Claremont CA - Padua Park Issue Not Resolved

As a member of Claremonters for Neighborhood Parks, I want to remind readers that, contrary to what the city of Claremont has written in its newsletter, the issue of the Padua Avenue Park is hardly decided.

City Manager Glenn Southard and his staff would have us believe that the city is simply awaiting state bond funds to build the park, which the City Council approved in December. Mr. Southard ignores the fact that a lawsuit has been filed by CNP and its partner nonprofit agency, Spirit of the Sage Council. A court date has been set for Feb. 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawsuit was brought by CNP and the Sage Council because both strongly felt that the city had violated both the letter and the spirit of the law governing such projects. Mr. Southard, backed by Mayor Paul Held and council members Sandra Baldonado and Llewellyn Miller, has misled the public in several important areas. The following myths have been propagated by the city manager, the mayor, and their staff:

Myth No. 1: The residents most affected by the park were included in the planning process and the park has been greatly reduced in scale. Mr. Held is overly fond of repeating that the city wanted "40 soccer fields" for the park and has reduced the number greatly. From the time the city first presented the conceptual plan for the park, through numerous meetings on the Environmental Impact Report, to the last council's final vote on the park, the neighbors were consistently ignored. No changes were made in the conceptual plan, and no reduction in fields or parking spaces were made to the main 20-acre park plan.

Myth No. 2: The park opponents are "NIMBYs," kid haters, and opposed to any park at all. The park issue is hardly confined to one neighborhood. More than 1,500 residents from all parts of the city signed a petition urging a scaled-down park design. CNP supporters are parents and grandparents, many have kids in AYSO or club soccer, and all support a neighborhood park along the lines of June Vail Park on Grand Avenue — about half the size of the current design, with half the playing fields, no roller hockey rink, half the parking spots, and no lights.

Myth No. 3: The Padua Avenue Park is in compliance with the city's general plan. One of the lawsuit's central arguments is general plan non-compliance. Northeast Claremont is zoned for no lights, and for all the building that has occurred in the last 10 years, is still a quiet, dark, and unique area at night. The city will lose on this issue if nothing else, and they are well aware of it.

Myth No. 4: Traffic will not be a concern. City staff repeatedly said during the design process that the park would not generate any major traffic impact. Yet, in a Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting a few months ago, the same staff stated that Kemper Avenue should not be reopened to Padua partly because the added park traffic could cause problems for people on Kemper.

Myth No. 5: The park has no important environmental impacts. That the City Council and the planning commission relied on a biology report prepared by a man whose PhD is in theology and was purchased for $100 from an Internet service speaks volumes about the EIR's legitimacy.

Myth No. 6: The city has negotiated in good faith with CNP and the Sage Council. The city had one court-ordered settlement conference with our representatives two days after the March City Council election. At that time, still in shock over losing two incumbents, city staff and the city attorney said there was room for negotiation and wanted to meet again to work on a settlement. A second meeting was scheduled, but the day of the meeting the city attorney phoned to say that there was no need for our representatives to go to City Hall. Instead, they held a phone conference, in which the city made it quite clear that it was no longer interested in negotiating.

So, we proceed to court confident in our position — a position that, unlike the city's, is based on truth and hard facts.

GARY MIZUMOTO

Claremont