TO: ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2024
Reviewed by:
City Manager: AP
SUBJECT:
Title
LA PUERTA SCHOOL SITE SPECIFIC PLAN (#24-SP01), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 83121 (#20-TTM01), CERTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT EIR (SCH #2022020137), AND APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF DISCRETIONARY FEE IN-LIEU OF PROVIDING ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 55 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 9.58-ACRE SITE AT 2475 FORBES AVENUE (APN: 8670-003-900) APPLICANT - TRUMARK HOMES
Body
SUMMARY
The applicant, Trumark Homes, requests City Council approval of a proposed development consisting of 55 single-family detached homes and associated access, circulation, infrastructure, and landscape improvements. This project will not encroach in or otherwise impact any part of the La Puerta Sports Park. Each of the 55 new homes will be two stories tall and include a two-car garage, driveway, and private yard. The project density is approximately six dwelling units per acre. Six homes will also include attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The 55 residential lots range in size from 4,260 square feet to 8,457 square feet (5,445 square foot average) and will support the four types of single-family homes:
§ Plan 1: 3 or 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, two-stories, 2,470 sq-ft total
§ Plan 2: 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, two-stories, 3,012 sq-ft total
§ Plan 3: 4 or 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, two-stories, 3,293 sq-ft total
§ Plan 4: 4 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, two-stories, 3,013 sq-ft total
The Project Site is a nearly square 9.58-acre vacant parcel that was formerly used as a public school by the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD). The parcel is located at 2475 Forbes Avenue and is further identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8670-003-900. Adjacent uses include the Thompson Creek Trail to the north, Navarro and Lamar Drives to the south, Forbes Avenue to the east, and the La Puerta Sports Park to the west. In 2018, all buildings, structures, and improvements on site were demolished, except for the asphalt paving.
The following is the list of the discretionary approvals the project applicant is requesting from the City to implement the proposed project.
1. Adoption of the La Puerta School Site Specific Plan, which includes the development and design standards (e.g., building height and setback, density, lot size, design guidelines) for development in the project site.
2. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the Project Area into 55 residential lots for individual ownership, and create five lettered lots to be set aside for common area landscaping and access improvements and four lettered lots for internal streets.
3. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21165 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15050, the City of Claremont is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of the EIR addressing potential impacts associated with the project. The complete DEIR, FEIR, and all associated attachments are available on the City website at: https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/living/development-projects/la-puerta-development.
4. Approval for the applicant to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 16.036 of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC)) by paying a discretionary fee in-lieu of constructing nine moderate income units within the project.
5. Approval of the design of the project including site plan, architecture, and landscaping by the Architectural and Preservation Commission.
Initially, the applicant also requested approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the project site’s General Plan land use designation from “Public” to “Residential 6” (residential homes between 2.1 and 6 units per acre) (which is the land use designation of the surrounding neighborhoods) and change the project site’s zoning from “Public” to “Specific Plan” (which is required to implement the development and design standards of the proposed Specific Plan). While the application was pending, the City drafted, circulated, and adopted a State-mandated update to the City of Claremont General Plan Housing Element for the Sixth Cycle Planning Period (2021-2029) (“Housing Element Update”). The Housing Element Update amended the land use designation and zoning for the subject site and created “Specific Plan Area No. 16” that applies to the 9.6-acre site, which is identified in the Housing Element Update as Opportunity Site 39. As a result, Trumark Homes’ project no longer requires approval of a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change.
On April 6 and April 20, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a preliminary review of the project and provided direction to the applicant. On February 28, 2024, the Architectural and Preservation Commission (APC) reviewed the proposed Specific Plan and associated site plan and provided direction to the applicant. The APC’s review was preliminary. Final review of the building designs and landscaping by the APC (item 5 above) will occur after the City Council decision and once more detailed plans are prepared.
The City Council is being asked to take the following actions at this time by approving the draft resolution (Attachment A):
§ Review the La Puerta School Site Specific Plan (Attachment B) for compliance with the current General Plan, zoning code, and map and approve or deny the document.
§ Review the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 83121) (Attachment C) for consistency with Chapter 17 (Subdivisions) of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) and the Claremont General Plan and approve or deny the Tentative Tract Map.
§ Review the Draft and Final EIR for the 55-unit project (available on the City Website) and certify the EIR and approve the associated EIR Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment D).
§ Review the materials submitted by the applicant and either approve or deny the request to pay a fee in-lieu of reserving nine of the new homes for sale to low and moderate income individuals (Attachment E).
The draft resolution provided as Attachment A to this report makes all of the findings required for the City Council to approve each action.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT APPROVING THE LA PUERTA SCHOOL SITE SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE #24-SP01), ASSOCIATED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (NO. 83121) FOR A 55 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOME DEVELOPMENT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2022020137) FOR THE PROJECT, AND APPROVING A REQUEST TO PAY A DISCRETIONARY FEE IN-LIEU OF PROVIDING THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 2475 FORBES AVENUE, APPLICANT - TRUMARK HOMES.
Body
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives:
A. Continue the public hearing (preferably to a date certain) and request additional information from City staff or the project applicant.
B. Approve the Specific Plan (Attachment B) and Tentative Tract Map (Attachment C) and make the associated CEQA findings and certifications, but do not approve the applicant’s request to pay a discretionary fee in-lieu of providing nine inclusionary units. To do this, the City Council would need to continue the public hearing (preferably to a date certain) so the applicant could submit an inclusionary housing plan that meets the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 16.036 of the Claremont Municipal Code) and staff could revise the proposed approval Resolution (Attachment A).
C. Request changes to the Specific Plan (Attachment B) and direct staff to remand the revised Specific Plan to the Planning Commission to review the changes and make a recommendation in accordance with Section 16.318.060(B) of the Claremont Municipal Code.
D. Request changes to the Tentative Tract Map (Attachment C) and/or its conditions of approval. This does not require Planning Commission review, but may require the City Council to continue the public hearing (preferably to a date certain) to allow staff to revise the Map, conditions of approval, and/or the proposed approval Resolution (Attachment A).
E. Deny approval of one or more of the project’s components (i.e., certification of the EIR, approval of the Specific Plan, approval of the Tentative Tract Map) and specifically state how the approval findings cannot be made.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The applicant, Trumark Homes is responsible for all costs associated with the City’s review of this project. The costs of City staff, City Attorney, and consultant time billed to this project are financed by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
Background
The project site is currently vacant and owned the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD). The following is a chronology for the project site and adjacent La Puerta Sports Park.
§ Prior to 1967 - La Puerta and the surrounding area were used for agricultural purposes.
§ 1967 - CUSD purchased the property for a second middle school after El Roble Intermediate School became overcrowded.
§ 1979 - La Puerta Intermediate School closed. The City entered into a 99-year lease agreement with CUSD for use of the back portion of La Puerta for a sports park.
§ 2013 - CUSD board declared the La Puerta Intermediate School property surplus and held a public auction to sell the vacant school property but not the sports park.
§ 2013 - Brandywine Homes was the highest bidder for the property and proposed a residential development consisting of 74 single-family detached homes on the same site. After two Claremont Planning Commission preliminary review meetings with the community, Brandywine withdrew its offer.
§ 2015 - CUSD held a second public auction. This time, the highest bidder was Claremont Lincoln University. After conducting several meetings throughout the community, Claremont Lincoln University withdrew its offer.
§ 2017 - CUSD applied for and received a waiver of competitive bidding requirements from the State Board of Education. By waiving these procedures, CUSD was able to solicit requests for proposals and then negotiate terms of a property sale with prospective buyers that were more likely to bring a sales transaction to a successful close, rather than being required to accept the highest conforming bid.
§ 2018 - All buildings and structures on the school site were demolished. The only remaining improvement is an area of asphalt paving, which was associated with the prior school’s parking areas and play courts.
§ 2019 - In June, CUSD Board unanimously approved entering into an agreement with Trumark Homes to purchase the La Puerta School property for $13,058,000.
§ 2020 - In July, Trumark made its initial submittal to the City, which was for 65 homes and 9 ADU’s.
§ 2022 - In January, the EIR process to analyze the Trumark project began (Scoping Meeting held on February 9, 2022) with the project proposed to be 56 homes.
§ 2024 - In September, the FEIR was released for review and formal City review for approval was initiated.
§ October 1, 2024 - The Planning Commission completed its review of the project and voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
Adoption of Housing Element
As noted above, after the Trumark proposal was submitted, the City drafted, circulated, and adopted its Housing Element Update for the Sixth Cycle Planning Period (2021-2029). On July 11, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2023-47 to adopt the Housing Element Update (#23-GPA01) and to certify the associated EIR (SCH No. 2021090340). On June 25, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2024-35 to revise the Housing Element Update (#23-GPA01) and approved implementing amendments to the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Land Use Plan (#21-GPA01). On September 5, 2024, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2024-23 to amend the Zoning Code to implement the Housing Element Update, as revised (#21-Z01). The City Council’s approval of the Housing Element Update and related implementing actions designated the 9.6-acre project site Specific Plan Required and rezoned the property to be Specific Plan Area 16 to allow multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 30 units per acre. The Housing Element Update identifies the site as Opportunity Site 39 - La Puerta and anticipates 137 units as a “realistic unit count” for the site. The Housing Element Update also acknowledges that this application for a project with fewer units was pending at the time the Housing Element Update was approved, and does not impose a minimum density for the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applicant has submitted several different iterations of this project to the City over the last four years ranging from the current count of 55 homes up to 91 homes, which was applied for under a “builders remedy” application for the site. The iteration under review before the City Council now contains 55 single-family homes on individual lots, six with ADU’s. No portion of the existing La Puerta Sports Park is included within the project site. Until recently, the proposal was for 56 units; however, the project applicant recently removed one home on previous Lot number 40 to address concerns expressed by neighbors during the Architectural & Preservation Commission’s preliminary review of the project on February 28, 2024. The EIR analyzed a project that included 58 units on the site.
Specific Plan
The applicant is seeking approval of a specific plan, which would provide development and design standards (e.g., building height and setback, density, lot size, and design guidelines) for development on the Project Site. The applicant has prepared the La Puerta School Site Specific Plan (Specific Plan) (Attachment B) partly because there are no existing zoning designations in the City that would allow the proposed lot sizes and configurations. As noted above, after this application was submitted, the City rezoned the site to allow residential development and, consistent with the pending application, anticipate approval of a specific plan prior to developing the site. The Specific Plan effectively creates customized development standards that align with the current configuration of Tentative Tract Map. These development standards that are typical for suburban two story homes, although the setbacks are less than typical for Claremont to address the smaller lot sizes being proposed. Approximately half of the Specific Plan consists of detailed set of design for guidelines for streets, landscaping, fences, and four styles of houses that are found in Claremont: American Cottage, California Bungalow, Craftsman, and Spanish. The major components of Specific Plan are described in more detail below.
Development Standards
All new development within the Project Site would be subject to the development standards proposed in Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan. Table 2.1 lists the basic physical development standards including lot size, setbacks, height limits, open space, and parking requirements. Other standards in this chapter regulate permitted uses, lot configuration, window frame material, mechanical equipment screening, outdoor lighting, and sustainability.
Design Guidelines
The proposed design guidelines contained in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan provide the design framework for streetscape, landscape, and buildings to convey a unified and unique community character for the Project Site/Specific Plan Area. They establish a direction to ensure a high-quality and aesthetically cohesive environment.
The following methods, which are stated in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, are required to be implemented to achieve the design goal of providing a neighborhood design that borrows from the classic design elements found in Claremont’s existing neighborhoods:
§ Provide pedestrian connectivity through the neighborhood.
§ Orient homes towards Forbes Avenue so as to fuse this new enclave with the existing neighborhood.
§ Provide architecture that minimizes the garage and pushes the living space forward, maximizing the elevation aesthetic.
§ All primary homes shall have private outdoor living space (yards, courtyards, and/or porches are encouraged).
The following architectural styles are included in the Specific Plan:
§ American Cottage - this style of home retains the massing and form that is reminiscent of early American heritage but with simpler lines and contemporary details. Cottages found in Claremont commonly exhibit horizontal siding, a porch element, and divided lite windows. Roofs are simple in form, most often accented with gables.
§ California Bungalow - includes horizontal lines, ample porches, and lower pitched gable roofs. Common exterior materials included shingles for the roof, and siding and stucco on the walls. Typically, ornamentation is sparse, but wood, brick or stone accents embellish the elevations.
§ California Craftsman - the style is characterized by the rustic texture of building materials, exposed rafter tails at the eaves, porches, vertically proportioned windows, and bold color.
§ Spanish - includes the use of “S” or barrel tile roofs, stucco walls, feature entry doors, and porticos.
The following principles guide the architecture to ensure quality implementation of the Specific Plan:
§ Use architectural elements and details that reinforce the architectural styles.
§ Choose appropriate massing, roof forms, colors and materials to define the architectural styles.
§ Ensure that plans and styles provide a degree of individual identity while being harmonious with each other along the streetscape.
§ Provide a varied and interesting street scene.
Site Design
Architectural elevations are inspired by the picturesque homes found in Claremont. Claremont’s Historic Village is eclectic and includes Mission, Spanish Colonial, Craftsman/Bungalow, American Colonial Revival, and Mid-Century Modern. These unique homes, varying lot sizes, and distinct tree-lined streets make the Village easily recognizable and distinctive from other parts of Claremont. The Village’s distinct differences are apparent and define the layout of streets, lot sizes, lot dimensions, width of driveways, landscaped parkways, and siting of the homes or structures on each lot. Similar to this example, the La Puerta Specific Plan provides opportunity through development standards and guidelines to offer various lot configurations and style diversity.
The diversity of the Specific Plan design features also complements the surrounding neighborhoods, which include the following:
§ Provide pedestrian connectivity through the neighborhood.
§ Orient homes towards Forbes Avenue so as to fuse this new enclave with the existing neighborhood.
§ Provide architecture that minimizes the garage and pushes the living space forward, by strongly encouraging garages to be set back greater than living space exterior wall planes, front porches, or low-walls.
§ Include private outdoor living space (yards, courtyards, and/or porches are encouraged) in all primary homes.
Streetscape Design
The following Specific Plan guidelines are intended to visually activate the neighborhood streets with connection between the homes and the public realm:
§ Orient homes toward the street with clearly defined entries facing the street.
§ Provide a direct pedestrian path between the home and the sidewalk.
§ Design meaningful front porches to enhance the visual streetscape and provides exterior social space for residents.
§ Use low courtyard walls, fences, or living fences (hedges) to delineate between public and semiprivate space. Choose materials and colors that visually complement the structure’s facade.
§ When providing functional lighting, fixtures should shine the least obtrusive amount of light but be bright enough for people to perform activities.
§ Provide lighting to illuminate building address numbers, landscape, and structures at night.
Building Form and Massing
Residential buildings will be broken down into smaller components to reduce the appearance of one singular mass through a variety of architectural techniques and treatments such as:
§ Varied roof forms, pitches, and heights.
§ Changes in materials and color.
§ Clearly defined entry feature such as a porch or architectural feature above the front door.
The homes will include an array of massing along the street. The methods to achieve this include:
§ Massing setbacks at the second story, this will also help reduce the appearance of the overall building scale.
§ Varying ground floor setbacks.
§ Provide porch or low-wall courtyard features to give wall plane variation.
§ Where feasible, adjust massing to accentuate the entry and minimize garage prominence.
§ Vary roof forms/changes in roof plane.
Landscaping
With trees being an important natural element in the City, the La Puerta project includes the planting of streets trees, which are intended to be located in curb adjacent parkways and provide shade for streets and sidewalks; however, there may be some areas of the development where curb adjacent sidewalks are provided due to competing design issues such as utility locations. The Specific Plan landscape elements are intended to enhance this new residential neighborhood through the use of native and naturalized plant materials. The following principles set the design direction of landscaped spaces in the Specific Plan area.
§ In accordance with Chapter 16.131 of the Claremont Municipal Code, low-water use plant materials should be selected to limit irrigation needs and minimize water use.
§ Mediterranean and other local, climate-friendly plants may be used alongside native species.
§ Canopy trees should be provided for shade and enhance building energy efficiency, especially adjacent to south and southwest facing building facades.
Density
The proposed General Plan and zoning designations, as well as the proposed Specific Plan, would allow residential development at up to 6.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). With a permitted density of 6.0 du/ac, development on the 9.58-acre Project Area could result in a development potential of 58 single-family homes (6.0 multiplied by 9.58 equals 58).
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
The Specific Plan also allows for the development of accessory dwelling units (ADU). Pursuant to state law that went into effect in 2020 and Section 16.333 of the Claremont Municipal Code (“Accessory Dwelling Units”), the owner of each single-family home would be allowed to build an ADU on their property. Based on the proposed tentative tract map, the City assumes that a maximum of six (6) ADUs will be built in the Project Area. The six ADUs were determined based on a realistic scenario of how many future homeowners could construct an ADU because of the anticipated lot sizes and configuration.
Vehicular Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular access to the Project Area would be provided via a stop-controlled entry drive along Forbes Avenue, which would feed into a looped interior private street. The private street would provide direct access to the driveways of each single-family home, except for any homes fronting onto and taking direct access off Forbes Avenue, which is an existing public street. All vehicular access and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City standards. The private street would be maintained by the established homeowner’s association (HOA).
The existing La Puerta Sports Park, west of and abutting the Project Area, is accessed via Indian Hill Boulevard. No vehicle access to the Project Area via Indian Hill Boulevard is available or planned.
Parking for residents and visitors would be provided in accordance with the parking requirements of the Specific Plan. For example, all homes would include attached two-car garages that would be accessed via private driveways; project residents would also be able to park on their private driveways. Guest parking will be provided along the internal private street. Public parking along Forbes Avenue, a public street, is also permitted during daytime hours. Overnight parking is restricted on Claremont public streets to three nights per month per vehicle with a secured permit through the Claremont Police Department.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The existing public sidewalk along the Forbes Avenue project frontage, which forms the eastern project site boundary, will remain or be reconstructed. The public sidewalk will connect to sidewalks along the internal private street and to the existing Thompson Creek Trail, which abuts the northern boundary of the Project Area.
Tentative Tract Map
Although the development of up to 58 single-family homes is analyzed in the DEIR, the project applicant is now seeking approval of a revised tentative tract map that would subdivide the Project Area into 55 residential lots for individual ownership (Attachment C). The tentative tract map also includes the creation of five lettered lots, which would be set aside for common area landscaping and access improvements, and four lettered lots for internal streets.
The tentative tract map also includes the creation of a separate legal parcel for the adjacent La Puerta Sports Park. The La Puerta Sports Park area and project site are currently split between two existing legal lots, although the lots appear as a single lot on the Assessor’s Parcel Map for tax reporting purposes (Assessor Parcel No. 8670-003-900) at 19.96 acres in size. The proposed tentative tract map would create a separate parcel for the La Puerta Sports Park, which would continue to be owned by CUSD and leased to and operated by the City.
CMC Title 17 - Subdivision Ordinance sets forth the review procedures and required findings for Tentative Tract Map review. Pursuant to CMC Section 17.050.050 and 17.050.060, the Planning Commission is the advisory body in Tentative Tract Map review, and the City Council has the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny tentative tract with the Planning Commission having provided a recommendation on the matter. CMC Section 17.050.070 sets forth the required findings for tentative map approval, which are included below:
A. That the proposed map or the design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, and with other applicable provisions of this Code.
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if a tentative map was prepared for the project and a finding was made that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.
E. That 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. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
F. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Chapter 17.013.
G. That the subdivision balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
H. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. (08-05)
The draft resolution (Attachment A), which includes a recommendation of approval to the City Council, affirmatively makes all of the above-listed findings.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) (CMC Chapter 16.036) also applies to the project. The ordinance requires development projects constructing five or more new residential units to reserve 5 percent of all newly constructed for-sale units to be Claremont low income units, and 10 percent of all newly constructed for-sale units to be moderate income units. For this project, that would require reserving six of the units for moderate and three units for low income qualifiers for a total of nine subsidized units.
The developer has indicated the total cost of constructing the required nine inclusionary units to be $1,205,177 per unit for a total cost of $10,846,593. The revenue generated from selling these units at affordable rates would be $3,204,000. The resulting gap between the cost to construct and the sales revenue is anticipated to be approximately $849,000 per unit, resulting in a total subsidy of approximately $7,642,593 to assist nine households within the project. Staff notes that this project would be the first single-family-detached home project to construct units under the ordinance. The $849,000 per unit subsidy would be larger than all previous inclusionary units constructed in the City. Previous inclusionary projects have included only townhomes and motor court homes, which sell for significantly less than this project is anticipated to sell for.
Rather than providing this large windfall to a relatively small number of households, the applicant is asking the City Council to approve payment of in-lieu fees rather than reserving the required percentages of the homes for sale to families that qualify as moderate or low income as defined in the ordinance. CMC Section 16.036.040 allows payment of the “In-Lieu” fee only when the City Council can make all of the following findings:
1. The housing development project complies with all requirements in the administrative manual.
2. Providing the inclusionary units on-site and/or through land dedication would result in an unreasonable and unavoidable economic hardship. In evaluating this finding, the City Council should evaluate whether there are feasible financial, design, and/or development methodologies that would mitigate or avoid the unreasonable economic hardship of providing inclusionary units on-site and/or through land dedication.
3. The developer has explored and exhausted all options to reduce the cost of development and sources of funding to subsidize on-site inclusionary units, such as participating in such programs like: (a) low-income housing tax credits; (b) below market rate financing from governmental affordable housing programs; (c) tax-exempt bond financing; and (d) any other available government programs.
Because it is the developer's burden to provide the information needed to make these findings, the developer has provided a Report (Attachment E) that includes a financial analysis of the feasibility of the project with and without payment of the fee, a description of the various affordable housing programs that have been investigated regarding their potential for closing the financial feasibility gap, and an analysis of the availability of vacant land in the vicinity of the Project site that could be purchased and dedicated to the City for use in constructing affordable housing.
Even if the City Council can make the above findings, it still has discretion to deny a request for an in lieu fee and can, instead, require the housing development project to meet the requirements of this chapter by providing on-site inclusionary units and/or dedicating land, unless doing so would legally constitute a taking of property without just compensation under the California or Federal Constitutions.
Based on the information provided by the applicant and the size of the subsidy that will be needed for each unit, staff has included language in the draft approval resolution (Attachment A. Section 7) that makes the required findings and approves use of the In-lieu Fee for this project. In making this recommendation, staff has reviewed the reports provided by the developer, requested revisions prior to finalizing the report, had the information in the report reviewed and verified by its inclusionary housing consultant, and researched market prices for new, single family detached homes in the area. In addition, the proposed 55-unit project does not include a request for a density bonus under State law. This reflects the lower density of the preferred project and further constrains the project as the existence of density bonus law is assumed to assist developers in making projects financially feasible subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Based on this analysis, staff agrees with the conclusions the developer has made; that the high cost of subsidizing the units lowers the project’s anticipated financial return to a point where it will become infeasible and that, if required to construct the subsidized units, the developer will likely walk away from the project or seek to develop a significantly denser alternative such as the builder’s remedy project that has already been submitted to the City.
COMMISSION REVIEWS
On April 6, 2021, the Planning Commission held a preliminary review of a 65-unit version of this project, which included 10 lots proposed on the existing sports fields in the La Puerta Sports Park. Due to the large amount of public comment and late hour, the item was continued two weeks later and completed on April 20, 2021. Six Planning Commissioners were seated on the Commission at that time. Three Commissioners commented that the project was inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Three Commissioners commented that a higher-density, more affordable housing version of a project was more appropriate for this site. The minutes from these two early Planning Commission meetings are Attachment F.
On February 28, 2024, The Architectural Commission held a preliminary review of a reduced sized, 56-unit version of this project which did not include any portion of the La Puerta Sports Park. The Architectural Commission had five members present and raised concerns with neighborhood compatibility, concern for Z-lot configurations, except for the interior lots, preference for larger lots, inclusion of a second vehicular entrance, improved connectivity to the trail and sports park, and a request for additional green space and trees. Architectural detail improvements requested included wider eaves for the craftsman design, elimination of vinyl fencing, fieldstone to replace stacked stone, and improvements to window styles and materials. Also, additional architectural home styles were requested. The Minutes from this meeting are Attachment G.
The project applicant has responded to several previous staff and commission requests. However, the applicant declined other recommendations on the basis that they are not economically viable to the overall project budget. Recently, the applicant has removed Lot 40 at the southwest corner of the project site based on staff, commission and neighbors’ concerns regarding privacy. Lot 40 has been replaced with a pocket park and enhanced pathway to the sports fields as seen in the revised Conceptual Landscape Plan and Site Plan (Attachment H). The applicant has reduced the amount of import fill area on the overall site, increased the width of the lots along Forbes Avenue, and addressed the wider eaves, windows, fencing, and stone request at this point in time. The various requests for reduced or increased density of units was modified between various iterations, however, not resolved to all parties satisfaction.
On October 1, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, EIR, and MMRP and, after requesting that staff make several minor modifications to the draft approval resolution recommended that the City Council approve the TTM, revised Specific Plan and certify the project EIR. One substantive change made to the Specific Plan as a result of this meeting was to clarifying that no natural gas infrastructure would be installed to serve the project and that the homes would be “all-electric”. Copies of the Meeting Minutes and Approval Resolution are Attachments I and J to this report.
CEQA REVIEW
In accordance with the City’s guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff with assistance from PlaceWorks (consultant to the City), completed an Initial Study for a proposed 56-unit development, which has since been reduced to 55 units. An Initial Study is an informational document that evaluates a proposed project’s potential to significantly impact the environment, while also identifying ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts through mitigation measures. Upon completion of the Initial Study, City staff concluded that there could be significant impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Mandatory Findings of Significance; however, through the incorporation of mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Impacts to all other study areas were found to be less than significant. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) have therefore been prepared.
The 45-day public review period for the Initial Study and Draft EIR commenced on July 26, 2023 and concluded on September 8, 2023. Following the public review period, City staff responded to the comment letters that were received on the Initial Study and Draft EIR and finalized the MMRP. This response and the final MMRP have been incorporated into the Draft EIR to create the Final EIR, dated October 2023, (Attachment D & https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/living/development-projects/la-puerta-development). The revisions made in the Final EIR include revisions to the Biological Resources mitigation measure BIO-1 and BIO-2, in response to Comment A3-5, from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. No revisions were made to any of the environmental topics discussed in the Initial Study and no additional mitigation measures were needed. The revisions made to the Initial Study did not change the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The Final EIR finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in any significant environmental impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures. The City has also found that the Final EIR and the response to comments contain a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the project and reflects the independent judgement and analysis by the City. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. The site is not listed on any list of hazardous waste sites pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code (see Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5)).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of the submitted plans are being held at the Public Counter at City Hall for review. If you desire a copy, please contact City Clerk’s Office.
On October 31, 2024, notice of this meeting was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project site and all properties fronting Forbes Avenue. Notice was also sent to all members included in the interested parties list. A display ad notification was published in the November 1, 2024 edition of the Claremont Courier. A copy of this report has been sent to the applicant, the project architect, and other interested parties.
All written public comments received after the October 1, 2024 Planning Commission meeting have been included as Attachment K.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Christopher Veirs
Community Development Director Principal Planner
Attachments:
A - Draft Resolution
B - La Puerta School Site Specific Plan
C - Tentative Tract Map No. 83121
D - EIR Findings of Fact and Project MMRP
E - In-lieu Fee Request and Developer Justification
F - Planning Commission Minutes of 4/6/21 & 4/20/21
G - Architectural Commission Minutes of 2/28/24
H - Revised Map with Lot 40 Pocket Park Design and Concept Landscape Plan
I - Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 2024
J - Planning Commission Resolution #2024-08 Recommending Council Approval
K - Public Comments Received After the 10/1/24 Planning Commission Meeting