by Andrew Alonzo | aalonzo@claremont-courier.com

After sometimes fiery deliberation, the Claremont City Council voted 3-2 Tuesday to approve a tract map for a new 70-unit development in south Claremont, with Mayor Corey Calaycay and Council member Sal Medina voting no.

The decision means Irvine-based developers City Ventures can subdivide 2.67 acres of land south of Motel 6 along American Avenue for a proposed 70-unit, Spanish-style townhouse condominium project.

“We’re excited to work with Claremont again to put together this housing project,” City Ventures Development Director Patrick Chien said after Tuesday’s meeting. “I’m working right now with the building department and public works departments to start securing those permits.”

Chien declined to report the price tag for the land deal between City Ventures and Motel 6 because escrow had not yet closed.

Ahead of deliberations, City Attorney Alisha Patterson warned the city could face lawsuits from City Ventures and housing advocacy groups if it denied the motion to approve the tract map, adding a potential court case would be difficult to win and would likely cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Patterson said if the city fought the potential court case and lost, and continued to deny the project despite a court order, it could face additional fees and civil penalties between $700,000 and $3.5 million. The state could also revoke its certification of Claremont’s housing element, she added.

Council member Ed Reece said his heart was “not entirely with this project.”

“Let me be unequivocally clear, especially for the Courier: tonight is a painful illustration of the erosion of local control,” Reece said. “Our options have been reduced to approving this development or enduring an unwinnable legal battle that will drain our resources by over $3.5 million, only to be compelled by a judge to allow it regardless. This isn’t a true choice, it’s the state using financial leverage as a strong-arm tactic. So, it’s with a heavy heart and no small measure of internal conflict that I will vote yes on the proposed item. It is the fiscally responsible decision, one made to protect our city from devastating financial harm.”

Council member Jed Leano voted yes as well.

“But let me just be very clear, if this were not subject to the Housing Accountability Act, I would still gladly vote yes,” Leano said. “And the reason is because we’re in the grips of a crippling housing crisis.”

Calaycay and Medina voted no because Claremont did not have a say in the project’s development throughout the hearing process. Medina called the hearing process “smoke and mirrors.”

“I do believe that this was a process by which the state tells the city what to do, and we move along with a process of smoke and mirrors,” Medina said. “I think that this activity has shown that whatever what was asked of the developer, the developer was going to do what the developer was allowed to do by state law.

“I am definitely voting in opposition of this project because I believe that a unanimous vote of this project or such will allow this developer to go to another community and speak about how great they are, but what they will do is line their pockets and go into another community and potentially do more damage than good.”

Calaycay has long contended Sacramento has stripped Claremont of its local control when it comes to housing.

“As I cast my vote tonight, there are some who may say I’m fiscally irresponsible to be willing to take that kind of risk,” Calaycay said. “But at some point, to prove to my citizens that I’m prepared to fight for you, I need to be prepared to do that, and I’m prepared to do that tonight.”

Calaycay’s animosity over what he considers overreach by the state was palpable.

“Bottom line, you know, I object to this process,” he said. “Don’t make us accessories to your development, state. If you want to do it, fine, force it on the community, but you take responsibility for it. Don’t bring it into a kangaroo court and put me in the embarrassing situation of really not having any right to say anything because the way you’ve set up the rules, it’s not in my favor to be able to question anything.”

Units at the proposed development would range from 1,155- to 1,639 square feet, with floor plans featuring two-, three-, and four-bedroom units. Seven units would be reserved for moderate income earners, three for low-income, per the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. A majority of the development is for three-story units. Those within 57 feet of eastern backyards on Drake Avenue will be two stories, according to the staff report.

The next Claremont City Council meeting takes place at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 24.