City Meetings

Only two more Claremont City Council meetings to go until the council's annual August break. Here's what to expect tonight in the council chambers at 225 Second St. in the Claremont Village:


CLOSED SESSION

The Claremont City Council will meet in closed session at 5:15pm for a super secret briefing from City Manager Jeff Parker on negotiations with the Claremont police rank-and-file and management associations.

The council will also discuss a liability claim against the City by Kiran Se Corporation, the company that wanted to put a 7-Eleven convenience store in the prize-winning building at 601 E. Foothill Blvd. Seems understandable - the Kiran Se people were encouraged by city staff to proceed with their plans and then had their feet knocked out from underneath them when citizens complained about the proposed store for a variety of reasons (pedestrian safety, worries about binge drinking by college students, the usual Claremont snootiness).

In keeping with a long-standing Claremont tradition, we can probably expect a lawsuit by Kiran Se Corp., which has filed a claim against the the City of Claremont for unspecified damages. We're not sure how far that will go, though. As we recall, Kiran Se withdrew its appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of their Conditional Use Permit, so they did not exhaust their administrative remedies.

If you're interested, you can read the closed session agenda here.


REGULAR SESSION

As usual, the council's regular session begins at 6:30pm. You can see the meeting streamed online or watch it later. Just click here.

It's a light agenda.

The consent calendar shows that the City will likely deny a claim for property damage due to the construction of Padua Park.

The public hearings portion of the regular session will take up the matter of Claremont's crosswalk policy with a recommendation to not have new crosswalks installed on Mountain Ave. between Foothill Blvd. and Harrison Ave.--something that may ruffle some feathers in the neighborhoods along Mountain.

City staff is also recommending revising the City's system of in-lieu parking credits by introducing a second price tier. Businesses in the Claremont Village have a certain number of so-called parking credits that are supposed to reflect the number of actual parking spaces a business requires for customers and employees. The number is dependent on the type of business. Retailers have fewer parking credits than restaurants because stores generally don't bring in as many customers restaurants.

The parking credits can become a problem when someone wants to convert shop space into a restaurant. Under the City's current policy, that businessperson would have to pay $9,000 for every parking space deficiency they had under the formula used by city staff. The City allows businesses to purchase credits in lieu of having the actual spaces available. The proposed modification to the in-lieu parking credit policy would be to create a second tier at $1,000 per credit. The new tier would apply only to businesses employing more than 15 people or that will bring in over $500,000 annually.

We found the way City Hall looks at parking very illustrative of the general myopia afflicting our fair city. According to Housing and Redevelopment Manager Brian Desatnik's report for this agenda item, the council's recently passed resolution 97-105 states:

The Village is a mixed use neighborhood as well as a City center. People desiring to visit the Village should be able to park there. However, people should not expect that parking be available immediately adjacent to the business or place to which they are destined. The supply of parking shall not be deemed a problem as long as persons visiting a Village destination can park somewhere in the Village.

Notice that it's the City defining the parking problem. If you're from out of town and you stop in the Village to buy something, you should know that you have no right to expect to park near your destination. If you think there's a problem here, you are wrong, says Claremont.

Like many area residents, we know what to expect with Village parking, so we don't begrudge a little walk. Neither we nor the City, however, gets to define the problem. Customers and visitors do, and they'll vote with their wheels if they find the parking arrangements inconvenient.

By the way, the Conscious Claremont blog has an interesting take on this issue. They're attributing this parking policy redefinition solely to one location: the old Casa Flores building at 232 Yale Ave. Conscious Claremont says:

But, after taking a longer view, I suspect this policy may be created specifically for the Casa Flores location---there are few cases with usage change [i.e. retail to restaurant]. I was told the $150,000 CDBG grant has been earmarked for this property---the proof seems to be the lack of advertising about the funds availability, & a year has gone by with no takers. This would fit the pattern of altering general policy to facilitate specific plans.

Um, excuse us, but did we miss the City Council meeting the disposition of that $150,000 Community Development Block Grant was decided? Who decided this? If true, it's just another case of the way public policy is decided in Claremont..


WEDNESDAY, JULY 14 - COUNCIL MEETING WITH SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH

Now we know why Claremont lets L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich ride in the City's annual 4th of July parade. It requires a lot of buttering up to secure those much-needed county grant dollars for the city's projects.

Tomorrow at 8am, the council will hold its annual meeting with Antonovich. The meeting will take place in the Citrus Room, right above the council chambers.

The council has four items on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting:

• Sycamore Canyon Park
  
• The College Ave. affordable housing project
  
• Funding for more open space
  
• Library hours
  

These are all items involving county funds. Come on out and watch the supplicants perform.

Municipal Ordnance

As Daily Bulletin columnist David Allen pointed out last month, there was more than the usual amount of Claremont irony in the town's Architectural Commission Excellence in Design awards.

That empty commercial building at 601 E. Foothill Blvd., the one that was the proposed site for a 7-Eleven convenience store, was one of the seven award recipients. The award no doubt represents a consolation prize to the building owners, who haven't had one tenant since the building was completed (last year? 2008?). Sorta says, "No hard feelings. See, we're not so bad."

Claremont can be an awfully difficult place to do business, mostly because of the interference of our dear Claremonsters, most of whom have never successfully made or sold anything. They are for the most part dilettantes like our town historian, former mayor Judy Wright, or they're in the service sector like former mayor, former school board member, and former Chamber of Commerce chair Paul Held, who has a Claremont-centric family law practice. And that all goes a long way towards explaining Official Claremont's poor understanding of the concerns of people running reality-centric businesses.

All this got us to thinking that the Architectural Commission might want to think seriously about giving their award a snappier title. Here is our humble offering (given to the the commission free of charge - our civic duty, you know): The Claremont Neutron Bomb Award, after the Cold War tactical WMD of choice.

The neutron bomb's main selling point, you'll recall, was that it eliminated people but left most structures standing, similar to what the Claremont 400's tried to do to citizens and businesses alike over the years. So, the neutron bomb was immensely attractive to the realty crowd (another important Claremont interest group). After all, human assets can be replaced much more easily than infrastructure. Think redevelopment, except with people.

Given the current economic climate, there very well could be many more empty buildings around in the future, and that would drive down the town's image. But winning an award goes a long way toward softening bad publicity, a fact with which Claremont is well-acquainted.

We remember that in 2001, when City Hall was still suffering in the press (there were still such things back then) over the shooting death of African American teen Irvin Landrum after a traffic stop by Claremont PD, Claremont's then-Human Services Director Dick Guthrie applied for and received a Helen Putnam Award for Excellence from the League of California Cities for its response to crisis. Needless to say, the award came several years before the issue was resolved. The City's main response up to that point had been a mostly notional heads-in-the-sand one: "You can't see me if I can't see you."

Some things change, others are ever constant. Claremont's mayor at the time the award was announced? The aforementioned Paul Held, Esq., who, along with wife Kay, just last week was honored as the Grand Marshal of our annual 4th of July parade. Held, who as mayor seemed at war with certain Claremonters, could tell you that when things look bleakest, trot out an award.

Knock 'em dead, Claremont.

Unintended Consequences

It came as no surprise that the proposal for a 7-Eleven at the northwest corner of Mills Ave. and Foothill Blvd. bit the dust. The person whose conditional use permit application was rejected by Claremont's Planning Commission withdrew his appeal to the City Council at the end of March.

What was a surprise was that anyone would want to put a 7-Eleven in there in the first place. The way the building is situated on the site, with its back facing Foothill Blvd., always struck us as strange. The only access is from Mills Ave. and from the frontage road that runs parallel to Foothill. Laying the property out as it is now guaranteed complaints from residents who live along E. Morelia Dr., which connects to the frontage road, because some of the traffic leaving the site would inevitably have ended up on their narrow street.

Even worse for potential 7-Eleven customers was the exit from the site onto Mills Ave. The City planned on that particular exit being a right-turn only driveway. So, if you wanted to get from that exit to Foothill Blvd., you would have had to turn right, then make a U-turn farther up Mills.

Here is what the property looks like in its current configuration:

(Click to Enlarge)

7-Eleven site: 6/19/09

Why would anyone create such a cockamamie layout in the first place? The answer is that the property owners were following Claremont's "design vision" for the area. When the design was reviewed by Claremont's Architectural Commission on 7/25/07, city staff recommended approving the design. The staff report for that meeting said on page 3:

The proposal is well planned and makes efficient use of the property. The placement and height of the proposed building is consistent with the standards of the CH zoning district. The site plan is consistent with the city's design vision for Foothill Boulevard in that the building is placed adjacent to the street with the parking area to the north of the building, thereby minimizing the visibility of parking areas to the major street.

The site wasn't always laid out like as it is now. It used to be a Union 76 gas station with a building farther away from Foothill Blvd. than the current building. The location had four driveways rather than two, and two extra entrances opened onto Foothill, making it easier for traffic from the main road to get in and out easily.

Here is what the site used to look like:

7-Eleven site: 12/30/03

However well-intended the reasoning behind Claremont's design vision for Foothill Blvd., the result was a property that will be difficult to fill, and any business owner considering the site in the future will have to contend with its limitations, as well the perception that Claremont simply isn't a business-friendly town.

As always with our screwy town, there was some irony involved. On his COURIER City Beat blog, Tony Krickl posted a letter from one of his readers that addressed the 7-Eleven issue. If you listened closely to the complaints about the 7-Eleven, there was an undercurrent of snobbery in some (not all) of the comments. That haughty attitude is one Claremont has affected for years, probably all the way back to its founding.

The letter Krickl posted on his blog noted that Masatoshi Ito, who lent his name to the Peter Drucker & Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University, is the founder of the corporation that owns 7-Eleven. Not a 7-Eleven. Over 10,000 of them.

Krickl's reader said:

It was Peter Drucker's insistence that Ito's name be added to his school. Drucker was so impressed with Ito's customer focus success and highly ethical operation all grounded on principles learned by Ito from Drucker. Ito's monetary donations to the school was significant but far short of the level in getting his name on the school.

The dichotomy of the large number of Claremont residents demonizing 7-11 while the world renowned "management guru" having given this 7-11 owner the highest expression of praise.

So, to Ito-san, Claremont says, many thanks for any prestige that your name brings to CGU. Now leave.

7-Eleven Foes Take to Social Networking

You have to hand it to the residents who are fighting the proposed 7-Eleven convenience store at Foothill Blvd. and Mills Ave. Now that the applicant is appealing the Claremont Planning Commission's denial of the 7-Eleven's conditional use permit, the residents are gearing up to pressure the City Council into upholding the CUP denial.

Besides the expected opposition from the Preserve Our Neighborhoods (PON) group, whose attorney submitted a letter on behalf of PON to the Planning Commission, Claremont Courier reporter Tony Krickl writes on his COURIER City Blog that the 7-Eleven opponents have a Facebook page and even have a YouTube presentation:

It's a video posted on Youtube by David Sawhill, a resident who lives near the proposed 7-Eleven site. See below. Sawhill can't attend next Tuesday night's city council meeting due to an open house at Claremont High School where he works, so he's asked city staff to show the video during public comment in his absence.

Sawhill, by the way, is a graduate of the Claremont Colleges (Pitzer '01) and teaches math at Claremont High School. He is also a CHS yearbook adviser. In his video, Sawhill also tells us that he got his teaching credential at Claremont Graduate School. Sawhill may have a problem getting an airing of his video before the City Council: There's a four-minute limit on public comment and Sawhill's video runs over seven minutes. Then again, new mayor Linda Elderkin, who is against the 7-Eleven, may show her foolish consistency and allow the video to run.

As an aside, it strikes us as so typically Claremont how, whenever a group of neighbors opposes a project that most of the Claremont 400 would rather not have, the group is considered community activists. On the other hand, when a group opposes something the 400 is for, they are NIMBYs. These quintessential Claremont inconsistencies drive us nuts, and we have some more to illustrate on this and other subjects in the next week or two.

In any case, here's Sawhill's video:

Catching Up

CLAREMONT HOT TOPICS

Here are some updates on recent city issues:

• David Allen visited last week's Claremont City Council meeting and watched as the council approved an ordinance that allows drive-throughs in certain unimportant parts of town, such as south and northwest Claremont. Allen noted that Claremont already had a couple drive-through locations south of the 10 Freeway, and then he summed the issue up in one sentence:

  My assumption is that Claremont officials didn't mind if the area looked tacky because most people will assume it's in Pomona anyway.
  
  

• Allen also noted that the person who wants to put a 7-Eleven in the empty building at Foothill Blvd. and Mills Ave. is appealing the Planning Commission rejection of a conditional use permit for the business. The matter will now go to the City Council. The City's website has some information on the matter:
  

  7-11 Appeal Filed
  
  On March 2, 2010 the Planning Commission officially denied a request to allow the establishment of a 7-11 convenience store in a portion of the building located at 601 E. Foothill Boulevard. The proposal included the sale of beer and wine and 24 hour/ day operating hours. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision. The City Council will conduct an appeal hearing on Tuesday March 23, 2010 in the Council Chamber located at 225 W. Second Street. The appeal hearing will not commence before 7 pm. A copy of the appeal document is attached. For more information, please contact the Planning Division at 909-399-5470.
  
  * View the Appeal (Adobe Acrobat, 2964KB)
  

  
  We were surprised that the applicant is proposing to limit the 7-Eleven's hours of operation from 5am to 1am seven days a week. We don't know of any 7-Eleven stores that aren't open 24-7. But, this being Claremont, we have to do everything differently. Just because.
  
  
  
• The City's has settled its claim for the Dutch Elm that had to be removed from its spot at Indian Hill Blvd. and Tenth St. The City has posted this information:
  

  City Settles Claim for Dutch Elm Tree (Mar 10, 2010)
  
  The City has successfully settled the claim with Terno Construction and its insurance company over the removal of a Dutch Elm tree at the corner of Indian Hill Boulevard and Tenth Street. The City will be reimbursed $79,000 for the replacement of the tree.
  
  The City worked with an arborist to determine the value of the tree and costs associated with replacing it. The City asked for and received $79,000 for the cost of replacing the tree and to compensate for its loss. The City will use the funds to replace the tree after the signal installation is complete. The remaining funds will be used to address the backlog of trees that need replacing in the City.
  
  The contractor will have materials and hardware to finish the project within two weeks. Staff anticipates the work to be completed March 30, 2010.
  

  
  
• Allen also tells us on his blog that the future Cheese Cave on Yale Ave. has had some further versification.
  
  
  
• FiOS Update - A reader wrote in a while ago asking about the status of Verizon's fiber optic system installation north of Base Line Rd. We hadn't heard much about this issue lately, but the City is reporting that the installation has been halted because Verizon has a contractual obligation to complete installations in "diverse underserved cities" before it can finish in other more privileged areas such as Claremont:
  

  FIOS Halted In Claremont
  
  Verizon has temporarily halted the FiOS build in Claremont due to contractual agreements with the 18 Local Franchise Agreement cities. Where contracts to finish the builds in those cities have come due, Verizon is obligated to complete the builds per the contracts. Verizon is also obligated, as per our State Franchise, to complete a certain percentage of the FiOS build in diverse underserved cities in California. Claremont does not meet the criteria of a diverse underserved city. In order to meet this obligation, Verizon has had to step up the build in those cities. Verizon hopes to be back in Claremont to continue the FiOS build, however no date has been set. Residents may call Gary George, Verizon Director of Government & External Affairs at 909/261-0663.
  

  
  

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.

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.

Commissoners Nix 7-Eleven

To Claremont fans of extruded frozen beverages: Sorry, no Slurpees for you.

In case you didn't hear, the Claremont Planning Commission said no to a conditional use permit application for the proposed 7-Eleven that would have gone into the empty commercial building at the northeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Mills Ave.

Daily Bulletin reporter Wes Woods II tells us that over 20 residents turned out to last Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting to voice their objections to the 24-hour convenience store. Woods' article also said that city staff found that local cities typically receive between $12,000 to $21,000 in annual sales tax revenue from a 7-Eleven location.

Planning commissioners vote 6-1 against the CUP application. Woods quoted several commissioners who explained the reasoning behind their votes:

Commissioner K.M. Williamson, before her no vote, said, "this is a tough site. A lot of attention needs to be paid to that fit." She said she took into account residents' concerns about alcohol sales, the 24-hour opening and, "to a lesser degree," the convenience store.

Commissioner Cynthia Humes voted for 7-Eleven because she felt the business met all of the conditions for the permits.

"The homeowners association has done a good job in turning people out," Humes said. She said if the intersection where the 7-Eleven was to be located is unsafe in terms of traffic, "let's fix it."

Commissioner Jeff Hammill said one of the letters he received was against the project because it would bring people who drink alcohol, eat junk food and smoke cigarettes.

The applicants can still appeal the matter to the City Council. However, given the outcry against the 7-Eleven, it would be difficult to see the council overturning the planning commission's decision.