Search News


Browse Archives

News

Paving Paradise?

November 7, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Right in the heart of Claremont, Calif., is an expansive 86-acre swath of undeveloped and rugged land -- a rarity in Southern California -- populated by endangered plant and wild life. Just off the main drag, the natural habitat has become the town’s iconic promotional shot, used by local businesses and government much as photos of the famous "Hollywood" sign are used by their counterparts in Los Angeles.

Still, a portion of what many locals consider a paradise could be paved over for, of all things, a parking lot that is being dubbed "environmentally sensitive" by its planners.

The virgin property is owned almost entirely by the Claremont Colleges -- a consortium of five undergraduate and two graduate institutions all located in the town. The property is also home to the Bernard Field Station, an academic facility and ecological landscape run by the consortium for research in the biological and environmental sciences. The land surrounding the field station is valuable to researchers: it features a vast natural growth of coastal sage scrub -- a rapidly vanishing type of ecosystem in which a number of endangered plant and animal species flourish -- and a small lake. This being suburban Los Angeles, some locals are amazed that the land has been preserved as long as it has.

“Other than the mountains, there’s no natural land left,” said Stephen Dreher, field station manager. “In the ‘60s and ‘70s there was still much more open space and natural vegetation with plenty of orange, olive and avocado orchards. Now, much of this is fairly recently developed land in Southern California. When you look at a satellite image, this property is it.”

The westernmost portion of the property is currently owned by just one consortium member, the Keck Graduate Institute. When high-profile student protests in 2001 halted the newly founded institution's plans to build its campus on a plot next to the field station -- the consortium had provided it with permission to build on the land -- Keck moved its campus elsewhere in town. Now, having gained full ownership of the plot from the consortium in 2004, Keck is looking to sell its 11.46 acres adjacent to the field station. It is currently in negotiations to sell it to another Claremont consortium member, Harvey Mudd College.

Noel Brinkerhoff, a Keck spokesman, said the plot of land has been appraised at nearly $11.4 million and that the institute looks to gain as much from its sale. Although Keck spent no money to fully acquire the land from the consortium after its original plans for construction failed, Brinkerhoff said the institution will use any profit gained from its sale as its leadership sees fit.

Harvey Mudd announced in October that, if it acquires the plot, it plans to build an “environmentally sensitive ‘green’ parking area” on the site. Preliminary plans for the parking lot include solar shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles and bioswales to block any harmful run-off. Mudd officials stated that the lot is necessary to support the “green” renovation of one of its existing on-campus buildings, located across the street from the plot. The City of Claremont requires that parking spaces be located within 800 feet of any new construction, and Mudd officials say that a parking lot on the Keck land would meet this requirement.

Don Davidson, a spokesman for Harvey Mudd, said the institution has not approached the city to seek a variance from this parking requirement. He added that the Keck plot was most convenient for the institution’s purposes and that any alternative locations for parking, even with a variance, would be too far from the new construction on its campus. Still, Davidson qualified that Mudd would not use the entire plot for parking. He noted that the institution will preserve some portion outside of its parking area for research by those using the adjacent field station.

If Mudd is sold the property, a third consortium member, Claremont Graduate University, has signed a memorandum saying that it will purchase a portion of the plot from Mudd. Ester Wiley, a Claremont spokeswoman, said it has yet to decide what it will do with its portion of the plot if the deal is finalized. She did say that the possibility of Claremont situating its newly founded school of public health on the site was among the options being considered.

Although the sale has not been finalized, both students and professors at nearly all the colleges in the consortium are concerned about the irreparable harm that could be done to the natural habitat. The prospect of building a parking lot, in particular, has generated much derision.

“Parking lots cannot be green,” reads a letter published by Students for the Bernard Field Station, a group founded by students within the college consortium to protect this undeveloped land. “They cannot be environmentally sensitive. It violates all principles of environmentalism and sustainability to suggest that the destruction of native habitat for the creation of a parking lot can be justified as green. Let there be no mistake: development of a parking lot or [Claremont] public health facilities on the [Keck] parcel will not be remembered for their hybrid plug-ins or attractive solar panels and bioswales, but for the irrevocable damage they committed to an irreplaceable, rare ecosystem.”

Paul Keller Ort, Pomona College senior and co-writer of the student letter, said the term “green” is often used to describe new energy-efficient technologies in order to justify environmentally destructive construction and development. It is far more important, he said, to protect the natural habitat of the land surrounding the field station. Ort said he has used the land throughout his college career as a lab and resource in a number of ecology classes and independent studies.

Students at Pomona, which is another consortium member institution, are not the only ones concerned about this potential development. On Wednesday, Pomona's faculty voted nearly unanimously for a motion encouraging its president to work with the consortium to preserve the plot from development. Nina Karnovsky, a Pomona biology professor, said she and other faculty members hope that Pomona will take a more active role in the preservation of this land, adding that many have encouraged the college to place a counter bid to purchase it.

Even though the Keck plot represents only a portion of the land used by consortium students and researchers, Karnovsky said its demolition would ruin a significant the portion of the land that is virgin. Other portions of the land near the field station are recovering from prior development, but the land on the Keck plot is almost entirely untouched.

“Looking back, I know they’re going to regret this decision if they go forward,” Karnvosky said of Keck and Claremont’s proposed plans for development. “It’s hypocritical. They don’t understand no matter how green a parking lot is, they’ll have demolished one of the rarest habitats in the U.S. It’s a biodiversity hot spot. There are so many plants that we have in this treasure, right here next to our campuses where our students can study. There’s no equivalent place where we can do this. Once they build a parking lot, it’ll be ruined.”

Davidson said Mudd officials are cognizant of concerns from consortium students and faculty as well as local community members. He added that, if it is sold the property, the college plans to have as minimal an effect on the property near the field station as possible.

It is unclear when a deal on the property and the final development plans for it will be announced.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Paving Paradise?

  • The new Oxymoron
  • Posted by dundermifflin on November 7, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • Green Parking lots??? HA! I dont remember that we "paved paradise and put up a green parking lot."

    Military intelligence move over!

  • Posted by Jim in Northcentral PA on November 7, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • It seems the immediate obstacle here is the City of Claremont's regulation requiring a parking lot within 800 feet of the renovated building. I imagine the purpose of the regulation is traffic management, so perhaps one of the parties involved might propose alternative ways of meeting the objectives of the regulation. Creation or contribution to a shuttle bus system, locating a lot on a pre-existing shuttle bus system, creating bike lanes, and so on. Not exactly a stereotypical southern California solution, but worth some thought.

  • Big Yellow Taxi
  • Posted by NanDez on November 7, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • Joni Mitchell wrote it over 35 years ago and we're still living it. Will we ever stop paving paridise and putting up parking lots?

  • Paving Paradise
  • Posted by Gay Gullickson , professor at University of Maryland on November 7, 2008 at 12:40pm EST
  • Pomona College should stop worrying about its alma mater, the subject of an earlier column, and focus on something important, like the destruction of the eco-system in its own back yard.

    An alumna

  • The real situation
  • Posted by realist on November 7, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • Today's controversy ignores the reality: this land was purchased and set aside to enable The Claremont Colleges to establish more colleges. Donald McKenna, Ellen Browning Scripps, and other foresighted founders of the Colleges bought and banked this land so that, over time, new colleges would have a home contiguous to the already-established members. Pomona College begat Scripps College and Claremont Graduate University, the three of them begat Claremont McKenna College, the four of them begat Harvey Mudd College, the five of them begat Pitzer College, and the six of them begat Keck Graduate Institute. Establishing Bernard Field Station - named for one of the early planners for The Claremont Colleges - was a way to make beneficial use of land that was always designed to be used, ultimately, for other purposes. If there was to be land for biological research, someone should have bought it and set it aside for that purpose.

  • Posted by Brian on November 7, 2008 at 2:00pm EST
  • By the way, if anyone doubts it, the Claremont Field Station is every bit as beautiful as it looks in the picture. It's sad that every few years or so, they want to pave over it and put in a shopping center, or a school building, or a 'green' parking lot.

    Now I do recognize that it's a prime piece of real estate. The land in question sits on the corner of two of the busiest streets in town. However, one has to weigh the lasting repurcussions of forever destroying a rare natural ecosystem against the need for a parking lot, and in this case, I think they have their priorities sadly out of synch.

  • Posted by Brenda Barham Hill , former CEO at Claremont University Consortium on November 7, 2008 at 2:35pm EST
  • There are a number of additional pertinent facts this article didn't provid. The land in question was purchased and given to The Claremont Colleges in the 1930s for one purpose: the development and expansion of the consortium as additional colleges were added or current ones grew. It now belongs to Claremont University Consortium, held for that specific purpose. In the early 2000s there was protest over the possible development of a portion of the North Campus Property (its proper name) by the Keck Graduate Institute which resulted (in part)in a legal settlement agreement signed by CUC, the City of Claremont and the Friends of the Field Station that provides for a 50 year commitment to retain a portion of the land as a biological field station, allowing the remainder (including the land currently under discussion for development) to be developed as a need arises. That need has arisen and what is playing out is the extension of the intention of The Claremont Colleges to utilize the land given to it and held in trust for its intended educational purposes. While it is currently open land, it is not pristine nor is it heavily used for biological research purposes. Because of its sized it has been judged not to be sustainable as a native plant habitat. It is surrounded by a major highway, a college and housing development. Claremont is on the base of the San Gabriel mountains which is a rich resource for biological field work.

  • Endangered land
  • Posted by Betty on November 7, 2008 at 3:25pm EST
  • Let's see... Maybe this explains why it is endangered?!?!

  • Clarification about BFS
  • Posted by Susan Schenk on November 7, 2008 at 4:00pm EST
  • The Bernard Field Station consists of 3 parcels: the portion owned by KGI, a central section owned by the consortium and protected temporarily, and a portion owned by the consortium and not protected. All 86 acres have been in continual use as a field station since 1976. The proposed building is not adjacent to the field station, it is on part of it.

    Also, the KGI-owned part consists of excellent and irreplaceable coastal sage scrub which has seen little disturbance, but the great majority of the rest of the BFS has never been developed and hosts CSS too.

  • Posted by Rachel Levin , Associate Professor of Biology at Pomona College on November 7, 2008 at 4:05pm EST
  • There are a number of misconceptions in the statement by Brenda Barham Hill.

    1) Nowhere in the language of the gift to the Consortium, either by Scripps or McKenna, does it explicitly state that the land must be used as a new college, it only indicates future educational ventures. That said, why can’t establishment as a Biological Field Station be viewed as an educational venture? (see below)

    2) This is a different world than the one Scripps lived in. In this day and age, the view of continuous expansion may not be realistic or preferable. In 1996, the BFS was used by at least 20 courses serving over 900 undergraduates a year. The numbers are at least as high now. For example, currently half of Pomona’s biology courses require use of the BFS. It is a vital part of any higher education curriculum in the 21st century to teach ecology and environmental studies. The only lab for such courses is the field station.

    3) There are no existing local viable alternative to the BFS as a teaching facility. Our teaching experience shows the surrounding area to be dangerous to groups of students doing fieldwork; cars have been broken into, people are threatened with guns, etc. Furthermore, equipment (e.g. environmental monitoring equipment) for projects cannot be left out. Finally, almost all of the native coastal sage scrub have burned in the last 5 years and will take decades to recover, leaving little place to study established communities.

    Hill is right that the BFS is marginally sustainable at its current size for many of the animals that live there and that our students study. Developing it any further would cause the community to fall apart. It is time for the Colleges to take a leadership position in demonstrating how to be responsible citizens. This land should be set aside for future generations of students who will have nowhere else to study native communities of Southern California. I urge those who can speak out to contact the presidents of the Claremont Colleges asking them to creatively find a way to purchase or otherwise protect this vanishing resource.

  • Posted by Melissa Weiss on November 7, 2008 at 4:55pm EST
  • It seems that sprawl is highly contagious and even the most prestigious of institutions—even those that dare to call themselves sustainable—are susceptible to its intoxicating charms. We can discuss why the land in question was originally purchased and given to the Claremont Colleges, but we must also acknowledge how the landscape surrounding Claremont has shifted in the last seventy years and, importantly, how the stewardship of our land must shift accordingly. Claremont is no longer the agricultural town it once was. Today, it is cradled on all sides by an architectural monoculture of pavement. We must not become intoxicated by the prospects of development—by that ever-present pressure to expand and pave over. Those that suggest we bury the Bernard Field Station in a cement grave underestimate the permanent loss we will collectively experience in the years to come. I fear that some time in the near future, students taking their first college-level biology class will be asked to imagine, rather then explore, the coastal sage shrub that once existed in Claremont. Shame on us for limited their access to such a precious educational resource. I expect more from the Claremont College community.

  • What's the Real Situation?
  • Posted by a student on November 7, 2008 at 5:15pm EST
  • Donald McKenna and Ellen Browning Scripps donated the land for educational use, but they did not specify "The Claremont Graduate School of Health."

    In fact, part of the land that Miss Scripps originally donated is now a golf course and houses, which makes the "donor's original wishes" argument kind of moot.

    The reality is neither McKenna nor Scripps could have foreseen the world we live in today. How could they have known that this land would become much more valuable to the colleges as an academic resource instead of a parking lot?

    If we insist on only thinking about our past instead of our future we will end up losing a lot more than these 11 acres.

  • Posted by Jonathan Wright , Associate Professor of Biology at Pomona College on November 8, 2008 at 7:25am EST
  • When one looks at the many land donations made by Ellen Browning Scripps to support research and conservation, it is very difficult to believe that she would not vigorously supported the protection of one of the last remaining fragments of coastal sage scrub. But using the assumed intent of the land deed to argue in favor of developing this land, as many still do, is purely political. A field station is, of course, an educational resource and every bit as much a part of an academic institution as a wet-lab - and much more so than a parking lot.

    The Claremont Colleges community needs to move beyond political pretense and face the reality that this land is essential for teaching of quality programs in biology, environmental studies, and other fields. It is also an irreplaceable and still very biodiverse ecosystem, contrary to the unfortunately ill-informed comments made by Barham-Hill. If this land is developed, we will be helping to ensure that future generations of students will know CSS only from historical photographs. That would indeed be a sad statement of the arrogance and ignorance of our generation. We owe our children much more.

  • My generatoin and missue of "green"
  • Posted by Derek Buchner , Biology Student at Pomona College on November 8, 2008 at 7:30am EST
  • I struggle to grasp that the power of a few trustees is enough to overtake the wishes of the students, professors, and community on this issue. As a current student at the 5cs, I represent the generation that is going to inherit the suburban mess that my elders have created. It is embarrassing that you are so selfish that you want to take away a resource that is for current and future biology students (at ALL the colleges), faculty (at ALL the colleges), and Claremont (ALL 43,000 of them). The power dynamic is unjust--how can a few trustees and presidents decide to take away the last natural part of LA under the pseudonym of a "green" parking lot. Also, the manner of keeping this issue "confidential" during this fall is shameful and highly unprofessional, and yes I might even call it evil. Also, I'm sorry, but it is a crime to mask development projects by calling it "green." Is their a price you can put on the last remaining Coastal Sage Scrub in L.A.? I say no. That's the thing, there is no price culturally or spiritually. Its a steal to pay 11 million dollars to protect the KGI parcel. Buying then protecting the KGI parcel will boost PR for your college and who knows maybe it will be tax refundable. The question is do the president of my college and the other 5cs have the guts to step up and find somebody to make an emergency bid on the parcel? I sure hope so, it will make a hero out of a donor and save HMC and CGU from embarrassing their institution, alumni, and current students. I understand you need a new academic building, that great, build it, but there is a way around the parking ordinance. I know your under a lot of pressure to expand from your trustees, but its time to say no. This is not the 1920s, 1950, or 1980s, be happy with what you have. Thriftiness, not expansion used to be the american virtue. Its time for us to return to our roots. Use what land you have more wisely, build up, not over.

    As a final note: You mentioned that tourguides shy away from mentioning the "worst academic building on the 5cs" (this academic building that is being rebuilt). However, how will new prospective students respond to when the tour guide mentioned they paved over the BFS to built it?

  • Response
  • Posted by Paul , Student at Pomona College on November 8, 2008 at 7:30am EST
  • A) First, I would like to specifically address comments made by Brenda Hill, former CEO at Claremont University Consortium:

    “While it is currently open land, it is not pristine nor is it heavily used for biological resource purposes”

    “Claremont is on the base of the San Gabriel mountains which is a rich resource for biological field work”

    “Because of its sized it has been judged not to be sustainable as a native plant habitat.”

    1. The BFS is coastal sage scrub habitat, native to the alluvial fan that spreads out below the foothills of the Gabriels. Coastal sage scrub is unique to the flat fan area below the mountains and the BFS is one of the only remaining examples of this habitat type. The mountains include chaparral, mixed conifer, and alpine habitats. The Gabriel foothills are characterized by live oak canyons, grasslands, and chaparral. Coastal sage scrub is not present in the mountains or foothills. The BFS has unique biological value and cannot be replaced by the entirely different present in the Gabriel Mountains

    2. All land in the Gabriel Mountains is privately owned or managed by the United States Forest Service. The City of Claremont also owns the Claremont Wilderness Park located in the foothills. Faculty and students would not be able to conduct controlled research projects on Forest Service or City Land without extensive review and expensive permitting processes. This land is largely dedicated to recreational use, and biological research would not be feasible there.

    3. Sites in the mountains or foothills would be far away and difficult to access. The Bernard Field Station is within walkeable distance of all the colleges.

    4. Pomona College does have access two other biological reserves, including the Herman Garner Biological Preserve in Evey Canyon, up Mt Baldy road in the Gabriel foothills, and the Mildred Pitt Ranch, in Monterrey County (see http://www.biology.pomona.edu/facilities/index.shtml). Claremont Mckenna College uses the Mono Basin Field Station at the Burger Reserve in the Eastern Sierra near Mono Lake. While these are indeed rich resources for biological field work, they represent entirely different ecosystems than the coastal sage scrub of the Bernard Field Station. The Bernard Field Station is in walkeable distance from all the colleges; the other stations require from a 15 minute to over 6 hour drive by car. In conclusion, because of its conveniently close location and unique ecosystem values, the Bernard Field Station is an irreplaceable academic resource for the colleges.

    5. The BFS is home to innumerable native plant and animal species, including the endangered Nevin’s Barberry. The BFS can sustain many populations of animals and plants, as evidenced by the species lists posted on the BFS website. A parking lot, on the other hand, is most definitely not sustainable.

    Presumably Ms. Hill is referring to the old Environmental Impact Report created for the parcel, which reported that due to its size and edge effects, the BFS was not fully “ecologically viable.” Indeed, the BFS faces invasion of non-native plant and animal species, and cannot support populations of large mammals . However, the EIR went on to state that this does not imply that the BFS is academically unviable. Nor does it imply that the whole ecosystem will collapse; it just means that certain ecological processes are eliminated (large mammals, migration, etc.) There are actually “pristine” areas left on this planet – human-generated climate change has assured us of that. But there is still value in studying habitats that preserve part of their original native heritage. The BFS preserves a larger chunk of that habitat than any other land in the area. The fragility of the BFS is all the more reason to preserve it, not an excuse to develop it. Development on the KGI parcel will surely reduce the ecological viability of the station even further, potentially to a point of no return.

    6. To suggest that the BFS is not heavily used for biological purposes is ludicrous. The BFS has been heavily used for biological resource purposes for decades. Seven Pomona College biology majors and one Environmental Analysis major are conducting their senior theses on the BFS. Half of all Pomona College Biology courses use the BFS in laboratory components. Pomona faculty conduct ongoing research there. This is to speak nothing of courses and research conducted at the other undergraduate colleges.

    B) Second, as addressed above, the former CEO is also mistaken in stating that the land was donated to the colleges for the purpose of the development and expansion of the consortium. It was donated for educational ventures and educational uses. The BFS is an educational venture. A parking lot is not. The land was furthermore donated when the consortium remained a collection of undergraduate colleges, before the more recent founding of Claremont Graduate University and Keck Graduate Institute. A graduate public health institute operated by CGU was not part of the original vision of the Scripps donation.

    In any case, the fact that CUC turned a major portion of the donated land into a golf course – which it currently operates for a profit, servicing mainly Claremont city residents, not college students – obviates this argument completely.

    It should also be noted publicly that a new “educational venture” was proposed for the BFS land: an Environmental Design Graduate Institute. The venture was proposed for a less sensitive, already disturbed part of the field station. It would take full advantage of the Bernard Field Station’s environmental and biological resources and actually enhance them by designing its curriculum around conservation, restoration, and study of the sage scrub. Yet the proposal has been mysteriously, indefinitely “tabled” by the CUC board. Why hasn’t the institute been considered and compared in merit to the construction of a parking lot and public health institute? By “tabling” the venture proposal, CUC has in effect denied it; current development plans for the KGI parcel will ruin the academic and ecological value of the BFS and preclude future educational uses of the land.

    C) Third, this entire discussion also makes obvious how poorly planned this entire project has been. It was kept secretive from the get go, because CUC, HMC, KGI, and CGU knew they would face massive opposition from students and faculty. The fact that the situation has come this far is truly a blight on the image of CUC and the Claremont Colleges as an institution of higher education. Unfortunately, while there are opportunities for collaboration and moving forward, HMC and CGU have opted for subdividing the land and privatizing its benefits for their colleges alone, instead of honoring the original vision of James Blaisdell to create a group of colleges that worked in harmony around shared resources. Inside higher ed for sure… this is how it actually looks in Claremont, and it’s not pretty!

  • not accurate
  • Posted by mark on November 10, 2008 at 2:30pm EST
  • i couldn't even read the second half of this knowing how ridiculous the first few paragraphs were. a claremont resident with knowledge of this situation, the facts were not correct in the opening...and it was obvious that this writer had a bias in setting up the piece as a 'boo hoo there goes another undeveloped plot' story.

    has this writer even been to southern california? one of the last undeveloped plots in southern california? do some more fact checking.