Friday Mailbag

The proposted 7-Eleven at Foothill Blvd. and Mills Ave. received a final "No" vote from Claremont's Planning Commission Tuesday night. The commission voted 5-2 for the denial of the 7-Eleven's conditional use permit. Wes Woods II has an article about the meeting in the Daily Bulletin.

According to Woods' article, the 7-Eleven applicant has until March 23 to appeal the CUP denial to the Claremont City Council.

On that subject, a reader wrote us our recent comparison of the 7-Eleven CUP and the Padua Theatre:

SUBJECT: 7-Eleven Padua Hills Theatre
DATE: Wed, March 3, 2010 7:33:52 PM
TO: Claremont Buzz

I was really sorry to have missed the 7-Eleven community meeting. I live on Via Padova and I'm so glad The Insider caught the 7-Eleven and Padua Hills Theatre incident. The Insider as usual hit the nail on the head in the inconsistencies that Claremont shows. Least we forget in our fair city it is who you know and what you can do for them that counts.

As for the 12,000-21,000 in sales revenue I highly doubt that will be gobbled up in law enforcement costs, unless we are talking about a donut shop.

I do find issuing an alcohol license where the proprietor [Padua Theater operator Chantrelles Catering] is requesting alcohol be allowed to be served from 9:00 am-2:00 am, 7 days a week, extreme in a totally residential neighborhood in the most northern la de da part of Claremont. I know of no other precedence set nor of any other city that this has been or would be allowed. But, then again I know of no other city quite like that of Claremont. They do take the cake and they should eat it too.

* * * * *

And then there was this note about some not-so-subtle manipulation by Mercedes Santoro's Human Services Department:

SUBJECT: Using Black Kids
DATE: Mon, February 22, 2010 1:55:13 PM
TO: Claremont Buzz
Dear Buzz,

At the Claremont City Community Budget Workshop on February 16, 2010, three black youths testified in support of the Youth Activity Center (YAC). What made me notice that testimony was the fact that no youths of other racial groups were present to offer their testimony for the YAC program. I also noticed that a staff member from the Human Services Department sat at the same table with the black youths. Coincidence? Maybe! Nevertheless, this seating arrangement made me wonder if the staff person was orchestrating the black youths' testimony. It appeared to me that the staff was - questionably - manipulating public opinion by "using" the black youths.

Why am I concerned? I believe that the YAC program serves youths of various races in the city. Were the black youths the only ones who were concerned about the fate of the program? Or are the black youths the only ones who need the program as their "concern" and presence seemed to imply? I would like to believe that this was all coincidence, but it appeared awfully suspicious that only black youths were the ones sufficiently concerned about the YAC that they came to testify, sitting at the same table with the staff from the Human Services Department which oversees the program.

We don't know, but we've certainly seen this sort of manipulation in the past. We remember nine years ago during the all hoopla over the Padua Park planning process some folks showing up at more than one meeting with a gaggle of children dressed up their soccer or baseball or softball uniforms.

We've also seen plenty of manipulation of Claremont's vaunted public process by people like former Police Commission chair and League of Women Voters doyenne Helaine Goldwater who stand in the foyer of the council chambers deciding who in the assembled group speaks, what part of the overall message they are to deliver, and in what order they are supposed to go.

In the bygone days of the Southard administration, staff contributed to the show as well, offering up reports to buttress the message du jour, and the councils and commissions of those times would echo what the speakers said, often using the same catchphrases heard in public comment (remember words like those old LWV favorites, "vision" and "consensus"?). This still happens, though there is more independence on the council and commissions than we ever saw in the past.

What our Claremonsters never realized, and what some of this city's staff still don't get, is that in the long run, those manipulations end up undermining their credibility and insults their audience. The public is generally more sophisticated than it gets credit for, and people have enough common sense to know when a message fails to ring true.

In any case, it all strikes us as simply more of the faux-liberalism that Official Claremont has showcased for the past 30 years or so. For better or worse, this is still Inland Empire; West L.A. we are not.

City of Trees Strikes Again

The news about the damage done to the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park by a bulldozer hired by the city's Community Services Department has been percolating through town ever since Tuesday's City Council meeting. The bulldozer apparently scraped a swath 100 feet or more wide along the Thompson Creek, from the lower end of Via Padova up to the Padua Hills Theatre.

Wednesday's Claremont Courier carried a letter from a reader who was outraged about the city's carelessness:

Plants, rocks and topsoil have been shoved into the creek bed, virtually destroying the fragile riparian habitat. Native oak trees have been partially buried by mounds of dirt and rocks and, in places the streambed itself has been buried under dirt, rocks and debris. The slope uphill from the streambed is now vulnerable to severe erosion. Before native plants can re-establish themselves, mustard and other non-native invasive species will turn the once pristine hillside into yet another ecological disaster.

Yes, protection from wild fires is important. Yes, the Vegetation Management Plan provides for brush removal. Yes, the Plan is sensitive to the preservation of hillside growth. The Vegetation Management Plan prohibits the use of bulldozers to clear brush and other vegetation.

In the past, Claremont has shown its disregard for protecting our endangered hillsides. By failing to follow the Vegetation Management Plan in prior years, the City added to the destruction of the fire that destroyed many homes adjacent to the Wilderness Park; that negligence cost the City $17,500,000 when it lost the suit brought against it for its failure to abide by the Plan.

Today's Daily Bulletin also had an article by reporter Wes Wood II, who noted that the city is acknowledging the error, which may end up costing $200,000 or more to fix:

"We made a mistake," said City Manager Jeff Parker on Thursday.

Community Services Director Scott Carroll apologized at Tuesday's City Council meeting for what happened at the park in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The Los Angeles County Fire Department required the city to clear brush in the park, Parker said. The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Vegetation Management Plan from 2003 states that only manual clearing can be used.

Carroll said Thursday in a separate interview the city was trying to get the brush cleared in a cost-effective manner and didn't want to "eat up the budget" with the use of manual clearing.

Parker said he plans to have a walk through the damaged area on Monday, get bids to put the area back into shape and then hold a community meeting to discuss everything as soon as Sept. 22.

"My intention with the community meeting is to get those with interests in the issue to get all on the same page," Parker said.

He said the city would have to look at all the information with experts before determining the final cost of the repair but would pay the more than $200,000 in damages if the amount is found to be accurate.

Padua Hills Community Association board member Gary Mizumoto described Parker's words as a good first step if the city does not "do it on the cheap."

Well, that's always the danger, isn't it? The city spares no expense on things like a $1,290,000 trackless trolley or the $10 million Village Expansion parking structure, but will try to cut every corner possible when it comes to its pledges to maintain its property.

Photos of the damage have been circulating town this past week, and we finally received some copies we can post. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words:

(Click on images to enlarge)
City of Trees I


City of Trees II


City of Trees III


City of Trees IV