Upcoming Meetings

DRAWING THE LINE(S)


Former Claremont mayor Peter Yao and the California's Citizens Redistricting Commission are coming to town this month for its first public meeting. The City's website explains:

Citizens Redistricting Commission Will Hold Public Meetings In Claremont

The Citizens Redistricting Commission will hold its first public meeting in Claremont at the Claremont Colleges from February 9 to February 13, 2011. The 14 member Commission must draw the state's districts in conformity with strict nonpartisan lines designed to create districts equal in population taht will provide fair representation for all Californians. The 14-member Commission is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats, and 4 not affiliated with either of those two parties but registered with another party or as decline-to-state. The Commission must hold public hearings and accept public comment. After hearing from the public and drawing the maps for the House of Representatives districts, 40 Senate districts, 80 Assembly districts, and four Board of Equalization districts, the Commission must vote on the new maps to be used for the next decade.

You can read more about the CRC, watch videos of its meetings and review meeting agendas on the CRC website.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS TONIGHT

Harvey Mudd's amended master plan is on the agenda for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. HMC's north parcel, which used to be part of the Bernard Field Station, gets a very small mention in the amended plan.

Harvey Mudd Master Plan Amendment Review

Residents are invited to attend the upcoming Planning Commission meeting regarding an amendment to the ten-year campus master plan for Harvey Mudd College The Planning Commission will discuss the item at its meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chamber, 225 W. Second Street, Claremont. All persons interested in the master plan amendment are invited to attend the meeting and provide comments.

The proposed master plan amendment is based on a maximum student population of 800 (currently 734), 335 faculty/staff (currently 307), and 297 assembly seats (currently 604). This is an increase of 66 students and 28 faculty/staff, and a decrease of 307 assembly seats. The master plan amendment proposes the following:

• no change in the maximum number of students permitted under the existing master plan (800),
• minor revisions to the design guidelines for the campus,
• new policies and guidelines emphasizing the sustainability of the campus,
• the incorporation of recently completed construction projects into the master plan,
• revisions to the campus parking plan to reflect recent changes to the campus, new ampus parking policies and City zoning code,
• deletion of previously approved yet unconstructed projects, and
• addition of new/revised buildings, most notably a new Teaching and Learning Building, which is proposed for the current site of the Thomas Garrett Building.

The Planning Commission is the final decision-making body on this matter.

City staff has completed a detailed environmental review of this master plan amendment and drafted an addendum to the environmental documentation for the original master plan, a mitigated negative declaration, to reflect the changes contained in the proposed master plan amendment.

Click Image to Enlarge

Questions regarding the project may be directed to Senior Planner Christopher Veirs, at (909) 399-5470. Written comments may also be submitted to Mr. Veirs at P.O. Box 880, Claremont, CA 91711.

* View Master Plan Amendment Documents

TREE SUMMIT

Also, the City is having a special tree committee meeting at 6pm tonight at the in the offices of the Community Services Department at 1616 N. Monte Vista Ave. We're not sure which is special, the trees, the meeting or the committee. They'll be talking about the City's tree replacement program.

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: 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.

Driven

Maid-Rite, the nation's first drive-through - Springfield, IL
Originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by rklawton

In case you were wondering, Claremont's Planning Commission approved that revised drive-through ordinance Tuesday night. The matter now goes to the Claremont City Council for consideration on March 9.

If the ordinance is implemented, Walgreens will go ahead with a drugstore at the Peppertree Square Center at Arrow Hwy. and Indian Hill Blvd. A Fresh & Easy store will also go in but is contingent on the Walgreens getting built.

According to the Daily Bulletin, some folks in town are not too happy with the prospective lifting of the City's drive-through ban:

The ordinance has had its skepticism from community groups, such as Protect Our Neighborhoods and League of Women Voters of the Claremont Area.

Ray Fowler, Protect Our Neighborhoods representative, expressed concern about environmental impacts.

"While everyone agrees on the need for a grocery and drug store there, they do not agree that a drive-through is right for traffic safety or air quality issues," Fowler said.

Planning Commission Considers Hot Topics

You may have noticed that long-empty property at the northeast corner of Mills Ave. and Foothill Blvd. There used to be a Union 76 gas station there that always seemed three to five cents higher than anywhere else. Some West L.A. folks bought the property and put up a brand new building there, and it has been empty for quite a while now, thanks to the owners' unwillingness to charge anything lower than West L.A. rent for the Inland Empire property.

Here's a photo of the location:

Click on image to enlarge

We heard a few months back that a 7-Eleven was being planned for the site, but we didn't see much going on with the property. We suspected that the 7-Eleven wouldn't be too popular with the residents closest to the location, though students at the Claremont Colleges might appreciate a having another nearby 24-hour convenience store. There are Arco and Chevron mini-marts at Claremont Blvd. and Foothill Blvd, but our town can always use another outlet for 3am strawberry-frosted Pop-Tart cravings.

The reader who sent in the photo of the site also wrote to tell us that there will be a public hearing tonight at 7pm tonight regarding the 7-Eleven:

SUBJECT: Public Hearing for proposed 7-eleven (Foothill & Mills)
DATE: Mon, February 15, 2010 7:24:49 PM
TO: Claremont Buzz


Hello,

...I am a Claremont resident. A few days ago, I took a walk around the neighborhood and noted a sign (small) alerting residents of a public hearing held Tuesday, Feb. 16 at 7pm for a proposed 7-eleven on 601 Foothill (corner of Foothill & Mills).

I just moved to the area last year and I am not sure what exactly this means but in an effort to alert more informed residents, I pass this along to you. We definitely don't need or want a 7-eleven which may impact the area negatively.

As an aside, please keep it up. I enjoy reading your blog and keeping myself informed about my neighborhood via your site.

--
Regards,

The hearing the reader is referring to is a regularly scheduled meeting of Claremont's Planning Commission in the City Council chambers at 225 West Second St. in the Claremont Village. The 7-Eleven applicant is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate the business. The matter is the third item on the agenda.

Here is the staff report for the 7-Eleven CUP.

* * * * *

Residents concerned about the 7-Eleven may have to wait a bit to be heard. Item number two on the agenda is a proposed ordinance to allow drive-throughs in Claremont.

The issue is a contentious one and represents a collision between the City's desire to help balance its books by bringing in a drive-through Walgreens pharmacy and Fresh & Easy grocery store to the Peppertree Square shopping center at Arrow Hwy. and Indian Hill Blvd. The City really needs the sales tax revenue those stores represent, but traditionalists in town feel that part of Claremont's charm is that there are no drive-throughs allowed.

The local group Protect our Neighborhoods falls into the latter category, and they've lined up against the proposed revision, according to an article by the Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II:

Residents Peter Farquhar, Andrea Farquhar and Colleen O'Brien spoke out against the drive-through ordinance at that meeting, as did Ray Fowler, representing Protect Our Neighborhoods. Fowler gave the city a letter from the group's attorney.

Fowler read to the commission from a statement to that he later read at the Dec. 8 City Council meeting.

"We believe that a recently proposed ordinance that would allow the development of banks and pharmacies with drive-throughs would be in conflict with the city's goal of becoming a sustainable community because it seeks only immediate, not long-term, economic gains and it forgoes consideration of the negative environmental impacts of allowing such development," according to the statement.

The article said that PON also had their attorney, Amy Minteer, send the Planning Commission a letter outlining the group's concerns. The City is hinting that retaining the drive-through ban will cause Walgreens to scuttle its plans to move into Peppertree Square, and that in turn may cause Fresh & Easy to pull out as well, ending any immediate prospects for South Claremonters to get that grocery store they've been waiting for.

There should be plenty of debate on this one as well as the 7-Eleven, so the planning commissioners will probably be for a long night. They just may have to send out for Pop-Tarts.

Every Home a Castle

Claremont's planners have been working for some time now on the problem of "mansionization" - the tearing down and replacement of old homes with newer, much larger ones that are out-of-scale with the surrounding neighborhood.

In response to the problem, the City's Planning Department has come up with some proposed changes to the City Municipal Code designed to rein in the aspirations of any potential Ludwig II yearning to erect Schloss Neuschwanstein on a 12,000 square foot Claremont Village parcel.

Claremont's Planning Commission will take up the matter on June 16 in the City Council chambers at 7pm. The City's website gives all the details:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE

The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed changes to the Claremont Zoning Code, Title 16 of the Claremont Municipal Code. Proposed changes will affect the development potential of residential properties, the City's architectural review process and review criteria, and standards and requirements for demolitions, removals and substantial remodels of existing buildings and structures. The proposed changes include the following:

• Establishment of maximum lot sizes for most single-family residential districts
  
• Reduction of the potential building envelopes for single-family homes
  
• Reduction of the potential floor area of second stories in single-family homes
  
• Establishment of a new requirement for 3-D simulations for new and expanded single-family homes if the proposed square footage approaches the maximum square footage permitted on the property
  
• Revision of the City's architectural review process and review criteria
  
• Establishment of new requirements for demolitions and removals of existing buildings and structures, and penalties for demolitions without permits
  
• Establishment of a threshold for determining when substantial changes/additions to existing buildings and structures become subject to current development standards and fees otherwise required of new home construction
  

The public is invited to make comment on the proposed code changes at the public hearing.

What: Planning Commission Public Hearing
When: June 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Where: Council Chamber, 225 W. Second Street

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission will make a formal recommendation on proposed changes to the City Council. The City Council is the final decision-making body on code changes and is expected to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes in July 2009.

Drafts of the proposed code changes are available for review at City Hall, 207 Harvard Avenue; the Claremont Public Library, 208 Harvard Avenue; and on the City of Claremont website, www.ci.claremont.ca.us. Please submit any written comments to Principal Planner Belle Newman, P.O. Box 880, Claremont, CA 91711 or at bnewman@ci.claremont.ca.us.

For more information, contact Principal Planner Belle Newman at (909) 399-5470.

• Residential Development Standards Ordinance (Adobe Acrobat, 68KB)
• Building Conservation Ordinance (Adobe Acrobat, 42KB)

City Meetings this Week

Click to Enlarge

The Daily Bulletin reported that Claremont is having a special meeting regarding the the City's cell tower policy tonight at 6pm in the Claremont City Council Chambers at 225 W. 2nd St.:

CLAREMONT - The Planning Commission last week denied a Claremont resident's request for additional safety measures at La Puerta Sports Park.

Joyce Sauter said she was concerned for the safety of young athletes in the park due the placement of a wireless antenna inside a light pole and construction of an underground electrical vault.

There will be a special meeting on the issue today.

That information may be a little off. The Planning Commission doesn't convene until tomorrow for its regularly scheduled meeting. Tonight's meeting is for the Architectural Commission. The agenda for tonight's special meeting only lists one item: review of the architectural and site plans for Claremont McKenna College's Kravis Center. That matter was carried over to tonight because of a lack of quorum when the Architectural Commission's last met on November 24th. The city staff report expains.

Now that the lawsuit filed by residents of the neighboring area has been settled, the project can move forward.

There is a "wireless facililties" agenda item for tomorrow night's Planning Commission meeting. That item concerns the City's proposed revisions to its wireless tower ordinance. There was also an agenda item regarding a proposed T-Mobile cell tower at the northeast corner of Base Line Rd. and Padua Ave., but there didn't appear to be anything concerning the La Puerta Park cell tower.

LWV Lines Up Against Neighborhood - AGAIN

Next week, Claremont's Planning Commission will review the draft 2008-2014 Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The city's website has this information:

A Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element has been completed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Draft contains goals, policies, and programs to achieve the community's vision of a diverse and sustainable community that increases housing choice for current and future residents.

• When: Tuesday, October 7 [7:00pm - ed.]
  
• Where: Council Chamber, 225 W. Second Street

The public is encouraged to participate in this review process. Copies of the Draft are available for review at the City Hall public counter, 207 Harvard Avenue, and you may click the link below to view the Draft.

For more information, contact the City's Planning Division at (909) 399-5470.

The draft Housing Element did have some useful information. For example, it contained a couple tables that showed how the city's age distribution seems to be changing - something we've written about in the past. One table showed that between the 1990 and 2000 US Censuses, the number of children of preschool age (0-5 years old) declined by 7.1%. Also, the number of adults ages 25-34 declined by 11.4%. And the number of adults 35-44 declined by 9.7%. The last two groups are the ones whom one would expect to be starting families, so those declines feed into the diminishing preschool-age cohort.

In contrast, older adults, the groups ages 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and older, increased by 26.5%, 5.5%, and 23.3%, respectively.

Click on Images to Enlarge

Household sizes, too, declined between 1990 and 2000, also sign of fewer children:



Like almost any city enterprise, the draft Housing Plan is a political document shaped in large part by the League of Women Voters of the Claremont Area. Affordable Housing figures prominently in the plan, and there is every indication that the local LWV has not forgiven the residents who live around the site of the former Base Line Rd. affordable housing site at the southeast corner of Base Line and Towne Ave.

You might recall that the LWV squared off against those residents and lost when they tried to push their affordable housing project at that location. The LWV lost primarily because a Los Angeles County agency decided it would change the rules by which it allocates certain affordable housing funds, ruling that projects within 500 feet of a major highway cannot receive the funds in question.

The LWV hasn't given up, and the Base Line Rd. site with its potential for up to 46 affordable housing units is still mentioned in the list. Also, an adjacent Base Line site 1000 feet east of Towne Ave. is listed in the draft Housing Element as one of the top potential affordable housing locations in Claremont and could hold up to 78 homes.

Of course, that second Base Line site would have the same problems as the first one - it is next to the 210 Freeway and so would not be ideally suited to affordable housing.

Still, the LWV and the city's establishment, including Mayor Ellen Taylor, have had it in for this neighborhood for a long time, going back to when the 210 Freeway was being planned and they wanted to dump the westbound traffic onto Base Line Rd. with hook ramps. The city lost on the 210 Fwy. ramps, and they lost Round One of the affordable housing debate. Out of spite, rather than as a matter of public policy, they're coming back for Round Two.

Should be interesting.

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