Quiet Claremont in a Clamor Over Apartment Plans

Many people in this picturesque college town like to think there is something uniquely “Claremontish” about a heated battle over whether the need for more housing outweighs carefully planned growth.

Proud of what they call a special sense of community, engendered in part by six highly rated colleges, residents often compare their “healthy” discussions over development to the debate at traditional New England town meetings.

But when an Orange County developer proposed rezoning a vacant 20-acre lot to build a 340-unit apartment complex nearly two years ago, the ensuing debate proved bigger and more vociferous than usual.

Religious leaders disagreed. College presidents differed. Several civic leaders who initially supported the project switched sides.

And a former council member who originally voted against the plan became a paid consultant for the developer.

Next Tuesday the issue will be decided in the first initiative election in Claremont’s history, with voters determining whether the parcel between Padua Avenue and Andrews Drive just north of Foothill Boulevard should be rezoned from light-industrial to multifamily use.

Support on Petitions

The proposed zoning change, which was rejected last fall by both the Claremont Planning Commission and the City Council, was placed on the ballot after the developer earlier this year collected more than 6,000 signatures, far more than the 15% of the city’s approximately 19,000 registered voters required, to get it on the ballot.

Since then, this quiet city of 35,000 has been embroiled in a clamorous campaign over Measure A, intensified by an aggressive absentee ballot drive and charges that the developer, Claremont Park Limited Partnership, is trying to “buy the election” by outspending opponents $123,187 to $1,975.

“This has not been business as usual in Claremont,” said Mayor Judy Wright, an opponent of the zoning change. “There is a great fear held by many of us that we are losing control of our town.”

Last week, a Claremont architect who had worked for the developer announced without explanation that he no longer wanted to be associated with the project. In letters to local papers, several residents complained that paid door-to-door canvassers for the developer misrepresented the issue during visits to their homes.

In addition, 3,000 flyers that included endorsements from the Claremont Presbyterian Church had to be destroyed after supporters of the project were warned that only the minister and not the church’s governing board was in favor of the zoning change.

However, Terry Fitzgerald, a former councilwoman and now a paid consultant and spokeswoman for the developer, said that any misrepresentations were unintentional and that several of the canvassers already had been fired because of citizens’ complaints.

‘Try to Straighten It Out’

“As soon as we hear about something like that, we try to straighten it out,” said Fitzgerald, an attorney. Fitzgerald voted against the zoning change in September along with her then-colleagues on the council, but since has earned $11,787 for her work in support of the project.

“Sometimes we don’t find out about a particular problem until we read about it in a letter to the editor,” she said.

With 3,500 college students swarming in every fall and an elderly population of about 4,000, one of the few things everyone agrees on is the desperate need for more rental housing.

A study last January by the city Department of Community Development found that of Claremont’s 1,436 apartment units, only 21 were vacant.

Supporters of the Claremont Park project contend that the proposed apartments would ease the city’s housing shortage and that the site, tucked into Claremont’s far northeastern corner, otherwise would continue to sit vacant for lack of industrial development.

“It’s residential or nothing,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s a question of having high-quality apartments on that land versus having it sit empty for a long time.”

Opponents agree that rental housing is needed but argue that the proposed site has been zoned for industrial use for 17 years and that, with only 2.5% of the city’s land zoned for that purpose, the parcel should remain vacant until the proper development comes along.

“The fact that there is not much demand for industrial land does not mean we in Claremont jump into the hoop of the moment,” said Gordon Curtis, owner of Curtis Real Estate and honorary chairman of Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Against Measure A.

“One of the things that makes Claremont distinctive is we believe in long-range planning,” he said.

Indeed, as a result of strict zoning laws, Claremont has only one fast-food restaurant, a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet that the city inherited when it annexed some county land more than a decade ago.

A bedroom community, its large, well-kept homes are set along wide, tree-lined streets, many of which take their names from New England colleges and towns.

‘Quaint, Charming’

Claremont’s central commercial district--a collection of neatly arranged shops and restaurants known as The Village--is described by residents as “quaint” and “charming.”

With a median income of $26,867, Claremont residents earn a little bit more than the average Los Angeles County resident, and with a median of four years of college, they are considerably better educated, according to 1980 U.S. Census records.

“(Measure A) has gotten the community stirred up,” said Suzan Smith, a member of the Planning Commission and an opponent of the zoning change. “But that’s one of the reasons people like living here: People really care.”

A similar scenario sparking dozens of public debates erupted last year when a subsidiary of World Vision International, a Monrovia-based Christian humanitarian agency, asked that the City Council approve a zoning change to permit construction of a new international headquarters.

Initial Rejection

The council, concerned about the effects of traffic and possible water contamination from the project, initially rejected the proposal.

Later, a zoning change was approved, although it did not permit any of the industrial development that had been originally planned for the 79-acre site.

City officials say they are waiting to hear whether World Vision International is still willing to build the project under the tight zoning requirements.

“There is a genuinely old-fashioned community concern for the way this city grows,” said Frank Ellsworth, president of Pitzer College and a supporter of the zoning change that would permit construction of the apartment complex.

“That’s great when it comes to the amount of time and energy people spend on issues.”

No Exception

Debate over Measure A has been no exception.

John Maguire, president of the Claremont University Center and Graduate School, originally supported the project when it was first presented to the Planning Commission nearly a year and a half ago, but switched sides after discovering that the apartments would rent for considerably more than he had thought.

“I had heard the apartments were going to be minimal to lower cost,” said Maguire, noting that the apartments would rent for about $600 for a one-bedroom unit and $800 for two bedrooms.

“The price structure, even if you don’t call it luxury, is quite beyond what our people can pay and certainly does not fulfill the definition of affordable housing,” he said.

‘No Housing’

However, other academic leaders, including D. Kenneth Baker, president of Harvey Mudd College, and Ellsworth have signed the ballot statement supporting the apartment project.

“There’s no housing to speak of,” said Paul Ranslow, dean of admissions at Pitzer College. “If we hire somebody now, the option of even a $600 apartment virtually does not exist.”

Msgr. William Barry, pastor of Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church, is another former supporter of the zoning change who since has turned against the apartment complex.

Other religious leaders, such as the Rev. James W. Angell of the Claremont Presbyterian Church and Associate Pastor Wayne Sommers of the New Life Community Church support the project.

‘Special Ambiance’

“Some feel this would change the character of the town, that it would somehow deny the special ambiance of Claremont with its charm and small-townism,” Angell said.

“But I think we could become more cosmopolitan, we could be a better community and more vital, without necessarily destroying that charm,” he said.

Supporters also say that the apartment complex would be convenient to shopping, transportation, recreation and the colleges, and its young professional residents could pump as much as $2 million a year into the local economy.

“It’s a plus in every sense to the community,” said Buck Johns, one of the developers in the Claremont Park Limited Partnership. “It’s something anybody would be proud to have in a neighborhood.”

Broadening Tax Base

Opponents argue that the industrially zoned land is needed to broaden Claremont’s tax base and that its proximity to Cable Airport in Upland could create a safety hazard as well as subject tenants to high levels of airport noise.

“Putting residential in that area really isn’t the greatest idea in the world,” said Bill Blanchard, planning director for the airport and a flight instructor. “Planes (flying over the apartments) will be 2,000 to 3,000 feet above the ground under full power and that’s about as noisy as you’re going to get.”

Because the election is scheduled in August, a month when many residents and students are out of town, leaders on both sides of the issue have encouraged the use of absentee ballots.

As of Wednesday, City Clerk Barbara Hallamore Royalty said she had mailed out about 4,700 absentee ballots, 3,951 of them requested on applications hand-delivered to her by the developer. An average of 400 absentee ballots are requested for most elections, Royalty said.

“It’s the process, the governmental process that’s upsetting a lot of people,” said Curtis, whose grass-roots organization has about 60 members opposing the zoning change. “Instead of just waiting and voting us out of office, they paid to get this on the ballot.”

Apart from the $123,187 spent on flyers, canvassers and paid signature-collectors since January, Claremont Park has spent an additional $300,000 over the last two years on consulting and other fees in presenting their plan to the City Council and its various commissions.

“It’s very expensive for a developer to come into a city--especially Claremont--and present a project,” Fitzgerald said. “Going to the public only way to save the project.”