TO: ARCHITECTURAL AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 14, 2025
SUBJECT:
Title
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #23-A08, FINAL REVIEW OF A 70-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR VACANT LAND AND THE DECOMMISSIONED TENNIS CLUB PORTION OF THE MOTEL 6 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES (CLAREMONT 2 INV, LLC)
Body
SUMMARY
The applicant, CLAREMONT 2 Inv, LLC (“City Ventures”) is requesting Architectural and Preservation Commission approval of the site plan, architectural design, landscape plan, lighting plan, and colors and materials for a proposed 70-unit townhome development located at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard. More specifically, the site is located on a vacant 3.0-acre site (2.67 net acres after American Avenue is dedicated to the City) that occupies the southern half of the Motel 6 property located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard and American Avenue (“Project Site”). The proposed project also includes a condominium map (Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM) #84564) that is being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The project includes the following components:
• 70 for-sale townhomes 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.
• The units are organized in ten separate buildings mostly with three stories, reaching a maximum height of 34’-7”. All units within fifty-seven feet of the eastern boundary are limited to two stories (twenty-four feet).
• Vehicular access to the site is taken via a single private street on American Avenue.
• 140 covered parking spaces in private, two-car garages (both tandem and side-by-side) along with eleven uncovered spaces on the property.
• Two 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 conducted a preliminary review of the project. Much of the Architectural Commission’s direction has been incorporated into the latest project design; however, some items have not been addressed and the density of the project has been increased by the Applicant from 65 units to 70 units.
The Architectural and Preservation Commission is now being asked to take the following actions:
• Review Site Plan and Design Review #23-A08 for consistency with Chapter 16.300 of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) and approve the revised plans for the Project.
• Concur with the Director of Community Development’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 take both of these actions. In addition to this approval, the TTM associated with the project requires final approval by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the Architectural and Preservation Commission:
A. Adopt a RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #23-A08, FINAL REVIEW OF A 70-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR VACANT LAND AND THE DECOMMISSIONED TENNIS CLUB PORTION OF THE MOTEL 6 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 has conducted a hearing on the TTM for a recommendation (hearing #2), this hearing by the Architectural and Preservation Commission on the final decision regarding the Design 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 City Council to continue their hearing, if needed.
B. 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 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 jurisdiction wide 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 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. Indicate an intent to 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 completed set of plans for the project including site plans, architectural plans, elevations, renderings, and landscape plans are attached to this report (Attachment B). The 5 sheets that comprise Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84564, are Attachment C to this report.
Property Background
The Project address is 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard, which is a 6.6-acre property currently occupied by the Motel 6 hotel buildings, driveways and surface parking for the hotel, 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 City Ventures proposes to develop is generally the southern half of the property (tennis courts and vacant land) and 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 limited to an 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 existing motel was approved in 1969 and the tennis courts and club house were approved in 1973. While well-maintained, the tennis courts have been used sparingly for infrequent tournaments and occasional lessons. The vacant area is used occasionally for dog training and dog competitions. 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 concluded. Construction of the project would have no impact to the current operations of the Motel 6 other than relieving the business of the on-going maintenance responsibilities for the vacant property, tennis courts, and landscaping including the American Avenue parkway.
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 Architectural Commission directed Motel 6 to plant a dense row of Ficus trees along the entire eastern property line to provide an enhanced buffer and additional privacy for the single-family neighborhood to the east. 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 east 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 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 property’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 property 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 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 & Senate Bill 330 Preliminary Application and Vesting Rights
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 feasibly be mitigated. (Id. at § 65915(d)(1), (d)(3)-(4), (e)(1).)
In addition to the above discussion, the Applicant’s attorney submitted a five-page legal memo to the Planning Commission that summarizes the justification for why the Applicant is requesting a concession and multiple waivers and provides a detailed explanation of the legal constraints that state housing laws place on the City’s ability to these requests. That memo is Attachment E.
Preliminary Review by Architectural Commission
On December 13, 2023, the Architectural Commission (since renamed Architectural and Preservation Commission) conducted a preliminary review of the project. At the time, the proposal was for a 65-unit development. The hearing involved extensive public comment from neighboring homeowners. Concerns expressed included: privacy for neighbors that back up to the project, the contemporary design of the architecture, traffic impacts, project height, inconsistency with zoning standards, impacts to parking in surrounding neighborhoods, project density, and a desire to have the three stories set back at least 75 feet from the east property line. After hearing these concerns from the public and responses to questions from Staff and the applicant, the Architectural Commission provided the following direction to the Applicant:
1. Revise the contemporary styling of the building, which is a mix of styles, by choosing a specific architectural style that is more compatible with Claremont.
2. Reduce the height of the east side buildings to be entirely two stories tall.
3. Add more detail to the plans for the outdoor living area.
4. Increase the five-foot setbacks along the west side of the project.
5. Some also shared concerns regarding:
a. project density,
b. the lack of a second entry, and
c. plant selection in the landscape plan.
The minutes from the December 13, 2023 Architectural Commission meeting, which include the preliminary review of the Project, are Attachment F.
Project Description
As noted in the summary, the applicant has revised the Project significantly since the Commission completed its preliminary review. The following is a summary of how the Applicant has responded to each element of the Commission’s direction described above.
1. Architectural Style - Most significantly, the project has a completely revised the architectural style to one that is purely Spanish Revival to address commissioner comments. The new design includes exterior materials consisting of stucco walls and red-tile roofs with fiber-cement/wood trim and wrought iron details. The designs include a mix of low pitch hipped and flat roofed sections, cream-colored stucco walls, brown wood trim, corbels, brown projecting bay windows with clay tile roofs, and a combination of casement and slider windows.
2. Setback from Drake Avenue Residences - Rather than setting back all three-story units 75 feet as required in the RM 2,000 zoning district and requested by the Commission, the applicant has instead set back the three-story portions of the easternmost buildings 57 feet from the eastern property line. This means that the two units in each building closest to the property line are limited to two stories. The third floor units of these buildings will have no windows facing east. (Note: While the “Right” elevation on Page A4.10 of the plans shows three windows, these are in error. The floor plan on Sheet A4.21 correctly shows no windows on this elevation.) To justify the adequacy of this increased setback, the Applicant has provided a sight line study on Sheet A15.10 indicating that visibility from a third floor unit 57 feet from the east property line to the rear yards and rear windows of the Drake Avenue homes will be blocked by the ficus nitida hedge planted recently by the Motel 6. As noted by Commissioner Perry during the preliminary review, this hedge can easily grow to 30 feet and is expected to be approximately 20 feet tall by the time any of the third story units are occupied.
3. Detail to Plans for Outdoor Spaces - While the plans for the outdoor spaces have more detail, these spaces have also been greatly reduced in the new plan as described below. The smaller spaces have even less potential for programmed uses and will generally be passive outdoor landscape areas. The landscape plan does include some small lawn areas for plan and a new dog play area near the northeast corner of the development. Generally, the private patios, decks, rear yards and forecourt areas will serve as the main areas for outdoor living on the site.
4. Increase west side setbacks - Increasing the setbacks on the west side, where the project backs up to heavy commercial uses (restaurants, drive-through, trash areas, and gas station), was a priority for staff. These setbacks have been increased from 5 feet to 10 feet, which allows a bit more privacy. More significantly, ten feet creates enough space for the planting of significant landscaping in the form of tall shrubs or small trees. This landscaping will provide much greater privacy for residents and perhaps even more significantly, will provide a visual buffer from Indian Hill Boulevard and the adjacent businesses to the sides of these large townhome structures.
5.a Project Density - The project density has not been decreased, instead it has been increased by 5% as in more detail below.
5.b Lack of Secondary Entry - A second ingress/egress point for the project has not been added. While staff has requested that the applicant work with Motel 6 to open a second access point for the project, it appears this has not happened. The applicant has instead added new units where this access point could have been located. At this time the applicant has indicated that they believe a second access point is not required and would not benefit the project.
5.c Plant Selection and Landscape Plan - Two commissioners expressed a variety of concerns about the landscape plan, which was in a conceptual state at the December 2023, meeting. The amount of common open space has been reduced significantly as described in detail below. The new side setbacks will allow for the introduction of tall shrubs and small trees that have not yet been added. The landscape plant palette remains unchanged and remains at a conceptual level of design. The concerns expressed have been noted and will be addressed by staff, preferably with consultation from a subcommittee of the Commission, when the full planting and irrigation plans are submitted for City review. Staff also notes that the 15-gallon sizing of all trees is inadequate for a project of this type.
The Project is described in More Detail Below:
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 southwest 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. Most 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 nitida hedge that the City required the Motel 6 property 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.
Lighting
The project plans include outdoor lightning plan for the Project. These plans include a site plan indicating the location of all outdoor lighting including porch lights, landscape lights, public art uplights, bollard lights for pathways and parking lots lights and street lights. The plans also include a photometric plan (Sheet ES 2 of the project plans). The porch lights meet the City Standard of a warm white light (3,000 Kelvin) while the remaining fixtures on the lighting specification sheet (Sheet ES 3) are specified for 4,000 Kelvin temperature, which is slightly higher than desired. Staff encourages the Commission to consider this change and whether it might be appropriate for this location, or if the applicant should be required to match the 3,000 Kelvin color temperature that has previously-been requested by staff.
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.
Public Art
The applicant has retained a professional art consultant who has proposed placing a sculpture near the main pedestrian entrance to the project, between Buildings 7 and 8. The proposed site for the sculpture is on private property about 2 to 3 feet behind the public sidewalk, near the midpoint of the project’s American Avenue frontage. The location is selected to maximize visibility to both residents as well as the public as it passes by on American Avenue by both auto and on foot. The public art consultant has identified 3 potential artists that have recently created similarly sized sculptures. Each is an accomplished artist with unique and notable artistic styles and all three pieces are proposed in high quality and durable materials. Both Planning Staff and the City’s Art Coordinator find that each artist and the sample pieces meet the requirements of the City’s Public Art Program. The proposed pieces all vary in height from 8 to 14 feet and width of 3 to 6 feet, which is an appropriate size for the location. These three artists and their example pieces will be presented to the City’s Public Art Committee at and upcoming meeting. Commissioner Bennett serves on that committee as Architectural and Preservation Commission liaison and will be involved in the review of this art piece. The value of the art piece is estimated to be approximately $115,000.
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, State Density Bonus Law, or claims a concession or waiver.
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 have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and will be included in a final approval resolution for the map that will be reviewed by the City Council on May 27.
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 G). City staff determined the traffic-related study, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memo for the Project (Exhibit B to Attachment G 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. Ultimately, both consultants reached the same conclusion; that 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 H.
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 I.
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 G and H).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On May 1, 2025 notice of the Architectural and Preservation 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. 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 Pearl Juarez at pjuarez@claremontca.gov.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Christopher Veirs
Community Development Director Principal Planner
Attachments:
A - Draft Resolution
B - Architectural and Conceptual Landscape Plans
C - Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 84564
D - Housing Element Opportunity Site Sheet for Opportunity Site 40
E - Applicant Attorney Memo Regarding State Housing Laws and Project Waivers
F - Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2023
G - AB1633 Letter with CEQA Analysis
H - Revised VMT Screening Memo - Fehr & Peers
I - Revised Traffic Study for the Project - TJW Engineering Inc.
J - Errata for Rev. to the Rev.Traffic Study for the Project - TJW Engineering Inc.