Readers comments 8-7-20

[Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the city and the city council, with a copy forwarded for publication. —KD]

High density housing

Dear Editor:

We don’t understand how you as Claremont residents would even consider such a high density housing development proposed by Trumark Homes to be built in the middle of a well-established residential area in north Claremont!

The new housing developments along Base Line and the 210 freeway are bad enough and do not belong in an established residential neighborhood.

Is the city that starved for monies that you would put Trumark Homes dollars before residents? Just a few of the obvious things wrong with this proposal;

1. No designated parking for overflow or guest parking.

2. No green area or park for children to play.

3. Only one (1) entrance and exit  (what a nightmare if a fire starts).

4. The added traffic on nearby streets would be extremely dangerous to all residents.

5. Home styles do not fit with existing residential area.

6. Not zoned for this type of high density development.

7. Reduced established La Puerta park area.

We as Claremont residents for over 45 years urge each of you to reconsider approving of this high density proposed development. We look forward to hear a response from each of you.

Don Russell



The Claremont Club

Dear Editor:

When Stan Clark made his idea a reality all those years ago and created The Claremont Club, who knew it would become such an important institution in the lives of so many people and for the city of Claremont.

We joined about a year after The Club opened mostly so one of us could play handball with friends who had been playing in Pomona. Soon we were involved in a full routine of individual exercises and classes.

Along with a whole lot of others, we got up early and went to The Club before work. That became a routine we continued long after we were both retired. We were always part of the 5 a.m. group. We have both been retired for more than twenty years and we think our Club workouts had a lot to do with keeping us alive and healthy.

But exercise was not all we got from The Club. The friends we made through our membership have made our life in Claremont special. It is very difficult to think that we will not see our 5 a.m. group in the future. It is the social aspect of The Claremont Club that makes it such a special place in this city.

So many people in town have told us how unhappy and shocked they are that The Club is closing. People we didn’t know had any connection to The Club.

So dear Clark family, if there is any way at all you can be encouraged to change your minds and hang on to Stan’s dream, we want to ask you to please do it. It is very important to a whole lot of people.

Dawn and Pete Sharp



Thank you, commissioners

Dear Editor:

There are two reasons to applaud the architectural commission’s unanimous vote to reject The Commons proposal for housing in the commercially-zoned area at Monte Vista and Foothill, in the flight path of Cable Airport.

First, the commission members were right to find the following areas of inadequacy among the specific findings required for approval of the plan’s design: Compatibility With Surrounding Area, Consistency of Design, Consistency With the General Plan, and Environmental Protections.

Second, the architectural commission rejected the city staff’s recommendation to approve the project now with a formal Resolution, before there had been any other commission or council review of the project or its Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

Why is Claremont willing to degrade the quality of its public process in considering this major development? The concern is not just that the decision would have come before any input from other decision making bodies; it is that the city staff recommended approving everything about the project when there were clear issues with it.

Originally, The Commons was one Claremont/Upland project, designed and evaluated together for environmental impacts. By the time the draft environmental impact report came out, the developer had separated the Upland portion from the environmental review.

The developer is only willing to build the Upland portion of The Commons if there is no environmental review or public hearings (Draft EIR, pg. 1-1).

And now, the developer is suing Upland over The Commons. So, the future of a third of The Commons is no longer certain. How does this affect Claremont’s view of the project?

Consider this: The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission staff determined, in their statement for the environmental impact report, that because of proximity to Cable Airport the project is unsuitable for the site.

They recommend against the project and for keeping the site’s commercial zoning, or changing the zoning to business industrial (Draft EIR, pgs. 101-102).

Claremont must maintain the highest standards, including the commission process, to ensure safe and high quality development. The architectural commission acted with integrity in rejecting city staff’s recommendation to approve The Commons. They have set an honorable example for city decision makers.

Harriet Archibald-Woodward




Submit a Comment

Share This