Last Friday, the Friends of the Bernard Field Station (BFS) officially dropped its lawsuit against Claremont University Center (CUC) and Keck Graduate Institute in exchange for an agreement regarding future management of BFS. The lawsuit alleged that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Master North Campus Plan, including the future site of KGI, was inadequate and therefore violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Friends of the Bernard Field Station opposes the site of KGI facilities, contending, "Ecologically, educationally and aesthetically, the Bernard Field Station is invaluable to our community." However, months of negotiations between the Friends and the defendants culminated in the termination of their lawsuit in favor of settlement.

TSL Archives 45 Acres of the Bernard Field Station will be protected for 50 years.

The settlement, according to the CEO of CUC, Brenda Barnham Hill, entails "the setting aside [of] 45 acres of the 88-acre north campus properties for a biological field station for 50 years, that the remainder of the property may by used for field station purposes until…development of the KGI campus and/or other facilities, the continued supervised educational use of the field station by local groups, and an approved Native American monitor on site in case any artifacts are discovered during site preparation."

This settlement does not prohibit KGI from being built on the Bernard Field Station. However, the lawsuit in and of itself, even if successful, would not have prohibited the construction of KGI facilities. Rather, the most likely outcome of a successful lawsuit, according to Nancy Hamlett, Board Chair of Friends, would be "to redo a portion of the EIR, eventually leaving us in our original position of trying to block KGI development." Hamlett explained that the lawsuit "was filed to stimulate negotiations. No one would sit down and talk to us before the lawsuit."

The Friends of the Bernard Field Station felt that this contract gives it some security for the future of BFS. Previously, Hamlett noted, "There were no guarantees for anything before this agreement." She feels that one of the most positive aspects of the lawsuit is "that more than half of the total land is preserved for at least 50 years."

Community groups, including elementary school children and the Boy Scouts, which historically utilized BFS, have not been allowed there in recent months due to the Colleges’ fear of liability. This agreement enables these groups, and other community organizations, to once again utilize BFS. However, as Barham Hill stated, "The north campus properties are not now and will not be open to the public because of their educational/research nature." Hamlett asserted on behalf of the Friends for the Bernard Field Station, "We felt it was important to stabilize the situation, to restore appropriate community use… this gives a lot more protection [to BFS], since before we had none."

For CUC and Keck, the termination of this lawsuit signifies the end of any possible legal action regarding the EIR, because the statue of limitations has now passed. "The agreement is also very important because it reiterates and affirms the fact that the property was given to CUC and is held for one purpose: for future development of the Claremont Colleges," Barham Hill contended. She continued, "This is a significant public and legal acknowledgement of CUC’s property rights and long-term intentions for the property." For the past four and a half years, significant contention has existed between forces advocating and opposing building on BFS over what is appropriate and responsible development.

"The downside to this agreement [for Friends]," according to Hamlett, "is that if any group does anything, even by legal means, that blocks development [of KGI], the 50 years agreement [of partial preservation] is null." This is part of the reason why the finalization of this contract, whose general terms were decided upon in November, has taken upwards of 3 months. "The Friends thought this specification was particularly objectionable, since these are things we have no control over." However, Hamlett continue, "without this [stipulation], no agreement would have been signed."

Indeed, outside groups, particularly Students for the Field Station, have "not agreed to stop opposing the construction of KGI, as our position is that any destruction of the Field Station would be ecological disaster." Lenny Molina, speaking on behalf of the group, stated, "[we] think that the compromise they (Friends) settled on actually was nothing." According to Molina, the agreement was ineffective because "50 years is when [the colleges] want to use that land anyway, and building on any of BFS will cause severe and irreparable harm."

One of the board members of Friends for the Bernard Field Station, Jason Venetoulis, resigned in protest over the agreement with CUC. Hamlett stated that she "sympathizes with the board member and students, but there was a difference in opinion of what was doable." She continued, "If we could’ve figured out a way to stop the whole thing (development), we would’ve done that." Yet, "We’re farther ahead than otherwise."

Where does this leave the future of the Bernard Field Station? The Friends, "at the moment," Hamlett stated, "will continue the other part of their mission, which is education about the field station". Another group involved in protection of BFS, the Coalition to Preserve Claremont’s Character (CPCC), previously sponsored a referendum before the City Council, which challenged the council’s approval of the Development Agreement for the North Campus Master Plan. This referendum, to approve or block the development agreement, would have been voted upon by citizens in March. Barham Hill commented that "CUC believed that taking the matter of our property rights to the voters would be divisive and not in our or the City’s best interests." Therefore, they asked the City to repeal their approval of the development plan." Barham Hill continued, "on the basis of this pending agreement [over the lawsuit]… the City repealed their approval."

Some community members feel that the BFS controversy has exacerbated divides between the community and the colleges. Carol Gil, head of CPCC, "was astonished [at the college’s request for repeal]. The intent of the referendum was to let the people have a say in their city." She continued that the colleges are "using the smaller issue (the lawsuit) to circumvent the larger issue [the referendum]." Yet, as a result of the repeal of development approval, CUC must resubmit a development plan to the City Council. The acceptance of the development agreement is necessary in order to build KGI.