Claremont’s Divisive Housing Development Has Opened After Four Years. Have You Been Paying Attention?

Your guide to state and local housing policy.

Many students of the Claremont Colleges eagerly track the moves of the president, Congress, the military, the Federal Reserve, and countless other political entities. We tend to show off this knowledge with Instagram virtue signaling and angsty Walker Wall scrawling. But how many of us know what policies are being decided in our own backyard? 

On March 11 of this year, the City of Claremont unveiled Larkin Place, an affordable housing community initially proposed in 2022. Given that its construction—and controversy—has lasted longer than the academic career of any current 5Cer, its development is worth investigating, especially in the context of Claremont’s housing landscape. 

This past summer saw significant victories for California’s pro-housing or Yes-in-My-Backyard (YIMBY) movement. In June, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 130, SB 131, and SB 79 into law, requiring faster permitting processes, streamlining the onerous California Environmental Quality Assessment (CEQA) review, and making it easier to build housing near major transit stops. In his speech, Governor Newsom signaled his commitment to increasing responsiveness and efficiency in future building projects. 

Is Claremont on board? Well, it’s complicated. 

Support for YIMBY policies doesn’t neatly fit within your typical factional lines. Though Claremont is a professionalized, Democratic stronghold, the debate remains contentious in our City of Trees and PhDs. This article will discuss Claremont’s recent developments, framed by the essential facts of the state and local housing debate—consider it your one-stop-shop on the subject. 

The Larkin Place Controversy

Last fall, I met with Reverend Gene Boutilier of Claremont’s United Church of Christ. Boutilier is also president of Housing Claremont, a chapter of the non-profit Abundant Housing LA which is dedicated to YIMBY solutions in the Los Angeles area. Boutilier drove us to Larkin Place, then still under construction on Harrison Avenue, and explained its long path to completion.  

The Jamboree Housing Corporation, a nonprofit housing developer, proposed Larkin Place in 2022 as a four-story, 33-unit development to house formerly homeless adults making no more than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). “Individuals will not be pulled directly from the street and placed into Larkin Place,” Jamboree notes, as the comprehensive application process requires months of preparation. The selectivity is necessary, as Jamboree provides its residents with access to wraparound services like therapy, crisis counseling, and life skills courses. Jamboree claims that these services help 72% of their residents maintain a steady job, which Jamboree estimates lowers dependence on public assistance (CalFresh, CalWORKS, emergency room use, etc.) by over $8 million annually. 

Jamboree's Larkin Place site plan. Credit: Jamboree

Finished construction of Larkin Place. Credit: Claremont Courier

Making Larkin Place a reality was quite an uphill battle, Boutilier reflected. The liberal and progressive residents of Claremont were theoretically supportive of affordable housing, so long as it wasn’t happening on their Harrison Avenue. The primary opposition group, Safe and Transparent Claremont, amassed 453 signatures to bar the development. They pointed out that Jamboree lacks a sobriety requirement, only requires voluntary participation in its services, and is too lax with its visitation rules:   

“We feel that simply housing those with high needs without proper clinical supervision is not in anybody’s best interest and is an insult to all of us who have dealt with mental health and addiction issues either personally or in our family home.” 

Though Jamboree insisted it would conduct background checks and closely monitor its residents, many Claremont residents voiced their concerns as soon as the proposal was announced. Or as Boutlier recalled: 

“[Residents] would say, ‘If only you were serving veterans.’ Well, some of those people in [Larkin Place’s] 34 units will be veterans. ‘If only you were serving old people.’ Well, some of them will be old people. ‘If only you [built] workforce housing.’ Well, some of them will have full-time jobs.”

But Boutilier also acknowledged the Larkin Place campaign’s strategic missteps. “Mistakes were made by my friends at Jamboree. [They allowed for] uncontrolled public speaking that went on and on and kind of built on itself like a firestorm.” Indeed, the first meeting with residents and developers back in 2022 was nearly three hours long, described as “sometimes raucous” by the Claremont Courier as developers’ statements were met with “loud protests.” 

Unfortunately for Larkin Place’s opponents, subdivision (d) of California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) prohibits local governments from denying approval for affordable housing projects, like Larkin Place, or reducing their proposed densities. Very limited exceptions apply. This restriction mitigates the number of veto points that local governments have had in housing approval processes, as seen in the graphic below. 

Housing construction process. Credit: Dhriti Jagadish, based upon The Institute for Local Government's Planning Commissioner Handbook

Furthermore, when proposing Larkin Place, Jamboree applied under AB 2162, meaning the project received “by-right” status for its affordability. By-right developments—so long as they abide by existing zoning and building codes—need not be subjected to CEQA review and discretionary reviews by architecture commissions, planning commissions, and public hearings. 

Though unnecessary, Jamboree did opt for review by Claremont’s Architectural Commission, hoping to receive “buy-in from the community,” according to Jamboree’s Chief Development Officer. Larkin Place’s initial design required an easement across a city-owned parking lot—a measure to ensure vehicular access—and was approved by the Architectural Commission on January 26, 2022 contingent on the city council’s approval. 

Yet, on June 28, 2022, the city council voted 3-2 to deny Jamboree’s request for the easement. This action prompted a statement from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) alleging that Claremont had violated the HAA. “Denying the easement equates to disapproval” of an HAA-applicable affordable housing project, the HCD argued, and none of the exemptions that allowed for such disapproval applied to Larkin Place. 

Claremont denied that they broke the law, arguing that Jamboree would be able to continue building Larkin Place if they designed an alternate site plan that wouldn’t require vehicular access—which Jamboree eventually did. 

Larkin Place is an illustrative example of the kinds of clashes that occur between state and local oversight of housing policy—and a pricey one, with legal fees costing the city $140,000. 

Claremont’s RHNA Compliance

Though Claremont has significant control over its development, the city must align with California’s housing objectives. To understand Claremont’s predicament with Larkin Place—particularly, the urgency of advocates and the hesitancy of the city council—we need to dig a bit deeper into state housing laws.

Consider the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), a state-mandated process determining projected and existing housing needs. The state and local governments work together to allot a quantity of housing units to be built by each city within an eight-year cycle. 

California cities are currently in the sixth cycle, extending from 2021 to 2029. This means that Claremont is required to build 1,711 units by 2029. All cities submit a “housing element” of their general plan to the HCD to explain how they intend to meet their housing needs. 

6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Claremont. AMI = Average Median Income. Credit: City of Claremont

Claremont hasn’t always been compliant with the 6th cycle. After missing the October 15, 2021 deadline to submit its housing element, Claremont was sued by the nonprofit Californians for Homeownership in September 2022. 

The nonprofit selected Claremont and eight other cities as being among the “farthest behind’” in building enough housing to meet their RHNA demands, according to their attorney Matthew Gelfand. In an interview with the Claremont Courier, Gelfand stated that Claremont was an “extreme outlier in its lack of progress and its refusal to engage.” 

Claremont settled the lawsuit, agreeing to adopt the 6th Housing Element by July 31, 2023 and pay legal fees. However, in April 2024, the state determined that Claremont was still not in substantial compliance, missing required rezonings and commitments to develop Accessory Dwelling Units, among other shortfalls. 

In September 2024, after a June 2024 city council vote to update the Housing Element, the state finally determined that Claremont’s Housing Element was in compliance—nearly three years after the October 2021 deadline to submit.   

How Claremont Plans to Meet Its Housing Needs

Claremont’s Housing Element features 31 “Opportunity Sites” that could accommodate the city’s RHNA units. 

According to the element’s FAQ, one of the biggest hurdles remains zoning regulations. 27 of the 31 Opportunity Sites must be rezoned because Claremont’s current regulations do not permit the higher densities needed to achieve RHNA capacity. As such, Boutilier believes that “some of these identified Opportunity Sites are not real—they're never going to turn into real projects.”

Claremont's "Opportunity Sites." Credit: City of Claremont

However, developers have successfully proposed projects on some sites at the very least. This past July, City Ventures received approval to construct a 70-unit condominium on 840 S. Indian Blvd, with 10% and 5% of its units set aside as moderate-income and low-income, respectively. 

This affordable unit allotment complies with Claremont’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that was passed in 2006 and strengthened in 2021. The ordinance requires all rental and for-sale developers to reserve 10% and 5% of their units as moderate- and low-income or make an “in-lieu payment” to the city’s inclusionary housing fund. 

Boutilier is especially interested by Opportunity Sites on religious properties. California’s SB 4 provides streamlined permitting and zoning processes for religious organizations and nonprofit colleges to develop affordable housing on their properties—including by-right approval. “One of the best [Opportunity Sites] is the Claremont United Methodist Church. They have a very large property…[and] a very good committee of church leaders that really want to develop housing.” 

The city is also prioritizing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development in a new push by many Southern Californian governments. ADUs are independent units—often rental spaces like tiny homes, garage conversions, or granny flats—located on a lot with a preexisting primary residence. Because ADUs allow for more density, especially on single-family lots, 11 of Claremont’s Opportunity Sites are zoned with an ADU-ready Overlay. 

Claremont’s Road Ahead

As is the case for most California cities, Claremont’s housing burdens won’t ease up for a while. The pace of development is still sluggish. Innovative solutions meet neighborhood resistance. 

For instance, the City Ventures development on Indian Hill had its fair share of opposition. The people of Claremont “argued all kinds of things” in city council meetings, Boutilier noted. “They complained that there weren't enough children's amenities on the playground, weren’t two-street driveway exits from the property, [and that City Ventures] will overpack the neighborhood with traffic.”

Information campaigns matter, Boutilier noted, as we drove to St. Ambrose Episcopal Church. The Church is working with non-profit developer National Core to redevelop a portion of its parking lot for a 59-unit apartment for low-income senior citizens. “They hired a professional who helped them orchestrate their community response [and] make the neighbor visits. The public meeting was extremely well planned [and their] pastor did a beautiful job of laying out the Christian argument for serving the neighborhood,” Boutilier admired.  

Not every campaign has been successful, though. Boutilier showed me the Claremont United Church of Christ’s parking lot, which was planned as a safe overnight parking site for registered vehicles, complete with 24-hour security and access to the Church’s facilities. Since my meeting with Boutilier, however, funding for the lot was denied by the city. Canvassers for Inclusive Claremont, a 5C pro-housing group, repeatedly heard from the lot’s neighboring homeowners that the site—located in the middle of a 6th Street neighborhood—would pose a “reduction in ‘quality of life,’” alongside complaints of “unpleasant second-story views” and “undesirables.”   

Conclusion

If housing policy seems complicated, that’s because it is. Indeed, this explainer is not comprehensive—it did not touch upon Claremont’s debate around renters’ rights, for example. To learn more, follow student groups like Inclusive Claremont. Read the Claremont Courier. Pay attention to the activities of Housing Claremont and Claremont Tenants United. Attend a city council meeting once in a while. 

You may not agree with all of the solutions proposed—I certainly don’t. But at least the residents, activists, and leaders involved have an understanding of the problems. That’s more that can be said for many of us students. 

I’ll default to one of my favorite lines from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. We enjoy “the goods” of Claremont as mere tenants, without a “spirit of ownership” that motivates us to propose—or at the very least, ponder—improvements. We sit back and wait for that amorphous “government” to fix things, sapping our own political willpower all the while. 

If we’re going to live in a place for four years, using its utilities and patronizing its businesses, we need to pay attention to its developments. We’re not squatters.