CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA “We are a vibrant, livable, and inclusive community dedicated to quality services, safety, financial strength, sustainability, preservation, and progress with equal representation for our community.”
City Council Chamber Wednesday 225 Second Street July 15, 2020 Claremont, CA 91711 7:00 PM
COMMISSIONERS
MARK SCHOEMAN CHAIR
WAEN MESSNER BOB PERRY
BRIAN WORLEY JOHN NEIUBER SCOTT HORSLEY FRANK PERRI
Pursuant to the local emergency concerning the COVID-19 virus declared by the City Council of the City of Claremont on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Health’s “Safer at Home Order” issued March 19 , 2020, and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 18, 2020, the following protocols will apply to public participation for the duration of the emergency:
Members of the public will not be permitted to be physically present at meetings. To allow for public participation, the Architectural Commission will conduct its meeting through Zoom Video Communications. To participate in the meeting from the comfort of your own home or office, download Zoom on any phone or computer device and copy and paste the following link into your web browser to access and participate in the live Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.: https://zoom.us/j/98460848259 or to only listen from the phone dial (213) 338-8477 or (877) 853-5247, Web ID: 984 6084 8259.
Members of the public who wish to address the Architectural Commission on any matter listed on the agenda or a subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission may utilize the following methods . The Commission requests, but does not require, the public speakers to identify themselves.
OPTION 1: LIVE COMMENTS - Through Zoom, someone wishing to speak may virtually "raise your hand". Wait to be called upon by the Commission Secretary, and then you may provide verbal comments for up to 4 minutes. Page 2 Architectural Commission Agenda July 15, 2020 OPTION 2: E-MAIL - Public comments may be sent via email to Nhi Atienza, Architectural Commission Secretary, at [email protected]. All emails received before 5:30 p.m., will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City’s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes).
OPTION 3: MAIL - Public comments may be mailed to Claremont City Hall Attn: Nhi Atienza, 207 Harvard Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711. All comments received via mail will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City’s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes).
OPTION 4: TELEPHONICALLY - Members of the public wanting to address the Commission telephonically are requested to inform Nhi Atienza, Commission Secretary, no later than 5:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Nhi Atienza can be reached at (909) 399-5484, or [email protected]. You will be called during consideration of the item you are interested in and given up to 4 minutes to speak.
The meeting will not be live streamed through Granicus as the meeting will be live streamed through Zoom instead. The recorded meeting will be uploaded and saved as a record.
CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENT The Commission has set aside this time for persons in the audience who wish to comment on items that ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA, but are within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Commission. Members of the audience will later have the opportunity to address the Architectural Commission regarding ALL OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA at the time the Commission considers those items.
At this time the Commission will take public comment for 30 minutes. Public Comment will resume later in the meeting if there are speakers who did not get an opportunity to speak because of the 30-minute time limit.
The Brown Act prohibits the Commission from taking action on oral requests relating to items that are not on the agenda. The Commission may engage in a brief discussion, refer the matter to staff, and/or schedule requests for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
The Commission requests, but does not require, speakers to identify themselves. When you come up to speak, please state your name unless you wish to remain anonymous. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. The Architectural Commission or one or more Commissions and/or Committees have previously considered most of Page 3 Architectural Commission Agenda July 15, 2020 the items on the consent calendar. The Commission may act on these items by one motion following public comment.
Only Commissioners may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion.
The Commission will waive reading of resolutions. Each resolution will be numbered following Commission approval.
Now is the time for those in the audience to comment on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes to comment on items on the consent calendar. 1. ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2020
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Commission approve the Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2020.
Attachment(s): Draft Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2020
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - None
PUBLIC HEARING Each speaker providing public comment will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes to speak, which cannot be delegated. 2. ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW FILE #19-AS10 - APPEAL OF STAFF-LEVEL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF A POOL, SPA, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS AT 2751 VIA SINALOA. APPELLANTS - JAY AND BETTE-LEE JABLOW, STEVE LLANUSA, TIMOTHY BLEK, SUZANNE WOJCIK, LISETTE DE PILLIS, JAN LINDHEIM, AND FAHIMA ALIKHAN. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Commission adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING STAFF'S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW #19-AS10 FOR A POOL, SPA, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS AT 2751 VIA SINALOA. APPELLANTS: JAY AND BETTE-LEE JABLOW, STEVE LLANUSA, TIMOTHY BLEK, SUZANNE WOJCIK, LISETTE DE PILLIS, JAN LINDHEIM, AND FAHIMA ALIKHAN. Page 4 Architectural Commission Agenda July 15, 2020
Attachment(s): Draft Resolution upholding Planning Staff's approval #19-AS10 Approval Letter, Findings and Conditions of Approval Site Plan Survey of Slope Encroachments in Claraboya Photos of 2751 Via Sinaloa Aerial Photos With Contours of 2751 Via Sinaloa 3-D Photos of Encroachments Appeal Application Public Comment Letters Claraboya HOA Approval Letter dated October 4, 2019
REPORTS
Commission
Commissioner Comments
Staff
Briefing on Council Meetings
Briefing on Other Items
Upcoming Agendas and Events
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 29, 2020, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 225 SECOND STREET.
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA, ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT 207 HARVARD AVENUE, CLAREMONT, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 7 AM – 6 PM. SUBJECT MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - www.ci.claremont.ca.us . For more information, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 909-399-5461.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 0 F 1990, THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRES A MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK AT 909-399-5461 “VOICE” OR 1-800-735-2929 “TT/TTY” AT LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE. Page 5 Architectural Commission Agenda July 15, 2020 I, NHI ATIENZA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING AGENDA WAS POSTED AT CLAREMONT CITY HALL, 207 HARVARD AVENUE, ON JULY 9 , 2020, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2.
ANY ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INITIATED BY 10:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING. FURTHER, ANY ITEM INITIATED BEFORE 10:00 P.M. ON WHICH A CONCLUSION HAS NOT BEEN REACHED BY 10:15 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION.
POST THROUGH: July 16, 2020 Claremont Architectural Commission
Agenda Report
File #: 3418 Item No: 1.
TO: ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 15, 2020 Reviewed by: Finance Director: N/A
SUBJECT:
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2020
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Commission approve the Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2020.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City's regular agenda distribution process has been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures and limited access. In accordance with Government Code Section 8634, this item was given widespread publicity and notice, and posted on the City Website. If you desire a copy, please contact Nhi Atienza at [email protected].
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Brad Johnson Christopher Veirs Community Development Director Principal Planner
Prepared by:
Nhi Atienza Administrative Assistant
Attachment: Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2020.
CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 27, 2020 – 7 p.m. Via Zoom Video Communications 225 W. Second Street, Claremont, California
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Schoeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS HORSLEY, MESSNER, NEIUBER, PERRI, PERRY, SCHOEMAN, AND WORLEY
ABSENT: NONE
ALSO PRESENT CHRIS VEIRS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND NHI ATIENZA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no ceremonial matters, presentations, or announcements
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Schoeman invited public comment. Seeing no requests to speak, public comment was closed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2020
Chair Schoeman invited public comment. Seeing no requests to speak, public comment was closed.
Commissioner Worley moved that the Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2020, be approved as submitted; seconded by Commissioner Perry; and, carried on a vote as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MESSNER, NEIUBER, PERRI, PERRY, SCHOEMAN, AND WORLEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HORSLEY
Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - None
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Final Review of Architectural Design and Site Plan Review File #19-A03, for a New Science Building, Keck Science Center Expansion, Located on the Scripps College Campus at 900 Amherst Avenue, Approving a Reduced Setback from Ninth Street (Private Street), and Approving the Associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program. Applicants – Scripps College and Pitzer College
Principal Planner Veirs presented a PowerPoint presentation and addressed Commissioner Worley’s question regarding the existing modular units at Pitzer College.
Ray Varela and Amber Lake of Carrier Johnson presented a PowerPoint presentation and addressed Commissioners’ questions regarding the: a) elevator dog house and b) different roof slopes.
Chair Schoeman invited public comment.
Dr. Lara Tiedens, President of Scripps College, expressed her gratitude to the Commission and to Mr. Veirs and Mr. Varela for their thoughtful description. She is very excited about the project, as it is important to the future of Scripps College to provide a 21st Century science teaching laboratory. For 95 years, Scripps has provided a rigorous education for women and the mission is to produce leaders that contribute to society in important ways. We are very fortunate to be in Claremont as Claremont is fortunate to share in the beauty of our campus. The emphasis on the project will be in finding ways to be technologically modern, and stay in keeping with the historical and architectural beauty of the campus.
Dr. Melvin Oliver, President of Pitzer College, emphasized the importance of the building to address the astronomical growth in the number students interested in studying science. In regards to the trailers, they will be removed once the third floor is built out. He thanked the Commission for their cooperation, support, and suggestions.
Seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment was closed.
Commissioner Worley expressed his appreciation to the applicants for their close attention to the previous comments and the alterations made. He likes the design.
Commission Perri echoed Commissioner Worley’s comments. He likes the style of Scripps College and loves the Architecture. The building will be a good addition to the science program at Scripps and Pitzer College. He inquired about the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) regarding the fume hoods. Mr. Veirs replied that there are no environmental review documents on the fume hoods, but extensive analysis on the potential safety hazard and internal policies were looked at and they were well below the threshold that would require additional documentation. Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 3
Commissioner Perry’s comments are as follows: He was not present at July 10, 2019 meeting, but has read through the recommendations and sees a positive movement forward. In regards to the landscaping, he commended the team for the revised tree planting. This is a vast improvement. The courtyard space is essential to the quality of life and is a wonderful addition. He noted the need to reduce the quantity of understory planting. The environmental documentation is complete, strong, and professionally prepared. The proposed landscaping program is higher quality than preserving the existing landscaping. The environmental document has multiple aspects that have their own matrix to achieve a better project. Nevertheless, it will have an overall impact on the community, in density and the increase in population. In our grasp, is the quality of the architecture and landscaping to add to the success of the college and city. This project has achieved that. He likes the project and is supportive of it.
Commissioner Neiuber’s comments are as follows: He thanked the applicant for the revisions in response to the Commission’s comments. The changes enhanced the project from good to excellent. This is a good addition to Scripps College. It’s a modern version of the Mediterranean style and honors the campus. This is the most beautiful campus and is on the National Register of Historic Places. He was particularly interested in reviewing the historical cultural resources discussion in the EIR. There’s not a real big change, except for some trees coming down to provide screening for the new building to the historic Revel House. This is also in keeping with Inscription Walk and having a buffer between the north building and campus. He is fully supportive of the project.
Commissioner Messner’s comments are as follows: Commissioner, Robert Perry gave a very good review of the initial study. It was very well written, extensive, and finds the mitigation measures for the MND as listed in the MMRP to be typical for this size of a project to mitigate the impacts. She found the setback reduction request to be reasonable, especially when it's making room for improvements for sidewalk landscaping trees. It seems to be consistent with the existing 9th Street setbacks. She liked the preliminary design, but the subtle changes actually made a huge difference. She appreciated the removal of the vertical designs and the colors and even a pop out to break up the mass scale of the building. She thought it was great that a lot of considerations were put into the Inscription Walk to make that connection and the trees. Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 4
Overall, it's a great project.
Commissioner Schoeman inquired about the design of the fume hoods, in regards to the vent stacks. Mr. Varela replied that they are in construction documents; they have been designed, selected, and housed in a way that is not visible. The wind study has been done, it is as depicted. He also inquired about the ownership of 9th Street. Commissioner Worley replied that the existing wall is the property line between Scripps and CMC. There has been discussion about widening 9th Street for the admissions department; CMC retains its rights to keep through traffic. Mr. Veirs also replied that he reached out to current CMC Staff regarding the setbacks and did not receive any concerns about the project or its reduced setback.
Commissioner Messner moved that the Architectural Commission adopt Resolution No. 2020-07 of the Architectural Commission of The City of Claremont for the Final Review of Architectural Design and Site Plan Review File #19-A03, for a New Science Building, Keck Science Center Expansion, Located on the Scripps College Campus at 900 Amherst Avenue, Approving a Reduced Setback from Ninth Street (Private Street), and Approving the Associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program. Applicants – Scripps College and Pitzer College; seconded by Commissioner Worley, and carried on by roll call vote as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MESSNER, NEIUBER, PERRI, PERRY, SCHOEMAN, AND WORLEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HORSLEY
This decision can be appealed within ten calendar days.
3. Architectural and Site Plan Review #20-A03, Review of Proposed Photovoltaic Solar Panel System Mounted to New Carports in Parking Lots Located in the Northeast Corner of the Harvey Mudd College Campus and Approval of a Reduced Setback for the Proposed Solar Carport Structures. Applicant – Harvey Mudd College.
Principal Planner Veirs presented a PowerPoint presentation and addressed Commissioners’ questions regarding the: a) matching of the existing flat roof façade; b) wording to prohibit future extension of the proposed cover; c) placement of solar panels on rooftops; d) lowering the panels on Foothill Boulevard; e) varying setbacks; f) guidelines for applicants to provide accurate renderings; g) conflict between the structures and Crape Myrtles; h) amount of energy the project will produce; i) if the project was a PPA(Power Purchase Agreement); j) height at the south side; k) six feet setback; l) centering of the structure so that the edge of the canopy meets the edge of the car; m) property line; and n) location of project.
Rick Vanzini, Harvey Mudd College, thanked Chris Veirs and the Commission for their time, as sustainability is a big part of the campus discussion. The project initially started at 963 kilowatts, the campus usage is about 1012 megawatts, and this project will be Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 5 about 10% of our usage. We’ve reduced the project down by removing that western section to around 850 kilowatts and are able to create proximity of keeping it to the original size by only reducing about 100 or so kilowatts by extending further into the grassy area; removing panels on the western edge and moving them to the southern edge of the project. The more compact system will help with watts per square footage and loss of electricity through transmission wires from the western to eastern edge. This is a PPA funded project; otherwise we would not be able to afford this. We originally started with some rooftops and some carport, but there were questions about the integrity of some of our buildings for rooftops. The carport is just the first phase; the rooftop may be a future consideration.
Brian Bloom, Architect, we’ve reduced the length of solar panels and one row of solar panels along Foothill Boulevard for a narrower canopy. We reached out to LA County Fire and they adamantly restricted us from being in their fire lane clearance zone. The drawings are based on the civil engineering layout and are graphically shown for scale. The back panel is on the fire lane and we pushed as far to the south onto that line as we could, which is why we did the one illustration. The illustrations are to show the relationship of wall and people, the street elevation is for architectural view. We’ve adjusted the panel heights and found that, when it was lower, it actually became more visible to your eye line as you went down the street than at the proposed elevation. As a standard of line reference, they are slightly lower than the light pole, which let in a lot of visibility. We also worked with Staff to modify the beams from the traditional design and that is part of the reason why the beams go out as far as they do. The skin underneath is also finished. The arborist thought the Crape Myrtle’s would be fine since they are under existing Oak trees and are in constant darkness and are thriving. We do not anticipate a lot of pruning, more like manicuring to keep the trees at their height and that’s another reason for us to keep the existing height. The ten foot in the back is for work trucks, we tried to keep it at that height to avoid damage to the canopy. We’ve reduced a lot of the panels along Foothill Boulevard to avoid shading the meandering walkway which has a lot of landscaping on the public side of the wall. That is why we are squeezed in as we are.
Commissioner Worley inquired about the illustration showing light coming through the underside of the canopy. Mr. Bloom indicated that it’s a computer-generated issue. It’s a perforated plate to screen the panels, but when entered into the illustration, it will automatically show light coming through. There will be incidental light coming through the joints of the panels, reflective light from the light-colored structure, and lights towards the columns near the fire lanes.
Commissioner Perri questioned the height of the structure and how it had been designed to reflect Harvey Mudd’s campus architecture and to block out some of the light spillage onto Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Bloom indicated that the panels have a face panel which is 12 inches thick. This gives the carports more weight and mass and allows it to appear to be more flat (rectilinear) like the other buildings on the campus. The typical slant of a solar array was seen as an incongruent with the campus. We can definitely look at lowering the panels, but will have to look at the safety issues first. The College was comfortable with the height being proposed. Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 6
Commissioner Neiuber had no questions.
Commissioner Messner had no questions.
Commissioner Perry inquired why the landscape that includes the Crape Myrtles, Oak trees, and the Sycamores has not been maintained with any level of quality. Mr. Bloom replied that the Sycamores are in the City’s right of way. The arborist has suggested that we seek permission to do some preventative pruning. The trees behind the wall are on Harvey Mudd’s property are well shaped. Commissioner stated that there was once a time when a continuous row of Crape Myrtles lined this area, now there are gaps, poor irrigation, and the understory planting is all weeds. What is the policy and how long has this landscape been neglected? Mr. Bloom was not able to answer how long it’s been in this condition, but we plan on irrigating the area and adding a few more Crape Myrtles to balance the area.
Commissioner Schoeman inquired if Mr. Bloom experimented with the canopies along Foothill to see what it would look like from on campus or on Foothill if the column were on the north side. Mr. Bloom stated it was the preferred installation by the solar people, however, it makes it look even taller and rather than have a nice kind of knife plane to look through you end up seeing the columns. Commission Schoeman questioned if there were any other design ideas, because it looks pretty straight forward. Mr. Bloom replied that they’ve worked on this project for over three months to get a design that works and have pushed the budget. It will be more than just the standard solar panels.
Chair Schoeman invited public comment. Seeing no requests to speak, public comment was closed.
Commissioner Perry’s comments are as follows: He is hopeful that the project is implemented. He likes the idea of working with solar. The handling of the interface property (spacing, setback, and visual impact) will impact the quality of Foothill Boulevard. The new landscaping on Foothill Boulevard will definitely mitigate the solar panels. He disagrees with Mr. Bloom; the Crape Myrtles adjacent to the Foothill corridor will be greatly impacted. The landscaping has been neglected and reduced to minimal. The current plans show Crape Myrtles and understory planting to remain, which needs to be addressed. He stated that we should work as partners to create a visual edge. It should not fall on the City to provide the aesthetics to make this a desirable area. He suggested the removal of the Crape Myrtles, add vertical green screen panels with growing vines, clean the fascia of the Harvey Mudd wall along Foothill Boulevard, remove the seasonal Boston Ivy, and replace it with new landscaping. We need to be responsive to the reality of the area.
Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 7
Commissioner Messner is also concerned about the trees and its impacts on the newly completed Foothill project. She is on the fence with the height of the canopy. At the current height, it is airy, and you can see through to the buildings. But if it was to be lowered, you will see more of the massing and it will feel heavier. Either way, once the landscaping on Foothill matures, it will soften the panels.
Commissioner Neiuber commended the College’s attempt to reduce its carbon footprint and Staff’s attempt to enhance the project. We’ve spent so much money improving Foothill Boulevard; this carport will not be a good addition. He appreciated the applicant’s attempt to improve on the project, but the structure does not look good and does not tie in with the campus. He is concerned about the three and a half foot setback. Would it be possible for the College to propose putting these panels on rooftops so that they are not so noticeable? This is the entrance to the City, we have to do better.
Commissioner Perri stated that we should be able to evaluate what it’ll look like if lowered. We owe it to the city to incorporate the structure into the architecture and landscape.
Commissioner Worley would like to see the item continued to a future date so that we can see renderings that reflect reality. He would like to explore the possibility of lowering the height of the canopy. Vertical landscaping can improve or break up the impact of the row of overhangs. We cannot make an adequate decision based on what’s presented.
Commissioner Schoeman’s comments are as follows: He appreciated and agrees with the Commissioners’ comments. We are asked to give up a 25 feet setback for a three and a half feet setback, with really nothing in return. There are things that are not typical with this solar structure, but not enough to grant a 22 foot variance. The basic problem with this project is that it is being treated as the forgotten portion of the campus, when it is actually the front door to the city. This edge of the campus has been a visual/physical barrier and this project will create more barriers. The renderings do no favors for this project. Harvey Mudd, as a preeminent engineering school, should take advantage of the opportunity to showcase what the future holds for architecture and engineering. He cannot approve the project as presented. It needs to be rethought. There is no solution in trying to hide a 600 feet on Foothill Boulevard. It needs to be celebrated. He suggested taking advantage of the newly built buildings to support these panels.
Commissioner Worley inquired if we can continue this item.
Commissioner Schoeman requested Mr. Veirs for direction. This project is not near the point for corrections, it needs to be redesigned. Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 8
Principal Planner Veirs provided the following options: a) continue the item for incremental changes; b) continue the item for project redesign; or c) denial.
Commissioner Neiuber moved that the Architectural Commission continue Architectural and Site Plan Review #20-A03, Review of Proposed Photovoltaic Solar Panel System Mounted to New Carports in Parking Lots Located in the Northeast Corner of the Harvey Mudd College Campus and Approval of a Reduced Setback for the Proposed Solar Carport Structures. Applicant – Harvey Mudd College to a future date. The Commission requested that the applicant submit new designs to address the Commission’s concerns regarding the design and location of the solar carports structures, especially those adjacent to Foothill Boulevard; regarding the impacts to existing landscaping on the campus as well as in the Foothill Boulevard right of way; and regarding the general lack of landscaping being provided in the project; seconded by Commissioner Perri, and carried on by roll call vote as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MESSNER, NEIUBER, PERRI, PERRY, SCHOEMAN, AND WORLEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HORSLEY
This decision can be appealed within ten calendar days.
REPORTS
Commission
Commissioner Comments
There are no Commissioner comments.
Staff
Briefing on Council Meetings
Principal Planner Veirs reported on items of interest from the previous night’s City Council meeting.
Briefings on Other Items
There was no report.
Upcoming Agendas and Events
Principal Planner Veirs commented on what items will be coming before the Commission at the June 10, 2020 meeting. Architectural Commission Minutes May 27, 2020 Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Schoeman adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
______Chair
ATTEST:
______Administrative Assistant Claremont Architectural Commission
Agenda Report
File #: 3427 Item No: 2.
TO: CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JULY 15, 2020 Reviewed by: Finance Director: N/A
SUBJECT:
ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW FILE #19-AS10 - APPEAL OF STAFF-LEVEL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF A POOL, SPA, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS AT 2751 VIA SINALOA. APPELLANTS - JAY AND BETTE-LEE JABLOW, STEVE LLANUSA, TIMOTHY BLEK, SUZANNE WOJCIK, LISETTE DE PILLIS, JAN LINDHEIM, AND FAHIMA ALIKHAN.
SUMMARY
On June 18, 2020, Planning Division staff approved Architectural Staff Review File #19-AS10 for the design of an 892-square-foot structure supported by stepped retaining walls in the sloping rear yard of the property. The structure includes a 616-square-foot infinity pool and spa, and a 276-square-foot patio. Due to the steep slope of the site, the pool and deck structure at its highest will be approximately five feet tall as measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the water catchment reservoir. The outer edge of this structure is located 18.5 feet from the residence and includes a 4- to 6-foot-wide walkway between the residence and the structure. Drought-tolerant landscaping will be installed over the surrounding slope area.
The subject property is in the Claraboya neighborhood located within the hillsides along Mountain Avenue, consisting of single-family residences and townhomes developed in the 1960s with views of the Pomona Valley and beyond. The neighborhood is accessed through Mountain Avenue which connects to several cul-de-sacs that extend east to access the terraced ridgelines that make up the neighborhood.
On June 25, 2020, the City Clerk received an appeal of staff’s approval of the project from Jay and Bette-Lee Jablow, Steve Llanusa, Timothy Blek, Suzanne Wojcik, Lisette De Pillis, Jan Lindheim, and Fahima Alikhan. The appellants claim that staff approved a project that is not compatible with its surroundings. A copy of the appeal application is provided as Attachment H. Pursuant to Claremont Municipal Code Section 16.321.010, appeals to staff-level decisions regarding architectural review shall be heard by the Architectural Commission.
CLAREMONT Page 1 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Commission adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING STAFF’S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW #19-AS10 FOR A POOL, SPA, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS AT 2751 VIA SINALOA. APPELLANTS: JAY AND BETTE-LEE JABLOW, STEVE LLANUSA, TIMOTHY BLEK, SUZANNE WOJCIK, LISETTE DE PILLIS, JAN LINDHEIM, AND FAHIMA ALIKHAN.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the above recommendation, the following alternatives have been identified. If any of these alternatives are selected, a formal resolution recording the findings and action taken by the Architectural Commission will be placed on the Architectural Commission’s consent agenda at its next meeting.
A. Reverse staff’s decision to approve the project and grant the appeal clearly stating why the required findings cannot be made.
B. Remand the matter to staff with direction to allow the applicant to consider any design revisions.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Prior to the appeal, review of this project by City staff had no financial impact on the City, as the applicant is responsible for all City costs associated with that portion of the review. The appellant has paid the required $210 appeal fee, which is a fixed fee. Appeal-related staff costs not covered under the appeal fee totals $3,115.
ANALYSIS
Background
The subject site is located in the Residential Single-Family (RS 20,000) zoning district and within the Claraboya Homeowners’ Association (HOA), thus subject to the City’s zoning regulations as well as those outlined in the HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The property is situated at the top of a southwest facing slope directly above and behind the residence located at 2676 San Andres Way and generally overlooking the other residences along San Andres Way located in the canyon below. The site also overlooks the back of the properties located on the east side of Mountain Avenue above San Andres Way. The property is mostly flat except for the west-facing rear yard which includes 25 to 65 percent slope areas.
On January 28, 2019, staff denied a request by the applicant to construct a significantly larger pool and patio that would have extended a concrete structure 28 feet downhill from the edge of the residence, projecting 18 feet from the top of slope and including two retaining walls with a combined height of 9 feet measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the water catchment reservoir. Staff denied the project as the proposal was inconsistent with development in Claraboya which has generally been limited to no more than three vertical feet on the slopes. Staff was also concerned that the structure was too massive and would visually loom over the downhill properties, creating new sight lines and a visual presence that would compromise the existing privacy enjoyed by downhill and other adjacent properties. In addition, the project raised General Plan-
CLAREMONT Page 2 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ enjoyed by downhill and other adjacent properties. In addition, the project raised General Plan- related concerns with respect to limiting development over slopes in Claraboya as staff felt that the extent of encroachment coupled with the large size of the structure far exceeded that which has been historically allowed over slopes.
Following the denial of the project, the applicant worked with staff to significantly scale back the project to make it consistent with other pools built over slopes in the neighborhood. As part of the project review, notice of the proposal was sent to neighbors and residents within a 600-foot-radius of the property, and staff received eighteen emails in favor of and six emails against the project. On June 18, 2020, staff approved a revised design for a smaller pool and patio structure closer to the residence with a reduced footprint over the slope and lower retaining walls. The approval letter included the findings pursuant to Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) Section 16.300.030 (“Review criteria”) which staff believed could be made due to the considerable reductions made to the size and height of the structure, as well as the reduction in the slope encroachment. As required for City approval, the revised project was reviewed and approved by the Claraboya HOA Board of Directors on October 2, 2019.Confirmation of the approval was provided by Harold S. Gault, Claraboya HOA President, in a letter dated October 4, 2019 to Brad Johnson, Community Development Director, included for reference as Attachment J.
Pursuant to CMC Section 16.321.010 (“Appeal of staff decision”), staff-level decisions regarding architectural review can be appealed to the Architectural Commission. On June 25, 2020, staff received an appeal from “Jay and Bette-Lee Jablow et al” claiming that the project is not compatible with its surroundings. Staff followed up with the applicant regarding the names of the other appellants, and a list of nine names was provided to staff by Steve Llanusa, one of the appellants. Upon receipt of this list, staff asked Mr. Llanusa to direct each person on the list to send an email to staff confirming that they wished to be included in the appeal. At the writing of this report, staff only received six such emails therefore adding the following names: Steve Llanusa, Timothy Blek, Suzanne Wojcik, Lisette De Pillis, Jan Lindheim, Fahima Alikhan.
Project Description
The project consists of an 892-square-foot structure including a 616-square-foot infinity pool and spa, and a 276-square-foot patio located along the west elevation of the existing residence. The outer edge of this structure extends 18.5 feet from the residence and includes a 4- to 6-foot-wide walkway between the residence and the structure. The 61.5-foot-long structure encroaches approximately 12 feet onto the 2:1 slope and includes two retaining walls along the outer edge separated by a 2- to 3- foot wide space serving as a planter for the patio and water catchment reservoir. The height of the outer retaining wall along the adjacent grade will range from 1.5 to 3 feet. At its highest, the pool and patio structure will be approximately five feet tall as measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the water catchment reservoir.
The retaining walls will consist of CMU block with stucco finish painted to blend in with the surrounding slope, and the patio and walkway between the residence and the structure will be paved with travertine tile consistent with the modern style of the residence. The stairs into the patio and pool will include a glass and metal handrail. The planter along the edges of the patio will be planted with Dwarf Indian Hawthorne and the adjacent slopes will be landscaped with drought-tolerant plant materials including California Flannel Bush, Coastal Rosemary, Mexican Bush Sage, Dwarf Coyote Bush, Agave, Little Ollie, Dwarf Indian Hawthorne, and Hot Lips Sage.
CLAREMONT Page 3 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ Appeal and Staff’s Response
The stated grounds for appeal did not include an explanation or any supporting information to substantiate the appellants’ claim that the project is not compatible with its surroundings. CMC 16.300.060 (“Review criteria”) lists all the findings that must be made for architectural design approval, including Subsections 16.300.060.A.3 and 16.300.060.A.4 requiring compatibility of form and quality with the project’s surroundings. More specifically, they require that the project “will not unduly interfere with or visually dominate the established development pattern of the surrounding area and is compatible with existing development in terms of scale, height, and massing” and the “exterior design and appearance including exterior materials, ornamentation and trim are of a quality and architectural character that is compatible with or an enhancement to the surrounding development.” Since the appellants did not specify whether they believe that the project does not comply with one or both criteria, staff will address both in this report.
Staff’s Response:
Planning Division staff approved the project on the basis that all the architectural design review criteria of Section 16.300.060 could be met. With respect to compatibility of form, staff surveyed the neighborhood to determine whether there were similar structures over rear yard slopes in Claraboya. Based on this survey, staff identified a number of pools and decks, covered and uncovered, with encroachments over downhill slopes ranging from 3 to 12 feet, including two pools which are very similar to the proposed project. In fact, the pool and spa at 2650 North Mountain was used as a guide in redesigning the project as it includes a 680-square-foot encroachment extending 12 feet from the top of a 2:1 slope, and retaining walls with a total height of 6 feet as measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the outer wall. Another encroaching pool is located along the south property line of the adjacent property at 2736 Via Sinaloa. Here the pool encroaches approximately 10 feet from the top of a 2:1 slope and includes 4 to 5 feet high outer retaining walls. The proposed structure is similar to both pools in that it encroaches between 10.5 feet to 13 feet from the top of slope as noted in the findings.
The survey also identified eight covered and uncovered decks with downslope encroachments ranging from 3 to 10 feet, including a 400-square-foot uncovered deck on the adjacent property to the north at 2763 Via Sinaloa which encroaches 8 to 10 feet over the slope and approximately 4 to 5 feet from grade at its highest. The deck is detached from the residence and projects out toward the southwest thus overlooking the subject property, the downslope properties on Via San Andres and beyond.
Staff believes that the survey of surrounding development demonstrates that the proposed pool is consistent with similar slope encroachments throughout the neighborhood and on the adjacent properties directly north and south of the project site. The scale of the structure, interpreted as size and massing, meets the 30 percent maximum lot coverage allowed in the RS 20,000 zoning district, and is comparable to those of the abovementioned pools.
With respect to compatibility of quality with surrounding development, staff identified stucco and concrete block as typical materials used in other pool structures and retaining walls identified in the survey. Consequently, staff determined that the proposed use of CMU block with a stucco finish would not only be compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood but also would complement the modern style of the residence. Other materials used in the project such as natural travertine tile and glass with metal handrails are also typical of this style of architecture thus compatible with existing development. As with the building materials, the proposed landscaping will also be consistent with existing vegetation on the surrounding slopes and neighborhood in that it will include
CLAREMONT Page 4 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ consistent with existing vegetation on the surrounding slopes and neighborhood in that it will include drought-tolerant species such as California Flannel Bush, Mexican Bush Sage, Dwarf Coyote Bush, Agave, Little Ollie, Dwarf Indian Hawthorne, Hot Lips Sage and Coastal Rosemary. Staff included a condition of approval requiring on-going landscape maintenance to ensure that it remains healthy and dead materials are replaced in a timely manner.
Additional Public Comments Not Included in the Appeal
Although the grounds for appeal is limited to concerns over neighborhood compatibility as stated in the application, staff would like to respond to the following concerns expressed by residents during the 10-day comment period between May 5 and May 15, 2020:
• Concerns over the Claraboya Homeowners’ Association (HOA) approval proceeding.
As previously noted, the Claraboya HOA Board of Directors reviewed and approved the project at its meeting on October 2, 2019. A few residents have expressed concerns over the meeting proceedings leading to the approval of the project. However, the City does not have any authority or jurisdiction over HOA deliberations, and thus will not interpret or question the validity of its decisions regarding the approval of development projects.
• Impacts to privacy and views on property values from San Andres Way.
Staff believes that the finding regarding privacy can be met as stated in the approval letter and included in the draft Resolution. In addition to the reasons stated by staff in the finding, it is important to note that the large existing bushes located on the slope provide a significant amount of screening and privacy between the subject property and those located on San Andres Way below. The applicant intends to maintain the bushes in place but also add landscaping to the slope below the structure as shown on the plans, which will further increase privacy for the subject property as well as others below. With respect to views, given the existing and proposed landscaping screening of the project, views of the project site from San Andres are not expected to significantly change upon construction of the structure.
• Safety of structure over sloping terrain, including during construction.
Staff review and approval of the project under this application is limited to design considerations and whether it meets the findings required for approval pursuant to CMC Section 16.300.060 (“Review criteria”). Issues related to the structural and seismic safety of the structure will be addressed during the plan check process when all required studies and calculations must be provided to verify compliance with the City’s Building Code requirements.
CEQA REVIEW
The Community Development Director has determined that this proposal is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the proposed project constitutes a negligible expansion of an existing use as it involves the addition of less than fifty percent of the existing floor area of the residence. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
CLAREMONT Page 5 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City’s regular agenda distribution process has been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures and limited access. In accordance with Government Code Section 8634, this item was given widespread publicity and notice, and posted on the City website. If you desire a copy, please contact Nhi Atienza at [email protected].
On Thursday, July 2, 2020, written notices were mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the boundaries of the site. Copies of this staff report have been sent to the applicant, the appellants and other interested parties.
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Brad Johnson Christopher Veirs Community Development Director Principal Planner
Prepared by:
Leticia Cardoso Senior Planner
Attachments: A - Draft Resolution upholding Planning Staff’s approval B - #19-AS10- Approval Letter, Findings, and Conditions of Approval C - Site Plan D - Survey of Slope Encroachments in Claraboya E - Photos of 2751 Via Sinaloa F - Aerial Photos of 2751 Via Sinaloa with Contours G - 3-D Photos of Encroachments H - Appeal Application I - Public Comment Letters J - Claraboya HOA Approval Letter dated October 4, 2019
CLAREMONT Page 6 of 6 Printed on 7/9/2020 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING STAFF’S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW #19-AS10 FOR A POOL, SPA, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS AT 2751 VIA SINALOA. APPELLANTS: JAY AND BETTE- LEE JABLOW, STEVE LLANUSA, TIMOTHY BLEK, SUZANNE WOJCIK, LISETTE DE PILLIS, JAN LINDHEIM, AND FAHIMA ALIKHAN.
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, Sang V. Le, the applicant, submitted a design review application (File#19-AS10) requesting approval of the design of a pool/spa/patio and retaining walls on the property located at 2751 Via Sinaloa in the City’s Claraboya neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Claremont Municipal Code Section 16.300.030.C, design of new accessory structures and modifications to existing site features including changes to grading, fencing, walls, pools, and hardscape on single-family residential properties is subject to review by staff; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2020, Planning Division staff approved Architectural Site Plan Review File #19-AS10 for the design of an 892-square-foot structure supported by stepped retaining walls in the sloping rear yard of the property. The structure includes a 616-square-foot infinity pool and spa, and a 276-square-foot patio, and associated retaining walls. The pool and deck structure at its highest is approximately five feet tall as measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the water catchment reservoir; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.300.080, staff-level decisions may be appealed to the Architectural Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2020, the City Clerk received an appeal of staff’s approval of the project from Jay and Bette-Lee Jablow, Steve Llanusa, Timothy Blek, Suzanne Wojcik, Lisette De Pillis, Jan Lindheim, and Fahima Alikhan, in which the appellants claim that staff approved a project that is not compatible with its surroundings; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2020, notice of the Architectural Commission meeting was mailed to all properties within a 600-foot radius of the site and to interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2020, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with said proposal were heard and said proposal was fully studied.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section A. The project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the proposed project constitutes a negligible expansion of an existing use as it involves the addition of less than fifty percent of the existing floor area of the residence. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 2
Section B. The Architectural Commission finds that the review criteria of Section 16.300.060 of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) can be met with regard to the above-described project as follows:
1. Conformity with Development Standards - The pool/spa/patio structure conforms with all development standards for the RS Single Family (RS 20,000) zoning district as follows:
a. Setbacks: The proposed project will meet all applicable setback requirements as follows:
i. Side Setbacks: All project-related structures are located at least 26 feet from the south property line and 31 feet from the north property line, thus in full compliance with the minimum required 8-foot-wide side yard setbacks.
ii. Rear Setback: The project complies with the rear setback requirement of 8- feet as the distance from the rear property line to the nearest project-related structure ranges from 26 feet to 39 feet.
b. Lot Coverage: The proposed lot coverage of 29 percent, or 4,054 square feet complies with the maximum permitted lot coverage of 30% in the RS 20,000 zoning district.
c. Floor Area: Not applicable as uncovered structures are not included in the calculation of floor area.
d. Parking: The existing three car garage on the property is not affected by construction of the pool and patio structure.
e. Height: Although the height varies due to the topography, the structure complies with the maximum allowable height of 15 feet for accessory structures in the RS 20,000 zoning district. Along the west elevation, the maximum height of the terraced retaining wall (i.e. inner and outer walls combined) ranges from 3.5 feet on the south to 5 feet on the north. The inner retaining wall is set 2 to 3 feet apart from the outer/lower retaining wall to accommodate the patio planter and water catchment reservoir for the infinity pool.
2. General Plan Consistency - Although the General Plan vision for the Claraboya/High Point neighborhood seeks to limit development over slopes, a survey of the neighborhood shows that some structures such as pools, covered and uncovered patios and decks have historically been permitted to encroach onto downward slopes when they cannot be accommodated on graded pads as long as they are reasonably sized and immediately adjacent to the top of the slope. These existing encroachments range from 3 feet to 11.5 feet from the top of slope and are relatively rare in the neighborhood.
Staff worked with the applicant to modify their original design to minimize the size and visibility of the project. The revised proposal keeps the pool-related structures much closer to the top of slope with the encroachment varying from 10.5 feet to 13 feet, thus more in line with similar pools and patios in the neighborhood. This Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 3
reduced encroachment also results in a substantially lower structure that steps down the slope and rarely extends more than 3 feet above the existing grade of the slope.
The project also complies with the following policy of the City's General Plan:
"Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context and building forms and scale, (Policy 2-11.3)."
The pool/spa/patio structure is located in the downward sloped backyard of a residential property in the Claraboya/High Point neighborhood where a number of properties include similar structures encroaching over slopes. In order to minimize grading of the slopes, the structure is located very close (4 to 6 feet) from the rear wall of the residence and painted a natural color to blend with the hillside. In addition, the surrounding slope will be landscaped with drought-tolerant plants to help the structure blend in with the hillside and soften the appearance of the pool/spa/patio retaining walls. The plant list includes California Flannel Bush, Mexican Bush Sage, Dwarf Coyote Bush, Agave, and Hot Lips Sage. The resulting development will have a low profile, natural appearance that minimizes the appearance of development on the slope and maintains consistency with surrounding homes that are generally left in a natural state with occasional instances of small encroachments into the slope areas.
3. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development - The design and scale of the pool/spa structure is consistent with that of the existing residence and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A survey of the Claraboya/High Point neighborhood properties with downward slopes in the backyard shows three (3) other properties that include pools encroaching into the slope. One of these properties is located on Mountain Avenue across the canyon and with a direct view from the subject property, one on Via San Simon, and one on the neighboring property to the south on Via Sinaloa where the pool is located along the south-facing slope. The same survey also identified eight (8) covered and uncovered decks located on downward slopes throughout the neighborhood, including an approximately 400-square-foot uncovered deck on the adjacent property to the north on Via Sinaloa which encroaches from 8 to 10 feet over the slope. As described above the proposed pool has been revised to minimize its encroachment into the slope area, stepped to keep its height to an average of approximately 3 feet above grade, and landscaped to preserve the natural appearance of the slope and maintain consistency with the vast majority of lots in the neighborhood, which do not have development on the slopes.
4. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development - The project features a well• considered design employing quality materials that complement the design of the residence. The retaining walls will consist of CMU block with stucco finish painted to blend in with the surrounding slope, and the patio and walkway between the residence and the structure will be paved with travertine tile in line with the modern style of the residence. The stairs into the patio and pool will include a glass and metal handrail. The edges of the patio will be planted with Coastal Rosemary and Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 4
the adjacent slopes will be landscaped with drought-tolerant plant materials including California Flannel Bush, Mexican Bush Sage, Dwarf Coyote Bush, Agave, Little Ollie, Dwarf Indian Hawthorne, and Hot Lips Sage.
5. Internal Consistency of Design - All elevations of the infinity pool/spa/patio structure are treated in a consistent manner with regard to style and materials so as to create an internally cohesive design that also complements the modern architectural style and natural colors of the residence.
6. Privacy - While the pool/spa/patio structure encroaches from 11 to 13 feet onto the slope, the diagonal sightline to the neighboring residence to the north will be almost entirely blocked by the existing 6-foot-high block wall along the shared side property line. The wall ends at the top of slope where a wrought-iron fence begins and continues downslope. The wall is covered by a large Creeping Fig vine that has grown into a large bush as it extends over the fence, thereby helping to provide a solid visual barrier between the properties.
Regarding the property to the south, the line of sight from the pool/spa/patio to the residence will be blocked by a 6-foot-tall block wall along the shared property line. With respect to the adjacent properties located downhill, the outer edge of the water catchment reservoir is located approximately 108 feet from the closest residence located at 2676 San Andres which is also 75 feet below the subject structure. Given the significant vertical and horizontal distance from the residence, and its close location next to the applicant's residence, the pool/spa/patio structure will not create sight lines that could compromise the privacy enjoyed by downslope properties.
7. Internal Circulation - The project includes a 4- to 6-foot-wide walkway along the west elevation leading to the pool/spa/patio structure and to patios on each side of the residence. The width of the walkway was kept to the minimum required to provide access alongside the residence while keeping the pool/spa/patio structure from excessively encroaching onto the slope.
8. Sustainability - The project involves installation of drought-tolerant, drip-irrigated landscaping consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance requirements.
9. Tree Preservation - Construction of the pool/spa/patio structure will not require removal of any existing trees on the property.
10. Light and Air - The project, which is less than 5 feet above grade at its highest point, will not impinge on neighbors' existing access to light or use of prevailing winds for natural ventilation or cast a shadow over an existing solar energy system.
11. Environmental Protections - The project has been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and deemed categorically exempt in that the proposed project constitutes a negligible expansion of an existing use as it involves the addition of less than fifty percent of the existing floor area of the residence. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 5
12. Health and Safety - The visual effect of the development from adjacent public streets will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare as the structure is set close to the residence and will be surrounded by drought- tolerant landscaping to help blend it in with the existing vegetation of the adjacent slopes. The size of the structure is consistent with others in the neighborhood and the combined height of the terraced retaining walls is reasonably low, ranging from 3.5 to 5 feet, setting the structure into the slope rather than projecting out over it. With respect to safety, the project will require a soils and geology analysis and approval of structural calculations in compliance with the City's Building Code prior to approval of the building permit. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with measures to protect downslope properties to ensure that they are not affected during construction. As such, the development does not have the potential to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
Section C. The Architectural Commission hereby approves Architectural Review File #19-AS10 based on the findings outlined in Sections A and B above, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. This approval is for the construction of a 616-square-foot infinity pool and spa, and a 276-square• foot patio. The retaining wall for the structure will be approximately five feet tall at its highest point as measured from the water level of the pool to the grade adjacent to the water catchment reservoir. The outer edge of this structure is located 18.5 feet from the residence and includes a 4- to 6-foot• wide walkway between the residence and the structure. The surrounding slopes will be landscaped with drought- tolerant plants. The project shall be constructed as depicted on the approved plans and landscape plans on file with the Planning Division.
2. This design approval (File #19-AS10) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Division approval. If building permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been granted during this period, this design review approval will automatically expire without further action by the City.
3. Plans submitted for building permit plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Architectural Staff Review (#19-AS10). If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved design, the new plans may require further staff review and re-notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay construction and require additional fees.
4. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code.
5. Submit final landscape and irrigation plans as part of the construction plans for review and approval by the Planning Division.
6. Maintain the drought-tolerant landscaping on the slope on an on-going basis to ensure that it remains healthy and that dead plant materials are removed and replaced in a timely manner.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 6
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall:
a. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building and Engineering Divisions, including the submittal of complete architectural, electrical, mechanical, and structural plans duly wet stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial conformance with those approved under Architectural Review File #19-AS10 by the Planning Division staff.
b. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
c. Pay any/all outstanding development review fees associated with Architectural Review File #19-AS10.
d. Pay all applicable permit and development fees including, but not limited to, fire facility, plan check fees, and any outstanding development review fees, as established by City ordinances and resolutions.
e. Gain approval from the Building Division and install construction fencing or netting necessary to prevent construction debris from affecting downslope properties.
f. Work with Planning Division staff to select a color for the stucco finish of the project retaining walls to ensure that they will harmonize with the color of the slope and rock outcroppings.
8. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this design approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection.
9. Upon final inspection, the City will commence a 30-day lighting level review of all exterior lights including building lights, streetlights, driveway lights, pathway lights, and landscape lights. If illumination levels, glare, or other applicable issues are found to be excessive, the applicant will be directed to modify the lighting as necessary to achieve acceptable lighting levels.
10. Non-compliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
11. The applicant and owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant and owner shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder. Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2020- Page 7
12. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building final and a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project.
Section D. The Architectural Commission Chair shall sign this Resolution and the Commission’s Secretary shall attest to the adoption thereof.
Passed, approved, and adopted this 15th day of July, 2020.
Architectural Commission Chair ATTEST:
Architectural Commission Secretary
9,$6,1$/2$ &/$5(0217&$ 7R)RU 'DWH
$''5(66 9LD6LQDORD &ODUHPRQW&$
$31
=21( 56
/27$5($ VTIW
2&&83$1&< 5
)52176(7%$&. 7+- 5($56(7%$&. ,17676,'(6(7%$&. 9LD6LQDORD3KDVH 'HVLJQ5HYLHZ 6HW 6/25/20 Date: Set # SITE PLAN 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 To/For:
FELIX JAIMES
11.21.18 6/25/20
2751 VIA SINALOA SITE PLAN WITH LANDSCAPING A1.2 Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review 9,$6,1$/2$ &/$5(0217&$ 7R)RU 'DWH
7+-
9LD6LQDORD3KDVH 'HVLJQ5HYLHZ 6HW 6/25/20 Date: Set # NEW FLOOR PLAN 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 To/For:
NEW FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES
FELIX JAIMES
11.21.18 6/25/20
A2.1 Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review 6/25/20 Date: Set # EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KEYNOTES To/For:
FELIX JAIMES
11.21.18 6/25/20
A3.1 Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review
11.21.18 A4.1 FELIX JAIMES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6/25/20 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review To/For: Set # Date: 6/25/20 11.21.18 A4.2 FELIX JAIMES EXCAVATION COMPARISON 4/30/20 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review To/For: Set # Date: 4/30/20 6/25/20
Date:
P P P se esc pt n n le se t pe es dent al L t ea s t cc panc Set #
cale LANDSCAPE PLAN 2751 VIA SINALOA CLAREMONT, CA. 91711 To/For:
Plant Pallete
l e n a e c ent c a e
al ast se a est n a t c sa
al e nt dend n cal n c al n a lannel s
al e can s sa e al a le cant a
al t L ps a e al a c p lla t l ps
al a e dese t ese t a e
al a nd an a t n ap lep s nd ca
d seed lats acc a s p l la s p e n p nt a te s
FELIX JAIMES Landscape Plan 11.21.18 6/25/20
Via Sinaloa - Phase: Design Review
Description of the Estimated Square Footage of the Addresses Estimated Encroachment into Slope Structure Structure That Are In the Slope
706 Via San Simon 5 to 6 feet Uncovered deck 132 for deck, 1,066 for pool 1
774 Via Los Andes 3 to 4 feet Uncovered deck 300
2
766 Via Los Andes 3 to 4 feet Covered deck 200 3
2763 Via Sinaloa 8 to 10 feet Uncovered deck 400 4
2727 San Angelo 8 to 10 feet Uncovered deck 480 5
2687 San Angelo 8 to 10 feet Covered deck 200 6
Uncovered deck with a 2853 Mountain 4 to 10 feet 390 pool 7
Uncovered deck with 2557 Mountain 5 to 7 feet 230 retaining walls, pool 8
2650 Mountain 11.5 feet from top of slope Pool 680 sq ft 9 2736 Via Sinaloa Pool 370 sq ft 10 10 feet from top of slope 782 Via Espirito 6 feet Covered deck 144 sq ft 11 Santo PHOTOS OF 2751 VIA SINALOA
View of 2736 Via Sinaloa deck (left) and 2751 Via Sinaloa (right) from terminus of San Andres Way
View of 2751 Via Sinaloa from San Andres Way AERIAL PHOTOS OF 2751 VIA SINALOA WITH CONTOURS
3-D PHOTOS OF ENCROACHMENTS
706 Via San Simon
2736 Via Sinaloa
2557 N. Mountain Avenue
2736 Via Sinaloa
2650 N. Mountain
2763 Via Sinaloa