Wednesday night’s meeting of the Claremont Architectural Commission in Hahn, along with a student protest last Thursday have increased the debate over the use of the Bernard Field Station (BFS).

Wednesday night more than 100 concerned students and citizens of Claremont gathered in the Hahn Building for the meeting of Claremont’s Architectural Commission. During this meeting the use of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was discussed. Before public comment was heard three representatives of the Claremont University Center (CUC) made the case for the development of the field station. President of Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) Hank Riggs said " the land has been owned by CUC for 75 years for the purpose of building new colleges." Riggs believes that the humanity-benefiting output of KGI far outweighs the cost to the environment, thus making KGI "an opportunity that must not slip away."

Speaking on behalf of KGI Bonnie Rosenberg also explained that "the land selected is the most academically unimportant." Further "only 11.4 of the 90 acres of land are being used, leaving plenty of land" for use by the colleges and school students.

When the meeting was opened to public comment, Professor of Environmental Studies at Pitzer College Paul Faulstich spoke first, showing a slide show of the BFS and the development of the city of Claremont. Faulstich says the land is "invaluable to the community" and that vernal pools will be destroyed when KGI is constructed. Faulstich points to this as an example of the "human addiction to destroying natural places."

Other community members spoke, including teachers and participants of the elementary school Leadership in Environmental Education Process (LEEP), which brings more than 100 students to the Field Station weekly to study the natural environment. Many concerned citizens called the Environmental Impact Report incomplete, citing that the Field Station was only visited on one occasion. John Keenan called the report "inadequate" and Steve Negler called the report "flawed."

The EIR named the quarry pit as the environmentally superior site for the Keck Institute. This means that the City Council has the ability to force the construction of KGI to take place at the quarry pit. If CUC decides not to build KGI at the pit, it is not forced to, but it cannot build it at the Field Station if the City decides not to allow it to do so.

No final decisions were made at the meeting, which was purely intended to accept public input regarding the draft EIR.

Last Thursday students and community members protested along Foothill Boulevard to try to bring attention to the plight of the BFS. From 3pm until 5pm students marched, held signs, and talked with motorists in front of the Field Station. Two speakers were brought to discuss the importance of the land. Faulstich spoke about the ecological importance of the land. A Native American who became aware of the protest through an advertisement taken out in the Claremont Courier discussed the importance of the land culturally, because the land was once the site of a Native American village.

Students from the Claremont Colleges, Claremont High School, and local elementary schools study the Bernard Field Station located north of Foothill, as a natural sanctuary.

"Our overlying goal is to get the clause that keeps the BFS preserved back into the environmental impact report so we can keep this area natural into perpetuity." Malia Langworthy ’99, a leader of the protesting students group explained, "We were out there to get the public aware that something is going on at the BFS."

Students are protesting the removal of a specific clause from the EIR. The EIR sets guidelines and recommendations for how land is going to be used in the future.

According to students, the EIR had a clause in it that restricted further development of the field station. However, this clause has been removed, thus, students fear, allowing for further building in this area after the current planning cycle concludes, 15 years from now.

However, city councilwoman Belle Newman says that the clause referred to is in the administrative draft of the EIR. The administrative draft is a working copy, however, and is subject to change, as is the case here. It may be that in June or July, when the architectural commission makes its final decision, the clause will be put back in. "An overlooked part of the EIR," says the Belle Newman, is that "part of master plan is to preserve the field station for 15 years". The city is final arbiter of all zoning decisions. The city’s architectural commission will make final decision in June or July.

Aaron Ginoza ’02, next year’s Commissioner of Environmental Affairs says, "I believe that the Field Station is important and it’s used by a lot of people. We’re all for trying to move it somewhere else because the BFS is much too valuable to lose to development." Ginoza says, "The push is to relocate it somewhere else, but if we can’t then we want to save the rest. We’re still not certain about how much leverage we have."

President of Pomona College Peter Stanley says, "If it was up to me, I would provide an absolute guarantee that for the lifetime of this planning cycle, nothing else will be built on the BFS." But, Stanley says, "The donor gave the land as an expansion site for new colleges. I can’t in good faith support a permanent guarantee [not to build on the remaining area of the BFS]."

Robert Tranquada, Chairman of the Pomona Board of Trustees, supports Stanley. Tranquada believes that since the land was donated by Ellen Scripps specifically as a location for new colleges, "It is our obligation to follow the wishes of the donor."

But Faulstich claims that the deed leaving the land to the colleges states that the land be used for "educational purposes." Faulstich says, "I think it’s important to make that distinction and once we make that distinction I don’t think that anyone can argue [about the use of the land]."

Faulstich wants the Bernard Field Station preserved and he is fighting to create an endowment fund that will allow the land to be used more effectively. He points out that currently two full time professors share directorship of the land.

Critics who disapprove of any use of the Bernard Field Station for building have pointed to the Claremont golf course or the quarry pit as possible alternative sites for future building by the colleges. However, Tim Mahar, public relations director for the five colleges says that "all of the sites were considered and for various reasons none of them were as attractive as the Bernard Field Station." But Mahar says that it is still not completely certain that the Field Station will be used, as student and community reaction are difficult to gauge.

"The pit is not feasible," says Hank Riggs. Riggs says the pit is not an acceptable alternative because the cost of preparing the land would be prohibitive and the location is too far from the colleges. The use of the golf course is undesirable to the colleges because it generates a yearly revenue of $100,000 for CUC.

Faulstich says that some of the figures used in the decision making process were not entirely accurate. For example, a price of $4 million was quoted as the price to make the quarry usable land, but Faulstich says that he has talked with developers who have cited much lower numbers.

"Without this preserve," Langworthy says. "There is no resource like this within walking distance of the colleges and the local schools." She believes that preserving the Bernard Field Station is crucial because without natural ecosystems nearby it will be harder for people to understand and study the environment.