Council Meets Tonight

One side effect of Claremont's budget problems is that they've used a good chunk of the Great Recession spending their way into a hole that, absent any additional federal stimulus money, will take a few years to recover from. That means no more big budget busting municipal projects (i.e., a new police station or a water company takeover). Fiscal responsibility, like it or not, has been imposed on Claremont.

Another effect (benefit?) of Claremont's financial woes is that City Council meetings are likely to be shorter because fewer big projects mean less time taken up by staff reports and comments, public comment, legal advice from City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, and the councilmembers' questions and opinions.

We'll see if tonight's City Council regular meeting runs under two hours. The council convenes at 5:15pm for a special closed session meeting that covers ongoing negotiations with the Claremont Police Management Association and the Claremont Police Officers Association.

The regular session begins at 6:30pm in the council chambers at 225 2nd St. in downtown Claremont. You can read the agenda here. If you're a glutton for punishment, or if the Lakers are getting walloped, you can subject yourself to a live feed of the meeting here.

On the council's plate tonight are:

• A hike in recreational user fees (to be expected given the tight budget). You'll pay a couple bucks more this year for a ticket to the City's 4th of July fireworks show, and things like swim programs will cost more. See the staff report for the new fee schedule.
  
  
• The annual engineer's report for the Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD). The report recommends an increase of 1.86%, mirroring the year-over-year rise in the consumer price index for Southern California as of March, 2010.
  
  For most single-family residences, this translates to an increase of $2.72, from $147.12 to $149.84. Properties with larger lots pay more. The increase is based on the consumer price index for Southern California.
  
  Those of you who've been around for a while know the history of the LLD. It's what really one of the first things got people thinking about how City Hall manages our finances.
  
  
• An update on the restoration Sycamore Canyon Park, which was damaged in the 2003 Grand Prix Fire. The park has been closed since that time. The City has secured $180,000 in grant funding, and will proceed with restoring the trail and picnic areas. The City will also remove non-native eucalyptus trees and plant sycamores and oaks. Work is expected to commence this coming fall and finish sometime next winter.
  
  
• A report on the traffic signal at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. You'll recall there were several pedestrian accidents there before the City, bowing to pressure from the neighborhood, installed the signal last month.
  
  
• An update on the City's abandoned property ordinance. The staff report by Community Development Director Tony Witt for this item says there are currently 150 Claremont properties in some stage of foreclosure. The City has levied over $120,000 in fines under the ordinance, and around $22,000 has gone uncollected.

City Council Meeting

6:30 PM
225 W. 2nd St. - City Council Chamber
Claremont

7-Eleven: Community Meeting Tonight

The issue of the proposed 7-Eleven in the empty building at the northeast corner of Mills Ave. and Foothill Blvd. is apparently still alive, even though Claremont's Planning Commission voted 6-1 to have city staff draft a denial of the 7-Eleven's conditional use permit application at their February 16 meeting.

We didn't see an announcement for the meeting on the City's website, but we did catch a letter in Saturday's Claremont Courier from resident Jennifer Jaffe--as well as a short article on p. 5-- saying that Claremont Community Development Director Tony Witt has scheduled a community meeting 7pm tonight in the City Council chambers at 225 Second St. in downtown Claremont.

According to Jaffe's letter, "the meeting is intended to provide dialogue between the applicant and the community." Jaffe comes out against the 7-Eleven, and she hopes that others will attend and speak out. Jaffe also said the matter comes back to the Planning Commission at their Tuesday, March 2 meeting. That meeting is at 7pm Tuesday in the council chambers.

You might recall that the planning commissioners expressed their concerns about the issues residents raised about the proposed convenience store. The Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II reported some of the issues raised at that last Planning Commission meeting:

Lauri Harrison, a resident who lives on Clarion Place, said, "We don't need another place with access to alcohol."

Other residents discussed the possible crime and police issues such a business would cause.

"It seems to me we need to consider the fact the $12,000 to $21,000 in sales tax will be offset by law enforcement costs," Tess Henry told the commission.

The funny thing about the Planning Commission vote is that a different set of residents expressed exactly the same concerns about the City granting the Padua Hills Theatre operators, Chantrelles Catering and Arteco Partners, a conditional use permit to serve alcohol. In fact, the concern about proximity to residences was even greater there, since the Padua Theatre is completely surrounded by single-family homes, some within 100 feet of the theatre. The 7-Eleven site is at least situated on Foothill Blvd., a main, four-lane road, as opposed to the Padua Theatre, whose access is Padua Ave. and Via Padova, both small, curving, two-lane, residential streets.

It seems to us that the City is being awfully inconsistent here. Either they should grant the 7-Eleven their CUP, or they should revoke the one for the Padua Theatre. We don't particularly care one way or the other, but we do believe the City has a duty to act fairly and consistently towards all applicants and residents. The City's inconsistent stances on the 7-Eleven and the Padua Theatre demonstrate precisely how arbitrary Claremont's official processes operate.

Once again, the Official Claremont finds itself hoisted on its own petard.

Claremontian's New Digs - UPDATED

The Claremontian has moved from Wordpress to the social networking site Ning. You can find the new site here. We've updated the link on the sidebar to the left.

The new and improved (see, Tony Witt, we can do that Madison Avenue stuff too!) Claremontian has a number of improved features. Mostly, it operates like a localized Twitter but with more content. You have to register to become a member. It doesn't cost anything, though. The Claremontian also accepts paid advertisements.

The Claremontian belongs to Claremont resident Richard Mancuso [Mancuso's bio updated from the Claremontian, May 13, 8:40pm]:

Richard Mancuso (Founder):

I am a 15 year old local high school student from Claremont, CA. I am a musician, student, blogger, and social media and technology enthusiast who wanted to start a website where you could find everything about Claremont. I originally started a blog called the Claremontian in December of 2008 where you could find news stories and more; however, it wasn't really what I wanted. I wanted more of a fun social network that would allow you to connect with people who live close by. I also wanted users to be able to post almost any content imaginable. This is just what we did with the new website claremontian.com. Right now the company is small, with just my friend and me running the site, but we will hopefully be adding a couple of others as the site begins to grow. You can find my personal blog here. Add me as a friend on the Claremontian. Follow me on Twitter. Friend me on Facebook. Thanks to all those who are participating in the site and for spreading the word! Check back soon for updates.

The Claremontian is offering a live City Council meeting chat tonight at 6:30pm. You can watch the council's video feed and comment if you like.

And, Claremont's goofiest councilmember, Sam Pedroza, is listed as a featured Claremontian member and has his own blog on the site. Sam apparently wanted to display his wisdom in a more wordy venue than Twitter. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, says the ever-changeable Sam.

Quite a contrast, by the way, to Pedroza's soliloquy at a council meeting last October:

Claremont, Arteco: Bad Neighbors?

The Claremont Planning Commission meets tonight at 7pm in the City Council Chambers in Claremont's City Hall.

Item number two on the agenda is the Arteco Partners proposal for the Padua Theatre. City staff is recommending that the commission adopt a resolution stating that Arteco's requested uses for the theatre are consistent with the Claremont Hills Specific Plan.

The staff report on the Arteco item by the city's senior planning incompetent Lisa Prasse (a holdover from the Glenn Southard administration) cites the sections of the Specific Plan that are supposed to support the resolution.

Naturally, as a reader informs us, Prasse's staff report is completely wrong in its arguments. There's been no active Padua Theatre in over 30 years. In the meantime, residential areas - approved by past Claremont City Councils and Planning Commissions - have surrounded the location. The theatre is currently used only on weekends for weddings.

Further, when the theatre was active, it was dry - no alcohol. Arteco, however, anticipates a possible restaurant and daily events with alcohol served. Historically, contrary to the staff report, the activity was far different from the ones being planned.

Similarly, there was no bed-and-breakfast business at the theatre. This is an entirely new activity, and one is now planned to be placed there. So, the argument that there was a historical use for a B & B also fails.

Given those factors, the reader says what is required here is an amendment to the Specific Plan. Prasse and the City are trying to cut corners in order to please the Claremonsters and Arteco. Not very neighborly, the reader says, and possible grounds for litigation.

* * *

Item number four on the Planning Commission's agenda is a discussion of mansionization. Here is staff report by the city's Director of Community Development, Tony Witt, or T. Witt, as he is known in some circles.

Claremont Planning Commission Meeting - 7pm
Claremont City Council Chambers
225 W. 2nd St.
Claremont

Claremont's Planned Economy

SALON MAKEOVER

Will Bigham writes in the Daily Bulletin that the Claremont Planning Commission last week rejected the Chamber of Commerce-backed plan to place strict limits on new beauty salons in town. Bigham's article explains:

The salon law was proposed because officials from the city and Chamber of Commerce felt the Village was losing its "balance" between salons and other types of stores.

There are nearly 25 salons in the Village, and more have approached the city seeking to open in vacant storefronts.

The city's proposed ordinance would prohibit any more salons from opening in first-floor, street-level shops. Salons would be permitted to open in alleys and upstairs areas in the Village.

The Planning Commission rejected the proposed ban by a 4-2 vote. One Planning Commissioner was quoted in the Bulletin as thinking this sort of legislation might involve a little too much micro-management:

"I felt it was an unwarranted government intrusion into the local economy," said Commissioner Jeff Hammill, who opposed the ban. "I just felt that, while having a variety of businesses in the Village ... is important, to go about it in this manner I didn't feel was appropriate."

"I feel that history has shown us that centralized planning of the economy doesn't work," Hammill added. "And this felt a lot like that."

Apparently, Planning Commissioner Tom Lamb was correct back in January when he defended the commission as having a bit of an independent streak. Of course, the City Council may not approve of the commission's reasoning.

According to the Bulletin article, the ban can be revisited and the Planning Commission overruled if four of the five councilmembers are in favor of the ban. The article stated that Claremont Mayor Peter Yao and Councilmember Linda Elderkin have already expressed a willingness to impose the ban.

We wonder how that squares with Elderkin's love of process and the general concern about respecting the work of Claremont's commissions? Apparently that respect only comes into play when Elderkin and others want it to. It's just another example of the arbitrary nature of Claremont's way of governing.

Expect Mayor Yao to place the matter on the council's agenda for the March 25th meeting. If it's not then, Mayor-to-be Ellen Taylor will likely push it soon after that.

We're not necessarily fans of beauty salons, and we would much rather have the old Powell's Hardware in where the Urban Renewal Salon took over on Yale Ave. However, who can really dictate what mix of businesses will or won't make it? Isn't it really the consumer who decides?

(Except when it's the City Manager. How many remember Fedorico's, a great and popular eatery that occupied what is now the twee-decorated gap in the buildings on the west side of Yale, between First and Second Streets? Glenn Southard took a wrecking ball to it. The given reason was to provide access to parking. Sure solved the parking problem, didn't it?)

Today, it's beauty salons. What's it going be tomorrow? Wine shops? Bakeries? Ice cream parlors?

As long as we're being arbitrary, how about considering a ban on a few types of Claremont 400-inspired businesses:

• Tax attorneys' offices on Indian Hill Blvd.
  We already have one too many of these. Queen Ellen manages her husband's law office at Indian Hill and Second St.
  


• Photography studios on First St.
  One too many of these, also. Claremont Chamber of Commerce President Sonja Stump's photo business is at First between Harvard and Yale Aves.
  


• Family law attorneys on Yale Ave.
  Two too many of these. Former Claremont Mayors Sandra Baldonado and Paul Held have their practices across from one another on Yale.

Yes, ladies and gents, we think Claremont's economic picture would brighten considerably if the above blighted areas were removed and redeveloped into more constructive businesses, like pet grooming or skateboard shops. A 7-Eleven, even.

Remember, these are the same people who are spending $887,000 over three years to test run a faux trolley shuttle service to span six square blocks downtown at an estimated cost of over $10 per passenger.


A PROVEN TRACK RECORD

The Claremont 400 and their loyal city staffers, Claremont Housing and Redevelopment Manager Brian Desatnik and Community Development Director Tony Witt, certainly have a less-than-stellar record for finding the right mix of businesses and for designing a well-planned commercial environment.

We've written recently about the Claremont Village Expansion's growing pains. Now comes this news via one of our readers:

Subject: Red Line Store in Packing House

The Red Line Store, next door to the Maui Wowi coffee shop, has a "For Lease" sign in its window.

And this:

Buzz,

Looks like one of the Packing House businesses is closing. Redline has a For Lease sign up. I'm attaching a photo I snapped this morning.

In the Eye of the Beholder

We received this email last Tuesday about a KCBS-2 news crew in the Claremont village last Tuesday:

My daughter and I noticed the CBS van on First street, and this evening's news ch 2 said Claremont was going to Planning commission to ban salons from the downtown village... interviewed an older couple and an owner... A city official on camera too....

Thanks for all you do to keep us up to date!

The beauty salon story got some coverage from reporter Will Bigham in the Daily Bulletin:

CLAREMONT - There are as many as 25 beauty salons in the Village, and city leaders say enough is enough.

With the blessing of the Chamber of Commerce, city officials have begun crafting a new law that would prohibit new beauty salons from opening in street-level, storefront Village locations.

In the city's downtown Village, there are many types of beauty businesses - hair salons, nail salons, barbers and day spas. On some blocks, there are three or four different salons.

City officials worry that the increasing number of salons is disrupting the balance between retail and service shops in the Village. And more new salons are seeking space in the Village, officials say.

"We have a few vacant spots right now, and we're getting inquiries about additional (salons) coming in," said Tony Witt, director of community development.

The Planning Commission is expected to consider an ordinance to regulate salons at its meeting March 4, said Belle Newman, principal planner.

We kept an eye out for a link to the KCBS news clip and finally found one. Tony Witt got his Warholian 15 minutes with a little face time in an interview with the KCBS reporter.

This Week's Meetings

COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING

The Claremont City Council will be holding another of its closed session meetings this Tuesday at 5:15pm.

The meeting will be in the City Council chambers at City Hall, which is located at 207 Harvard Ave. in the Claremont Village. As usual, the closed session will precede the regular council meeting.

The closed meeting will allow the council to discuss the possible purchase of the Golden State Water company's water utility for Claremont. Price and terms will be the topic of the discussion.


COLLEGE PARK LIGHTING

And the winning bid is... Musco Lighting Company of Muscatine, Iowa.

At least, that's city staff's recommendation to the city council this week for the 6 new sports lighting standards at baseball field #2 in Claremont's College Park. That award of the lighting bid is on the agenda for Tuesday's regular council meeting, which begins at 6:30pm.

No surprise here. Not that Musco's products are necessarily the best or most cost effective. Mayor Peter Yao had asked staff for an comparative analysis of the Musco lights with other products, including those manufactured by a company called Softlite Lighting Systems, but staff gave their usual thumb to the nose response to Yao's request for information.

Musco is the big dog among sports light manufacturers, but control of market share does not necessarily mean that any company produces the best product - just ask Mac users if a PC is a better computer.

Musco's size and sales force does enable them to provide certain services like "expert" lighting studies for project environmental impacts reports, such as the one they did for Claremont's Padua Park. It isn't really surprising that once Musco's experts make their findings, that their lights find their way into city parks.

Musco's sports lights, by the way, may not necessarily be the best product to fit Claremont's new sustainabilty push, but of course the people pushing that initiative, such as Planning Commissioner Bob Tener, have remained typically silent on what has to be the city's single largest electrical expense.

The staff report states that Musco was the lowest "responsive and responsible" bidder. Only one other company, Qualite-Mark V Design, was listed as having bid on the College Park lights.

Qualite-Mark was actually lower than the Musco bid ($47,856.65 vs. $50,132.74), but apparently Qualite-Mark ranked lower in responsiveness and/or responsibility. Or so says the staff report by Claremont Human Services Director Jeff Porter. No word on how the Musco lights compare to other products in terms of spillover, glare or energy efficiency, all things that one would think the city's sustainability task force ought to be concerned about.

If you are curious about this, ask about it Tuesday night. You're sure to get that special, assuring Porter fast talk. Don't expect any real answers though.

Musco's sports lighting standards do offer one thing that other companies' products apparently don't: They can be used for cellular phone towers. Look for more of these things in Claremont city parks in the future.


AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE

The city's affordable housing task force is also on the council's agenda for Tuesday. The task force's job will be to identify possible affordable housing sites now that the Base Line Rd. project is on hold.

The staff report on the subject is signed by Tony Witt and Brian Desatnik, two holdovers from the Glenn Southard-era in Claremont. Witt and Desatnik say that Councilmembers Linda Elderkin and Sam Pedroza want to be on the two-person Ad Hoc Committee to interview prospective task force members.

Don't be surprised Elderkin and Pedroza to freeze out people who had been opposed to the Base Line Rd. project and to load up on their cronies. We suspect the two haven't learned a thing about coalition building and want to punish the Base Line Rd. project opponents by not allowing them a voice on the new task force.

Now, tell us if this makes any sense to you. A faulty project is pushed by a group of Claremont insiders (small "i") who refused to listen to any voices outside their little group. The project fails as predicted. An ad hoc committee is then formed and stocked with the same people responsible for the initial, failed project to the exclusion of alternate, more reasonable voices.

Does anyone see another trainwreck coming?


COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP

Finally, for you policy wonks out there, the City Council will hold a special budget workshop on Wednesday, February 27th, at 6:30pm. The meeting will be held in the college room of the Alexander Hughes Community Center at 1700 N. Danbury Rd.

You can read more in the meeting's agenda packet.

A Nail in the Coffin or a Stake through the Heart?

Baseline Project, Not Kids, On Life Support

There has been quite a buzz the last day or two among the In The Know here in Claremont. We began to hear rumors of it yesterday, or was it the day before? We are sure those inveterate Meeting-Goers and Agency-Watchers have been aware of it for awhile. We are always the last to find out.

Seems that someone heard from a friend who was at a meeting sitting next to a guy who had talked to someone whose aunt's step-daughter dates a guy who is on staff at either the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles or the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles.

One of these agencies, or both, have just released guidelines on how to apply to receive the mystical City of Industry Money (see link here) as part of the financing for your friendly, neighborhood affordable housing package: up to $3,000,000 loaned at 3% simple interest for a 55 year term. Sweet deal if you can get it.

Those of us who go way back in the Baseline affordable housing discussion--say, two or three years--recall that the financing for the project was to be put together from a variety of sources. In January 24, 2006 staff report, Tony Witt and Brian Desatnik said,

Affordable rental developments are typically built by non-profit development companies that specialize in affordable rental housing. They are skilled at compiling very complex financing packages, and have management divisions with experience in regulatory compliance for the various funding programs...

The funding programs for this type of housing development area a mixture of federal, state, and local redevelopment. Due to the complexity of the financing...

The magical mystical City of Industry Money was supposed to be a piece of this funding package--maybe a quarter or so. Two, three million dollars; something like that.

Here's the problem, and the reason for the aforementioned buzz: The guidelines from the county agencies (also aforementioned) state the following on page 6: Funds may NOT be used for the following activities [skipping now to the point]: Projects located within 500 feet of a freeway or a major urban roads.

Thus, the League of Women Voters' close-to-heart Baseline site for the affordable housing projects is also a little too close-to-the-freeway. Doesn't qualify for the County Scratch.

Maybe this explains the two closed session meetings of the City Council since the holidays with Marc Gelman of Enhanced Affordable Development. We know from the January 8 meeting, that he was looking for some "considerations". That is Mayor Yao's way of referring obliquely to money, kale, lettuce, moohlah, scratch, greenbacks, or baksheesh.

More later, but unless the Federal Reserve can drop the interest rate back down to near-zero, this project may not pencil out. Look for more turmoil here.

Photo Op

Canan Tasci in the Daily Bulletin had a writeup of Saturday's unveiling of the PhotoBooth Community Art Project.

The project was commissioned by the Claremont Museum of Art and is the work of Bay Area artist Christopher Irion, who back in October set up a photo booth and took over 200 photos of area residents and put them into a 72-foot long mural installed between the College Heights Lemon Packing House and the new parking structure on 1st St.

Claremont Community Development Director Tony Witt (twice) and Human Services Deputy Director Mercedes Santoro are represented in the work ($330,000 in salaries in benefits - your tax dollars hard at work). Councilmember Sam Pedroza and his wife are also among the faces on display. A lot of ordinary folks appear as well.

The Bulletin also has a video of the unveiling and photos of the event on their website.

Claremont City Manager Pulls Agenda Item on Parking--Was it the Insider?

Prior to the main events of the Claremont City Council meeting tonight, City Manager Jeff Parker pulled consent agenda item 11 for "further analysis". We discussed this item here. We guess that Parker thought Witt and Desatnik were being a little too efficient. Or maybe he reads the Insider?