Page One

Residents upset that Planning Commissioners didn’t give a recommendation for the hotel and spa’s grounds 

To the disappointment of many Berkeley and Oakland residents, the Oakland Planning Commission decided Wednesday night to recommend only the building and not the grounds of the 86-year-old Claremont Hotel and Spa for landmark status.  

The commission’s 6-1 decision did, however, change the zoning guidelines for the grounds from a residential S-14 to a commercial S-4, but the change does not provide any more safeguards for historic preservation.  

There will be a design review if construction or significant alteration takes place, said Patricia McGowan, an Oakland city planner. The public will be allowed to voice their concerns during this review. 

“But a design review is not intended to limit, restrict or make more complicated the routine maintenance and operation of the hotel,” said McGowan. 

The Planning Commission also specified that if the City Council adopts its recommendations, the final ordinance would also require a design review when the sight lines of the hotel building and the amount of open space are threatened. 

Neighbors of the Claremont in Berkeley and Oakland wanted both the building and the green space around the hotel to be landmarked.  

The neighborhood group went into last night’s meeting armed with the unanimous approval of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to landmark “the grounds as a whole” and the support of city officials in Berkeley. They also had letters of recommendations from the state’s Office of Historic Preservation and a local preservation architect. 

While they were extremely happy that the building received landmark status, they were not happy that the grounds were left out because the Claremont is distinctive for being a garden hotel, said Wendy Markel of the Berkeley/Oakland Neighbors of the Claremont.  

“You could have some other hotel surrounded by a hot-scape, but that would be horrible,” she said. “You’d see nothing but gas stations. The way it is now, you could practically build a Taco Bell there.” 

But Denise Chapman, spokesperson for the Claremont, issued a statement saying that the company took their stewardship of the property very seriously. 

“We pride ourselves in being the only Claremont owners who have ever agreed that the building should be designated as a landmark,” she said. 

But Chapman said the company was happy with the decision not to landmark the grounds. “Our grounds are beautiful, but there is just not any special historical significance to our parking lots, tennis courts and gardens.” 

But it wasn’t just the grounds issue that rankled the neighbors, said Markel. It was also the process. 

“We worked like Trojans to do this thing and the city could have at least said thank you to the community or the Landmarks Board,” said Markel. “They didn’t even ask one question and it seemed like a done deal.” 

Markel, a Berkeley resident, said that she felt particularly embarrassed because the Oakland City Council seemed not to want Berkeley residents there. 

“The commission was rude. They were practically telling us to go home. ‘What were we doing here when we should be at home protecting the Berkeley Tennis Club?’ Well, it’s one-twenty-fifth the size of the hotel and it has less impact,” she said. 

But Berkeley residents should not think that Oakland does not value their input, said McGowan. When the commission spoke to the Berkeley folks, it was to the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission officials. The commission simply wanted these officials to apply the same recommendations to the city’s own property – that is, the Tennis Club facing the Claremont. 

The city of Oakland is only obligated to give notice to Oakland residents within 300 feet of the Claremont, said McGowan. “But we gave notices to Berkeley residents within 300 feet of the Claremont, too. If we didn’t want them to come, we only had to tell the Oakland residents.” 

Berkeley Councilmember Polly Armstrong, whose district is adjacent to the Claremont property, said she is not surprised by the Oakland Planning Commission’s recommendation.  

She has supported the neighbors’ plan throughout the process, but she thought that the hotel would succeed in securing its development interests. 

“The hotel is one of the biggest tax generators,” said Armstrong. “I’m afraid that money talks more than history or aesthetics.” 

More Berkeley residents than Oakland residents are affected, explained Armstrong, because the hotel’s grounds practically make up many the front yard of many Berkeley residents. Moreover, since there are few parks in the area, the Claremont’s grounds have become the substitute. 

“Now this throws everything on the backs of the neighbors,” said Armstrong. “It makes them the guardians of the grounds of the Claremont Hotel. The Claremont Hotel has lots of money and power. The neighbors have energy and dedication, but it’s like Jack and the Giant.” 

It’s too bad the Claremont is in Oakland, said Armstrong. “If Berkeley was controlling this, you bet your boots the grounds would have been landmarked.” 

The Planning Commission is still writing its report, which should be presented to the Oakland City Council for a vote in a couple of months.