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.

City Council Meets Tonight

The Claremont City Council has its regular meeting tonight. The council meets at 5:15pm at City Hall for a special closed session, and then will have its regular session at 6:30pm.

The council's regular session takes place in the council chambers at 225 W. Second Street in the Claremont Village. You can watch the meeting streamed live on the City's website.


SPECIAL SESSION

There are two items on the special session agenda. Both have to do with litigated matters.

The first is the lawsuit brought by the neighborhood group Protect Our Neighborhoods. This has to do with the change in the city's leafblower ordinance, which was approved by the City Council last fall without the proper initial study being done as is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. A settlement has been worked out, and the only thing remaining to be done is for the parties to negotiate the amount the City will pay for the plaintiffs' fees and costs.

This one's a flub that falls directly at the feet of City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, who failed to advise the City Council of the need for the CEQA initial study when the council approved the ordinance change. Tell us again, why are we paying Carvalho's monthly retainer fee?

The second special session item has to do with litigation over pollution from rainwater runoff.


REGULAR SESSION

It looks like another full schedule for the city council tonight, says the regular session agenda:

• There's a ceremonial matter starting things off. Claremont Human Services Commissioner Jeff Camacho will honor the recipients of the Youth Award and the Dick Guthrie Award. (Claremont may be the only town we know of that names awards after its consultants. Don't what you have to do to win a Guthrie.)
  
  
• The council will consider exempting non-profits from the $300 annual business and home occupation fee. The council will also discuss refunding fees the City has collected from non-profits since July, 2008.
  
  The fact that the City has been charging non-profits came to light on April 28 when Claremont Finance Manager Adam Pirrie gave a presentation his efforts to increase the City's revenue by applying fees to businesses and organizations that had been overlooked in the past. Pirrie's efforts have increased the amount collected in business fees by $40,000, from $725,000 to $765,000. Looks like we'll be giving some of that back now.
  
  A number of non-profits in town squawked at the fees. In response, the City Council expressed a desire for a non-profit exemption.
  
  
• The council will consider raising its 2009-10 appropriations limit by about $738,000 t0 $29,314,127. The City is required by state law to come up with this limit.
  
  
• The council will receive its annual Landscaping and Lighting District engineer's report and will be asked to keep the LLD at $147.12 per parcel since the Consumer Price Index remained essentially flat from March, 2008, to March, 2009.
  
  
• The council will also debate the elimination of the Claremont Trolley. Chaffey College is interested in taking over the trolley's lease, so that would provide the City with an easy out. However, expect members of the Claremont Community Foundation, including former Claremont mayor Judy Wright, to fight for keeping the trolley. They want it for their own use once or twice a year for fundraisers and don't really mind the fact that they are taking money away from other city transit programs like Dial-A-Ride for their favorite toy.
  
  The CCF's main talking point will be the one you've seen in letters to the Claremont Courier: The trolley just has a routing problem. Change the route, and more people will ride it. We've written in the past why this is a foolish notion.
  
  Expect Sam Pedroza and Linda Elderkin to follow the CCF's lead and vote to keep the trolley but use a different route.
  
  
• City Manager Jeff Parker has a report to the council on the intersection at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. The report also discusses the city-wide crosswalk policy (yes, there is one). Parker tries to point the finger at the Protect Our Neighborhood group for delaying the removal of the 10th St. lighted crosswalk in January because the said any change would require an initial study under CEQA.
  
  This, of course, does not explain the 3-1/2 year delay by the City in changing the crosswalk after the Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed the matter in October, 2005.
  
  Parker's report also said that with left and right turns at that intersection, the crosswalk is not the only contributing factor in accidents.
  
  
• The council will move forward with site selection for a new police station. Three sites are under consideration: The current site on Bonita Ave., the Corey Nursery site at 1650 N. Monte Vista, and the former affordable housing site at the southeast corner of Base Line Rd. and Towne Ave.
  
  Actual construction on the new station will have to wait until funding becomes available.
  

Claremont, At It Again

We received an email the other day from a resident complaining about the noise of the construction at the Padua Ave. Park worksite. As you may recall, the city, in the face of a $3.5 million budget deficit, has gone forward with spending $2.4 million from its General Fund on the park.

Here's the reader's note:

DATE: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:51 AM
SUBJECT: construction noise
TO: Claremont Buzz

Dear Insider,

I live near Padua Ave. and have been watching the construction of the new park. The noise from the bulldozers clearing the ground is deafening! They push the boulders they collect as they dig up the ground, and then they dump them into trucks to haul the boulders away. They boulders create a huge racket as they get dropped into the metal sided trucks. It's like marbles rolling around in a tin can except the marbles weigh hundreds of pounds.

Do you know if there is anything we can do about the construction noise?

To tell you the truth, we're not sure. The City has all sorts of rules for construction noise with specific decibel levels for property lines. If you can hear the boulder sounds loudly inside your house with the windows closed, the noise probably exceeds the limits set by Claremont's municipal code. As we've seen in the past, mixing Claremont and bulldozers is a guarantee for trouble.

The Environmental Impact Report for Padua Park made a number of representations that the City would abide by the noise restrictions and would implement mitigations to limit the noise. These included the construction of a wall on the park's south border at Chaminade Ct. In addition, if the rock noise exceeds the City's noise limits, there are things the construction company can do to mitigate the sound. This includes things like putting dirt in the loaders to muffle the sound as the rocks are dropped in.

Here a couple pages from the EIR that describe the specific mitigations the city and its contractor were supposed to do during the construction phase:

Click to Enlarge

As far as we know, the City has failed to do several of the mitigations outlined above. They certainly have failed to construct the wall that the EIR said would be done before any grading commenced. And the contractor has apparently failed to use any sound dampening mitigations.

Because of the City's money problems, they may be trying to skirt the mitigations they promised in the EIR. This would be no surprise. The EIR process is mostly there to get projects passed and to create a cash cow for EIR consultants. As environmental protection, EIRs at least in the hands of cities like Claremont, fail miserably. Once construction begins, if the City chooses to not observe the rules in the EIR, then it is up to residents to get a court order stopping construction until the promised mitigations are enforced.

There's also a punitive aspect to the City's behavior here since residents around the park site had opposed the City's original plans for the project. Don't put it past Claremont Mayor Ellen Taylor (pictured, left) and Claremont City Manager Jeff Parker to take a "Stick it to them!" approach to the construction phase of the project.

We suggest you do three things. First, check the city's EIR for the project mitigations (they are in Appendix C). You can find it here. Second, check Title 16 of the City's municipal code for the applicable city law (16.154.020). Third, spend a little money to hire someone with a calibrated sound meter (the calibration part is important) to measure the construction sound levels at various property lines throughout the neighborhood.

As near as we can gather from the municipal code, the maximum decibel level allowed anywhere in Claremont at anytime is 85 dB. This is the maximum limit because anything above that can cause permanent hearing damage and is considered dangerous. If you are hearing the sound of the rocks in the trucks with your house windows closed, the exterior sound levels outside are likely maxing out at above 85 dB.

If the sound levels exceed Claremont's municipal code restrictions, and if they have failed to institute any of the other EIR mitigations they promised when they approved the EIR, then contact an attorney to get the construction halted. We're not in the habit of endorsing anyone for these sorts of things, but you might contact Ray Johnson in Temecula. He's the attorney the local Protect Our Neighborhoods group has used, and he's had some success against the City and its City Attorney, Sonia Carvalho of Best, Best & Krieger.

Incidentally, if you prevail, the court will generally grant you your attorney fees. You can find Johnson's contact information here.

One other point. All of this should serve to underscore the fact that the city of Claremont has consistently failed to keep its promises and has taken an attitude that says, "So sue us." It really was this attitude that led to the Wilderness Park bulldozing last year, and it is an attitude that continues to manifest itself from time to time in the City's actions. In our view, it should not take litigation to force the city to keep its word to its citizens, but that is what is happening here.

The Padua Park construction also perfectly illustrates how useless things like EIRs are. The City spent $125,000, plus about the same amount for their attorney fees, for the Padua Park EIR, yet the City has failed to implement most of the EIR provisions for the construction phase of the park. You don't see any of the local environmental groups out monitoring this, and the city's youth sports parents could not possibly care less about the impacts their projects cause.

It's a shame a takes a lawsuit to make them and the City care.