Todd, Amber

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Janet White <jlwhite2010@gmail.com>

Monday, August 22, 2016 12:41 AM
Clevenger, Ann; Lee, Heather; Todd, Amber
Follow-up AND New Public Records Act Request for Claremont Expansion Project,
PLN#16-053, ER16-010, and Zoning Case #ZP150120
0014 MISSING INFO.docx; 0021 MISSING INFO.docx; 0022 MISSING INFO.docx

Dear Ms. Clevenger, Ms. Lee and Ms. Todd,

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I request digital
(electronic) copies, or if that is not possible, physical copies, of any and all records pertaining to the following:

Conditional Use Permit, PLN#16-053,

California Environmental Quality Act filings for ER16-010 for the Claremont Hotel - Club Expansion
and Residential Project,
Zoning Case #ZP150120, including the preliminary plans and information submitted for a preapplication review

from this date today, August 19, 2016 back to June 2015 (the backdate of the previous Public Records request,
#16084). In addition, please continue to provide copies of public records until the conclusion of this project.

I have downloaded, read and analyzed all records provided in response to Public Records Request #16084
(dating back to June, 2015), and I do not need duplicates. However, the documents provided were incomplete in
several respects. I provide details in this letter and attachments.

In light of the fact that I have asked that this request remain in force until the conclusion of this project, I offer
to send reminders to, or re-contact, a designated Oakland Planning staff member periodically. I offer to make
electronic copies available to other individuals, whenever requested.

The records I now request are (1) the result of incomplete production of public records in response to the last
request, and (2) the result of the publics ongoing need for complete disclosure of all documents.

Records should include documents missing from original public records request:
1

 all submitted materials and City responses, including in particular, reports and attachments referred to
in email correspondence (lists attached)
Draft scope, preliminary draft EIR, other preliminary plans and studies, all referenced in previous
disclosures but not included,
full text of email threads including responses to questions and discussions begun in the emails
previously disclosed
all studies and expert reports, including but not restricted to: hydrology; geology; geotechnical/seismic
trench findings; traffic studies in their entirety including analysis of impacts and traffic demand
management studies; cultural resource/historic landmark impacts; population density and possible
impacts, and others related to aspects of the Scope and the EIR;
phasing plans, grading plans, hydrology and seismic plans, parking studies, parking plans and plans
for capacity and engineering/operation of multilevel underground parking garage with stacking cars, and
any other technical planning and phasing performed with reference to the above,
architectural plans, renderings and schematics, (that have not already been provided)
subcontractor proposals,
updated proposals from Urban Planning Partners or their subcontractors,
all correspondence, including that to and from City Attorney Mark Wald and
any other documents and correspondence relevant including all from the Project applicant and the
City, to and from each other, without exception,
all historical documents referenced in the previous correspondence, including but not limited to those
cited, by link, date, and subject, in the ATTACHED.

While documents were provided under the previous request #16084, many answers, correspondence, complete
email threads, and referenced materials were absent. Even emails that were filed in the CUP#16053 which I
read on May 26th were absent!

Under the current and ongoing request, I am particularly concerned about expert reports, studies and comments
either submitted to the City in the past and present and future (with regard to the items listed or related
documents), or expert comments generated by the City and its staff, past and present. These would include all
those regarding:

Expert reports, Predesign documents submitted by the developers

Draft scope in its entirety
2

 Preliminary Draft EIR in its entirety

Other Preliminary plans and studies,
Expert comments from all sources
Any and all geotechnical studies and background data
Seismic fault map and all additional information gathered from seismic trenches, past and present
New information for seismic faults
Any and all Soils reports
Any and all hydrology studies
Any and all reports on traffic and traffic impacts, past and current
All correspondence, documents and plans submitted by Urban Planning Partners or other experts (not
including the one previously provided)
Any and all Cultural impacts reports, including archeological expert opinions, data, studies
Attachments for, documents referenced in, and responses to emails as listed, all studies and expert
reports related to any application for development on the Claremont Hotel property at any time and in
possession of the City of Oakland, including but not restricted to: hydrology; geology;
geotechnical/seismic trench findings; traffic studies including analysis of increased traffic impacts and
traffic demand management studies; drainage plans; cultural resource/historic landmark impacts;
population density and possible impacts; all in their entirety.

Because the extended comment period for scoping development of the Draft EIR is now ongoing and will
conclude September 6, I ask for a determination on this request within the next 10 days. An even prompter
response would be much appreciated.

I have attached a list of referenced documents that were absent from the previous response. I have attached
these lists by link in your response, and further by page number, date of email, and author and addressees.

If you determine that any of the requested information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, please note
whether, as is normally the case under the ACT, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary
in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold such information.

I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $100 before you duplicate the records so that I may
decide which records I want copied.
3

Thank you. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

Janet White
142 Alvarado Road
Berkeley, CA 94705

--

Janet White
142 Alvarado Road
Berkeley, CA 94705

510 486-0109

0014 MISSING INFO

DOC070516-0014.pdf
MISSING INFORMATION IS REQUESTED IN ALL-CAPS UNDERLINED TEXT.
Page: 15
6.9.16
WHERE IS RECORD OF WHO RECEIVED THIS NOTICE (OWNERS OF
PROPERTY WITHIN A 300' RADIUS OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CLAREMONT HOTEL PROPERTY) INCLUDING THEIR ADDRESSES AND CITIES
OF RESIDENCE?
Page: 27
5.31.16
NOP, p. 2
three parcels entirely within the City of Berkeley
WHERE ARE THE MAPS OF THESE THREE PARCELS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE
CITY OF BERKELEY?
Page: 34
12.16.15
Ann C. to Jamie Choy
"the preliminary plans and information submitted for a pre-application
review (Case #ZP150120)"
"The property is located in the RU-3 Urban Residential Zone. One aspect of
the proposal includes adding 40-50 new condominium units, with two levels
of parking underneath. This development would occur on a parcel proposed
to be subdivided from the overall Claremont property."
"Please provide the nature of the condominium units, i.e. will they [units] be
rentable on a short-term basis? Will they be put into a pool to be maintained
by the Hotel operators, or function independently?"

450 square feet of land required to support each unit

What is anticipated usage of access point at Domingo/Russell? Traffic and
entry point . . of concern
WHERE ARE THE PRELIMINARY PLANS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR
A PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW (CASE #ZP150120)? WHERE IS RESPONSIVE
CORRESPONDENCE? WHERE ARE ALL RESPONSES/ANSWERS?
WHERE IS THE PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT OF
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND HOUSES? WHERE IS THE RESPONSIVE
CORRESPONDENCE? WHERE ARE DOCUMENTS AND EMAILS THAT ANSWER
ANNS QUESTIONS?
Page: 35
"Site circulation and parking will be considered, as well as how these
changes will impact the surrounding neighborhoods, from a traffic, parking,
noise, lighting, aesthetic, and other relevant aspects.
"Please provide a follow-up to the community meeting that was held on
November 13, 2015, including numbers and lists of attendees and
comments, as available. Also, please inform Staff of any other outreach
efforts and future meetings."
WHERE ARE THESE FOLLOW-UPS AND REPORTS?
-Janet White
142 Alvarado Road
Berkeley, CA 94705

510 486-0109

0021 MISSING INFO

DOC070516-021.pdf
MISSING INFORMATION IS REQUESTED IN ALL-CAPS UNDERLINED TEXT.
Page: 8
6.1.16 Eric Uddenberg Bureau of Engineering & Construction City of Oakland
to Ann Clevenger, Betty Marvin, and cc: to Scott Miller and Jeff Krohn:
"Your attached photo shows the Right of Way for the Shortcut Stair and
Path. My attached photo shows the Stair terminating at the edge of the
Claremont Hotel Parking lot. That is the limit of our work. The 16 ft. wide
City Right of Way continues thru the parking lot and ends at Tunnel Road.
We are not currently working with the Claremont Hotel owners at this time.
We did receive some general comments from the Developer's representative
regarding the Site Plan and path of travel for pedestrians to Tunnel Road.
Perhaps one condition of approval of the development would be a safe path
of travel for pedestrians using the "Short Cut" stair and path."
WHERE ARE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPER'S
REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE SITE PLAN AND PATH OF TRAVEL FOR
PEDESTRIANS TO TUNNEL ROAD?
Page: 9
6.1.16
Eric Uddenberg to Betty Marvin: "I have attached some site photos and the
existing plan view of the "Short Cut" Stair located between Alvarado Road
and the Claremont Hotel Parking lot. We will be starting the preliminary
design next week. The Design will broaden the spectrum of users by
complying with the applicable ADA codes especially for the semi ambulatory
and visual impaired [sic] users. We will also maintain the major architectural
qualities of the existing Stair and Path. The existing rock wall shall remain
and all of the risers and treads will be replaced for safety, mobility and code
compliance. The new treads and risers will match the color of the existing
conditions.
Please contact me if you have any questions, concerns or comments."

WHERE ARE PHOTOS AND EXISTING PLAN VIEW OF SHORT CUT? WHERE
IS BETTYS RESPONSE?
Page: 13
6.2.16
Jeff Krohn, Architect City of Oakland, Bureau of Engineering and
Construction, to Rani Marx, copying Eric Uddenberg, B. Mohamed Alaoui,
and Ann Clevenger:
"Alvarado Stair path is still in the design phase, so no drawings ready yet for
public comment. The survey of existing conditions is now complete.
"The city right of way ROW (existing) extends from the base of the stairs, a
straight line 15' wide through the parking lot to public street/sidewalk access
at Tunnel Rd. Zoning would likely address this pedestrian connection and
existing City ROW in any approved plans, to facilitate pedestrian access."
3rd paragraph: ". . . Currently the ROW is ignored at #19."
Previous email from Eric Uddenberg
WHERE IS ILLUSTRATION SHOWING Currently the ROW is ignored at
#19."?
Page: 16
Date: 8/12/16, 2:19:44 PM
4.25.16
Jamie to Ann and Scott, copy to Eric HARRISON
"I believe Urban Planning Partners has submitted a final EIR scope to Mark
Wald. Can you let us know if he's received it and when we'll be ready to kick
UPP off? Also, can we schedule a meeting with you and Scott to follow up on
the status of comments on our February submittal package, and to talk
about the upcoming project schedule?"
WHERE IS FINAL EIR SCOPE FROM URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS? WHERE
ARE MARK WALDS COMMENTS? WHERE ARE COMMENTS ON
FEBRUARY SUBMITTAL PACKAGE? IS THAT PACKAGE OF 41 LARGE-FORMAT
PAGES SUBMITTED 2.25.16? IS THAT THE COMPLETE SUBMITTAL

PACKAGE? WHERE IS UPCOMING PROJECT SCHEDULE? WHERE IS THE

LATEST VERSION OF THE UPCOMING PROJECT SCHEDULE?
Page: 20
4.6.16
Lynn Hansen to Ann Clevenger
Concerns about massive loss of green space and old growth trees if this
proposal is approved. Further the traffic that would be generated in a
residential neighborhood would be a serious hazard to both adults and
children with the addition of 45 condos. . . .
4.7.16
Ann to Lynn: there is no imminent meeting at this point . . . Gives Lynn
Jamie Choys contact info.
4.8.16
Jamie to Lynn: If you are interested, we would be happy too meet with you
at your convenience. . . .
Where is response? DID ANY MEETING WITH LYNN HANSEN TAKE PLACE?
WHERE IS LYNN AND ANNS FOLLOWUP CORRESPONDENCE? LYNN AND
JAMIES?
Page: 47
5.2.16
Jamie to Ann
"I believe a revised EIR scope was provided to Mark Wald; can you check in
to see it he's received it and if we're close to being ready to start? We'd like
to set up a meeting with you, Scott and Mark in the next week . . ."
WHERE IS REVISED EIR SCOPE AND MARK WALD COMMENTS ON ORIGINAL
AND REVISED?
Page: 54
6.3.16

UPP FEES -- ANN SAYS "WE CAN GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF TODAY"
WHERE IS EMAIL RESPONSE FROM UPP?
Page: 55
6.3.16
Jamie to Ann, Betty, Scott, cc to Eric Harrison
MEETING FRIDAY WHERE ARE FOLLOWUP EMAILS AND DOCS?
Page: 57
5.16.16
JAMIE to Ann, Scott Miller, copy to Eric Harrison
Please confirm the plans we submitted in FE have been circulated to required
depts. (fire, historic, traffic, engineering, etc.) and please provide a date
when we should expect comments (3 wks. was mentioned so week of June
6th?)
We'd like to set up ongoing bi-weekly meetings to check in on the status of
the project. Scott suggested the week of June 6th, so are you both available
Wednesday afternoon (6/8)?
WHERE ARE THE COMMENTS FROM ALL REQUIRED DEPTS. (FIRE,
HISTORIC, TRAFFIC, ENGINEERING, ETC. JAMIE SAYS EXPECTED 3 WKS.
ENDED WEEK OF JUNE 6TH)
Page: 61
6.2.16
Ann to SOMEONE but WHO? JAMIE?
"Apparently the neighbors are in contact with Jeff Krohn, Architect at OPW
regarding the stairs. Please see his comments below."
Page: 62
Date: 8/12/16, 3:28:34 PM
6.2.16

Jeff Krohn (architect at Oakland Public Works) to Rani Marx

"In Figure 2 the development plans #19, 2 single family houses and
driveways (proposed) are shown. The city right of way ROW (existing)
extends from the base of the stairs, a straight line 15' wide through the
parking lot to public street/sidewalk access at tunnel Rd. Zoning would likely
address this pedestrian connection and existing City ROW in any approved
plans, to facilitate pedestrian access. Currently the ROW is ignored at #19."
WHERE IS RESPONSE OF CITY PLANNING (ANN C. OR OTHERS) AND
SIGNATURE DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING THE ROW THAT IS CURRENTLY
IGNORED AT #19?
Page: 68
6.1.16
Ann to Hannah Young
"Accepted: Claremont Hotel - Club Expansion and Residential Project EIR"
THERE IS NO TEXT OR ATTACHMENTS. WHAT WAS ACCEPTED AT THIS
POINT? WHERE IS THE EIR CITED IN SUBJECT LINE: "Accepted: Claremont
Hotel - Club Expansion and Residential Project EIR"?
WHERE ARE ALL DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH UPP,
INCLUDING UPDATED PROPOSAL?
Page: 80
6.9.16
Hannah to Betty
Weve been assured by KTOP that they do make videos of Landmarks
meetings, although no one can find them posted online.
"I need to verify that this is correct so we can be sure to transcribe the June
13th meeting."
WHERE IS TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING? PLEASE ADVISE SO
WE CAN OBTAIN A COPY.
PAGE 81

6.7.16
Ann C. to Janet White
". . . the Draft Scope is not public record at this time. Once it is finalized, it
will be made available."
WHERE IS THE DRAFT SCOPE NOW THAT IT IS FINALIZED?
Page: 82
6.7.16
Ann to Jamie
Posted yellow Notice signs on Claremont Hotel site. . .
"By the way, when will you have those Berkeley owners' addresses/labels?"
Jamie Its going to be tomorrow afternoon . . ."
WHAT ARE THE Berkeley owners' addresses/labels?" MENTIONED AND
WHERE IS THE GROUP OF ADDRESSES?
Page: 86
Ann to La Tisha Russell 6.14.16
"Can I get copies of speaker cards for the Claremont Hotel item last night? I
need to make a PDF of them and send them to our CEQA consultant."
WHO IS CEQA CONSULTANT? WHERE ARE DOCUMENTS AND
CORRESPONDENCE WITH CEQA CONSULTANT?
Page: 92
6.14.16
Hannah Young to Ann C.
"We should get the transcript in about 10 business days."
WE NEED TRANSCRIPT WHHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY
6.24.16. WHERE IS TRANSCRIPT THAT UPP MADE USING CITYS
RECORDING OF PUBLIC LPAB MEETING (6.13.16)?

WHERE IS TRANSCRIPT THAT UPP MADE USING CITYS RECORDING OF

PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (7.6.16)
Page 113
6.20.16
Robert Merkamp to Ann C.
DTRAC
"This is an opportunity for your applicant to ask questions of other
departments. They should submit a list of questions (separated by
department) a week before the meeting. Plans are not necessary. At best we
distribute electronic version (no paper . . .). . . ":
6.17.16
Ann to Robert M.
"I asked Pete about getting items on DTRAC and he told me you might be
able to clue me in. I need to know not only how to get an item on but how
many copies and to whom, etc. to give plans. . . "
WHERE IS LIST OF QUESTIONS (SEPARATED BY DEPARTMENT) SUBMITTED
BY SIGNATURE BEFORE DTRAC MEETING? WHERE IS REPORT AND WHERE
ARE COMMENTS TO APPLICANT FROM DTRAC?
WHERE IS ZONING PREAPPLICATION? WHERE IS ZONING APPLICATION
REFERRED TO UNDER DTRAC?
Page: 120
4.5.16
JAMIE TO ANN
"We should be finalizing the CEQA scope this week and be able to get it back
into Mark Wald's hands soon. Then we definitely want to sit down and talk
about scheduling upcoming meetings soon."
He had objected to April LPAB meeting because it was "too early in the
process and inappropriate at this point to have informational hearing with
LPAB. Our application has still not been deemed complete . . ."
CEQA SCOPE MENTIONED AGAIN, BEING FINALIZED WEEK OF 4.5.16.
WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS THE APPLICATION THAT HAD STILL NOT BEEN
DEEMED COMPLETE?

Page: 123
6.6.16
Ann to Scott re emails from Sarah Fine to Ann C. Sarah is Senior
Transportation Planner, Transportation Planning and Funding Division, City
of Oakland
"One key issue is that I'd like to better understand how the project will
change the parking supply. I've combed the EIR scope and I'm not really
grasping how much parking is being lost/replaced/added, for which uses,
and how it will be managed. Do you have more specifics on this proposal?
Two other queries: what's the timeline for the TDM plan on this project? My
understanding was that the sponsor was 'front-loading' it, potentially
completing before the EIR was complete -- is this correct? Finally, could also
you please pass along the project sponsor's presentation from last week's
Claremont Hotel site visit? I'd like to review the refined circulation map that
was shared."
WHERE IS THE EIR SCOPE REFERRED TO BY SARAH FINE? WHERE IS THE
DRAFT SCOPE THAT WAS FINALIZED?
WHERE IS REPLY CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF HOW MUCH PARKING
IS BEING LOST/REPLACED/ADDED, FOR WHICH USES, AND HOW IT WILL
BE MANAGED. DO YOU HAVE MORE SPECIFICS ON THIS PROPOSAL?
WHERE IS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR TIMELINE FOR THE TDM
(TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT?) PLAN ON THIS PROJECT?
WHERE IS RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION: My understanding was that the
sponsor was 'front-loading' it, potentially completing before the EIR was
complete -- is this correct?
WHERE ARE ALL SPECIFIC DETAILS ON HOW AND WHEN THE TDM IS BEING
CONDUCTED AND ALL DATA COLLECTED AND ANALYSIS PERFORMED!
ALSO WHERE IS THIS: the project sponsor's presentation from last week's
Claremont Hotel site visit?

--

Janet White
142 Alvarado Road
Berkeley, CA 94705

510 486-0109

0022 MISSING INFO

DOC070516-022.pdf
MISSING INFORMATION IS REQUESTED IN ALL-CAPS UNDERLINED TEXT.

Page 24
8.9.16
4.15.16 email from Ann Clevenger to Carol Johnson:
Ann to Carol: She hasn't heard from McCormick yet, but comments can be directed to
her. "The applicants are doing community outreach, and there is some preliminary
environmental analysis being done. We will likely go before the Landmarks Board on
at least an informational basis first, and then move on to the Planning Commission.
WHERE IS PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS?

Page: 31
Date: 8/9/16 4.43:00 PM
Jamie to Ann 4.5.16:
"This comes as a surprise to us and we believe that it is too early in the process and
inappropriate at this point to have an informational hearing with LPAB. Our
application has still not been deemed complete and we continue to have ongoing
outreach meetings . . .
WHERE IS THE COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT WAS DEEMED COMPLETE?
Page: 32
Date: 8/4/16, 7:22:27 PM
3.22.2016 Naomi Schiff to Betty Marvin
Naomi Schiff: "Is there a pre-application at Planning?"
WHERE IS PRE APPLICATION?
Page: 43
5.24.16 Sayed Refai, Plan Check Engineer, to Ann Clevenger

Sayed Refai: "proposed new residence building is very close to the existing
seismic fault line. . . It will require a geotechnical report to find the actual
location of the fault and to determine if it is safe to build so close to the fault
line. If it is determined to be safe to build, the structural engineer
has to design it for the higher seismic loads suitable for the location
and the soil conditions" He is Plan Check Engineer.
WHERE IS RESPONSE? PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS? GEOLOGY
REPORTS? STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS?
Page: 48
5.23.16 Rachel Flynn to Ann re:
When will the scope of the EIR be done? And the "deemed complete?
WHERE IS THE RESPONSE? WHERE IS THE SCOPE OF THE EIR? WHERE IS
THE DEEMED COMPLETE?
Page: 65
5.17.16
Jamie to Ann re: Claremont Hotel meeting
Mark Wald's suggestion to discuss upcoming LPAB hearing and follow-up on
two questions: (1) feedback on plans submitted to fire, historic, traffic,
engineering, etc. and date to expect comments (2) set up bi-weekly
meetings to check on status either 6/8 or 6/9 or 6/10 (wed thurs or fri)
WHERE IS FEEDBACK? COMMENTS? WHERE ARE REPORTS ON BI-WEEKLY
MEEITNGS?

Page: 131
6.24.16
Ann to Jamie re: "TPM supplemental requirements (01.04.11) revision.pdf"
I put in a request for Claremont Hotel item to be placed on agenda for
next DTRAC (development review meeting) which is coming up in July. . .

Attached is the comment memo I received from Engineering Services.

. . . Meanwhile I learned that there was no vesting map, TPM, etc.,
submitted with the application; . . .
WHERE IS COMMENT FROM ENGINEERING SERVICES. WHERE ARE
ATTACHMENTS? WHERE IS PDF SPECIFIED IN THE SUBJECT LINE? (6.24.16
email from Ann to Jamie "TPM supplemental requirements (01.04.11)
revision.pdf" WHERE ARE OTHER MEMOS AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHER
DEPARTMENTS (FIRE, HISTORIC, TRAFFIC, ENGINEERING, ETC.)? WHERE IS
VESTING MAP?
"As a follow-up to my previous e-mail: I will need 6 wet stamped copies of
the Map/TPM
WHERE IS WET-STAMPED COPY OF MAP/TPM?
Page: 132
5.17.16
Jamie to Ann and Scott
Jamie wants feedback from fire, historic, traffic, engineering, etc.
departments. WHERE IS IT?

--

Janet White
142 Alvarado Road
Berkeley, CA 94705

510 486-0109