TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 6, 2025
SUBJECT:
Title
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #84564 FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 3 ACRES OF LAND (2.67 NET ACRES AFTER DEDICATIONS) FOR A 70-UNIT TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR VACANT LAND AND A DECOMMISSIONED TENNIS CLUB LOCATED AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES (CLAREMONT 2 INV, LLC)
Body
SUMMARY
The applicant, CLAREMONT 2 Inv, LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting Planning Commission review and recommendation of approval of a condominium map (Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM) #84564) for a 70-unit townhome development located at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard (the “Project”). The proposed Project is located on a 3.0-acre site (2.67 net acres after American Avenue is dedicated to the City) of vacant land and a decommissioned tennis club south of the Motel 6 and near the northeast corner of the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard and American Avenue (“Project Site”). The proposed Project includes the following components:
• Seventy (70) for-sale townhome condominiums consisting of two-, three-, and optional four-bedroom units with unit sizes ranging from 1,155 square feet (sq. ft.) to 1,639 sq. ft.
• Ten separate buildings mostly with three stories reaching a maximum height of thirty-four feet (34’) and seven inches (7”). All units within fifty-seven feet (57’) of the eastern boundary of the Project Site (along the back of homes on Drake Avenue) are limited to two stories at a maximum of twenty-four feet (24’).
• Vehicular access to the Project Site is taken via one driveway on American Avenue.
• One hundred and forty (140) covered parking spaces in garages (both tandem and side-by-side) along with eleven uncovered spaces on the Project Site.
• Two (2) common open space areas near the center of the Project Site with a total area of 9,385 sq. ft. along with private outdoor living areas in the form of patios, decks, and covered porches totaling 13,325 sq. ft.
• The proposed buildings feature a Spanish architectural style with exterior materials consisting of stucco walls and red-tile roofs with fiber-cement/wood trim and wrought iron details. The designs include low-pitched, hipped roofs, natural earth tone colors, arched openings, and a combination of casement and slider windows.
• The proposed Project is subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 16.036 of the Claremont Municipal Code (“CMC”). Section 16.036.020.B of the CMC requires ten percent of the Project’s base units to be affordable to moderate income households and five percent of the base units to be affordable to low income households. This Project will have sixty-six (66) base units. Four (4) of those units will be affordable to low income households and seven (7) of those units will be affordable to moderate income households.
• Because ten percent of Project’s units are affordable to moderate income households, the project is eligible for a five percent (5%) density bonus under State Density Bonus Law. (Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65915(b)(1)(D) & (f)(4).) This allows the Project to add four (4) density bonus units to its sixty-six (66) base units for a total of seventy (70) units.
• Under State Density Bonus Law, the Project is also eligible for: one incentive or concession to reduce the cost of providing the housing (Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65915(d) & (k)); an unlimited number of waivers or reductions of development standards that, if applied, would physically preclude development at the desired density (id. at Section 65915(e) & (o)(2)); and a reduction in on-site parking (id. at § 65915(p)).
On December 13, 2023, the Architectural Commission (later renamed the “Architectural and Preservation Commission”) conducted a preliminary review of the Project. Much of the Architectural Commission’s direction has been incorporated into the latest Project design; however, the Applicant declined to incorporate some of the Architectural Commission’s feedback. When the Architectural Commission conducted its preliminary review, the Project was 65 units. The Applicant has since increased the size of the Project to 70 units. In addition to the Planning Commission’s review of the TTM, the Project requires final approval of an Architectural and Site Plan Review by the Architectural and Preservation Commission and City Council approval of the TTM.
The Planning Commission is being asked to take the following actions:
• Review TTM #84564 for consistency with Chapter 17 (Subdivisions) of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC), the Claremont General Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial.
• Concur with the Community Development Director’s determination that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it is an urban in-fill project on less than five acres of land (Class 32) and none of the exceptions to using this Categorical Exemption listed in CEQA Section 15300.2 apply to this Project.
Staff has prepared a draft resolution (Attachment A) making all of the required findings needed to effectuate both of these actions.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
A. Adopt a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #84564 FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 2.67 ACRES OF LAND FOR A 70-UNIT TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES (CLAREMONT 2 INV, LLC); and
B. Find this item is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Body
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives, each of which is constrained by recently-enacted State laws intended to streamline, expedite, and remove impediments to approval of housing projects:
A. Continue the item and request additional information, environmental review, and/or discussion. This alternative is subject to the following legal constraints:
1. CEQA Streamlining: To streamline and expedite the CEQA review process, the Applicant has availed itself of Assembly Bill 1633 (effective January 1, 2024) (codified at Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(I) & § 65589.5.1). Under AB 1633, the City must make a final “lawful determination” on whether the Project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption on or before June 3, 2025 (i.e., 180 days after the Applicant served the City with written notice that it was invoking AB 1633). (Id. at § 65589.5(h)(7) & § 65589.5.1(a)(5)(A) & (D).) To the extent the Community Development Director’s Class 32 exemption determination is not a final “lawful determination,” then if the Planning Commission continues this hearing, it will need to call a special meeting on the continued hearing in order for the City Council to meet this deadline. Failure to meet this deadline is deemed “disapproval” of the Project (id. at § 65589.5(h)(6)(I)) that the Applicant, any person who would be eligible to live in the Project’s housing, or a housing organization can challenge in litigation. (Id. at § 65589.59(k).)
2. Five Hearing Limit: This Project qualifies for streamlining under the Housing Accountability Act (also known as SB 330) (codified at Cal. Gov’t. Code Sections 65589.5) (“HAA”). Among other things, the HAA imposes a five hearing limit on a housing development project that complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time a complete preliminary application was submitted. (Gov. Code § 65905.5.) The HAA defines “hearing” broadly to include meetings that are not duly-noticed public hearings and continuances. Here, the Architectural Commission has already conducted a preliminary review of the Project (hearing #1), the Planning Commission is conducting a hearing on the TTM for a recommendation (hearing #2), the Architectural and Preservation Commission must conduct a hearing on the Architectural and Site Plan Review (hearing #3), and the City Council must conduct a hearing on the TTM for a final decision (hearing #4). Any additional meeting (including a continuance of this hearing) would be the fifth and final hearing on this Project; leaving no additional time for the Architectural and Preservation Commission or City Council to continue their hearings, if needed.
B. Recommend that the City Council approve some components of the Project and disapprove others (including conditions of approval), specifically stating how the required findings cannot be made for aspects of the Project of which the Planning Commission recommends disapproval and providing direction to staff on how to make the heightened “specific, adverse impact”* findings summarized below. This alternative is subject to the following legal constraints:
1. Heightened Findings to Reject Density Bonus-Related Requests: Under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915), the City generally cannot reject a density bonus, incentive/concession, or waiver/reduction of a development standard without making heightened findings that the request will have a “specific, adverse impact”* upon health or safety for which “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.” (Id., at § 65915(d)(3) & (e)(1).) The City cannot impose a higher parking ratio than the applicable ratios in State Density Bonus Law unless the City has conducted “an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study in the last seven years” that concludes, “based upon substantial evidence,” that a higher parking ratio is needed. (Id., at § 65915(p)(7).)
2. Subjective Development Standards are Unenforceable: Under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the City cannot request changes to nor disapprove the Project based on “subjective” development and zoning standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1) & (j)(1).) The City can only apply “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” that were in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted, and which generally can be modified at the Applicant’s discretion through State Density Bonus Law. (Id.) The HAA defines “objective” to mean “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Id., at § 65589.5(h)(9).)
3. Heightened Findings to Reduce Density or Disapprove Project: Under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), if the Project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time its preliminary application was submitted (as may be modified through Density Bonus incentives/concessions and waivers/reductions of development standards) and the recommended change(s) would require the Project to be developed at a lower density, then the Planning Commission must make heightened findings that the Project would have a “specific, adverse impact”* upon the public health or safety unless the Project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the Project be developed at a lower density and there is “no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B).)
C. Recommend that the City Council disapprove the Project and specifically state how the findings for approval cannot be made and providing direction to staff on how to make the heightened “specific, adverse impact”* findings summarized above. This alternative is subject to the same legal constraints as Alternative B, above.
*The HAA defines “specific, adverse impact” as follows: “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) Here, the Applicant’s preliminary application was submitted on July 25, 2024. Under the HAA, that is the date the application “deemed complete” for the purposes of “freezing” existing development standards. (Id. at § 65589.5(o)(1).)
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The Applicant, City Ventures is responsible for all costs associated with the City’s review of this Project. The costs of City staff, City Attorney, and consultant time spent on this Project are charged against a deposit paid by the Applicant.
Background
The five sheets that comprise Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84564, are Attachment B to this report. Additional Project site plans, architectural plans, elevations, renderings, and landscape plans are also attached to this report (Attachment C). The architectural design and landscape for the Project will be reviewed by the Architectural and Preservation Commission.
Property Background
The Project Site is located at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard near the northeast corner of the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard and American Avenue. The Project Site is south of an approximately 3.6-acre property that is occupied by the Motel 6 hotel. The Project Site is currently occupied by six tennis courts, a portion of a seventh tennis court, a small club house, and a vacant open space area fronting onto American Avenue. The area the Applicant proposes to develop has a gross area of 3-acres, which includes the northern half of the American Avenue right of way. Currently, public access for American Avenue is provided via easement across private property. The American Avenue portion of the property will be required to be dedicated to the City, in fee, as a condition of approval of the Tentative Tract Map, which will result in a net lot area for the Project Site of 2.67-acres. The Project Site’s frontage along American Avenue is approximately 475-feet in length.
The Motel, tennis courts, and vacant land have been under common ownership for many years, but the owner of Motel 6 has sold or is in escrow to sell the Project Site to the Applicant. The City approved the existing Motel in 1969, and the City approved the tennis courts and club house in 1973. For at least 20 years, the tennis courts have been used sparingly for infrequent tournaments and occasional lessons. The tennis courts are not utilized as part of Motel 6’s regular operations and were leased years ago to a tennis instructor. That lease has recently ended. Construction of the Project would have no impact to the current operations of the Motel 6 other than relieving the Motel 6 (prior to closing escrow) or the Applicant (after close of escrow) of the on-going maintenance responsibilities for the vacant property and tennis club’s landscaping.
Single-family residences border the Project’s eastern boundary. These homes are located in the RS 8,000 zoning district of Claremont and include several residents who have expressed concerns about the condition of the Motel 6 property. In 2023, the City directed Motel 6 (who at that time, was the owner of the Project Site) to plant a dense row of Ficus trees along the entire eastern property line (including the Project Site) to provide an enhanced buffer and additional privacy for the single-family neighborhood to the east along Drake Avenue. To the south of the Project Site, the midpoint of American Avenue forms the border between the Cities of Claremont and Pomona. Commercial properties fronting Indian Hill Boulevard are located to the west of the Project Site. They include a combination gas station and McDonalds and a currently vacant one-story commercial building at the corner of Indian Hill Boulevard and American Avenue. This vacant building was previously occupied by Greyhound bus station and is proposed to be occupied by a quick serve Mexican restaurant in the near future.
Prior to 2024, the Project Site’s zoning designation was Commercial Freeway (CF) District, which is “intended to provide for a concentration of major commercial uses such as hotels, service stations, restaurants, auto sales and big box retail that are dependent on their exposure to large volume freeway traffic.” Over the past 15-20 years the City has made multiple efforts to facilitate the commercial redevelopment of the tennis courts. None have been successful. The Project Site’s lack of frontage along Indian Hill Boulevard and concerns around ingress and egress on American Avenue for a high-traffic retail use were stated factors for why the commercial redevelopment of the Project Site was infeasible.
Housing Element Update Opportunity Site & Rezoning
The City identified the Project Site as a housing “Opportunity Site” in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU), which applies for the period from 2021-2029. The HEU recommended rezoning the Project Site from the CF zoning designation to the RM 2,000 - Medium Density Residential zoning designation in order to facilitate the development of housing on the vacant and underutilized commercial site. The Applicant submitted a letter of support for the inclusion of the Project Site in the HEU and for it to be rezoned to have the RM 2,000 zoning designation. The Applicant also supported the change and delayed their final submittal for the Project until after the HEU and associated zone change were approved by the City Council. The City Council adopted the current HEU in July 2024, which identifies 45 sites across the City where Claremont’s planned housing growth, as identified through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), can be accommodated. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) then certified the HEU in late 2024. The HEU’s Opportunity Site sheet for the Project Site (Opportunity Site 40) is Attachment D.
Rezoning of the Project Site from commercial to residential through the HEU was critical to maintaining compliance with the State’s Housing Element Law. Through the RHNA process, the State of California and regional Councils of Government determine the amount of housing that is needed to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community for the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) planning period. Each jurisdiction across the state was assigned an allocation of housing units. Through the HEU process, every jurisdiction is required to demonstrate that it has the capacity to accommodate the number of units in their RHNA allocation. Claremont’s RHNA allocation for 2021-2029 is 1,711 units (including both affordable and market-rate housing), which is much higher than the prior RHNA allocation of 373 units for the period from 2014-2021. This increase is based on the increasing unaffordability of housing across the State, the region, and the City, which drives the current housing crisis. In an urbanized, built-out, and otherwise land-constrained community such as Claremont, vacant land to accommodate the planned housing growth is quite limited. As such, the City must rely on the redevelopment of underutilized and underperforming commercial properties that have the potential to be redeveloped into much-needed housing. The HEU identified sites across the City, with a cumulative area of approximately 60-acres, to be rezoned to allow multifamily densities that are generally higher than densities currently allowed in the City. The HEU created new zoning overlays that mostly zoned the opportunity sites for either 30 or 60 units per acre. A late addition allowed for some properties in the Rural Residential zone of Claremont (generally 1 unit per acre) to be rezoned to RS10,000 ADU overlay, which equates to approximately 8.7 units per acre.
The Project Site, was rezoned to RM 2,000, which equates to roughly 21.8 units per acre. This is the second lowest density applied to HEU Opportunity Sites. Unlike many of the HEU’s Opportunity Sites, the property owner and Applicant indicated their intention to redevelop the Project Site into housing and supported rezoning the Project Site to the RM 2,000 zoning designation through the HEU process.
In July 2023, the City Council approved a first version of the HEU, but prior to approving the associated rezone, the City Council directed staff to explore whether HCD would certify the HEU if the City Council reduced the density on the Project Site. The City Council indicated it wanted to explore reducing the density on the Project Site in response to concerns from neighbors of the Project Site regarding the equitable distribution of housing Opportunity Sites across the City. Staff discussed the proposal with HCD staff who told the City that HCD did not support reducing the density planned for the Project Site (i.e., Opportunity Site 40) to a less dense multifamily designation. HCD’s staff indicated this action would represent an obstacle to housing production, particularly given the fact that the Applicant had already proposed developing the Project Site at the RM 2,000 density. HCD went on to inform City staff that they would not certify the HEU if it reduced the density of the Project Site. Based on HCD’s response, the City Council approved rezoning the Project Site to the originally proposed RM 2,000 zoning in July of 2024.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As mentioned in the summary above, the Project is subject to the City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and will reserve 11 units for sale to households that qualify as low or moderate income. The City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires for-sale housing projects to provide 15% of their total units at below-market rates, with 10% of units required to be affordable to moderate income households and 5% of units to low-income households. The calculations for the Project’s affordable unit quantities are detailed in Table 1. These affordable units required by the City’s IHO also make the project eligible for the benefits of the State Density Bonus Law, which are described below.
Housing Accountability Act’s Vesting, Streamlining, and Heightened Requirements for Denial
In response to the State’s housing crisis, the Housing Accountability Act or Senate Bill 330 - The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“HAA”) affords three key protections to applications for qualifying housing development projects.
1. Vesting
The HAA allows applicants proposing housing development projects to submit preliminary applications with general project information required by Section 65941.1 of the California Government Code (including proposed number of units, parking provided, building heights, setbacks, open space etc.) in order for agencies to review the project’s basic elements for consistency with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards.” (Gov. Code § 65989.5(j), (h)(5).) If the project complies with these standards, then submittal of the preliminary application generally “vests” the project so that it is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards that were in effect as of the time of the preliminary application’s submittal. (Gov. Code § 65989.5(o)(1).) Here, the Applicant submitted a preliminary application on August 25, 2024.
2. Streamlined Review
If a project complies with all objective standards in place at the time the project is deemed complete (which under the HAA, is the date the preliminary application is submitted [Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5), (o)(1)]), the HAA prohibits the City from requiring more than five “hearings” on the project (id. at § 65905.5.) Because the HAA defines “hearing” broadly, workshops, preliminary review, and continuances count towards the five “hearing” limit. (id. at § 65905.5(b)(2).) Here, the City’s Architectural Commission (renamed the “Architectural and Preservation Commission”) has already held one meeting on the Project for preliminary design review (i.e., hearing #1). This Planning Commission hearing is the second hearing. After this Planning Commission hearing, the City Council and Architectural and Preservation Commission will each need to hold at least one more hearing on the Project (i.e., hearings #3 and #4). In order to stay within the five hearing limit, staff is recommending against any continuances.
3. Heightened Findings for Denial
Because the Project appears to be an eligible project, the HAA requires the following heightened findings to disapprove the Project or to impose a change or condition that results in the Project being developed at a lower density:
(A) The project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (A), other than the disapproval of the project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B).)
State Density Bonus Law
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) provides another mechanism to allow developers to construct additional density beyond that which would otherwise be allowed and to obtain relief from development standards in exchange for providing deed-restricted affordable housing units. Specifically, SDBL provides for “waivers or reductions of development standards”; “concessions or incentives”; and reduced parking ratios. (Gov. Code § 65915(d), (e), (p).) SDBL specifies that a project is entitled to a waiver from or reduction of “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted” through SDBL. (Id. at § 65915(e)(1).) A “concession or incentive” is defined as “a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements” to reduce the cost of providing the housing. (Id. at § 65915(d), (k).) Density bonus projects are subject to reduced parking ratios, generally capped at one parking space for studios and one-bedroom units, 1.5 parking spaces for two and three bedroom units; and 2.5 parking spaces for units with four or more bedrooms. (Id. at § 65915(p)(1).) If a project provides the requisite percentage of affordable units at the requisite depth of affordability to qualify for a density bonus under the SDBL, then approval of the density bonus and associated waivers and reductions of development standards, concessions and incentives, and reduced parking ratios is effectively mandatory. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(A), (e)(1), (p).)
By reserving ten percent of the Project’s units for sale to moderate income qualifying households, the Applicant is able to utilize a 5% density bonus to exceed the RM 2,000 district’s allowable density (22 du/ac, yielding 66 base units) to achieve the proposed density of 23.3 du/ac, yielding 70 units - 66 base units and 4 density bonus units). This percentage of affordable units (10%) and depth of affordability (moderate income) makes the Project eligible for one “incentive” or concession” to reduce housing costs so that the Project can accommodate the affordable units and an unlimited number of “waivers” or “reductions” in development standards that are needed to achieve the desired density. The Applicant is requesting one concession to avoid some of the costs of undergrounding utilities in the public right of way, and claiming waivers from three development standards: setbacks, height, and common open space. Each of these are described in detail in the Table 1 below. If a project provides the requisite percentage of affordable units to qualify for a density bonus, then approval of the density bonus is effectively mandatory. To disapprove the density bonus, concession, or any of the waivers, the City would need to find a “specific, adverse impact” that cannot be feasibly be mitigated. (Id. at § 65915(d)(1), (d)(3)-(4), (e)(1).)
In addition to the above discussion, the Applicant’s attorney has provided a five page legal memo that summarizes the justification for why the Applicant is requesting a concession and waivers and provides a more detailed explanation of the legal constraints that state housing laws place on the City’s ability to these requests. That memo is Attachment E.
Project Description
Buildings and Unit Mix
The Applicant is seeking to construct a 70-unit for-sale condominium townhome development. The proposed Project is comprised of ten separate buildings. Each townhome unit includes a private, two car garage on the ground floor garages and living space generally on the second and third floors. Twenty four of the 70 units also include a bonus living area on the first floor.
All buildings are three-stories with a maximum height of 34’-7”, except that all units located within fifty-seven feet of the eastern property line are limited to two stories (twenty-four feet) to respect the single story heights and rear yard privacy of the adjacent single-family homes that front onto Drake Avenue. The three buildings located on the eastern side of the site (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) have been reduced from seven to six units each, resulting in three fewer units to provide the above-described two story height for the units closest to the east property line.
The five buildings located at the center and south west corner of the Project Site have nine units each. The building at the northwest corner of the Project Site has eight units. These rectangular buildings are oriented east to west. Building widths range from approximately 113-feet to 140-feet and all have a depth of approximately 50-feet. The buildings’ gross square footages range from 10,815-SF to 13,656-SF. Excluding garages and deck/porch areas, the units’ net indoor living areas range from 1,155-SF to 1,639-SF.
The most notable change from the initial plan is a row of eight new “carriage house” units, which are smaller footprint units, that are located along the northern boundary of the Project Site (next to the Motel 6). These units are organized in two buildings (Buildings 9 & 10) and consist of one floor plan that has no living space on the first floor. The Applicant added these buildings in-part to offset the 3 units lost on the eastern edge of the Project Site in response to concerns from neighboring residents. The five additional units increase the total number of units from 65 to 70.
The Project proposes a front setback of 11 feet (after 30 feet of American Avenue right-of-way would be dedicated to the City). Twenty feet is required in the RM 2,000 zone; however the Applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement under the State Density Bonus Law. Along the eastern property line, adjacent to single-family residences on Drake Avenue, the Project proposes a larger 15-foot setback to the closest two story section of the building and 57 foot setback to the closest three story sections of these buildings. In the RM 2,000 zone, a 75 foot setback is required for the three-story sections of these buildings; however, the applicant has requested a waiver of that setback under State Density Bonus Law. Buildings 7 and 8 are set back 10 feet from the western property line. This is an improvement over the previous proposal of only a 5 foot setback from this highly visible area of the Project that will allow space for landscaping to buffer the appearance of the sides of these buildings from Indian Hill Boulevard. Building 4 is located 9 feet away from the western property line.
Vehicular Access and Parking
Vehicular access to the Project Site is provided by a single drive approach off of American Avenue. This driveway is located approximately 300-feet east from the Project Site’s western property line and 460-feet east of Indian Hill Boulevard. The primary, 26-foot-wide drive aisle extends to the northern property line and provides access to two secondary east-west drive aisles, also 26-feet in width, which provide access to most of the units’ garages. The proposed Project provides a total of 151 parking spaces with 140 provided in garages (two per unit) and an additional 11 uncovered guest parking spaces. Enclosed parking in private 2-car garages is provided in both side-by-side and tandem configurations. 40 units include side-by-side parking while the remaining 30 have tandem-style parking where one car parks behind the second. Because the Project provides a sufficient type and percentage of affordable units to qualify for the benefits of State Density Bonus Law, the Project is subject to the parking requirements of Senate Bill 1818 (SB 1818), which supersede the City’s parking requirements in the CMC for the RM 2,000 zoning district. Table 1, below, identifies the RM 2,000 parking requirements that would be applicable to Project if it did not qualify for a density bonus. SB 1818 provides for a lower parking requirement as follows:
0-1 Bedroom units: 1 space per unit x 0 = 0 spaces
2 Bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per unit x 16 units = 24 spaces
3 Bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per unit x 36 units = 54 spaces
4+ Bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per unit x 18 units = 45 spaces
No guest parking requirement
Total Parking Required Under AB 1818 = 123 (Parking spaces provided = 151)
(Gov. Code § 65915(p)(1).) Pursuant to SB 1818, the City must allow parking in tandem configurations and cannot require it to be covered. Based on the proposed Project’s unit mix, SB 1818 requires a total of 123 on-site parking spaces. Table 1 shows how the Project satisfies this requirement by providing 140 covered parking spaces in garages and 11 uncovered parking spaces on-site.
Open Space and Landscaping
The Project provides a total of 22,620 sq. ft. of open space spread between common open space areas, and private patios, decks and covered porches. Two small open spaces are provided at the center of the Project Site, on the east and west sides of the main drive aisle. The western common open space area is approximately 4,358-SF in size and provides several small patches of turf, each approximately 250 sq. ft., linked by concrete pathways. The eastern common area has a similar arrangement with one area of grass that is larger, approximately 300 sq. ft. that is identified as an “event lawn” with a decorative art panel serving as a terminating vista for the space between the two adjacent buildings.
Private open space is provided in the form of outdoor patios, covered porches, and deck areas on the units’ ground floors and upper floors. A majority of units feature semi-private enclosed patio areas doubling as forecourts for front doors. The patios generally face American Avenue, the Central Open Spaces, with the exception of Building 8 which has patio/forecourts that face the north property line wall. These forecourt patios are enclosed by low 42” tall patio gates. Buildings 9 and 10, which contain the new “Carriage House” units are accessed from the driveway/garage door side of the building. Instead of forecourt patios, these units have fully private rear patios located between the north side of the buildings and the north property line perimeter block wall. The Project provides an average of 111 sq. ft. of private patio area per unit, although not every unit has a patio. The Project also provides an average of 78 sq. ft. per unit of private deck and covered porch areas. Some units have small covered porch areas on the ground floor. All units have deck areas on the second floor.
As mentioned earlier, the Applicant intends to maintain the dense ficus hedge that the City required the Motel 6 owner to install to address privacy issues associated with the motel operations. This hedge is growing quickly and now has an average height of approximately 14 feet and will continue to fill in and strengthen so that it can achieve and be maintained at a minimum height of 15 to 20 feet. The Applicant has provided a sight line study demonstrating how this hedge will provide complete visual privacy for the rear yards of the Drake Avenue residences from the proposed townhomes.
Interaction with the Public Realm
Three buildings (Buildings 1, 6, & 7) front American Avenue along the south property line. The street will retain its existing 7-foot-wide landscaped parkway and 5-foot-wide sidewalk within the public right of way. Behind the sidewalk, the Project will have additional landscaping that will vary in depth from 10 feet for units without a forecourt patio (8 units), to 5 feet for most units with forecourt patios (14 units) to 2 feet for the easternmost (2-story tall) units. Building facades vary from 10 to 15 feet from the back of sidewalk or 22 to 27 feet from the curb. Between Buildings 6 & 7, the Applicant is proposing to place a public art piece that will welcome visitors to this primary pedestrian entrance to the Project. The main driveway is located between Buildings 1 and 6 and has 26 feet of paved driveway lined with 5 foot sidewalks and 10 feet of landscaping to provide a well landscaped entry to the project.
Summary of Conformity with Development Standards
Table 1 below shows how the Project conforms to applicable objective development standards of the RM 2,000 zoning district, as modified by a concession and waivers authorized by State Density Bonus Law.
Table 1 - Development Standard Conformity Analysis
|
|
Development Standard |
Proposed |
Complies |
Comment |
|
Zoning |
RM 2,000 |
RM 2,000 |
Yes |
Zoning designation amended with Housing Element rezoning |
|
Density |
Max. 22 du/acre 22 dua x 3 acres = 66 base units |
70 Units Net: 24.3 du/a Gross: 21.7 du/a Base Density = 66 units 5% Density Bonus = 4 units |
Yes, with Density Bonus 66+4 =70 |
Gross property size is used to calculate residential density pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). Project utilizes a 5% density bonus allowed by SDBL |
|
Min. Lot Size per unit |
2,000 sq. ft./unit |
Gross: 130,462-SF |
Yes |
With Density Bouns, Project complies with min. lot size per unit. |
|
Setback (Front) |
20 feet |
11 feet |
Yes, with Density Bonus waiver |
Applicant is using waiver to reduce front setback requirement pursuant to SDBL |
|
Interior Side & Rear Setback |
5 feet |
West PL: 10 feet East PL: 15 feet North PL: 10 feet |
Yes |
Project complies with side and rear setbacks |
|
Height |
Three stories/35-feet |
Three stories/34’-7” |
Yes |
|
|
Height (within 75 feet of single-family zoning district) |
No portion of any building within 75-feet of a single-family district shall exceed Two stories/25-feet |
Three-story portion of Buildings 1, 2 & 3 located 57-feet away from SFR district to the east |
Yes, with Density Bonus waiver |
Applicant is using waiver of height requirement for buildings adjacent to single-family district pursuant to SDBL |
|
Parking |
RM 2,000 District Reqs - Units < 720-SF: 1.5 spaces (1 enclosed) - Units > 720-SF: 2.25 spaces (1 enclosed) - Guest/unit: 0.5 spaces TOTAL: 179 spaces (65 enclosed) SB 1818 (SDBL) Reqs. - 0-1 BR units: 1 space - 2-3 BR units: 1.5 spaces - 4+ BR units: 2.5 spaces TOTAL: 123 spaces |
- 140 spaces in garage (60 are tandem) - 11 uncovered spaces TOTAL: 151 spaces |
Yes, per SB 1818 |
Project complies with parking standards pursuant to SB 1818 and SDBL |
|
Outdoor Living Area |
- Units with 0-1BR: 400-SF per unit - Units with 2+ BR: 400-SF per BR Min. 25% as private outdoor living space Min. 50% as Common Open Space TOTAL: 73,600-SF |
- Common open space: 13,720-SF - Private open space: 12,041-SF TOTAL: 22,620 SF |
Yes, with Density Bonus waiver |
Applicant is using a waiver of minimum open space requirements pursuant to SDBL |
|
Utility Undergrounding Requirement |
City Code requires new development to place all on site utilities underground, including lines in the public Right of Way (ROW) lining the property. |
Applicant will place all on site utilities underground but not those in the public ROW (American Ave) |
Yes, with Density Bonus concession |
SDBL grants the applicant one concession (usually financial) and the Applicant has applied that here to avoid the costs of undergrounding within the American Avenue ROW |
Tentative Tract Map Review
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 reviews and the City Council has the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny tentative tract maps 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. In addition to this advisory review by the Planning Commission, the Applicant must also obtain City Council approval of both the Tentative and Final Tract Map and Final Architectural and Site Plan approval by the Architectural and Preservation Commission.
Traffic Impact Analysis and Mitigations to Address Congestion
In making some of the required findings to approve the TTM, staff relied on a series of environmental studies completed by the Applicant and peer reviewed by City Staff and its consultants (Attachment F). City staff determined the traffic-related study, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memo for the Project (Exhibit B to Attachment F of this report) contained incorrect inputs for the model. City staff hired its own consultant, Fehr & Peers to analyze the memo and re-run the screening model According to the Fehr & Peers evaluation of the project, the project screens out based on being located within a Low Vehicle Miles Traveled zone area. As a result, the Project “screens out” of requiring additional environmental analysis and possible statutory mitigation measures regarding traffic impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The revised VMT Screening Memo is Attachment G.
Although CEQA-related mitigations are not required, the Applicant is still subject to the City’s General Plan policies and project design requirements related to Traffic Levels of Service. City staff required the Applicant to complete a traffic study to analyze the Project’s traffic impacts to the surrounding streets and intersections. The study confirmed that many of the surrounding streets and intersections experience significant congestion and that the Project could contribute to increased congestion and queuing. In response, the City’s Engineering Division and traffic consultant considered a number of possible mitigations and determined that the appropriate feasible mitigation was to require the Applicant to work with the City and the owner of the adjacent vacant Greyhound Station property to add a right-hand turn pocket on east bound American Avenue at Indian Hill Boulevard. This Project would help more traffic more efficiently through the intersection and reduce waiting times for drivers on American Avenue. This new turn pocket is still being designed and will be required as a condition of approval for the Project. The revised traffic study for the project is Attachment H.
CEQA REVIEW
The Applicant has submitted written notice pursuant to Assembly Bill 1633 (2023-2024), now codified at Government Code Section 65589.5.1 and submitted substantial evidence that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15332 as it is an urban in-fill project on less than five acres of land (Class 32) and none of the exceptions to using this Categorical Exemption listed in CEQA Section 15300.2 apply to this Project. This substantial evidence has been peer reviewed by City staff and its consultants. The City’s Director of Community Development has concluded that the Class 32 exemption is applicable to this Project. The Applicant’s environmental documentation is attached to this staff report (Attachments F and G).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On April 24, 2025 notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing on this Project was mailed to property owners within 700 feet of the boundaries of the boundaries of the Project Site. A legal ad notification was published in the April 25, 2025 edition of the Claremont Courier. Additionally, the notice of the hearing was posted at the Project Site’s American Avenue frontage on April 24, 2024. A copy of this report has been sent to the Applicant, the Project architect, and other interested parties.
This item has also 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 Nhi Atienza at natienza@ci.claremont.ca.us.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Christopher Veirs
Community Development Director Principal Planner
Attachments:
A - Draft Resolution
B - Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 84564
C - Architectural and Landscape Plans
D - Housing Element Opportunity Site 40
E - Applicant Attorney Memo Regarding State Housing Laws and Project Waivers
F - AB1633 Letter with CEQA Analysis
G - Revised VMT Screening Memo - Fehr & Peers
H - Revised Traffic Study - TJW Engineering Inc.
I - Public Comments