Claremont Plans to Buy Rustic Hillside Land for Open Space

City officials demonstrated last week that they are willing to put their money--more than $13 million, in fact--behind a pledge to save the slopes north of the city from suburban sprawl.

The City Council unanimously approved a letter of intent last week to buy 1,345 acres of rustic hillside land from a group of owners, the largest of which is Pomona College. After taking title, Claremont will annex the property, which constitutes almost half of the unincorporated area within the city’s sphere of influence and includes the historic Padua Hills Theater.

City Manager Glenn Southard said the city plans to recoup the purchase cost--between $13 million and $18 million, depending on when escrow closes during the next three years--by selling off about 145 acres in the lower foothills to developers.

Permanent Open Space

The remainder, “an area larger than Central Park in New York City,” will be designated as permanent open space.

The purchase is the culmination of a decade-long effort by Claremont leaders to extend city control over development into the foothills.

“This is a pretty big step for us,” Southard said. “I don’t think we’re the first town to preserve the hillsides . . . (but) I think for a town the size of Claremont, this is a very bold purchase.”

Ted Gibbens, Pomona College’s vice president for development, said the limited partnership that owns the property had not originally intended to sell the land to the city.

“It wasn’t necessarily the transaction we sought,” Gibbens said. “Some of the directors were uncomfortable about the risk involved in the project for the city. But the city is a very determined buyer and there’s no doubt that we’re pleased about the prospect that the hillsides will be protected.”

‘Hostile Takeover’

However, the purchase does not please some residents of neighboring unincorporated areas. To them, the planned purchase raises the threat of a “hostile takeover” of their neighborhoods. They contend it is a ploy by the city to pave the way for annexation, which they claim is opposed by 70% of foothill residents.

City officials have made no secret of their desire to annex the unincorporated foothills. In recent months, Councilwomen Judy Wright and Diann Ring have met with residents, seeking to convince them of the advantages of being in the city.

“The city has not been able to capture the hearts and minds of the people in the county areas, so they have bought up all the land surrounding them,” said George Keeler, co-founder of Hillside Environment and Land Protection (HELP), a group of about 100 foothill homeowners.

Keeler said residents’ anti-annexation sentiment is rooted in their desire to preserve their bucolic life style and avoid the “persnickety regulations” imposed by city government.

Costly Move

They also worry that joining Claremont would be a costly move, specifically because the city would hook their homes up to its sewer system and bill them for the cost through assessment districts.

“We want to make sure that we don’t have a hostile takeover that, if you’re annexed, it’s because you want to be,” said Janet Myhre, another founding member of HELP.

However, the city’s annexation of the 1,345 acres it is purchasing would not necessarily make it easier to annex adjoining areas, according to Michi Takahashi, an administrative assistant with the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which must approve all annexations.

In areas with more than 12 homeowners, annexation cannot take place if 50% or more of the registered voters file written protests. If 25% or more protest, annexation must be approved by residents at the polls, Takahashi said.

Southard said he believes Claremont’s plans to designate such a large parcel as open space should help prove the city’s sincerity to residents.

“We hope they’ll take this as a sign that we’re serious about hillside preservation,” he said.

Keeler said that, as far as his group is concerned, the jury’s still out on the city’s stated efforts.

‘Problem of Trust’

“I believe that if the city holds to its word, there will be hillside preservation,” he said. “But there’s a problem of trust between the county residents and the city.”

County residents worry about the density of development the city will permit on the land it plans to sell off. Myhre said she is concerned the city might allow as many as six homes per acre in the areas slated for development. These development “clusters” would be near existing rural neighborhoods.

“Even if we aren’t annexed and the cluster building goes on, it will change the quality of life,” said Myhre, who lives in Padua Hills. “We live on a quiet street. It won’t be a quiet street anymore. They’re sacrificing our neighborhoods.”

Southard said the city has not determined the density to be permitted in the 145 acres designated for development, but said it probably will be less than two units per acre. As for the remaining land, Southard said restrictions will be placed on the deed, requiring the property to be maintained as open space. Keeler said his group is concerned that the deed restrictions might contain loopholes that could be challenged in court.

Keeler and Myhre also questioned whether the city might not be able to recoup the cost of the purchase and speculated that officials might have to allow developers higher densities to get an adequate price for the land.

Southard said such a prospect is “possible, but not probable.” Gibbens said the city paid market price for the buildable portion of the land. The remainder, which was not prized by developers because of environmental restrictions on construction, was essentially a gift to the city, he said.