lot to optimize the area for each unit, resulting in reduced lot sizes.
b. Lot coverage: As a result of the lot sizes being smaller than usual, which is not typical, the Applicant requests to use as much space as possible causing the lot coverage to be more than usual.
c. Front setbacks: With the reduced sizes and the lot coverage being above than typically allowed, this unusual case has put the Applicant in the position to design the houses in a way that would best benefit the future homeowner.

Page 32 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 5 of 17 ends

4. Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.

The site for the proposed use would not adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding property owners because the size of the house and the two-story construction is consistent with the majority of the houses in the neighborhood. The property immediately south of the residence, although zoned R-1 single family residential does have three story town homes. There are many other properties in the immediate surroundings with greater densities, assuring this addition will not have any effects on the neighbors or the surrounding area. a. Lot sizes: The variance of lot sizes will not affect the surrounding users as there currently are units in the surrounding area that are similar sizes and have no effect on the surrounding properties.
b. Lot coverage: Although the lots will be above the allowed lot coverage, and the lots will be fully built out, every unit will be of a similar design, the consistency will ensure no unit will stand out from the others. c. Front setback: Although the lots will have a very small front yard, the units will still each have a two-car garage for the residents. This will help with any concerns regarding the limited driveway that will result from the front setback variance.

Page 33 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 6 of 17 ends

5. Describe how the granting of the Zone Variance will be consistent with the general plan and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

D. TENATIVE TRACT MAP

1. Describe how the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and Specific plans as described in California Government Code Section 65451.

The proposed Project that would be allowed through this subdivision would result in over 23,000 square feet of open space and medium cost for 15 families.

3. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The existing property has been developed as a single-family home since 1938. The house is aging and is in disrepair. Since its original construction, the community has grown around the house, and many of the developments around it now have much greater density. The combination of the property’s size as well as the denser development around it makes it suitable for this type of housing. The Project will have 16 parcels, with 15 single family homes on each separate parcel with a parcel for streets, utilities and a private park which will be owned by all of the homes and managed by a home owners association that will be set upon completion of construction.

4. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development;

Page 34 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 7 of 17 ends

The site is suitable for the proposed density as many of the developments in the surrounding neighborhood also have similar densities and the square footage of the lot can be designed to provide 15 homes. The now underutilized lot will provide housing to Montebello residents.

8. Describe how the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will ensure that the construction of these units will not be of great impact to the sewer systems.

Page 35 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 8 of 17 ends

SECTION 3. DECISION. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, and the findings included herein, the City Council hereby overturns the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application for Site Plan Review and Zoning Variances and approves the application for Tentative Tract Map approval subject to the conditions of approval included herein.

SECTION 4. CONDITIONS. The City Council finds that the following conditions of approval are necessary and appropriate:

A. Planning Division Conditions

1. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the city, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers, or employees arising out of, or which are related to the Applicant’s project or application (collectively referred to as “proceedings”). The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred or awarded in connection with the proceedings whether incurred by the Applicant, the city and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceedings. This indemnity provision shall include the Applicant’s obligation to indemnify the city for all the city’s costs, fees, and damages that the city incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth herein. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City’s interest in the proceedings.

2. The development and utilization of the subject site shall conform to the allowed use, except as provided for herein and by subsequent revisions found by the Director of Planning and Community Development (“Director”) to be in substantial compliance with these provisions.

3. The development and utilization of the subject site shall be consistent with all of the provisions of the MMC, SPR, ZV and TTM (Case No. PC-2024-0002- SPR/ZV/TTM) and the specifications of the Planning Division.

4. Within thirty (30) days of the City Planning Division transmittal of the Acceptance Form, the Applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Acceptance Form, agreeing to the conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. Failure to return the Acceptance Form within thirty (30) days shall constitute grounds for terminating the permit.

5. In the event the Applicant violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation(s) have been fully remedied.

Page 36 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 9 of 17 ends

6. No signs shall be installed on the site until a sign permit has been approved by the Planning Department and Building & Safety Division in conformance with the provisions set forth in Chapter 17.62.080 (“Signs- Residential Zones”) of the MMC and the provisions set forth in the SPR.

7. The approval of the entitlement shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within one (1) year from the SPR’s effective date. Exercise of right shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction or similar activities demonstrating the intent to proceed with the project, as determined by the director.

8. The Director, at any time, can call for a review of the approved conditions of approval at a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission.

These condition(s) may be modified, or new condition(s) added to reduce any impacts of the use.(Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM)

9. The Applicant or successor in interest shall meet the applicable code requirements and all other City Department regulations.

10. All applicable conditions of approval from previous entitlements on the property shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specifically noted in this Resolution.

11. The property owner will bear the full costs of all monitoring and inspection activities to be conducted by City staff, or its designated representative(s), as necessary to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Resolution.

12. Any change, expansion, intensification and/or modification to the proposed plans use, or mode of operations shall be subject to the review and approval by the Director who may take action or call for review by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing.

13. This approval shall not supersede the approval of any other responsible agencies. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws.

14. The approval of this SPR (Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) can be extended up to and not to exceed an additional two (2) years with a written request by the property owner thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date stating the reason and need for an extension and upon review and approval by the Director.

15. In the event of a violation of the conditions of approval, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.

16. The development and utilization of the site shall comply with all the provisions of all of the current Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Codes, and

Page 37 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 10 of 17 ends

City Ordinances, as well as additional requirements from the Montebello Building and Safety Division.

17. The development and utilization of the site shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department. Additional Montebello Public Works Department requirements may be required prior to issuing building permits.

18. The development and utilization of the site shall comply with all the provisions of all of the California Fire Code, International Fire Code, and National Fire Protection Association standards as well as additional requirements from the Montebello Fire Department.

19. Modification to Plans. Subsequent modification to this approval, which do not intensify the use, including but not limited to reorientation of structures, alteration of parking and circulation design, minor changes to the Conditions of Approval, interpretations of the Conditions of Approval relative to intent, necessity of, and timing, may be approved by the Director within a 25% deviation, unless the Director requires a Substantial Conformance or revised Permit application in accordance with the City Development Code.

20. The Applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning Inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied.

21. The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect, which meet the requirements set forth in MMC shall be required as a part of the project Plan Check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits.

22. A copy of the approved Resolution shall be attached to the construction plans for any site improvement at the submittal of plans for plan check.

23. It is the responsibility of the property owner to have all graffiti on the site removed within twenty-four (24) hours of its appearance, or be subject to citation from the City Code Enforcement Division.

24. All improvements to the subject property shall be in compliance with all City Ordinances.

25. The hours of construction shall be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and weekends and holidays 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as restricted by the MMC Section 9.08.050.

26. The street shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads.

Page 38 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 11 of 17 ends

27. The established HOA shall incorporate language in its bylaws to address parking concerns through a parking pass program or other measures.

28.The applicant shall properly capture and relocate any animal found on the property.

29. Any parking space that fronts a building wall or fence with no separation between the front end of the parking space and the wall or fence, shall be provided with a concrete wheel stop or curb barrier not less than two (2) feet from such wall or fence property line. Such wheel stop or curb barrier shall be securely installed and maintained.

30. An application for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the lots into 16 separate units, and a final map shall be approved prior to the issuance of building permits.

31. The specifications of the Montebello Public Works Department and the Building Division shall be complied with:

The Applicant will continue to work with the Building Department to finalize the certification of the Tract Map and will, upon request, provide the Building Department with any additional information or documentation required.

32. The landscape plan shall conform to the MMC requirements. Shrubs shall not be less than three (3) feet in height when planted and cover not less than thirty (30) percent of the landscaped area. All landscaping shall cover the designated planting areas from the outset.

33. All trees shall be at least twenty-four inch (24”) box or equivalent.

34. All landscape planters shall be surrounded by a six (6) inch concrete curb.

35. All existing and proposed utilities (Gas, Electricity, Communications, etc.) shall be placed underground. The applicant shall reflect this requirement on plans submitted for “Plan Check”.

36. All outdoor utilities or machinery located outside the exterior walls, including roof-mounted equipment, shall be completely screened from view from any public right-of-way or adjacent residential use by either view obscuring landscaping or architectural features of the main building (i.e. parapet walls, façade extension, etc.), subject to the final review and approval of the Planning Department.

37. Any inevitable exposed wires shall be neatly bolted and painted to match the building color.

Page 39 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 12 of 17 ends

38. The exterior of all structures and walls shall be a neutral color scheme and shall be consistent with the provisions of the Color Ordinance of the City of Montebello, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department.

39.Any substantial change or modification to the proposed site plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.

40.Final architectural plans/design will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.

B. Building Division Conditions

1. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.

2. Plans prepared in compliance with the current Building Code shall be submitted to Building Division for review prior permit issuance.

3. School Developmental Fees shall be paid to School District prior to the issuance of the building permit.

4. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to issuance of the building permit.

5. Applicant shall submit a site plan with proposed addressing and file an address assignment application with the City.

6. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.

7. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.

8. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill; b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials;
c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e) The testing of compacted fills; and

Page 40 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 13 of 17 ends

f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.

9. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by other soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the City, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.

10.The property shall be surveyed, and the boundaries marked by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California.

11.Foundation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed and the setbacks determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS

TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT
LOCATION.

12.Separate application and plan review is required for Electrical plans showing the electrical system design serving all proposed units.

13.Separate application and plan review is required for Plumbing plans showing the utility, including but not limited to water, sewer, and gas lines, design servicing all proposed units.

14. Project shall comply with the CalGreen Residential mandatory requirements.

15.No form work or other construction materials will be permitted to encroach into adjacent property without written approval of the affected property owner.

16.Demolition permit is required for any existing buildings, including but not limited to a pool and a detached storage shed, which are to be demolished.

17.Separate building permit is required for the perimeter block wall/fence.

18.All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed, and their location approved by an engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250-pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.

19.A separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers.

20.Building permits shall not be issued until the final map has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

Page 41 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 14 of 17 ends

C. Public Works Department
The following conditions and public improvements will be required to be performed and completed in an acceptable manner to the City in accordance with all applicable rules and laws. Federal, State, County and local laws and regulations for project implementation must be adhere to throughout the duration of the project. The Public Works Department may require other information or may impose additional conditions and requirements as deemed necessary to protect public health and safety.

General:
1) Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Wells, including legally removed, permanent, temporary and active wells, must be depicted on all site plans, grading plans and all other relevant plans. Include a legend that demonstrates ownership, date installed, and type of monitoring well and all other relevant information. 2) Provide Tentative Tract Map which incorporates the adopted conditions of approval and any specific criteria noted by the city. The tentative map must also show existing drainage patterns of all properties adjacent to the site, including relevant topographic elevations from the adjacent properties. 3) Provide demolition plan for existing buildings and pavement. Show utilities to be capped and abandoned at the property lines.
4) Comply with the City’s ordinance pertaining to construction debris recycling.

Contact the Building & Safety Department to obtain a Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Program form. The Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Program is also applicable with respect to the grading process. 5) Provide Grading and drainage plans, geotechnical report (the report shall provide recommendations for pavement thicknesses, over excavation limits, and etc), infiltration report, and all other applicable reports/plans must be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 6) Provide a hydrology and hydraulics report prepared by a professional engineer subject to review and approval. All storm drainage facilities serving the development must accommodate a 50-year storm.
7) Provide an on-site utility plan (sewer and water) for review and approval.

This plan must include water service for domestic flow, fire flow, and backflow prevention. A water and sewer system analysis must be provided by the developer to demonstrate that the new development does not negatively impact the existing system. If the existing system does not have adequate pressure and fire flow to serve the development, the developer will be responsible for upgrading the water main and sewer as necessary in the public right-of-way. 8) Engineer to show the location of the sewer mainline, nearest manholes, lateral serving the project and configuration of the onsite sewer including diameter

Page 42 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 15 of 17 ends

and material of the onsite sewer.
9) Engineer to show the location of the water mainline, water meters servicing the development and any newly proposed water meter locations. 10) Engineer to show will serve letter from the water purveyor. 11) Engineer to submit sewer study.
12) Provide a street improvement plan. The street improvement must pavement rehabilitation (2-inch grinding and overlay) along the entire property frontage and up to the street centerline.
13) All public works improvements must comply with the standards and specifications of the city of Montebello or Los Angeles County. 14) Low Impact Development (LID) is a requirement of the NPDES Permit No.

CAS004004, Order No. ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105 and local Ordinances. The LID is a narrative report that explains the type of development and drainage of the site. It must address the post-construction water quality and habitat impact issues. 15) Provide and submit SWPPP and pay the fee to the State of California Water Quality Board then submit SWPPP with WDID# to the city. 16) A recorded Covenant and Agreement indicating that the owner of the subject development is aware and agrees to maintain all stormwater BMP features for this project is required. The covenant shall include operation and maintenance guidelines prepared by the project civil engineer/architect. 17) The Engineering Division issues all encroachment/excavation permits in the public right-of-way. Permits are issued to valid State of California licensed contractors to perform the necessary work.
18) Alternative engineering methods for filtration and infiltration must be used to defray a percentage of the storm water runoff into the storm drain system. 19) Comply with all Federal, State, and local agency requirements pertaining to the Clean Water Act, which established regulations, set forth in the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. 21) All USA/Dig Alert paint markings must be removed by the contractor from the sidewalk, curb & gutter and/or asphalt pavement once offsite improvements are completed.
22) The applicant must record the Final Map after the City Council approves the final map and the City Council accepts any applicable bonds or agreements. 23) The applicant/ property owner must provide written proof that there are no

Page 43 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 16 of 17 ends

liens against the subdivision for unpaid taxes or special assessments and submit Los Angeles County tax bill, tax payment receipt, and copy of cancelled check before filling a Final Map with the city for approval.
24) Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) conforming to these conditions of approval must be filed for approval. The CC&R must be approved as to form by the City Attorney; the applicant must pay for all costs associated with such review. A copy of the approved recorded CC&R must be submitted before final inspection and clearance of the building permit.
25) The City Engineer may require other information or may impose additional conditions and requirements as deemed necessary to protect health and safety, and to benefit the public.

D. Fire Department
1) Fire flow analysis showing the existing infrastructure meets/exceeds the 2022 Edition California Fire Code, Appendix B/BB.
2) The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, referenced NFPA standards, and local ordinances. 3) Additional requirements may be added during the plan check process, if applicable.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.

_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

Page 44 of 1206 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-62

Page 17 of 17 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-XX was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 14th day of August 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

Page 45 of 1206 ends

REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

COVER SHEET
SCALE:

N.T.S.

SHEET #:

T-100 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

1.11.24 JACMAR
301 JACMAR DR
MONTEBELLO, CA 90640
(EXISTING) OCCUPANCY CODES

PROPERTY SUMMARY
PROJECT:
(NEW) OCCUPANCY CODES

DEFERRED SUBMITTALS

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES
PROJECT DIRECTORY PROJECT INFO./BUILDING DATA

APPLICABLE CODES

CONTRACTOR NOTES

SCOPE OF WORK
ABBREVIATIONS + SYMBOLS

NOTES VICINITY MAP
PARKING WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
Property Owner
Architect
Civil Engineering Company
Applicant

PROJECT DIRECTORY

SHEET INDEX

Page 46 of 1206 ends

S 63°38'00" E
100.00'
S 63°38'00" E 139.55'
N 32°45'0
" E 60.85' N 32°45'0
" E 60.85' N 32°45'0
" E 59.86' N 32°45'0
" E

59.86'
N 63°38'00" W 70.06'
N 26°2 '0
" E

65.0 '
N
1 6
0 3
7 °3
.7
8'00" W
9'
43°29'23"
L=37.95,
R=50.00
Jacmar Drive
Jacmar Drive
N 6
2 3
9 °
. 3
9 8'00" W
5'
S 26°2 '0
" W
216.0 ' S
20°1 '07"
E

82.82'
115.17 TC
114.85 TC
114.92 TC
115.55 TC
115.62 TC
115.04 TC
115.05 TC
115.05 TC
115.03 TC
114.85 TC
115.21 TC
114.86 TC
115.57 TC
115.52 TC
114.85 TC
114.90 TC
115.08 TC
115.01 FS
115.15 FS
115.15 FS
115.09 FS 115.14 FS
115.11 FS
115.34 FS
115.09 FS
115.32 FS
115.63 FS
115.58 FS
115.46 FS
115.38 FS
115.42 FS
115.57 FS
115.65 FS
115.60 FS
115.17 FS
115.03 gr
115.23 gr
115.32 gr 115.08 gr
115.05 gr
115.30 gr
116.54 gr
114.93 gr
114.92 gr
115.58 gr
114.99 gr
115.37 gr
115.85 gr
115.54 gr
115.12 gr
115.02 gr
115.40 gr
115.34 gr
115.43 gr
115.25 gr
115.11 gr
115.10 gr
115.05 gr
115.25 gr
115.26 gr
115.14 gr
115.14 gr
115.12 gr
115.22 gr
114.86 gr
114.95 gr
114 115.03 gr .85 gr
115.09 gr
114.92 gr
221.61 TW
115.08 gr
115.41 gr
221.61 TW
115.57 gr
115.30 gr
221.47 TW
115.41 gr
115.32 gr
221.49 TW
115.40 gr
115.19 gr
221.60 TW
115.14 gr
115.51 gr
221.40 TW
115.04 gr
115.19 gr
221.32 TW
115.38 gr 115.21 gr
221.99 TW
114.85 gr
114.98 gr
222.06 TW
115.01 gr
114.90 gr
222.16 TW
115.01 gr
115.17 gr
222.14 TW
115.09 gr
114.85 gr
222.87 TW
115.09 gr
115.07 gr
222.70 TW
115.14 gr
115.53 gr
222.98 TW
115.16 gr
115.02 gr
223.50 TW
114.86 gr
115.24 gr
223.65 TW
115.23 gr
115.28 gr
223.42 TW
115.21 gr
223.47 TW
223.57 TW
223.68 TW
115.75 gr
223.48 TW
115.11 gr
223.57 TW
115.20 FS
223.53 TW
115.02 FS
223.51 TW
115.17 FS
223.45 TW
115.09 FS
115.45 FS
223.32 TW
115.66 FS
223.36 TW
115.16 FS
115.11 FS
223.43 TW
115.12 FS
223.48 TW
115.03 FS
115.09 FS
222.95 TW
115.63 FS
222.98 TW
115.09 FS
115.09 FS
222.98 TW
115.10 FS
222.91 TW
115.14 FS
222.85 TW
115.42 FS
222.86 TW
114.93 FS
222.78 TW
115.15 FS
222.81 TW
114.98 FS
222.80 TW
115.08 FS
226.31 TW
115.35 FS
224.06 TW
115.11 FS
223.99 TW
115.16 FS
222.82 TW
115.28 FS
Legend:

Centerline
RightofWay
Lot Line
Wall
Building
Pavement
Fence
Pool
Contour 1' Power Lines
Power Pole
222.66 TW
115.22 FS
222.50 TW
115.03 FS
Statement of Engineer:

I Peter H. Martin, RCE #24889, hereby
certify, that this Site Plan and Survey
correctly shows the location of all buildings
situated on the above premises, to an
accuracy of 0.15' and 50 ppm. by:
222.73 TW
222.10 TW
222.59 TW
222.05 TW
222.01 TW
223.20 TW
222.85 TW
222.77 TW
221.64 TW
221.61 TW
220.65 TW
220.61 TW
220.99 TW
221.06 TW
221.87 TW 221.76 TW
221.70 TW
221.73 TW
221.73 TW
221.70 TW
221.79 TW
221.66 TW
221.77 TW
221.78 TW
221.37 TW
221.76 TW
221.76 TW
221.77 TW
221.78 TW
221.75 TW
221.98 TW
222.28 TW
221.78 TW
221.75 TW
221.77
221.88
221.52
223.65
222.05
222.35
222.09
223.57
223.32
222.25
221.47
222.39
222.83
223.94
222.68
222.57
223.00
221.56
224.75
223.15
222.15
221.51
220.86
21292.904.96
221.94
228.08
219.42 222.40
220.11
221.16
220.96
2242.2236.34
22222.520.82
221.64
222.14
221.48
223.09
Scale 1/16" = 1' 8 16 24 32
Martin Engineers
Peter H. Martin
RCE 24889
5025 Crown Ave. La Cañada, CA 91011
818-495-3024
10/11/23
DATE:

C-1
S
H
E
E
T
1 O
F
1 Site Survey
201 Jacmar Dr. Montebello, CA 90640
John Mark Construction
Company, Inc
APN: 6352-026-029
PREPARED FOR:

Abbreviations:

CO = Septic Clean-Out
FFE = Finish Floor Elevation
FG = Finish Grade
FL = Flow Line Elevation
FS = Finish Surface Elevation
GR = Exist Grade Elevation
PP = Power Pole
R = Reference
SS = Sanitary Sewer
TC =Top of Curb
TG = Top of Grate Elevation
TS = Top of Slope
TW = Top of Wall Elevation
UV = Utility Vault
WM = Water Meter
FD = Found
NTG = Nothing
Pool
House
House
House
House
House
House
House
House
Multi Story Building
Lot Area:
58,240.65 Sq.Ft. 1.337 Ac.

N
T
TI G
TE
A N OR

ATE OF CALIF
C
Exp. 12/31/23
No.24889
ST
I P
EG
S
R
E

I V I L
I
N
E
NE I R
ED
E
R
RO P
ER
I
A
SS
. M
F
H
E NA O
R
L

Page 47 of 1206 ends

POOL

DRIVEWAY (FOR DEMO)
(FOR DEMO)
(E) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(FOR DEMO)
6'-1112"
30'-6"
21'-312"
28'-10"
14'-6"
9'-2"
17'-412" 18'-3"
2'-612"
List of trees to be removed where
all trunks are 4" min. diameter : - (10) Palm Trees - (2) Pine Trees - (3) Wild Olive Trees - (3) Jacaranda Trees - (1) Fresno Ash Tree - (1) Fucus Tree - (3) Eucalyptus Trees (E) BLOCK WALL/

FENCE STRUCTURE

TO BE REPLACED
(E) BLOCK WALL/

FENCE STRUCTURE

AND GATE

TO BE REMOVED
(E) BLOCK WALL/

FENCE STRUCTURE

TO BE REMOVED
Walls To Be Replaced
Structures For Demo
Items For Demo

DEMO LEGEND
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
(E) SITE PLAN/

DEMO PLAN
SCALE:
1/16" = 1'
SHEET #:

A-100

EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI

1.11.24

Page 48 of 1206 ends

GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
DRIVEWAY 40' 58'-6"

DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
6" Curb

FRONT PORCH

DRIVEWAY
GARAGE
FRONT PORCH 2
10 JACMAR DRIVE
3RD STREET Sidewalk Sidewalk
Sidewalk 6" Curb DRIVEWAY 49"-3"'
61'-6"
62'-1" 43' 43' 6" Curb 6" Curb DRIVEWAY
59' 40'
4 DRIVEWAY 40'
26' 6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb 44'-8"
59'
6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb
5'
15'
5'
15'
10'
5' SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
143'-6
3 4
"
216'-1
1 4
"
239'-1
1 4
"
47'-31
4 "
107'-71
2 "
82'-5
3 4
"
64'-111
2 "
5'
5' DRIVEWAY

SIDEWALK
9 55'-9"

DRIVEWAY
6'-9" 49'-3"'
3 40'-4"
6" Curb 6" Curb 34'-4"
8'-6"
49' 43'-0"
11'-4" 33'-9"
58'-7"
60'10"
10'

FRONT PORCH
1 43' 33'-8"
54'-3" 5'-1"
26'-0" 26'
5'
10'
GARAGE
FRONT PORCH 46'-8"
5 6" Curb
8'-8" 40' 38'
12 11
6" Curb
58'-6"
5'
10'
5'
5' 10'
5'

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
7'
15' SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 38'
GARAGE
FRONT PORCH 8
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
7 38'

FRONT PORCH
13 FRONT PORCH
14 10'
5'
10'

FRONT PORCH
15 5'
10'
5'

FRONT PORCH
GARAGE 6

FRONT PORCH

GARAGE DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK
T-D 49'-3"
5'
10'
5'-6"
7'-4"
POROUS
PAVING

POCKET PARK
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
7'
12'
15' 63'-6"
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
GARAGE

LANDING

AC UNIT

FRONT PORCH

SITTING
AREA
4'
4'

AC UNIT

LANDING LANDING LANDING LANDING

AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT

GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE

LANDING

EXERCISE EQUIPMENT
6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb
8'
8'
15'
10'
10'
8'-6"
8'-6"
8'
8'
11'
11'
6" Curb
6" Curb
T-D

T-D T-D
15'-1"
15'-1" 15'
15'
15'-1"
15'
15'
10'-6" 40' 10'-6" 40' 10'-6" 40' 10'-6" 40' 10'-6" 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall
6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 6' Block Wall 15' 15' 15' 15'

SIDEWALK

DRIVEWAY

SIDEWALK

LANDING

LANDING
GARAGE
6'

FINISHED GRADE
TBD
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

PROPOSED

SITE PLAN
SCALE:
1/16" = 1'
SHEET #:

A-101

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

1.11.24 N

T-D TRUNCATED DOMES
TREE - 4" TRUNK MIN.

LANDSCAPE WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI PRIVATE OPEN AREA: 21,520 Sq Ft
PAVEMENT:

TOTAL OF HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPED AREAS: 41,504 Sq Ft
STREET: 13,034 Sq Ft
FOOTPRINT: 17,536 Sq Ft
Units:

ROOFED AREA: 24,155 Sq Ft
UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 UNIT #4 UNIT #5 UNIT #6 UNIT #7 UNIT #8 UNIT #9 UNIT #10 UNIT #11 UNIT #12 UNIT #13 UNIT #14 UNIT #15 PRIVATE Open Space (Sq Ft)
Front Porch
Backyard Hardscape
Walkway
Driveway
Right of Way
COMMON Open Space (Sq Ft)
North Entrance Landscape
Landscape (In Front Of Units)
Porous Pavement
Front Yard Landscape
Back Yard Landscape
Street
"Exercise Equipment " Landscape
Pickleball Landscape
Pickleball Court
Pickleball Court Pavement
59 59 39 35 35 39 35 35 56 56 45 45 45 45 45
TOTAL
673
13,034
1,4054
1,512
158
1,341
573
880
615
851
170 170 136 136 136 146 146 146 187 187 177 177 177 177 177 2,445 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 59 59 56 56 56 56 56 846
942 933 966 924 1022 902 830 1018 1104 978 887 887 887 887 887 14,054 122 101 153 102 101 99 112 112 156 162 116 116 116 116 116 1,800 91 123 85 94 238 56 63 69 181 109 119 119 118 119 118 1,702 SCALE: 1/4"=1'
(N) 6' WALL DETAIL -

DECORATIVE MASON WALL
* SLUMPSTONE PER 17.10.130.D OF

MONTEBELLO MUNICPAL CODE

Page 49 of 1206 ends

1 & 2

KITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
GARAGE

HALLWAY
UP
1'-6" POWDER
(UNDER STAIRS)
9'-8" 6'-8" 6'-8" 3'-81
2 "
32'-101
2 "
4'-21
2 "
18'-3"
20'-6"
17'-8"
9'-7"
6'-9"
4'-71
2 "
11'-101
2 " 20'-6"
6'-21
2 "
9'-101
2 "
5' STORAGE
BATH

LAUNDRY

HALLWAY
DOWN
CLOSET

CLOSET CLOSET
MASTER

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
HALL
CLOSET
PANTRY
11'-10"
10'-3"
5'-3"
11'-1" 16'-2
1 2
"
5'-5"
2'-5"
16'-8
1 2
"
5'-11" 5'
11'-10" 20'-6
1 2
"
9'-1"
7'-11
1 2
"
13'-0
1 2
"
3'-0
1 2
"
2'-5"
12'-3
1 2
"
4'-9"
3'-3"
4'
2'
6' 11'-4" 11'-4" 6'-3"
11'-8
1 2
" 10'-8" 12'
W.I.C.

BATH
CLOSET

HALLWAY
1'
1'
2' REFRIGERATOR

SINK STOVE/OVEN
2'-10"
5'-11
1 2
" 5' 11'
A
A
B C C
C
C
C
A
2'-9"
D
D
D
D
A
A
F E
G
1 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2
3 4
5 6 6
6 5' 5'
5'
7 8
39'-3" 43'-3"
34'-10
1 2
"
FRONT
PORCH
3'-6"
1'-6"
2 TON

AC UNIT
(FIRST STORY) 4 TON

AC UNIT
(SECOND STORY)
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

FLOORPLAN -
SUITE 1 &2
SCALE:
1/4"=1'
SHEET #:

A-200
TYP FLOORPLAN - UNITS 1 & 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

DOOR LEGEND
8 Garage Door 180 x 84
Sq Ft For Unit 1 & 2
First Story 742
Second Story 1312
Habitable Unit Sq Ft 2054
Garage Sq Ft 400
Covered Area 1231
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
*

FIRST STORY SECOND STORY

Page 50 of 1206 ends

1 8 D E F
23'-11"
17'-512"
20'-1112" 21'-8 21'-11" 12"
12'-4" 12345
Stucco
Wood Garage Door
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 1 1 6 Planter Box 6 6 #### C A A G C
23'-11"
17'-512"
21'-11" 21'-812" 20'-312"
12'-212"
3'-2" 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 134
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST: 1 5 5 Decorative Iron
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #:

UNIT 1 & 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

ELEVATION -
UNITS 1&2
A-201

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI ABCDEFG Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

2.1 sq ft 1234567
Entry Swing Door
Interior Swing Door
Pocket Door
Bi-Fold Closet Door
Bi-Fold Laundry Door
Exterior Sliding Door
Sliding Closet Door
36 x 84
32 x 84
32 x 84
48 x 84
90 x 84
72 x 84
60 x 84
DOOR LEGEND 8 Garage Door 180 x 84
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW **
UNIT 1 & 2 - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'
1/4"=1'

Page 51 of 1206 ends

B 7 D D D C C
17'-512"
23'-11"
21'-812" 20'-1112"
4' 3'-2" 134
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST: 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 33 3 3 5 5 Decorative Iron C A A A 23'-11"
20'-312" 20'-1112" 21'-11"
23'-11"
3'-4" 134
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST: 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 Decorative Iron REVISION DATE:

ELEVATION -
UNITS 1&2
A-202

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI ABCDEFG Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #:

UNIT 1 & 2 - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP UNIT 1 & 2 - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'
1/4"=1'

Page 52 of 1206 ends

4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

ROOF PLAN -
SUITE 1 &2
SCALE: SHEET #:

UNITS 1 & 2 - ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4"=1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N A-203

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
1/4"=1'

Page 53 of 1206 ends

GARAGE
FRONT
PORCH
UP
POWDER

KITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
DOWN

BATH CLOSET CLOSET
BATH
W.I.C.

BEDROOM

MASTER STORAGE
E
F
C C
D
D
A
C
C
A
C
C
C
B
5'-8" 13'-6" 6'-7" 4'-3"
4'-21
2 "
13'-2" 21'-01
2 "
20'-6"
9' 20'-6"
2'-10" 4'-2"
5'
14'
15'-101
2 "
30'
4'-11" 4'-11"
4'-3"
4'-5"
4'-5
1 2
"
8'-2"
12'-11" 8'-5"
7'
16'-9
1 2
" 2'-5" 14'-3
1 2
"
2'
15'-9"
27'-9
1 2
"
2'
36'-61
2 "
8'-4" 21'-2"
2'
11'-6
1 2
"
2'
13'-11"
20'-9
1 2
"
3'-8"
1'-4
1 2
"
6'-2"
A
8 A
42'-01
2 "
34'
46'-0
1 2
"

LAUNDRY
5 3
1'-6"
4'
6'-8" PANTRY 2 TON

AC UNIT
(FIRST STORY) 4 TON

AC UNIT
(SECOND STORY)
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

FLOORPLAN -
UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15
SCALE: SHEET #:

FLOORPLAN - UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15
SCALE: 1/4"=1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

11.22.23 N UNIT 6
UNIT 7
N UNIT 8
Sq Ft For Units 3 & 6
First Story 618
Second Story 1108
Habitable Unit Sq Ft 1743
Garage Sq Ft 400
Covered Area 1108
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 5
N
UNIT 11
UNIT 13
UNIT 15
UNIT 12
UNIT 14
Sq Ft For Units 4, 5, 7 &8
First Story 576
Second Story 1030
Habitable Unit Sq Ft 1623
Garage Sq Ft 400
Covered Area 1060
Sq Ft For Units 11-15
First Story 727
Second Story 1317
Habitable Unit Sq Ft 2047
Garage Sq Ft 400
Covered Area 1215
A-300
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Entry Swing Door
Interior Swing Door
Pocket Door
Bi-Fold Closet Door
Bi-Fold Laundry Door
Exterior Sliding Door
Sliding Closet Door
36 x 84
32 x 84
32 x 84
48 x 84
90 x 84
72 x 84
60 x 84

DOOR LEGEND
8 Garage Door 180 x 84
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

2.1 sq ft
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
*
1/4"=1' WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI

Page 54 of 1206 ends

1 A 8
C D
8'-8"
16'-111
2 "
22'-111
2 " 1
2 3
4 5
Stucco
Wood Garage Door
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
5 6 Planter Box
6 1
1 1
1 2
3 3 3
4 4
4 4
3 12'-10"
21'
3'-21
2 "
####
C C
A
C
E
F
8'-8"
22'-111
2 "
5 3
3 3
3 3 3
1 1
1 1
4 4
1 3
4 5
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
20'-111
2 "
3'-2"
16'-11
1 2
"
21'-9
1 2
"
12'
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (UNITS 3, 4 &5)

NORTH ELEVATION
(UNITS 6, 7, &8)

SOUTH ELEVATION
(UNITS 11-15)

EAST ELEVATION

ELEVATION -
UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-301WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

DOOR LEGEND
8 Garage Door 180 x 84
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
*
(UNITS 3, 4 &5)

WEST ELEVATION
(UNITS 6, 7, &8)

EAST ELEVATION
(UNITS 11-15)

NORTH ELEVATION
* Front Elevation for Units 11,13, and 15 to have partial stone exterior

Page 55 of 1206 ends

7 C B C C
8'-8" 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1345
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
3'-2" 4'
19'-1112" 21'
22'-1112"
12'-10" A A D
8'-8" 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1345
Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
3'-212"
21'-912" 22'-1112" 19'-1112"
12'-10"
REVISION DATE:
(UNITS 3, 4 &5)

SOUTH ELEVATION
(UNITS 6, 7, &8)

NORTH ELEVATION
(UNITS 11-15)

WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATION -
UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-302WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ABCDEFG Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
24 x 36
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA
2 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

EAST ELEVATION
(UNITS 6, 7, &8)

WEST ELEVATION
(UNITS 11-15)

SOUTH ELEVATION

Page 56 of 1206 ends

4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
3'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
ELEVATION - UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15

ROOF PLAN -
UNITS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,11-15
A-303

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
1/4"=1'

Page 57 of 1206 ends

FRONT
PORCH
GARAGE
PANTRY

DINING LIVING
7 1
2 2
6 KITCHEN
B
C C
C
C
18'-01
2 " 8'-4" 8'-4"
4'-6"
39'-21
2 "
7'-6"
5'-6" 3'-9"
11'-81
2 20'-6" "
5'-91
2 " 9'-1"
5'-51
2 "
20'-6"
35'-61
2 "
14'-6"
7'-10
1 2
"
5'-9"
BATH

MATERIAL TRADENAME MODELNUMBER

MATERIAL TRADENAME MODELNUMBER
CLOSET
BATH

MATERIAL TRADENAME MODELNUMBER CLOSET
W.I.C.

W.I.C.

MATERIAL TRADENAME MODELNUMBER MATERIAL TRADENAME MODELNUMBER BATH

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
D
D
D
G
A
A
C
A
3 3
3 F E
7'-4
1 2
8'-2 3'-11" " 1
2 3'-11" "
4'-6"
6'-11"
9'-4 9'-10" 2'-6" 5'-8" 1
2 "
7'-2"
4'-9
1 2
"
15'-7 3'-5" 5'-5" 1
2 6'-7 " 1
2 "
12'-3"
2'-5"
11'-4
1 2
"
8'-11
1 2
"
2'
2'
7'-11
1 2
"
6'-6"
10'-10"
11'-8
1 2
"
2'
15'-10"
2'
16'-3" 5'-5"
2'-2
1 2
5'-5 " 1
2 "
43'-2
1 2
"
39'-6
1 2
"
CLOSET
5 21'-0
1 2
"

LAUNDRY
UP
UP
DWN
DWN
6'-6"

MODELNUMBER TRADENAME MATERIAL
2 POWDER
A
3'-3
1 2
"
6'-11"
3 TON

AC UNIT
(FIRST STORY) 4 TON

AC UNIT
(SECOND STORY)
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

FLOORPLAN -
SUITE 9&10
SCALE: SHEET #:

FLOORPLAN - UNITS 9 & 10
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
36 x 48
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA

4.3 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

2.1 sq ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Entry Swing Door
Interior Swing Door
Sliding Closet Door
Glass Shower Door
Bi-Fold Laundry Door
Exterior Sliding Door
36 x 84
32 x 84
72 x 84
30 x 72
72 x 84
72 x 84

DOOR LEGEND
Garage Door 180 x 84
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
*
Sq Ft For Units 9 & 10
First Story 846
Second Story 1461
Habitable Unit Sq Ft 2307
Garage Sq Ft 400
Covered Area 1337

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-400WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI

Page 58 of 1206 ends

7 1
C
G
1 2
3 4
5 Stucco
Wood Garage Door
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
2 3
1 1
1 5 5
D C
6 3 3
6 3'-2"
8'-8"
12'-10"
23'-2"
24'-111
2 " 21'-1
1 2
"
####
3 1
5 C
A D
3 3
3 1
1 5
5 1
3 4
5 Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
8'-8"
3'-2"
12'-10"
21'-1"
12'-10"
24'-111
2 "
A
3 1
3'-8"
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #:

UNITS 9 & 10 - NORTH ELEVATION 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

ELEVATION -
UNITS 9 & 10

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-401WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
36 x 48
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA

4.3 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

2.1 sq ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Entry Swing Door
Interior Swing Door
Sliding Closet Door
Glass Shower Door
Bi-Fold Laundry Door
Exterior Sliding Door
36 x 84
32 x 84
72 x 84
30 x 72
72 x 84
72 x 84

DOOR LEGEND
Garage Door 180 x 84
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
*
UNITS 9 & 10 - WEST ELEVATION
* Front (North) Elevation for Units 9 to have partial stone exterior

Page 59 of 1206 ends

6 C C
A E
F
3 3
3 3
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
5 1
3 4
5 Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
3 8'-8"
23'-2"
24'-11
1 2
"
3'-2"
12'-101
2 "
20'-51
2 "
B
A D
3 3
3 1 1 1
1 1
5 1
3 4
5 Stucco
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron
8'-8"
24'-11
1 2
"
4'
12'-101
2 "
23'-2"
REVISION DATE:

ELEVATION -
UNITS 9 & 10

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-402WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Single Hung
Slider
Slider
Slider
Single Hung
Slider
36 x 48
36 x 30
48 x 36
72 x 36
36 x 48
48 x 12

SCHEDULE FOR RETROFIT WINDOWS

SYM WINDOW TYPE SIZE OPENABLE AREA

4.3 sq ft

2.6 sq ft

4.6 sq ft

7.3 sq ft

4.3 sq ft

2.1 sq ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Entry Swing Door
Interior Swing Door
Sliding Closet Door
Glass Shower Door
Bi-Fold Laundry Door
Exterior Sliding Door
36 x 84
32 x 84
72 x 84
30 x 72
72 x 84
72 x 84

DOOR LEGEND
Garage Door 180 x 84
Casement 36 x 48 7.0 sq ft
* EGRESS WINDOW
*
* PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #:

UNITS 9 & 10 - SOUTH ELEVATION 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP UNITS 9 & 10 - EAST ELEVATION

Page 60 of 1206 ends

4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
3'-6"
1'-6"
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ

ROOF PLAN -
SUITE 9&10
SCALE: SHEET #:

ROOF PLAN - UNITS 9 & 10
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N

11.22.23 1/4"=1' A-403WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI

Page 61 of 1206 ends

1 A 8 C D 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 A 8 C D 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 12345 Stucco
Wood Garage Door
Architectural Foam Trim (Around Windows)
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron 6 Planter Box 6 3 3 12345
Stucco
Wood Garage Door
Exterior Wood Trim
Spanish Style Roofing Tile
MATERIAL LIST:

Decorative Iron 6 Planter Box 6
#### ####
OPTION #1 OPTION #2
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

TYP FRONT ELEVATION

OPTIONS
A-500

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
1/4"=1'

Page 62 of 1206 ends

REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

RENDERINGS
A-600

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
N/A

RENDERINGS
* Unit represented in rendering is Unit 3 * Unit represented in rendering is Unit 4

Page 63 of 1206 ends

GARAGE

DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
GARAGE

DRIVEWAY
GARAGE 2
10 JACMAR DRIVE
3RD STREET Sidewalk Sidewalk
Sidewalk
R28'
20' DRIVEWAY
26' DRIVEWAY 4 DRIVEWAY
26' DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
143'-634"
216'-114"
239'-114"
47'-314"
107'-712"
82'-534"
64'-1112" DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 9 DRIVEWAY 3
26' 1
20'
26'
T-D
26'-0"
20'

EXERCISE EQUIPMENT
GARAGE 5
12 11

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK GARAGE 8
GARAGE 7 SIDEWALK
GARAGE
13 GARAGE
14 DRIVEWAY
GARAGE
15 GARAGE 6 DRIVEWAY

GARAGE DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK

PICKLEBALL
COURT
20' SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE

SITTING
AREA
20'
GARAGE
124'-934"
38'
88'-212"
19'
R28' R28' R28'
T-D
T-D
T-D
26'
REVISION DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: CLIENT:

SHEET:

DRAWN BY:

DATE: JOHN MARK CONSTRUCTION CO.

ANTHONY SANCHEZ
SCALE: SHEET #: 302 JACMAR DR MONTEBELLO, CA 90640 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

DEAD END APPARATUS

TURNAROUND
F-100

11.22.23 WILLIAM M. MOLINARI AND M. ANTONIETA MOLINARI
N/A

FIRE APPARATUS TURNAROUND -
ALTERNATIVE120' HAMMERHEAD
SCALE: 1/6" = 1'

T-D TRUNCATED DOMES
TREE - 4" TRUNK MIN.

LANDSCAPE

Page 64 of 1206 ends

ITEM # 1

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Joseph Palombi, Planning & Community Development Director BY: Emilie Fernandez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolution for Site Plan Review (“SPR”) Zone Variance (“ZV”) and Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) (Case No. PC-2024- 0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) to establish a development diagram for 16 new single family lots to allow 15 single family residential units, including zone variances for reduced lot sizes, front setback, and lot coverage.

The Planning Commission will also consider adopting a resolution recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 084478) for the subdivision to subdivide one legal lot to result in the creation of 16 legal lots including a common parcel for streets, utilities, and a private park pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code Chapter 17.74 et seq. (Site Plan Review) Chapter 17.72 et seq. (Variances) and Chapter 16.12 et seq. (Tentative Maps), on an existing lot located at 301 Jacmar Drive.

DATE: July 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following action:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 07-24 Approving the Site Plan Review (“SPR”) Zone Variance (“ZV”) No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construct 15 new homes on an existing singlefamily lot and three zone variances for reduced lot sized, lot coverage and setbacks pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code (“MMC”) Chapter 17.74 - Site Plan Review Chapter 17.72 - (Variances)

2. Recommending Approval to the City Council for a Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) (TTM No. 084478) with conditions to allow the subdivision of an

Page 65 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 2 of 12 ends

existing single- family residence into 16 parcels. (the “Project”) for the property located at 301 Jacmar (the “Project Site”) with conditions pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code (“MMC”) Chapter 16.12 - (Tentative Maps); and

3. DETERMINE AND FIND that the project (ENV No. 02-24-CE) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section (15332) - Class 32 (In-Fill Development) as it meets the conditions set forth under class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects).

BACKGROUND:

On January 22, 2024, John Mark Kozakar (the “Applicant”) on behalf of William M Molinari (“Property Owner”) filed a Master Land Use Application requesting Site Plan Review, multiple Zone Variances and Tentative Tract Map applications to allow the construction of 15 new single-family homes on an existing single family residential lot at the Project Site.

On January 22, 2024, staff issued a deemed complete letter to the Applicant pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943 et seq.

On June 4, 2024, the Planning Commissoin held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project. Director Palombi introduced the item, and Assistant Planner Emilie Fernandez presented the Site Plan Review (SPR), Zone Variance (ZV), and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for the proposed project at 301 Jacmar Drive. The applicant’s representative, John Mark Kozakar, addressed questions from the Planning Commission. This public hearing included 13 speakers (3 in support, 10 in opposition) and public comments (5 in opposition, 1 in support). Concerns included impacts on wildlife, parking, trash, and outreach adequacy. The item was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2024, with a request for additional information on parking plans, HOA bylaws, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the previous project, and community outreach documentation.

On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the continued item from the previous meeting. Assistant Planner Emilie Fernandez provided additional documentation addressing concerns from the previous meeting. Chair Morales reopened the public hearing to allow the public, the applicant, and representatives to provide public comment. The Planning Commission discussed community outreach, CEQA compliance, and the project's impact on the community. Specific concerns were raised regarding parking regulations, outreach and the presence of endangered species within the property. This public hearing included 10 speakers (6 in support, 4 in opposition) and public comments (1 in support). Concerns focused on outreach efforts and environmental impacts. There was no action taken by the Planning Commission during this meeting and the item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 16, 2024. The Commissioners requested that the applicant work with City Staff to explore a variation in the scope of the project. Additionally, the Commissioners directed City Staff to make all documents presented to the Planning

Page 66 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 3 of 12 ends

Commission available to the public. In addition, information was requested by the Planning Commission from the applicant regarding endangered species on the property.

PROJECT /APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Location: 301 Jacmar Drive
Project Applicant: John Mark Kozakar on behalf of the Property Owners Property Owners: William M. Molinari and Antonieta Molinari General Plan Designation: Single Family
Zoning: R-1 One-Family Residential
Existing Use on Property: Existing single family residence ENVIRONMENTAL:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the proposed Project, Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM ENV 02-24-CE, is considered a “project,” per the (CEQA) definition of a “project.” The project is considered a Class 32 and Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), and none of the limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

In order to qualify under an exemption pursuant to Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In Fill Development Projects), the following environmental findings must also be made:

A. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations.

The proposed project conforms to the Montebello General Plan, Land Use Element in that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site for the R-1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning designation.

B. The proposed development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The proposed development shall occur on a 60,101 square-foot (1.38 acres) lot located on Jacmar Drive within city limits and thus, is less than the maximum five acres specified in Section 15332(b) for this exemption. The site is surrounded by existing developed industrial properties.

C. The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The proposed project is currently developed with an existing single family home.

The subject property is surrounded by additional housing developments and is consistent with the land use designation.

D. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Page 67 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 4 of 12 ends

The proposed project shall not have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the site is currently developed with an existing residential unit.

E. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project has been reviewed by City staff and it has been determined that it can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

ANALYSIS:

Project Site
Jack Mark Kozakar (the “Applicant”) is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residential home located at 301 Jacmar Drive and construct 15 residential dwelling units and related amenities consistent with plans under Attachment A. The subject site is approximately 60,101 square feet (1.38 acres) within the R-1 (Single-Family residential zone). The subject site currently has a one-story, single-family residence with a swimming pool, landscaping, and mature trees. The subject site is generally west of South Bluff Road and north of Washington Boulevard. The Subject Site is bordered north, east, south, and west by residential properties zones R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant seeks approval from the Planning Commission for Site Plan Review and related variances to accommodate the construction of 15 single-family residential dwelling units (the "proposed Project") that would include the subdivision of an existing improved site with a comprised lot area of approximately 60,101 square feet (or 1.38 acres). In addition, the applicant seeks a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding VTTM No. 084478. The Site Plan Review is required for all residential projects resulting in three or more dwelling units. The project will result in 15 dwelling units pursuant to the proposed subdivsion; therefore, the Site Plan approval is required. The units will have between 3 to 4 bedrooms and either 2.5 or 3.5 bathrooms. Each unit will be two stories, have one living room, kitchen, dining room and two car garages. A Zone Variance is required when wanting to deviate from the Montebello Municipal Code. The standard size requirement for single family lots is 5,000 square feet per unit, the proposed residential units would range from 2,420 to 3,428 square feet. The applicant is also deviating from the lot coverage standards. For the R-1 Zone, the allowed lot coverage is 40%, and the applicant is proposing lot coverages ranging from 41.68% to 47.82%. The standards for setbacks include 20 feet in front, 5 on each side and 10 feet from the back.

The applicant will comply with the sides and back setback but is requesting the front setback to range between 4.5 to 6.5 feet. A Tentative Tract Map application is required for any subdivision that results in five or more parcels.

Attachment A: Site Plan

Page 68 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 5 of 12 ends

The following table list the zoning designation of the surrounding land use:

Direction Zone Land Use
North R-1 Single-Family Residential
South R-1 Single-Family Residential
East R-1 Single-Family Residential
West R-1 Single-Family Residential
The following is intended to illustrate the development diagram associated with the Floor Plans of one two of the units related to this project:

Page 69 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 6 of 12 ends

GENERAL PLAN
The Project conforms to the following goals and policies of the Montebello General Plan.

General Plan Goal to Encourage urban infill and compact development A2.7a states a goal “Promote infill development on vacant and underutilized sites….” General Plan Goal for development that will create diverse and walkable neighborhoods A3.4b states a goal “Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds.” General Plan Goal to retrofit suburban development P3.6 states the goal to “Integrate more housing choices in existing subdivisions”.

The proposed project conforms to the City of Montebello General Plan Land Use Element as the proposed use will allow the Montebello community to benefit from the addition of the 15 new Single-Family residential homes, providing future Montebello residents with more housing choices in existing residential neighborhoods. The current project site has one home on the lot and the lot size can be utilized for more homes, growing the community. With this increase in housing, it is supporting the General Plan goals by responding to the needs of the community and by reflecting the density standards that are outlined in the housing element of the General Plan.

REQUIRED FINDINGS MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC)
SITE PLAN REVIEW (MMC 17.74)
The purpose of the site plan review is to minimize or preclude potential adverse impacts to the public interest or on abutting properties and adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, resulting from the design or layout of a proposed development.

Section 17.74.030- When required explains that a site plan review is required for all residential projects resulting in the construction of three or more units.

Pursuant to Section 17.74.070 of the MMC, before any site plan review shall be granted, all the following findings must be made:

A. That the proposed design for improvement complies with all requirements of the Montebello Municipal Code;
The 15 proposed units will all have a two-car garage, and heights will not exceed 25 feet, access to all units be via a driveway, the units will have open space and the setbacks will be landscaped. The applicant is requesting a zone variance from the R-1 standards regarding the minimum required setbacks, lot sizes and the lot coverage percentage per unit. A Site Plan is required due to the project resulting in three or more units according to Section 17.74.030.

B. That the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the general plan; and

Page 70 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 7 of 12 ends

The proposed project site is consistent with the general plan and reflects the goals that were set in place when designating certain zoning areas with different housing types. The project site has the capacity for more development and the density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have also been approved in the close vicinity. The current plans are for 15 units with full roads, fire department turn around, and a small park for the residents to enjoy. The zone variance will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

C. That the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare.

The proposed addition will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties as the surrounding area is currently developed with an existing single-family unit. The zone variances and subsequent development would not be harmful to the general welfare of the neighborhood, city or create problems for the public health or safety. It would increase the welfare by first supporting investments, bringing in construction and related jobs, and providing housing to the community. The current use is R-1 single family residential, and the proposed residential zoning will not change. All the immediate surrounding land uses are consistent with residential housing. The addition of this project will be consistent with the surrounding land uses and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.

REQUIRED FINDINGS MONTEBELLO MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC)
VARIANCES (MMC Chapter 17.72 et seq.)
The sole purpose of the variance is to ensure that no property, because of special circumstance applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. No variance shall be granted by other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

A Zone Variance is being requested to deviate from the development standards within an R-1 Zone. The applicant is requesting to deviate from the standards for lot size, setback, and lot coverage. According to the MMC section 17.10.020 development standards for new development, new development of a single-family residential unit, the lot size must be 5,000 square feet. The front setback must be 20 feet, the rear 10 feet, and sides 5 feet and the lot coverage standard is also 40 percent. The applicant is seeking to deviate from all three of the stated requirements.

ZONE VARIANCE

REQUEST
Standard Request
1 . Lot Sizes 5,000 Square Feet 2, 240 to 3,428 Square Feet

2. Lot Coverage 40% 41.68% to 47.82%

3. Front Setbacks 20 Feet 4.5 to 6.5 feet

Page 71 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 8 of 12 ends

Pursuant to section 17.72.060 of the MMC, before any variance shall be granted, the Planning Commission satisfy that the applicant has demonstrated the following facts:

A. Describe the special major unusual circumstance applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Unlike other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, the subject site is very large for a single-family home. It is a unique 1.38-acre lot. There is not another house like it in the neighborhood. Currently, the unit is providing very little benefit to the neighborhood with so much land being underutilized. Without the zone variance request in this application, the applicant believes they would be deprived of maximizing the market value of their property. The increased property values of this new residential development would increase property tax revenues for the City.

Further rejection of the zone variance requests would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications by not being able to fully utilize the project site.

2. Lot coverage: As a result of the lot sizes being smaller than usual, which is not typical, the applicant requests to use as much space as possible causing the lot coverage to be more than usual.

3. Front setbacks: With the reduced sizes and the lot coverage being above than typically allowed, this unusual case has put the applicant in the position to design the houses in a way that would best benefit the future homeowner.

Although the design of the house can allow the applicant to have a larger front yard, the applicant has decided to use the space to allow for a larger private backyard for each of the residents and apply for the zone variance.

B. Detail how due to the special or unusual circumstance a described above, strict application of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, or would deprive the property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

The existing property is in some disrepair, and it is the goal of the applicant to revitalize the lot which would result in the demolition of the existing house and replacing it with modern housing. The house is currently 85 years old and no longer the best use for a lot that size for the city for housing density. The zoning code does not allow the applicant to best utilize the lot with its unique size the applicant is requesting to optimize their lot, allowing the future homeowners to use as much of their lot as possible.

1. The lot sizes: If the lot sizes were up to standard, there essentially would not be enough room on the lot to accommodate as many homes as the applicant

Page 72 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 9 of 12 ends

is requesting. The applicant is trying to utilize the lot and has retained inspiration from surrounding developments that have similar lot sizes.

Without the minimized lot sizes, the project would not be possible.

2. Lot coverage: If the applicant would design the houses using the Montebello Municipal code requirements, the houses would be extremely small and not suitable for a growing family, which the applicant hopes to house.

3. Front Setbacks: If the applicant were to abide by the front yard setbacks, the future homeowners would have a large front yard and an extremely small backyard. The applicant decided to utilize the space and provide a larger backyard to optimize the space in the best way.

C. Explain how the Zoning Variance is necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right to allow a reasonable use of the subject property, which is possessed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

1. Lot sizes: The lot sizes being smaller than required allows for more units which gives the applicant a mechanism to provide more housing options to Montebello residents..

2. Lot Coverage: Being able to build more on each lot provides the units with a bigger house for bigger rooms, kitchen and bathroom areas providing a more comfortable to provide a more attractive home to any future residents.

3. Front setback: Having a smaller front setback allows the residents to enjoy more space in the backyard of the units which is necessary with many of the new housing developments having such a small backyard. Although the applicant will take away from the front setback, every unit will also have an attached garage for two cars.

D. Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.

Page 73 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 10 of 12 ends

2. Lot coverage: Although the lots will be above the allowed lot coverage, and the lots will be fully built out, every unit will be of a similar design, the consistency will ensure no unit will stand out from the others.

E. Describe how the granting of the Zone variance will be consistent with the general plan and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

The proposed project provides single family homes in a neighborhood that also has single family units keeping the use consistent with the current zoning and type of development with similar square footage. The proposed project has been properly notified and will be consistent with the general plan as the project site is has been designated for residential units.

The proposed project that would be allowed through this subdivision would result in over 23,000 square feet of open space and medium cost for 15 families. The zone is consistent with the general plan and provides additional housing in the R1- Zone that is designated for single family housing developments making the project consistent with the general plan.

The project provides open space and a private park as well as houses for sale. The development will allow the future resident to enjoy quality housing in a safe and secure environment. The development will also allow for modest growth in the city that will benefit business and the school system.

C. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the type of development The existing property has been developed as a single-family home since 1938. The house is aging and is in disrepair. Since its original construction, the community has grown around the house, and many of the developments around it have now have much greater density. The combination of the property’s size as well as the denser development around it makes it suitable for this type of housing. The project

Page 74 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 11 of 12 ends

will have 16 parcels, with 15 single family homes on each separate parcels with a parcel for streets, utilities and a private park which will be owned by all of the homes and managed by a home owners association that will be set upon completion of construction.

F. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
According to a study conducted by the applicant, the project is estimated to produce less than 113 trips per day including 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 during the PM peak hours. The modern construction techniques will be employed for the project with lessen the likelihood of termites and other insects that have the potential of appearing because of the project.

G. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; and
The height of the project will not exceed 25 feet in elevation; thus, it will not conflict with any neighbor’s rights with respect to blocking views. The utility easement on the west side of the property for electrical and communication cabling will be maintained. The utility engineering for the project will likely create or renew utility access for the project location itself as well as for the neighborhood.

H. Describe how the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will ensure that the construction of these units will not be of great impact to the sewer systems.

REPORTS RECEIVED

Page 75 of 1206 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF JULY 16, 2024

Page 12 of 12 ends

The application for Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM was sent out to various departments for review and comments. Comments provided by the Fire Department, Building Department, Public Works Department and Planning Department have been listed as conditions to the proposed Resolution, Attachment C.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.78 (Public Hearings, Notices, and Appeals), the following noticing was performed:
• On May 23, 2024, the Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within the 300-foot radius from the exterior boundaries of the Project Site.

On May 23, 2024, the Public Hearing Notice was published in the Daily Journal (Whittier Daily News).

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A Site plan Floor Plans and Elevations

2. Attachment B Tentative Tract Map

3. Attachment C Resolution No 07-24

4. Attachment D CEQA Notice of Exemption

Page 76 of 1206 ends

CITY OF MONTEBELLO CITY COUNCIL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Montebello City Council (the “City Council”) will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal submitted by Mr. William Molinari (the “Applicant”) of the decision of the Planning Commission on July 16, 2024, to deny Resolution No. 07-24/Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM that would establish a development diagram in accordance with Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTTM”) No. 084478 for 16 new legal lots to allow 15 new single-family residential dwelling units for the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive, Montebello, California 90640.

PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION FOR THE APPEAL:

Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024
Time: 6:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter as the matter can be heard Place: City Hall Council Chambers, 1600 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The Applicant seeks Site Plan Review approval and related zone variances to accommodate the construction of 15 single-family residential dwelling units which would include the subdivision of an existing improved property located at 301 Jacmar Drive within the City of Montebello. The subject property is comprised of a total lot area of approximately 60,101 square feet (or 1.38 acres). The Applicant also seeks approval of VTTM No. 084478. Pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code (“MMC”) Section

17.74.030, the Site Plan Review is required for all residential projects resulting in three or more dwelling units.

Additionally, the Applicant requests approval of a zone variance for reduced lot sizes, setbacks, and lot coverage for each proposed lot pursuant to MMC Chapter 17.72 et seq. (Variances).

ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposal is considered a “Project” and is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332 – Class 32 (In-Fill Development) and meets the conditions set forth under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects).

For those interested in participating in-person during the public comments period or public testimony period for public hearings, you may address the City Council in-person the day of the meeting. Speakers will be required to fill out a speaker card provided during this meeting and turn it into the City Clerk or a staff designee prior to each public comment announcement period. Each speaker card will be called in the order received.

The public may also submit emailed comments via the City’s email address:
[email protected] where the public can submit public comments up until the day of the meeting, Wednesday, August 14, 2024 between 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.. These comments will not be read out loud but will be entered into the record and submitted to all members of the City Council.

If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.

The project documents and other materials are available by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 323-887-1359.

Dated: July 29, 2024
Date published: August 1, 2024
_______________________________
Kimberly Guillen, Sr. Deputy City Clerk

Page 77 of 1206 ends

301 Jacmar Drive
Index of: Public Comments/ Letters / Speaker Cards Received from June 3, 2024 – August 5, 2024 Number Name Opposed/
Support
Date Received Form
#0 15 Speaker Cards -- July 16, 2024 Public Hearing
#1 Max Masuda- Farkas Applicant July 2, 2024 Email
#2 Edmund Veloz Opposed June 18, 2024 Planning Counter
#3 10 Speaker Cards -- June 18, 2024 Public Hearing
#4 Kevin Smith Opposed June 18, 2024 Email
#5 13 Speaker Cards -- June 4, 2024 Public Hearing
#6 Richard Farber Opposed June 5, 2024 Mail
#7 Brissa Sotelo Opposed June 4, 2024 Emailed
#8 Edmund Veloz Opposed June 4, 2024 Planning Counter
#9 Kevin Smith Support June 4, 2024 Email
#10 Alexandria and Tom Uch Opposed June 4, 2024 Email
#11 Connie Soto Opposed June 3, 2024 Email
Attachment F

Page 78 of 1206 ends

INDEX OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 2024 – ITEM NO. 5 REGARDING 301 JACMAR DRIVE, MONTEBELLO, CA 90640

LAST NAME FIRST NAME ADDRESS POSITION
Molinari William 301 Jacmar Drive,
Montebello, CA, 90640
Applicant/Support
Masuda-Farkas Max -- Support
Uch Tom -- Opposed
Caranza Maximiliano -- Opposed
Sotelo Brissa -- Opposed
Salazar Larry -- Support
Torres Rosemary 1424 s 4th st.

Montebello CA 90640
Support
Hurtado Diomsia -- Opposed
Hurtado Jesse -- Opposed
Veloz Edmund Robert P.O. Box 2307
Pico Rivera, CA 90662
Opposed
Sandoval Ramiro 1245 S Bluff Road,
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Martinez Jorge 808 S Montebello
Montebello CA 90640
Opposed
Guzman Grace 855 Marino
Montebello CA 90640
Opposed
Zapata Olga -- Opposed
Mobbis David -- Opposed

Page 79 of 1206 ends

Page 80 of 1206 ends

Page 81 of 1206 ends

Page 82 of 1206 ends

Page 83 of 1206 ends

Page 84 of 1206 ends

Page 85 of 1206 ends

Page 86 of 1206 ends

Page 87 of 1206 ends

Page 88 of 1206 ends

Page 89 of 1206 ends

Page 90 of 1206 ends

Page 91 of 1206 ends

Page 92 of 1206 ends

Page 93 of 1206 ends

Page 94 of 1206 ends

1 July 2, 2024

BY EMAIL
Ms. Emilie Fernandez
Assistant Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
1600 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640
Re: 301 Jacmar Drive, Montebello, CA 90640; City Planning Commission Comments Dear Ms. Fernandez,
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the requests of the Montebello City Planning Commission (the “Commission”) at the meeting held on June 18, 2024. Representing the property owner, Mr. William Molinari (“Owner”), we wish to convey at the outset our overarching support and gratitude for Planning staff’s efforts to study and recommend approval of the 15 single-family-home subdivision project (the “Project”) located at 301 Jacmar Drive, Montebello, CA 90640 (the “Property”). As you expressed in the staff report dated June 4, 2024 (the “Staff Report”), this Project would advance several of the City of Montebello’s (the “City”) General Plan goals and enable greater housing choice and open space for the Montebello community.

At the direction of the Commission at its meeting on June 18, you asked whether we would consider an alternative to the Project and what modifications we would propose if so. You also asked whether we could provide additional documentation related to endangered species at the Project. Our responses to these requests follow here.

In summary, the design and density of the Project represent the culmination of years of feedback from both the City and community on prior iterations of the Project, dating back to September 2020. Accordingly, we wish to proceed with the Project as currently proposed. Further documentation related to endangered species is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the Class 32 exemption for in-fill development projects does not necessitate findings as to the basis of the exemption. Staff has already produced findings responsive to this issue in the Staff Report, and thus to require further documentation runs contrary to the express requirements of CEQA. Finally, given the approval of numerous like projects nearby, we respectfully request that the Commission approve the Project at the next Commission meeting. Denial or further delay would raise constitutional issues arising from the Commission’s differential treatment of this Project relative to similarly situated projects.

Page 95 of 1206 ends

2 I. The Project incorporates a design and density which reflect the surrounding neighborhood and which are the culmination of years of feedback from both the City and community.

We wish to proceed with the Project as proposed because its design and density are the result of significant time and expense to seek feedback from the City and community, dating back more than four years. Although the current Project was submitted on January 22, 2024, multiple project proposals for the same property preceded it, the community and City feedback to which have informed the current Project. Beginning on September 21, 2020, the prior applicant submitted an entitlement application for a residential development project at the Property consisting of 31 three-story condominium units (the “First Project”). (See Attachment A, “Deemed Complete Letter,” dated October 12, 2020.) The First Project went before the Commission on December 1, 2020 and then to the City Council on February 24, 2021. Both of those hearings were properly noticed for community participation. At the May 12, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council denied the First Project.

In January 2022, representatives of Owner commenced the process of engaging a new applicant for the development of 25 two-story condominium units (the “Second Project”). The reduced density of the Second Project was developed in direct response to feedback received from the City and community addressing the First Project. Representatives of Owner engaged a radius maps and lists consultant to assist with identifying property owners within a 300-foot radius to notify them of the Second Project and solicit feedback. (See Attachment B, “Susan W.

Case Inc. Radius Map,” dated March 18, 2022.) One voluntary community meeting was held to collect additional feedback from the community on the Second Project. Despite the extensive community outreach effort and efforts to incorporate community feedback on the First Project with respect to density, the developer opted not to proceed with the Second Project.

After the significant time and expense incurred to advance the First and Second Projects, the current Project was submitted on January 22, 2024. The Project contemplates a modest density of 15 single-family homes, representing a steep reduction from the 31 threestory condominium units of the First Project and the 25 two-story condominium units of the Second Project. Furthermore, in its own right, the current Project not only complied with all statutory notice requirements, but exceeded those requirements through a coordinated community outreach effort. As previously communicated to staff and the Commission, the applicant engaged a community outreach consultant that traveled door-to-door to 116 homes within the property’s 300’ radius and to additional homes beyond that radius to solicit feedback on the Project. Brochures detailing Project information were left at each of said homes, whether or not residents were present to answer.

When combined with the First and Second Projects, the current Project is thus the culmination of more than four years of robust engagement with the City, neighbors, and the Montebello community to develop a project that advances the owner’s reasonable property interests while incorporating community preferences as to design and density. In light of the tremendous time and expense undertaken to submit the current Project, further modifications or alternatives to the Project would be infeasible and unreasonable. Accordingly, we ask that the Commission approve of the Project as proposed.

II. The Project does not necessitate further documentation regarding endangered species because CEQA does not require findings pursuant to the Class 32 exemption for in-fill development projects.

Page 96 of 1206 ends

3 The Project does not require any additional documentation on endangered species or habitat because the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 exemption for in-fill development projects. When considering a Class 32 project such as the one here, a local agency is not required to conduct an environmental analysis of that project. (City of Pasadena v State (1993) 14 CA4th 810.) An agency need not consider alternatives or mitigation measures for a project determined to be categorically exempt. (Hines v California Coastal Comm’n (2010) 186 CA4th 830, 858.) An agency is not required to prepare an initial study or other form of written determination to show that a project is exempt. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Educ. v San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist., supra; Apartment Ass’n of Greater Los Angeles v City of Los Angeles (2001) 90 CA4th 1162, 1172; Magan v County of Kings (2002) 105 CA4th 468.)
Furthermore, findings documenting the basis for an exemption determination are not required by statute or the CEQA Guidelines. (See CalBeach Advocates v City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 CA4th 529 (no findings required because, although city made exemption determination at hearing, no hearing on exemption was required by CEQA or other law); Association for Protection of Envt’l Values v City of Ukiah (1991) 2 CA4th 720, 729 (no findings required for exemption determination because, although environmental review was considered at hearing on permit, no hearing on exemption was required by CEQA, city ordinances, city’s CEQA regulations, or other law). Generalized findings to support an exemption determination are sufficient under CEQA; more specific findings on the applicability of an exemption are not required. (See World Business Academy v. State Lands Comm’n (2018) 24 Ca5th 476, 499.)
Accordingly, here, neither the City nor the applicant need produce further documentation related to endangered species because the Project qualifies for the Class 32 exemption to CEQA. Given that there is no requirement for CEQA-exempt projects to offer findings documenting the basis for an exemption, the Commission’s directive to provide further substantiation that the Property does not constitute habitat for endangered species is wholly without merit and contrary to the requirements of CEQA. Planning staff already concluded that the Property does not provide habitat for endangered species, given that the Project is “currently developed with an existing single family home” and “is surrounded by additional housing developments.” (Staff Report, p. 12.) To require that the applicant produce additional findings beyond staff’s documented conclusions would exceed the express requirements of CEQA and would constitute an undue burden on the applicant without legal basis under the Class 32 exemption.

III. Denial or further delay of the Project would raise constitutional issues arising from the differential treatment of the Project relative to similarly situated projects.

Given the City’s approval of numerous similarly situated projects in the nearby vicinity of the Project, denial or further delay of the Project would constitute impermissible differential treatment. Both the U.S. and California Constitutions prohibit a local agency from denying individuals equal protection under the law. (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Section 2; Cal. Const. art.

I, Section 7(a).) In the land use context, a local agency’s differential treatment of similarly situated properties can constitute an equal protection violation. (Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 CA4th 687, 713.) In particular, “spot zoning” is a form of constitutional violation whereby a single parcel is deprived of rights conferred on surrounding properties. (Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, 340). In Ross v. City of Yorba Linda, an owner of a single-family home sought a rezoning and reduction in lot size restrictions to allow for a higher density development. (1 Cal.App.4th at 958.) The subject

Page 97 of 1206 ends

4 property was surrounded by properties of smaller lot size. (Id. at 958.) After a group of neighbors voiced opposition to the project, the city council denied the owner’s application. (Id. at 964.) The Ross court held that the city council’s denial of the owner’s application constituted discriminatory spot zoning because the zoning classification and lot size restriction “prevents a land owner from developing property consistent with the surrounding area.” (Id. at 961.) Furthermore, the court rejected the city’s argument that “the mere fact of neighborhood opposition” could justify the discriminatory treatment of the subject property. (Id. at 964.) Opposition from neighbors is not a sufficient basis upon which to deny development. (Ibid.) Denial or further delay of the Project here would constitute differential treatment of similarly situated properties given the numerous like projects that have been approved in the Project’s immediate vicinity. The applicant notified the City of these nearby projects in various of the applicant’s submittal documents. (See Attachment C, “Zone Variance Application”; Attachment D, “Site Plan Review Application.”) These projects were constructed on similar or smaller lots than the Project and include, but are not limited to:
• 60-unit residential development of 3-story townhomes located directly south of the Project and which received variances for setbacks, density, lot size, and lot coverage; • 4 two-story homes located two blocks away at 507, 511, and 515 Jacmar Dr. and 900 Carob Way, with similar lot coverage of over 60 percent; • 4 two-story homes located at 519, 515, 511 and 507 Robert King Jr. Ct., which were approved with greater lot coverages than the Project, smaller setbacks, and virtually no open space;
• 3 two-story homes which were approved with small lot sizes, greater lot coverages, and smaller setbacks at 940 S. Montebello Blvd.; and
• 5 two-story homes located at 924, 924 ¼, 924 ½ , 924 ¾ , 926 S. Montebello Blvd, with greater lot coverages and smaller setbacks.

Because these nearby projects were approved with analogous entitlements to those sought here, to deny or further delay the Project would raise constitutional issues arising from differential treatment of similarly situated projects. Like in Ross where the applicant sought to develop their property consistent with the surrounding area, the applicant here has designed the Project to align with the density, lot coverage, and overall development standards of the surrounding neighborhood. Although the City and applicant have received a mix of comments in support of and opposition to the Project, like in Ross, community sentiment alone is not grounds for discriminatory spot zoning. We request that the Commission approve the Project and adopt the recommendations by staff at its next meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm Regards,
__________
Alfred Fraijo Jr.
of SOMOS LAW GROUP

Page 98 of 1206 ends

5 cc: Mr. Joseph Palombi
Mr. Victor Cuevas
Ms. Natalia Lomeli
Mr. Armando Medina
Ms. Alicia Morales
Ms. Joella Valdez

Page 99 of 1206 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 100 of 1206 ends

Page 101 of 1206 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 102 of 1206 ends

Page 103 of 1206 ends

Page 104 of 1206 ends

Page 105 of 1206 ends

Page 106 of 1206 ends

Page 107 of 1206 ends

Page 108 of 1206 ends

Page 109 of 1206 ends

Page 110 of 1206 ends

ATTACHMENT C

Page 111 of 1206 ends

Planning & Community Development Department
Planning Division
1600 W. Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
www.montebelloca.gov

ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION
Project Address: 301 Jacar Dr. Montebello 90640 Case # ___________ This checklist should be reviewed with a Planner at the public counter and must be submitted with the Zone Variance application. A Zone Variance request is heard by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. Any appeals of the decision will be heard by the City Council. A complete Zone Variance application submittal consists of the following materials:

Filing Fees – Please consult with a Planner to determine the required application fees.

Zone Variance Application – Completed Zone Variance application.

Proof of Ownership
5 Physical Sets (along with electronic copies via e-mail/USB):

Master Land Use Application – Completed form (attached) that includes:
a) Comprehensive description of the project and the specific entitlements (e.g. Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, etc.) requested.
b) Property owner signature. If application is not signed by property owner, written consent (signed) from the property owner is necessary authorizing the applicant to submit application.

Environmental Information Form – Attached to Master Land Use application.

Development Plans – folded copies of dimensioned and scaled plans that include: a) Project site address.
b) Applicant, name, address, and phone number.
c) North arrow, scale, and vicinity map.
d) Site plan showing all property lines and distances to center line of streets/alleys. e) Table showing development calculations (e.g. lot coverage, floor area ratio, parking, etc.). f) Clearly labeled location of all existing and proposed structures. g) Detailed and complete floor plans with a breakdown of floor area calculations. h) Clearly labeled uses of all existing and proposed structures. i) Elevations of proposed building(s) with respective height dimensions. j) Clearly labeled location and uses of all existing structures on adjacent properties. k) Setback dimensions of all existing and proposed structures. l) Vehicle circulation (driveways, access, alleys, dimensions, and backup space). m) Location of all existing and proposed fences, walls, and other screening. n) Landscape plans. o) Mature trees 4” or more in trunk diameter at breast height. p) Size and location of all exterior mechanical equipment and method of screening. q) All easements located within or adjacent to the project site. r) Demolition plan (if applicable).

Additional Items – Other items as determined by a Planner (e.g. topographic map, survey, lighting plan, drainage plan, landscape plan, sign inventory, parking inventory, grading, lease agreement etc.). 2 Physical Sets (along with electronic copies via e-mail/USB):

Notification Materials – Submittal items as outlined in the Public Notification Packet Instructions handout.

Photos – Photos showing general conditions of site including existing structures, walls, and landscaped/paved areas.

Please contact the Planning Division at (323) 887-1478 for any additional information related to the submittal of any Planning applications.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO | PLANNING DIVISION | T – 323.887.1478 PAGE 1 OF 3 Zone Variance Application (Revised 09/2022)

Page 112 of 1206 ends

DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Applicant is seeking to develop a subdivision on a 1.38-acre parcel for 15 single family homes and a common parcel for streets, utilities and a private park. In order to do this, the Applicant required deviation from the R-1 zoning development standards as they apply to 1) lot size, 2) lot coverage and 3) all setbacks. The proposed Zone Variance request would allow for the subdivision of into 15 single family homes and a common parcel for streets, utilities and a private park. The Site Plan Review Application includes precise variances for each of the 15 tentative parcels.

FINDINGS:

The applicant must thoroughly respond to the five directives below to make the required findings for the proposed project.

A separate set of responses to these findings must be submitted for each Zone Variance request. Use additional sheets if more space is necessary to complete your response. The City’s Zoning Code and General Plan are available at City Hall. The Zoning Code is also available at www.montebelloca.gov . 1) Describe the special or unusual circumstances applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation. a. The subject property is very large for a single-family home. It is a unique 1.38 acre property. There is not another house like it in the neighborhood, with so little being provided to the community on so much land. b. Without the Zone Variances requested in this application, the applicant would be deprived of utilizing the market value of their property. Further rejection of the Zone Variances requested would deprive the Applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. These properties include:
i. The massive 59-unit Rio Walk 3-story Town Home Development at 935, 937 939, 941, 943, 945, 947, 949, 951, 953, 955, 957, 959, 961, 963, 965, 967, Bluff Rd.; 924, 926, 928, 930, 932, 934, 936, 938, 940, 942, 944, 946, 948, 950 Lilac Ln; 943, 945, 947, 949, 951, 953, 955, 957, 959, 961, 963, 965, 967, 969, 971 Acacia Ln; 934, 936, 938, 940, 942, 944 4
th St.; and 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213 Juniper Way. This project is directly south of the proposed project. These town homes have variances for setbacks, density, lot size and lot coverage. ii. Four 2-story homes with similar lot coverage were approved and constructed a block away at 507, 511, 515 Jacmar and 900 Carob way. These homes have 50-foot-wide and 50-foot-deep lots with over 60% coverage. The corner lot is 60 feet wide, but still only 50 feet deep.
iii. Four two story homes with much greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were approved and constructed at 519, 515, 511 ,507 Robert J King Jr. Ct. There is virtually no open space in this project other than the driveway. iv. Three two story homes with small lot size, much greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were approved and constructed at 940 S. Montebello Blvd.
v. Five two story homes with much greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were approved and constructed at 924, 924 ¼, 924 ½, 924 ¾, and 926 S. Montebello Blvd
vi. Seven two story homes with greater lot coverages and smaller lot sizes were approved and constructed at 421, 425, 429, 433, 437, 441 and 445 W Lohart Ave.
vii. Sixteen two story homes with greater lot coverages, smaller lot sizes and smaller set backs were approved and constructed at 859, 861, 863, 865, 867, 869, 871, 873, 875, 877, 879, 881, 883, 885, 887, 889 S Greenwood Ave viii. Twenty two-story homes with greater lot coverages and smaller lot sizes were approved and constructed at 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 109, 112, 113, 116, 117, 121, 124, 125, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 141 Natasha Ln. 2) Detail how due to the special or unusual circumstances described above, strict application of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, or would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation. a. The existing house is in some disrepair and it does not make financial sense to make repairs. It is a goal of the project to tear down the existing house and replace it with modern housing. b. The existing house is 85 years old and no longer what the city needs in terms of housing density. The cost of repairs to bring it to current market standards are estimated to be over $300,000. It is not practical for the current owners to entertain construction of that magnitude because the market conditions would likely not reimburse them for their costs if the house were sold in an improved state. Additionally that degree of construction would displace the homeowners without having obtained funds from the sale of the property, which is an unnecessary hardship.
c. Denial of the application would create both practical difficulties (in that the current owners would have to use their retirement savings to make repairs necessary.), and unnecessary hardships (in that the current owner would be displaced due to construction or forced to sell their house under its potential market value which would severely impact their retirement, or live in a house falling into disrepair). d. In granting the requested variances, the Commission will ensure that no property (including the subject property), because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
3) Explain how the Zone Variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right to allow a reasonable use of the subject property, which is possessed by other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.
a. The Zone Variances requested is necessary to allow the owners of the property the same rights provided to some of their neighbors.
b. The Applicant has identified at least 118 residences where similar variances have been granted in the immediate neighborhood of the subject property.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO | PLANNING DIVISION | T – 323.887.1478 PAGE 2 OF 3 Zone Variance Application (Revised 09/2022)

Page 113 of 1206 ends

4) Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.
a. The site for the proposed use would not adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding property owners because the size of the houses and the 2-story construction of this project is consistent with the majority of the neighborhood.
b. Many of the parcels around the project site are currently occupied by multiple residential buildings. The entire south side of the subject property is dominated by 3-story town homes. There are a significant number of higher density properties in the vicinity which should limit the impact of the proposed development on the local community.
c. While the density of the development at the project site would increase if the Zone Variance and the related entitlements are approved, it is not anticipated that the project will create problems harmful to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
d. The proposed Zone Variance and development will be beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare by creating a greater demand for resources in the area, bringing in construction and related jobs, as well as by providing a more abundant supply of housing for various income levels, and providing more children for the school system.
e. The proposed Zone Variance and development has been reviewed by various city departments including the fire department, building division, police department, as well as other departments and the feedback provided by the city’s departments will help to ensure that the project will not create problems harmful to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
f. There are no new medium-cost range single-family homes with decent private and public open spaces being planned or built in Montebello. The proposed project provides much larger lot sizes and a better building area to open space percentage than any other project under plan review in the city.

5) Describe how the granting of the Zone Variance will be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.
a. The proposed project provides single family homes in a neighborhood where most of the housing is also singlefamily homes of similar square footages. b. The proposed project respects the concerns of neighbors and includes ample open area, a private park, and 15 single-family for-sale homes that some of the neighbors requested of this project in previous Neighborhood Outreach Meetings, Planning Commission Meetings and City Council Meetings concerning the development of this project.
c. The city that needs more housing and reasonable growth. d. Both the City’s and County’s infrastructure is adequate for the proposed project. e. The City of Montebello has already grated similar variances on similar projects in the direct neighborhood of this project thus creating a right for the current owner to enjoy the same rights granted to their neighbors.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO | PLANNING DIVISION | T – 323.887.1478 PAGE 3 OF 3 Zone Variance Application (Revised 09/2022)

Page 114 of 1206 ends

ATTACHMENT D

Page 115 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
This checklist should be reviewed with a Planner at the public counter and must be submitted with the Site Plan Review application. A Site Plan Review request is heard by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. Any appeals of the decision will be heard by the City Council. A complete Site Plan Review application submittal consists of the following materials:

Filing Fees – Please consult with a Planner to determine the required application fees.

Site Plan Review Application – Completed Site Plan Review application.

Proof of Ownership
Electronic Copy and 5 copies of:

Environmental Information Form – Attached to Master Land Use application.

Development Plans – folded copies of dimensioned and scaled plans that include:
a) Project site address.
b) Applicant, name, address, and phone number.
c) North arrow, scale, and vicinity map.
d) Site plan showing all property lines and distances to center line of streets/alleys. e) Table showing development calculations (e.g. lot coverage, floor area ratio, parking, etc.). f) Clearly labeled location of all existing and proposed structures. g) Detailed and complete floor plans with a breakdown of floor area calculations. h) Clearly labeled uses of all existing and proposed structures. i) Elevations of proposed building(s) with respective height dimensions. j) Clearly labeled location and uses of all existing structures on adjacent properties. k) Setback dimensions of all existing and proposed structures. l) Vehicle circulation (driveways, access, alleys, dimensions, and backup space). m) Location of all existing and proposed fences, walls, and other screening. n) Landscape plans.
o) Mature trees 4” or more in trunk diameter at breast height. p) Size and location of all exterior mechanical equipment and method of screening. q) All easements located within or adjacent to the project site. r) Demolition plan (included on existing Site Plan).

The Plan Set Provided Exceeds the Requirements of Directed by Planning & Community Development Director J. Palombi

Building Design – Information relating to building siting and design to include:
a) A color/materials board providing examples of all exterior material proposed to be used. Detailed photographs and/or brochures may be substituted if physical samples are not feasible. b) Complete elevations of all sides of the building identifying all exterior colors and materials to match the respective color and materials board.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1600 W. Beverly Boulevard
Montebello CA 90640
www.cityofmontebello.com

SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION

Page 116 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
Project Address: 301 Jacmar Dr. Montebello CA 90640 Case # ________________________ Additional Items – Other items as determined by a Planner (e.g. topographic survey, landscape plan, parking inventory, primary elevation rendering, etc.).

Electronic Copy and 2 sets of:

Notification Materials – Submittal items as outlined in the Public Notification Packet Instructions handout.

Photos – Photos showing general conditions of site including existing structures, walls, and landscaped/paved areas.

Please contact the Planning Division at (323) 887-1477 for any additional information related to the submittal of any Planning applications.

DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:

This Site Plan Review request is to allow approval of proposed subdivision to construct (15) 2-story single homes with an additional parcel for streets, utilities and a private park. All homes will have a maximum heigh under code limit. Existing grading is nearly flat so permeable hardscape and landscape shall be employed with surface drainage to Jacmar Dr.

FINDINGS:

The applicant must thoroughly respond to the directives below to make the required findings for the proposed project.

Use additional sheets if more space is necessary to complete your response. The City’s Zoning Code and General Plan are available at City Hall. The Zoning Code is also available at www.cityofmontebello.com

1) Describe how the proposed design for improvement complies with all requirements of the Montebello Municipal Code.

a. The majority of the Montebello Municipal Code (MMC) will be adhered to:
a. R-1 Zoning height is limited to 25 feet elevation.
b. Primary access to all units will be from the driveway (front). c. R-1 Zoning requires a minimum of 300 Total SF of open space per dwelling. The proposed project has in excess of 1000 SF of total open space per unit.
d. Distance between buildings is 10 feet at the base of the buildings per 17.10.050. e. Garages are consistent with 17.10.060 and most parking will be hidden from view. f. Landscape will be consistent with MMC 17.10.80 and will include open areas many times that required. b. The following portions of the code will require variances:
a. R-1 Zoning Minimum setback requirements of 17.10.040 are met including: 20 feet in front, 5 feet on side, 10 feet at back. The proposed project complies with front and back setbacks. Front yard setbacks will vary from

4.5 feet to 6.5 feet.
b. R-1 Zoning minimum lot with 50 ft and depth 100 ft, with 60 ft minimum width for corner lots. The smallest lot in the proposed project is 40 ft x 60.5 ft. The largest is 55.75 ft x 61.5 ft. c. R1 Zoning maximum lot coverage is 40%. The proposed project has lot coverages of 41.68% to 47.82%

Page 117 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
2) Describe how the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the City’s General Plan. a. The proposed zone variances are consistent with the maps, goals, objectives and policies of City of Montebello General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and maintain its zoning and density designation. Density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have been approved in the immediate vicinity including:
i. The massive 60-unit Rio Walk 3-story Town Home
Development at 935, 937 939, 941, 943, 945, 947, 949, 951, 953, 955, 957, 959, 961, 963, 965, 967, Bluff Rd.; 924, 926, 928, 930, 932, 934, 936, 938, 940, 942, 944, 946, 948, 950 Lilac Ln; 943, 945, 947, 949, 951, 953, 955, 957, 959, 961, 963, 965, 967, 969, 971 Acacia Ln; 934, 936, 938, 940, 942, 944 4th St.; and 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213 Juniper Way is directly south of the proposed project. These town homes have variances for setbacks, density, lot size and lot coverage. (picture to the right)
ii. Four 2-story homes with similar lot coverage were
approved and constructed a block away at 507, 511,
515 Jacmar and 900 Carob way. These homes have
50-foot-wide and 50-foot-deep lots with over 60%
coverage. The corner lot is 60 feet wide, but still only 50 feet deep. (picture to the right)
iii. Four two story homes with much greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were approved and constructed
at 519, 515, 511 ,507 Robert J King Jr. Ct. There is
virtually no open space in this project other than the
driveway. (picture to the right)

Page 118 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
iv. Three two story homes with small lot size, much
greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were
approved and constructed at 940 S. Montebello Blvd.
(Picture to the right)
v. Five two story homes with much greater lot coverages and smaller set backs were approved and constructed
at 924, 924 ¼, 924 ½, 924 ¾, and 926 S. Montebello
Blvd. (Picture below)
vi. Seven two story homes with greater lot
coverages and smaller lot sizes were approved
and constructed at 421, 425, 429, 433, 437, 441
and 445 W Lohart Ave. (picture to the right)

Page 119 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
vii. Sixteen two story homes with much greater lot coverages, smaller lot sizes and smaller set backs were approved and constructed at 859, 861, 863, 865, 867, 869, 871, 873, 875, 877, 879, 881, 883, 885, 887, 889 S Greenwood Ave. (picture below)
viii. Twenty two-story homes with greater lot coverages and smaller lot sizes were approved and constructed at 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 109, 112, 113, 116, 117, 121, 124, 125, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 141 Natasha Ln. (picture below)
b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed zone variance of development proposed i. The site has been planned for much denser development for which it was suitable. The current plan for 15 single family homes fits well on the site, with full sized roads, fire department durn around, and room left over for a small park.
c. The proposed zone variance would not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
i. The site has been constructed as a single-family home for 85 years. There is no wildlife on it. d. The proposed zone variance will not likely cause serious public health problems. i. The proposed site was bare land prior to the house construction. There are no known environmental conditions that would likely cause serious public health concerns.

Page 120 of 1206 ends

PLANNING DIVISION T – 323.887.1477 F – 323.887.1488
Site Plan Rev App Rev. 1/08
e. The proposed zone variance will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property.
i. Electricity, telephone and cable utilities are just over the west property line and services some homes on 4 th St. Access to these lines is from 4th St, not from Jacmar Dr. A small portion of the access is from Jacmar Dr., but this project will not impact it unless it’s part of the engineered solution. ii. Electrical engineering for the project will most likely incorporate a new service for the new subdivision, and may also upgrade service for homes on Jacmar Dr. and 4th St. 3) Describe how the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare. a. The existing site has been constructed as a single-family residence on a very large property since at least 1938. The current use is R-1 and the future use will be R-1 so there is no change in the way the property will be used. b. The Zone Variance and subsequent development would not create problems for public health and safety, in fact it would lessen problems related to public safety because the aging housing has many attributes *such as elevation changes both to the yard and the house) that are dangerous to elders and would be replaced with modern housing. c. The Zone Variance and subsequent development would not be harmful to the general welfare of the neighborhood or city, in fact it would increase the general welfare in first bring in investment money, second bringing in construction and related jobs, and third providing for much needed housing. 4) Describe how this project physically relates to the adjacent and surrounding properties in the vicinity. a. The Zone Variance and subsequent development would allow for visual and actual continuity of house type, height and density around Jacmar Drive as well as 3rd and 4th streets and Bluff Rd. Many of the adjacent properties have been modified or rebuilt for greater density, where the neighbors mutually benefit from the density. The current property is a stand out because it is currently maintained by just two people. (Picture of Site below)

Page 121 of 1206 ends

Page 122 of 1206 ends

Page 123 of 1206 ends

Page 124 of 1206 ends

Page 125 of 1206 ends

Page 126 of 1206 ends

Page 127 of 1206 ends

Page 128 of 1206 ends

Page 129 of 1206 ends

Page 130 of 1206 ends

Page 131 of 1206 ends

Page 132 of 1206 ends

Page 133 of 1206 ends

Page 134 of 1206 ends

Page 135 of 1206 ends

Page 136 of 1206 ends

Page 137 of 1206 ends

Page 138 of 1206 ends

Page 139 of 1206 ends

Page 140 of 1206 ends

Page 141 of 1206 ends

Page 142 of 1206 ends

Page 143 of 1206 ends

Page 144 of 1206 ends

Page 145 of 1206 ends

Page 146 of 1206 ends

Page 147 of 1206 ends

Page 148 of 1206 ends

Page 149 of 1206 ends

Page 150 of 1206 ends

Page 151 of 1206 ends

Page 152 of 1206 ends

Page 153 of 1206 ends

Page 154 of 1206 ends

Page 155 of 1206 ends

Page 156 of 1206 ends

Page 157 of 1206 ends

Page 158 of 1206 ends

Page 159 of 1206 ends

Page 160 of 1206 ends

Page 161 of 1206 ends

Page 162 of 1206 ends

Page 163 of 1206 ends

Page 164 of 1206 ends

Page 165 of 1206 ends

INDEX OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 18, 2024 – ITEM NO. 5 REGARDING 301 JACMAR DRIVE, MONTEBELLO, CA 90640

LAST NAME FIRST NAME ADDRESS POSITION
Masuda-Farkas Max -- Support
Torres Mike 1424 S 4th Street Support
Torres Rosemary 1424 S 4th Street Support
Molinari William 301 Jacmar Drive
Montebello, CA 90640
Applicant/Support
Gonzalez Daniel -- Support
Salazar Larry -- Support
Sandoval Ramiro 1245 S Bluff Road,
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Uch Tom -- Opposed
Veloz Edmund Robert P.O. Box 2307
Pico Rivera, CA 90662
Opposed
Sotelo Brissa -- Opposed

Page 166 of 1206 ends

Page 167 of 1206 ends

Page 168 of 1206 ends

Page 169 of 1206 ends

Page 170 of 1206 ends

Page 171 of 1206 ends

Page 172 of 1206 ends

Page 173 of 1206 ends

Page 174 of 1206 ends

Page 175 of 1206 ends

Page 176 of 1206 ends

file:///C|/Users/efernandez/OneDrive%20-%20City%20of%20Montebello/Documents/kevin2.htm[8/5/2024 2:18:58 PM] From:kevin smith <[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:28 PM
To:comment, pcpublic
Subject:[External Email] Continued Public Hearing on 301 Jacmar Drive External Sender - From: (kevin smith <[email protected]>) This message came from outside your organization.

Hello,
I am once again writing to encourage the approval of the Zone Variance and Tentative Tract Map at 301 Jacmar Drive (Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM). This proposal turns 1 unit into 16 housing units, providing an extra 15 units for prospective home buyers in Montebello. These are home buyers who are no longer competing with our children, loved ones, and friends who are attempting to live in the city.

Unlike many attending these meetings, I didn't grow up in Montebello. I actually grew up over in Los Alamitos. I met my wife at college, and she took me to her hometown of Montebello. I immediately fell in love - both with her, and with the city. It was difficult to afford a house here, but we managed. Since we purchased a house, prices have skyrocketed. None of my wife's siblings are able to afford a house here anymore, and are at risk of being forced out. We worry what about what will happen to our children. I'm sure a lot of you have similar stories about young adults struggling to stay here due to skyrocketing prices. The only solution here is to build enough housing to accommodate our kids. That's what this project allows us to do: increase the housing supply in Montebello, so we can all afford to stay here. I can cite study after study showing this effect, but we're all smart people here, and I think everyone here is able to intuitively understand what's happening here.

A lot of you are concerned about parking, and I get it. Parking in south Montebello is a mess. It's worth remembering, though, that we are in a housing crisis here. A crisis that demands immediate action. And while there is a parking shortage, it's also true that each house has its own private garage, which can be used. And it's also true that the parking space in front of the house is owned by the city, not by the resident.

Beyond this, it's worth remembering that we are paying for a $40 million bus line less than a mile from the site. Beyond that, we are hard at work building an E line extension, which will include a station 0.6 miles away from this location! I beg of you, believe in our public transit spending, believe in the data, and do the right thing for our children.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kevin Smith
---
***PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON UNKNOWN LINKS. Contact Montebello IT Division if you are unsure.***

Page 177 of 1206 ends

INDEX OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 4, 2024 – ITEM NO. 5 REGARDING 301 JACMAR DRIVE, MONTEBELLO, CA 90640

LAST NAME FIRST NAME ADDRESS POSITION
Andrade Arlene 901 S. Bluff Road
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Cajera Gloria 857 S. 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Caranza Maximiliano -- Opposed
Cortez Pedro 312 Jacmar Drive
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Gonzalez Daniel -- Support
Hurtado Dionisia -- Opposed
Molinari Bill 301 Jacmar Drive
Montebello, CA 90640
Applicant/Support
Salazar Larry -- Support
Sengi Giovanni -- Opposed
Stokes Stephen 2448 W. Via Lucia
Montebello, CA 90640
Support
Uch Tom 841 3rd Street
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed
Veloz Edmund Robert P.O. Box 2307
Pico Rivera, CA 90662
Opposed
Zaragoza Jeronimo C. 813 S. 4th Street
Montebello, CA 90640
Opposed [Time Yielded to Mr. Veloz]

Page 178 of 1206 ends

Page 179 of 1206 ends

Page 180 of 1206 ends

Page 181 of 1206 ends

Page 182 of 1206 ends

Page 183 of 1206 ends

Page 184 of 1206 ends

Page 185 of 1206 ends

Page 186 of 1206 ends

Page 187 of 1206 ends

Page 188 of 1206 ends

Page 189 of 1206 ends

Page 190 of 1206 ends

Page 191 of 1206 ends

Page 192 of 1206 ends

file:///C|/Users/efernandez/OneDrive%20-%20City%20of%20Montebello/Documents/brissa.htm[8/5/2024 2:08:08 PM] From:Brissa Sotelo <[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday, June 4, 2024 6:50 PM
To:[email protected]; Alvarez, Raul; Jimenez, Angie; Palombi, Joseph; comment, pcpublic Subject:[External Email] Planning Commission Item #5 Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM (301 Jacmar) External Sender - From: (Brissa Sotelo <[email protected]>) This message came from outside your organization.

To: Planning Commissioners, Rep of Council District 5 and City Administrators, Re: Item #5 on Planning Commision Agenda for June 4th
While I could not attend today’s planning commission meeting, and this note is beyond the 6PM public comment electronic submittal deadline this does not change my comment for such item.

The property at 301 Jacmar has been a very contentious issue for the neighbors and residents of the south part of District 5, specifically because this has been brought to question several times within the city before past council body members.

I would like to request that all the members that submitted testimony and concerns ( during council meetings and public open meetings by developers) over the last 3 years be approached in an open forum before this item is considered in planning.This means having an open forum meeting that explains intentions at full length without a timer to understand the owner and developer’s intentions and express concerns as well as trying to find a balance for all. Given that this has been a hot item for this community it is concerning that no outreach or communication was done to the group of concerned citizens. The communication should have been done by the city ( which would have had public record of all past concerns with the proposals to change zoning), the owner, developer and the representative of the 5th district. At this time-none of that has been done other than a public posting. If you want this city to work together you and least need to hear the concerns prior to setting this up 72 hours before a meeting. You can achieve a lot when you built trust and listen.

Thank you for taking your time to dedicate your public service at our planning commission and for taking my comment into consideration.

Brissa Sotelo
Resident of the 5th District
1233 S. Bluff Rd Montebello
(323) 377-6091
---
***PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON UNKNOWN LINKS. Contact Montebello IT Division if you are unsure.***

Page 193 of 1206 ends

Page 194 of 1206 ends

Page 195 of 1206 ends

Page 196 of 1206 ends

Page 197 of 1206 ends

file:///C|/Users/efernandez/OneDrive%20-%20City%20of%20Montebello/Documents/kevin.htm[8/5/2024 2:06:44 PM] From:kevin smith <[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:09 PM
To:comment, pcpublic
Subject:[External Email] Public Comment for Planning Commission Meeting Item #5 External Sender - From: (kevin smith <[email protected]>) This message came from outside your organization.

Hello,
Unfortunately due to my work schedule, I am unable to attend the meeting and make this comment in person. However, I wanted to urge you to support the Zone Variance and adopt Resolution No. 07-24 Approving the Site Plan Review Zone Variance No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM.

We are currently in a housing crisis. The rents are so high, longtime residents of the city are being squeezed out and forced to leave. I have personally witnessed it, and I'm sure you (the reader of this email) has as well. Not only that, but high rents are also associated with an increase in homelessness. However, there is a well established fix for this problem of high housing costs.

New apartment buildings in low-income areas decrease nearby rents. More specifically, evidence shows that within 500 ft, for every 10% increase in the housing stock, rents decrease by 1%; and for every 10% increase in the condo stock, condo sales prices decrease by 0.9%. Further, another study shows that new buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later. Many people fear the construction of luxury housing, but it turns out that new construction makes homes more affordable—even for those who can't afford the new units.

The best thing about this fix is that it won't cost the city a dime. In fact, city profits are likely to increase with the increase in property tax. All we need to do is to allow property owners to build housing on their property.

That is exactly what Item Number 5 is about. While there may be fears of traffic and parking, these complications are ultimately much simpler to deal with than the current housing and homelessness crisis we are facing. I urge you to do the right thing - for our people, for the environment, and for the city's finances.

For more information on this, I recommend you read Strong Towns by Charles Marohn, Green Metropolis by David Owen, and Arbitrary Lines by David Owen. I would also recommend Paved Paradise by Henry Grabar, for more reading on the parking problem (also The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup).

With respect,
Kevin Smith
---
***PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON UNKNOWN LINKS. Contact Montebello IT Division if you are unsure.***

Page 198 of 1206 ends

file:///C|/Users/efernandez/OneDrive%20-%20City%20of%20Montebello/Documents/tom.htm[8/5/2024 2:05:22 PM] From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:28 PM
To:Fernandez, Emilie
Cc:[email protected]
Subject:Re: [External Email] Case # PC-2024-0002-SPR-ZV-TTM/ENV No. 02-24-CE Attachments:img508.jpg; img509.jpg
External Sender - From: ("[email protected]"
<[email protected]>)
This message came from outside your organization.

Good afternoon Emilie,
Thank you for your reply.

Wife and I read have read and analyzed the proposed project.

We would object to it as it is proposed.

We share the concerns and objections as described by our neighbor Edmond Veloz whose letter is attached herewith.

Thank you again
Sincerely,
Alexandria & Tom Uch
841 S 3rd Street
I have attached the staff report and site plan. Please let me know if you have questions on the proposed project.

For future reference or if you would like to review additional materials related to the project, please visit www.montebelloca.gov Departments - Planning and Community Development - Planning Commission – Agenda Minutes and Videos (Click Here) – June 4, 2024- Agenda Packet. The project for 301 Jacmar is the last item on the Agenda. Please let me know if you have any problems navigating the website or have any questions regarding the project.

Thank you,
Emilie Fernandez
Assistant Planner
Planning and Community Development
Department
1600 W Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640
p: 323-887-1200 x1480
w: www.MontebelloCA.gov
e: [email protected]

Page 199 of 1206 ends

Page 200 of 1206 ends

Page 201 of 1206 ends

file:///C|/...nal%20Email%20301%20JACMAR%20DRIVE%20MONTEBELLO%20(%2015%20RESIDENTIAL%20UNITS%20).htm[8/5/2024 2:00:07 PM] From:Connie Soto <[email protected]>
Sent:Monday, June 3, 2024 2:04 PM
To:comment, pcpublic
Subject:[External Email] 301 JACMAR DRIVE, MONTEBELLO ( 15 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ) External Sender - From: (Connie Soto <[email protected]>) This message came from outside your organization.

To the City Council,
My name is Concepcion Tapia, my house backs up to 301 Jacmar.

I do not support the proposed project of 15 residential units or 16 Legal lots and strongly ask that you disapprove. My privacy will be invaded, the Eagle's home will be destroyed, and it will get noisier! South Montebello needs improvements, not increasing population overcrowding or additional traffic.

On Bluff RD traffic is already a problem and if units are approved it will get worse.

So I ask that you reject this zone change.

Thank you for your time.

Connie
---
***PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON UNKNOWN LINKS. Contact Montebello IT Division if you are unsure.***

Page 202 of 1206 ends

Page 203 of 1206 ends

Page 204 of 1206 ends

12°09'04" r2
L=92. 5, R=435
2162.30
2163.66
2164.81
2175.10
2176.24
2167.84
2178.33
2169.98
21170.57
21171.64
21172.65
N 26°2 '0 " E

30. ' N 26°2 '0 " E
N 26°2 '0 " E
214.81 r2
S 63°38'00" E
305.00' r2
S 63°38'00" E
250.00' S 63°38'00" E250.00' S 6
2 3
9 °
.9
38'00" E
5' 66°25'19" L=57.96, R=50.00 S 63°38'00" E
107.79'

IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
S 26°2 '0 " W

65.0 ' S 6
6 3
2 °
.7
38'00" E
9'
S 32°45'0 " W
239.26'
E'ly line of Tract 18286
MB 4
7 Page 4-5
N
1 6
5 3
9 °3
.6
8'00" W
3'
N
20°1 '07" W

82.82'
N 26°2 '0 " E
215.82'
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 103 OF EL CARMEL TRACT, IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 7 PAGES 134 AND 135 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

Willim M. Molinari and M. Antonieta Molinari October 22, 2023 April 5, 2024
NW cor of Lot 103
NE cor of Lot 103
2" IP&Nail (not found)
SE Cor of the NW'ly 330 ft
of Lot 104 of El Carmel Tract
N
T
TI G
TE
A N OR

ATE OF CALIF
C
Exp. 12/31/25
No.24889
ST
I P
EG
S
R
E

I V I L
I
N
E
NE I R
ED
E R
RO P
ER
I
A
SS
. M
F
H
E NA O
R
L
APN: 6352-026-029
SCALE: SHEET OF
.

SURVEYORS' STATEMENT COUNTY SURVEYORS' STATEMENT
, . County Surveyor (Deputy)

PURPOSE STATEMENT

BASIS OF BEARING STATEMENT
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 084478
Date:

Lic. No.
day of 20
The purpose of this survey is to satisfy the requirements of Section 8762 of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act.

This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act at the request of
This map has been examined in accordance with Section 8766 of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act this
24889
Third Stre
t
Fourth Stre
t
Jacmar Drive
Lot 103 Por Area = 63746.11 sq.ft. (1.463 Ac.)
1 2
1" = 40'
0 40 80
Scale 1" = 40'

26.00 25.71

27.18 27.10

22.95 23.66

26.02 26.64

32.20 16.98
5 4.3
8 FD LT&T Fits Ties
PWFB 1125-336
FD LT&T Fits Ties
PWFB 1125-338

Page 205 of 1206 ends

N 26°2 '0 " E

30. '
S 63°38'00" E
150.00' S 63°38'00" E
250.00' S 63°38'00" E250.00' S 6
2 3
9 °
.9
38'00" E
5'
S 6
2 3
9 °
.9
38'00" E
5'
66°25'19" L=57.96, R=50.00
66°25'19"
L=57.96, R=50.00
S 63°38'00" E
107.79'
S 63°38'00" E
107.79'
S 26°2 '0 " W

65.0 '
S 26°2 '0
" W

65.0 '

IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
S 6
6 3
2 °
.7
38'00" E
9'
S 6
6 3
2 °
.7
38'00" E
9'
S 32°45'0 " W
239.26' S 32°45'0
" W
239.26'
N
1 6
5 3
9 °3
.6
8'00" W
3' N
1 6
5 3
9 °3
.6
8'00" W
3'
N
20°1 '07" W

82.82'
N
20°1 '07"
W

82.82'
N 26°2 '0 " E
215.82'
N 26°2 '0
" E
215.82'
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 103 OF EL CARMEL TRACT, IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 7 PAGES 134 AND 135 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

APN: 6352-026-029
SCALE: SHEET OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 084478

JACMAR DRIVE
3RD
STRE

T GARAGE

FRONT PORCH

DR VI EWAY DR VI EWAY DR VI EWAY DR VI EWAY
6" Curb FRONT PORCH

DR VI EWAY
GARAG
F

E RONT PORCH
2 10
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
" 6 u C br

RD VI WE YA
" 6 u C br " 6 u C br RD VI WE YA
4 RD VI WE YA
" 6 u C br " 6 u C br " 6 u C br
6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb
6' TALL BLOCK WALL
6' TAL

BLOCK WAL
6' TAL

BLOCK WAL
6' TALL BLOCK WALL
6' TAL

BLOCK WAL
6' TAL

BLOCK WAL
' 7 AT LL LB CO WK
LA L
6' TAL

BLOCK WAL

I S ED A W KL I S ED A W KL

DR VI EWAY

S DI EWALK
9 DR VI EWAY
3 6" Curb 6" Curb

FRONT PORCH
1 GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
5 " 6 u C br
1 12
6" Curb

S DI EWALK S DI EWALK S DI EWALK S DI EWALK

S DI EWALK

I S ED A W KL RD VI WE YA

I S ED A W KL I S ED A W KL
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
8 GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
7 FRONT PORCH
13 FRONT PORCH
14 FRONT PORCH
15 FRONT PORCH GARAGE
6 FRONT PORCH GARAGE RD VI WE YA I S ED A W KL
T

D- POROUS
PAV
NI G
POCKET
PARK
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
GARAGE

LAND NI G

AC UNIT

FRONT PORCH

S TI NI G
AREA

AC UNIT

LAND NI G LAND NI G LAND NI G LAND NI G

AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT AC UNIT

AC UNIT AC UNIT

GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE

LAND NI G
EXERC
SI E
EQU

PI MENT
6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb 6" Curb
6" Curb
6" Curb
T
DT
D- T
D-
' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a ' 6 l B co Wk l a ' 6 l B co Wk l a
6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal 6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal 6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal
6' B ol ck Wal
(N) 6' TALL BLOCK WALL
' 6 l B co Wk l a ' 6 l B co Wk l a
' 6 l B co Wk l a S DI EWALK

S DI EWALK

DR VI EWAY

S DI EWALK

LAND NI G

LAND NI G
GARAGE
2 2
0 20 40
Scale 1" = 20'

Page 206 of 1206 ends

Notice of CEQA Exemption
City of Montebello 1
To:

County of Los Angeles
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
12400 Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
From:

City of Montebello
Planning & Community Development Department
1600 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640
Lead Agency: City of Montebello Planning and Community Development Department Project Title: Site Plan Review, Zone Variance and Tentative Tract Map to allow the demolition of the existing single family residential unit and construction of 15 new units on 16 separate parcels.

Project Location: 301 Jacmar Drive, Montebello, CA 90640 Case Number(s): PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM & ENV No. 02-24-CE Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: Site Plan Review (“SPR”) Zone Variance (“ZV”) and Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM to allow the construction of 15 new single-family homes on 16 separate lots at 301 Jacmar Drive (“Project Site”).

Name of the Public Agency Approving the Project: City of Montebello Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project: John Mark Kozakar behalf of William Molinari and Antonieta Molinari, (“Property Owner”)
Exempt Status (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268(b)(3))
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class 32- CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development)
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Justification for Project Exemption:

The Project is Categorically Exempt per §15332 - Class 32 (In-Fill Development), as none of the limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply. To qualify under an exemption pursuant to Class 32 of Section § 15332 (In Fill Development Projects), the following environmental findings must also be made. The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as applicable zoning designation and regulations being in the R-1 zone with various permitted uses, the Project occurs within City limits and is on a project site of no more than five (5) acres, and the Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species because it is on an existing developed site. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Joseph A. Palombi, Director of Planning & Community Development Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (323) 887-1200
If filed by applicant, attach certified document issued by the Planning and Community Development Department stating that the Department has found the project to be exempt.

Signature: ____________________________ Date: ______________ Title: _______________________ Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Attachment I

Page 207 of 1206 ends

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 07-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MONTEBELLO APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW, THREE (3) ZONE

VARIANCES AND A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR
APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM NO. 084478) (PC2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM) WITH CONDITIONS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF 15 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 16 DIFFERENT
PARCELS AT 301 JACMAR DRIVE AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF
EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA 15332- CLASS 32 (IN-FILL

DEVELOPMENT)
WHEREAS, a Site Plan Review (SPR) Zone Variance (ZV) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application has been received and accepted; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan Review would allow the addition of 15 single family units on 16 units (“Project”) for John Mark Kozakar (“Applicant”) on behalf of William M. Molinari and Antonieta Molinari (“Property Owner”) at the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive (“Project Site”) pursuant to Montebello Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 17.74- Site Plan Review, Chapter 17.72- Variances and Chapter 16.12 Tentative Maps; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Montebello (“City”) is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Site Plan Review, Zone Variances and Tentative Tract Map for Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM / ENV No. 02-24-CE is considered a “project”, as per CEQA’s definition of a “project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt per CEQA §15332, Class 32 (In Fill Development) and meets the conditions set forth under Class 32 (In Fill Development Projects); and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing has been held, at which the Planning Commission received and considered staff presentations, recommendations, public testimony, and all other matters presented at the public hearing and included in the record for this matter, and all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Attachment J

Page 208 of 1206 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Montebello hereby resolves that:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as substantive findings in this Resolution.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS
A. GENERAL PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Montebello finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan.

Per the Montebello General Plan, the Project conforms to:

1. General Plan Goal to Encourage urban infill and compact development A2.7a states a goal “Promote infill development on vacant and underutilized sites….”

2. General Plan Goal for development that will create diverse and walkable neighborhoods A3.4b states a goal “Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds.”

3. General Plan Goal to retrofit suburban development P3.6 states the goal to “Integrate more housing choices in existing subdivisions”.

B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Pursuant to Section 17.74.070 of the MMC, before any site plan review shall be granted, all of the following findings must be made:

Page 209 of 1206 ends

have open space and the setbacks will be landscaped. The applicant is requesting a zone variance from the R-1 standards regarding the minimum required setbacks, lot sizes and the lot coverage percentage per unit. A Site Plan is required due to the project resulting in three or more units according to Section 17.74.030.

2. That the proposed design for improvement is consistent with the general plan; and
The proposed project site is consistent with the general plan and reflects the goals that were set in place when designating certain zoning areas with different housing types. The project site has the capacity for more development and the density is appropriate to the neighborhood and surrounding uses. Similar projects have also been approved in the close vicinity. The current plans are for 15 units with full roads, fire department turn around, and a small park for the residents to enjoy. The zone variance will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

3. That the proposed design for improvement will not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties or on the general public welfare.

It would increase the welfare by first supporting investments, bringing in construction and related jobs, and providing housing to the community.

The current use is R-1 single family residential, and the proposed residential zoning will not change. All the immediate surrounding land uses are consistent with residential housing. The addition of this project will be consistent with the surrounding land uses and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.

C. ZONE VARIANCE. Pursuant to Section 17.72 of the MMC before any zone variance review shall be granted, all of the following findings must be made:

Page 210 of 1206 ends

1. Describe the special major unusual circumstance applicable to the subject property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and with the same zoning designation.

Unlike other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, the subject site is very large for a single-family home. It is a unique 1.38-acre lot.

There is not another house like it in the neighborhood. Currently, the unit is providing very little benefit to the neighborhood with so much land being underutilized. Without the zone variance request in this application, the applicant believes they would be deprived of maximizing the market value of their property. The increased property values of this new residential development would increase property tax revenues for the City. Further rejection of the zone variance requests would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications by not being able to fully utilize the project site.
i. The lot sizes: This single-family residential lot is special to the neighborhood as there is no other lot in the surrounding area that is the same size, making it difficult to design the homes on such a unique sized lot to optimize the area for each unit, resulting in reduced lot sizes.
ii. Lot coverage: As a result of the lot sizes being smaller than usual, which is not typical, the applicant requests to use as much space as possible causing the lot coverage to be more than usual.
iii. Front setbacks: With the reduced sizes and the lot coverage being above than typically allowed, this unusual case has put the applicant in the position to design the houses in a way that would best benefit the future homeowner. Although the design of the house can allow the applicant to have a larger front yard, the applicant has decided to use the space to allow for a larger private backyard for each of the residents and apply for the zone variance.

The existing property is in some disrepair, and it is the goal of the applicant to revitalize the lot which would result in the demolition of the

Page 211 of 1206 ends

existing house and replacing it with modern housing. The house is currently 85 years old and no longer the best use for a lot that size for the city for housing density. The zoning code does not allow the applicant to best utilize the lot with its unique size the applicant is requesting to optimize their lot, allowing the future homeowners to use as much of their lot as possible.
i. The lot sizes: If the lot sizes were up to standard, there essentially would not be enough room on the lot to
accommodate as many homes as the applicant is requesting.

The applicant is trying to utilize the lot and has retained inspiration from surrounding developments that have similar lot sizes. Without the minimized lot sizes, the project would not be possible.
ii. Lot coverage: If the applicant would design the houses using the Montebello Municipal code requirements, the houses would be extremely small and not suitable for a growing family, which the applicant hopes to house.
iii. Front Setbacks: If the applicant were to abide by the front yard setbacks, the future homeowners would have a large front yard and an extremely small backyard. The applicant decided to utilize the space and provide a larger backyard to optimize the space in the best way.

To properly utilize the future lots the applicant is requesting to apply these zone variances to properly utilize the area on the lot and to design each lot to properly maintain the most use out of the project site that is being redeveloped.
i. Lot sizes: The lot sizes being smaller than required allows for more units which gives the applicant a mechanism to provide more housing options to Montebello residents.
ii. Lot Coverage: Being able to build more on each lot provides the units with a bigger house for bigger rooms, kitchen and bathroom areas providing a more comfortable to provide a more attractive home to any future residents.

Page 212 of 1206 ends

iii. Front setback: Having a smaller front setback allows the residents to enjoy more space in the backyard of the units which is necessary with many of the new housing developments
having such a small backyard. Although the applicant will take away from the front setback, every unit will also have an attached garage for two cars.

4. Describe how the proposed Zone Variance will not cause an adverse effect on the public welfare or surrounding properties.

The site for the proposed use would not adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding property owners because the size of the house and the two-story construction is consistent with the majority of the houses in the neighborhood. The property immediately south of the residence, although zoned R-1 single family residential does have three story town homes. There are many other properties in the immediate surroundings with greater densities, assuring this addition will not have any effects on the neighbors or the surrounding area. i. Lot sizes: The variance of lot sizes will not affect the surrounding users as there currently are units in the surrounding area that are similar sizes and have no effect on the
surrounding properties.
ii. Lot coverage: Although the lots will be above the allowed lot coverage, and the lots will be fully built out, every unit will be of a similar design, the consistency will ensure no unit will stand out from the others.
iii. Front setback: Although the lots will have a very small front yard, the units will still each have a two-car garage for the residents. This will help with any concerns regarding the limited driveway that will result from the front setback variance.

5. Describe how the granting of the Zone variance will be consistent with the general plan and intent of the Zoning Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

The proposed project has been properly notified and will be consistent with the general plan as the project site is has been designated for residential units.

Page 213 of 1206 ends

D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. Pursuant to Section 16.12 of the MMC before a tentative tract map shall be granted, all of the following findings must be made:

A. Describe how the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and Specific plans as described in California Government Code Section 65451.

The proposed project that would be allowed through this subdivision would result in over 23,000 square feet of open space and medium cost for 15 families. The zone is consistent with the general plan and provides additional housing in the R1-Zone that is designated for single family housing developments making the project consistent with the general plan.

B. Describe how the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable general and specific plans; The general plan seeks to balance open space with developed space, and to group uses in neighborhoods for mutual enjoyment of the occupants and the residents. The project provides open space and a private park as well as houses for sale. The development will allow the future resident to enjoy quality housing in a safe and secure environment. The development will also allow for modest growth in the city that will benefit business and the school system.

C. Describe how the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The existing property has been developed as a single-family home since 1938. The house is aging and is in disrepair. Since its original construction, the community has grown around the house, and many of the developments around it have now have much greater density. The combination of the property’s size as well as the denser development around it makes it suitable for this type of housing. The project will have 16 parcels, with 15 single family homes on each separate parcels with a parcel for streets, utilities and a private park which will be owned by all of the homes and managed by a home owners association that will be set upon completion of construction.

Page 214 of 1206 ends

G. Describe how the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; and
The height of the project will not exceed 25 feet in elevation; thus, it will not conflict with any neighbor’s rights with respect to blocking views. The utility easement on the west side of the property for electrical and communication cabling will be maintained.

The utility engineering for the project will likely create or renew utility access for the project location itself as well as for the neighborhood.

H. Describe how the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would not add to or result in violation of existing water quality control standards.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will ensure that the construction of these units will not be of great impact to the sewer systems.

SECTION 3. CEQA. The Planning Commission approves and adopts the CEQA Categorical Exemption § 15332 (In Fill Development) Class 32 exemption. A Class 32 exemption under CEQA § 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), and none of the limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply.

In order to qualify under an exemption pursuant to Class 32 of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In Fill Development Projects), the following environmental findings must also be made:

Page 215 of 1206 ends

a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The proposed project conforms to the Montebello General Plan, Land Use Element in that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site for the R-1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning designation.
b. The proposed development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The proposed project is currently developed with an existing single family home. The subject property is surrounded by additional housing developments and is consistent with the land use designation.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The proposed project shall not have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the site is currently developed with an existing residential unit.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project has been reviewed by City staff and it has been determined that it can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

SECTION 4. APPROVALS. The Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review (“SPR”) Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV?TTM with conditions to permit the addition of a 20,000 square foot warehouse to an existing warehouse. (“Project”) for John Mark Kozakar (“Applicant”) on behalf of William M. Molinari (“Property Owner”) at the property located at 301 Jacmar Drive (“Project Site”) pursuant to MMC Chapter 17.74 – Site Plan Review, Chapter 17.72- Variances and, Chapter 16.12- Tentative Maps.

Page 216 of 1206 ends

SECTION 5. CONDITIONS. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing conditions of approval are necessary and appropriate:

A. Planning Division Conditions

Page 217 of 1206 ends

Zones”) of the MMC and the provisions set forth in the SPR.

8. The Director, at any time, can call for a review of the approved conditions of approval at a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission.

These condition(s) may be modified, or new condition(s) added to reduce any impacts of the use.(Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR/ZV/TTM)

9. The Applicant or successor in interest shall meet the applicable code requirements and all other City Department regulations.

10. All applicable conditions of approval from previous entitlements on the property shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specifically noted in this Resolution.

13. This approval shall not supersede the approval of any other responsible agencies. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws.

15. In the event of a violation of the conditions of approval, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.

16. The development and utilization of the site shall comply with all the provisions of all of the current Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Codes, and City Ordinances, as well as additional requirements from the Montebello

Page 218 of 1206 ends

Building and Safety Division.

22. A copy of the approved Resolution shall be attached to the construction plans for any site improvement at the submittal of plans for plan check.

24. All improvements to the subject property shall be in compliance with all City Ordinances.

25. The hours of construction shall be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and weekends and holidays 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as restricted by the MMC Section 9.08.050.

26. The street shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads.

Page 219 of 1206 ends

27. Any parking space that fronts a building wall or fence with no separation between the front end of the parking space and the wall or fence, shall be provided with a concrete wheel stop or curb barrier not less than two (2) feet from such wall or fence property line. Such wheel stop or curb barrier shall be securely installed and maintained.

28. An application for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the lots into 16 separate units, and a final map shall be approved prior to the issuance of building permits.

29. The specifications of the Montebello Public Works Department and the Building Division shall be complied with:

30. The landscape plan shall conform to the MMC requirements. Shrubs shall not be less than three (3) feet in height when planted and cover not less than thirty (30) percent of the landscaped area. All landscaping shall cover the designated planting areas from the outset.

31. All trees shall be at least twenty-four inch (24”) box or equivalent.

32. All landscape planters shall be surrounded by a six (6) inch concrete curb.

33. All existing and proposed utilities (Gas, Electricity, Communications, etc.) shall be placed underground. The applicant shall reflect this requirement on plans submitted for “Plan Check”.

34. All outdoor utilities or machinery located outside the exterior walls, including roof-mounted equipment, shall be completely screened from view from any public right-of-way or adjacent residential use by either view obscuring landscaping or architectural features of the main building (i.e. parapet walls, façade extension, etc.), subject to the final review and approval of the Planning Department.

35. Any inevitable exposed wires shall be neatly bolted and painted to match the building color.

36. The exterior of all structures and walls shall be a neutral color scheme and shall be consistent with the provisions of the Color Ordinance of the City of Montebello, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department.

Page 220 of 1206 ends

37.Any substantial change or modification to the proposed site plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.

Building Division Conditions

2. Plans prepared in compliance with the current Building Code shall be submitted to Building Division for review prior permit issuance.

3. School Developmental Fees shall be paid to School District prior to the issuance of the building permit.

4. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to issuance of the building permit.

5. Applicant shall submit a site plan with proposed addressing and file an address assignment application with the City.

6. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.

7. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.

8. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:

9. a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill;

10.b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials;

11.c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;

12.d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;

13.e) The testing of compacted fills; and

Page 221 of 1206 ends

14.f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.

15.The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by other soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the City, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.

16.The property shall be surveyed, and the boundaries marked by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California.

17.Foundation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed and the setbacks determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS

TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT
LOCATION.

18.Separate application and plan review is required for Electrical plans showing the electrical system design serving all proposed units.

19.Separate application and plan review is required for Plumbing plans showing the utility, including but not limited to water, sewer, and gas lines, design servicing all proposed units.

20. Project shall comply with the CalGreen Residential mandatory requirements.

21.No form work or other construction materials will be permitted to encroach into adjacent property without written approval of the affected property owner.

22.Demolition permit is required for any existing buildings, including but not limited to a pool and a detached storage shed, which are to be demolished.

23.Separate building permit is required for the perimeter block wall/fence.

24.All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed, and their location approved by an engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250-pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.

Page 222 of 1206 ends

25.A separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers.

26.Building permits shall not be issued until the final map has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

27.Reviewed by: Building Division/AJ/JK

28.JN: 240081

29.DATE: 1/29/2024
Public Works Department
The following conditions and public improvements will be required to be performed and completed in an acceptable manner to the City in accordance with all applicable rules and laws. Federal, State, County and local laws and regulations for project implementation must be adhere to throughout the duration of the project. The Public Works Department may require other information or may impose additional conditions and requirements as deemed necessary to protect public health and safety.

General:
1) Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Wells, including legally removed, permanent, temporary and active wells, must be depicted on all site plans, grading plans and all other relevant plans. Include a legend that demonstrates ownership, date installed, and type of monitoring well and all other relevant information.
2) Provide Tentative Tract Map which incorporates the adopted conditions of approval and any specific criteria noted by the city. The tentative map must also show existing drainage patterns of all properties adjacent to the site, including relevant topographic elevations from the adjacent properties.
3) Provide demolition plan for existing buildings and pavement. Show utilities to be capped and abandoned at the property lines.
4) Comply with the City’s ordinance pertaining to construction debris recycling.

Contact the Building & Safety Department to obtain a Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Program form. The Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Program is also applicable with respect to the grading process.
5) Provide Grading and drainage plans, geotechnical report (the report shall provide recommendations for pavement thicknesses, over excavation limits, and etc), infiltration report, and all other applicable reports/plans must be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
6) Provide a hydrology and hydraulics report prepared by a professional engineer subject to review and approval. All storm drainage facilities serving the development must accommodate a 50-year storm.

Page 223 of 1206 ends

7) Provide an on-site utility plan (sewer and water) for review and approval. This plan must include water service for domestic flow, fire flow, and backflow prevention. A water and sewer system analysis must be provided by the developer to demonstrate that the new development does not negatively impact the existing system. If the existing system does not have adequate pressure and fire flow to serve the development, the developer will be responsible for upgrading the water main and sewer as necessary in the public right-of-way.
8) Engineer to show the location of the sewer mainline, nearest manholes, lateral serving the project and configuration of the onsite sewer including diameter and material of the onsite sewer.
9) Engineer to show the location of the water mainline, water meters servicing the development and any newly proposed water meter locations. 10) Engineer to show will serve letter from the water purveyor. 11) Engineer to submit sewer study.
12) Provide a street improvement plan. The street improvement must pavement rehabilitation (2-inch grinding and overlay) along the entire property frontage and up to the street centerline.
13) All public works improvements must comply with the standards and specifications of the city of Montebello or Los Angeles County.
14) Low Impact Development (LID) is a requirement of the NPDES Permit No.

Page 224 of 1206 ends

19) Comply with all Federal, State, and local agency requirements pertaining to the Clean Water Act, which established regulations, set forth in the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
21) All USA/Dig Alert paint markings must be removed by the contractor from the sidewalk, curb & gutter and/or asphalt pavement once offsite improvements are completed.
22) The applicant must record the Final Map after the City Council approves the final map and the City Council accepts any applicable bonds or agreements. 23) The applicant/ property owner must provide written proof that there are no liens against the subdivision for unpaid taxes or special assessments and submit Los Angeles County tax bill, tax payment receipt, and copy of cancelled check before filling a Final Map with the city for approval.
24) Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) conforming to these conditions of approval must be filed for approval. The CC&R must be approved as to form by the City Attorney; the applicant must pay for all costs associated with such review. A copy of the approved recorded CC&R must be submitted before final inspection and clearance of the building permit.
25) The City Engineer may require other information or may impose additional conditions and requirements as deemed necessary to protect health and safety, and to benefit the public.

Fire Department
1) Fire flow analysis showing the existing infrastructure meets/exceeds the 2022 Edition California Fire Code, Appendix B/BB.
2) The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, referenced NFPA standards, and local ordinances. 3) Additional requirements may be added during the plan check process, if applicable.

Page 225 of 1206 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of June 2024 by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Cuevas: ( ) AYE ( ) NOE ( ) ABSENT ( ) ABSTAIN Commissioner Morales: ( ) AYE ( ) NOE ( ) ABSENT ( ) ABSTAIN Commissioner Valdez: ( ) AYE ( ) NOE ( ) ABSENT ( ) ABSTAIN Commissioner Lomeli: ( ) AYE ( ) NOE ( ) ABSENT ( ) ABSTAIN Commissioner Medina: ( ) AYE ( ) NOE ( ) ABSENT ( ) ABSTAIN ______________________________
Alicia Morales, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Joseph A. Palombi, Director
Planning & Community Development Department

Page 226 of 1206 ends

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Joseph Palombi
Planning and Community Development Director
This communication is intended to provide the Planning Commission with an update based on requests during the meeting/public hearing held on June 4, 2024. This information relates to the above-referenced case which was listed as Item No. 5 on the agenda for the above-referenced.

Per your request, City staff contacted the Applicant to request a summary of community outreach efforts as well as a list of properties that were visited in connection with the proposed project.

Please see Attachment A for a summary provided by the Applicant. Based on this information, the community outreach efforts included visits to 112 houses where 10 answered their door and spoke about the project. According to the information provided by the Applicant, three (3) residents supported the project, three (3) opposed the project, and four (4) residents did not have an opinion and were neutral regarding the proposed project. An informational brochure prepared by the Applicant (please see Attachment B) was left at all properties contacted.

Regarding a relocation plan for any animal endangered or not, the Applicant explained that none of the wildlife at the subject property are deemed endangered. The Applicant welcomed conditions from the Planning Commission and/or Planning Division to mitigate any potential impacts on existing wildlife including any hawks and nests if disturbed during construction. Please see Attachment C for suggested language that could be incorporated as a condition of approval.

Regarding parking, the Applicant proposed language that could be added as a condition of approval which imposes requirements on the HOA to include provisions in its by-laws to address this concern (Please see Attachment C).

Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Outreach Summary (provided by the Applicant) Attachment B: Brochure prepared by the Applicant
Attachment C: Applicant response to staff questions.

DATE: June 17, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joseph Palombi, Director of Planning and Community Development Emilie Fernandez, Assistant Planner
RE: 301 Jacmar Drive – Planning Division Case No. PC-2024-0002-SPR-ZV-TTM Environmental: ENV No. 02-24-CE
Request(s): Site Plan Review and Zone Variance approval, Tentative Tract Map Recommendation
Attachment K

Page 227 of 1206 ends

Montebello City CouncilAugust 14, 2024

Montebello City Council
August 14, 2024