by Andrew Alonzo | aalonzo@claremont-courier.com

The Claremont City Council voted 5-0 Tuesday to approve the La Puerta Site Specific Plan, and the tentative tract map that outlines developer Trumark Homes’ plan to build 55 single-family, two-story detached homes on the 9.58-acre site.

The vote also approved a request from Trumark to pay an in-lieu fee of $1,717,400 to ensure nine homes are set aside for low- and moderate-income buyers in order to comply with the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, and certified the plan’s draft and final environmental impact report.

Prior to the vote the council added a provision banning short-term rentals such as Airbnbs on the property and struck language from an October 1 planning commission recommendation.

“The Planning Commission recommended a condition (C-14) to require the pocket park on Lot 40 be open to the public and prohibit the HOA from gating the pocket park,” City Manager Adam Pirrie wrote in an email Wednesday. “The City Council declined to impose this condition, so it will be up to the applicant/HOA whether to gate the entrance to the pocket park or otherwise close off public access to the pocket park.”

Mayor Pro Tem Corey Calaycay at Tuesday’s council meeting. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

Council approves land purchase

Prior to the La Puerta vote, the council discussed the subdivision of a parcel map that would split a nearly eight-acre piece of land at 735 E. Foothill Blvd. into two lots. One 1.19-acre parcel would remain in the ownership of Clare Properties LLC. The council voted unanimously to purchase the remaining 6.72-acre lot for $40,000.

As a component of the sale, the city agreed it would not begin to undertake development at the parcel until an update to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan was complete.

“The City is in the process of working with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning to update the County’s Airport Land Use Plan to determine compatible land uses for this site, which is in close proximity to Cable Airport in the City of Upland,” read a staff report. “To date, funding for the project has been identified, a lead staff person from the County has been assigned to the project, and the County is in the process of securing a consultant to work on the development of the plan update. The future development of the site will be in accordance with the updated Airport Land Use Plan.”

Whatever the city decides to develop there, the acquired parcel contains an emergency landing zone for Cable Airport, and any development must leave open a 150-foot-wide strip of land free of any infrastructure.

“The site was previously the subject of a development proposal called ‘The Commons’ that would have included a mix of residential and commercial uses, including 62 residential units,” the staff report read. “That project was denied by the City Council in April 2021.”

Council member Ed Reece at Tuesday’s meeting. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

A 2020 letter to the city from LA Dept. of Regional Planning recommended against housing being built on the site, and advocated for either commercial buildings, offices, or a business park.

Prior to voting, the council discussed how the state Surplus Land Act, which requires local agencies to prioritize the leasing or sale of land to developers of affordable housing, would play a role in dictating development.

“Once acquired, the disposition of the property by the city for future development would be subject to the requirements of the Surplus Land Act,” Pirrie said Tuesday. “The Surplus Land Act describes the procedure for the disposition of property … which could include offering it for sale to developers or identifying exemptions from the Surplus Land Act that could apply to the property.”

City Attorney Alisha Patterson addressed what she said was a common misconception regarding the Surplus Land Act:

“The city has to make the opportunity available for housing developers and other folks to effectively throw their hat in the ring, but the city doesn’t have to pick up the hat,” she said. “[The city] can ultimately decide at the end of the day that they want to dispose of it differently. And so I think that’s a common misperception with Surplus Land Act is that it ties your hands in that you absolutely have to sell to a housing provider or another eligible entity, but you really don’t.You have to go through the process and give them an opportunity, but if that’s not the right decision for the city and the view of the city council,  they can ultimately, once that procedure’s done, dispose of the property how they want to.”

“To answer that differently, we do have to respond and subject ourselves to the requirement of the Surplus Land Act, but what you’re saying is that after offering it, we just don’t have to agree to sell,” added Council member Jed Leano. Patterson agreed.

With the escrow period on the deal closing about December 9, Pirrie recommended the council act swiftly. Securing ownership of the vacant lot was one of City Council’s 2024-2026 priorities and objectives.