While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.
------------------------------------------------------------
By Jeff Wan, Clayton City Councilmember
At our last meeting the Council discussed several significant items:
- We approved the employment contract for our new City Manager, Kris Lofthus. Mr. Lofthus comes to us from Suisun City where he currently serves as the Recreation, Parks, and Marina Director and prior to that as the Deputy City Manager. With over 28 years of municipal experience, I am excited to welcome Mr. Lofthus as our next City Manager.
Related, this was also the last Council meeting that our current Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, will be attending in this capacity. I want to thank Adam for all he has done in the time that he was here. As a retiree, he is limited in the number of hours he can work. Because of this, and the nature of interim roles, typically the focus is only on things that can reasonably be accomplished during the allotted time. But in working with Adam, you wouldn't know this because of the vigor in which he approached the role.
I am appreciative of what Adam has been able to accomplish, especially reorganizing the staff at City Hall to be more efficient and effective. I am grateful for his leadership, guidance, and counsel.
- We heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's granting of a one year extension for the Oak Creek Canyon development project. Extensions for development projects may be granted upon finding of good cause. The Planning Commission heard the request from the developer and based on their judgment and staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission granted the extension. The rational was that site work was continuing, but due to continuing efforts to locate specific underground petroleum pipelines.
A nearby property owner appealed this extension, asserting among other things that the project violates the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan, that the water detention basin size was inadequate to support potential future development on neighboring property, that the City has failed to comply with the State housing element law, and that certain provisions of the approvals have not been incorporated into the City's General Plan.
Before Council on appeal was the granting of the extension of the Development Permit, only. All other issues raised were not able to be appealed. As such, after discussion, the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision to grant an extension and denied the appeal on a vote of 4-1. Councilmember Cloven voted no. Cloven stated that when he voted in favor of the appeal for the Olivia project, he faced community dissatisfaction, and that he felt that if the City granted this extension, then it would set precedent for future extension requests.
This is of course, incorrect on the facts and the law. As a policymaking body and at times a semi-adjudicative body, the Council is charged with exercising its judgment based on the fact pattern presented. Different fact patterns call for different judgments. In fact, the standard of "good cause" is intended to convey the need for judgment on a case by case basis. Granting an extension for one project does not mean that extensions must be granted for all projects. This is a fallacy.
The standard for granting an appeal is showing of Good Cause, though the term "good cause" is not specifically defined in the City's municipal code. This is likely intentional as this term is used throughout statewide government code without a standard definition in order to give municipalities latitude in exercising judgment.
- We also received an update on discreet action items that can help further the City's strategic plan. Given the transition to a new City Manager, staff wanted to focus on certain short term items while continuing to plan for the larger efforts in the future.
We appreciate you for reading this article.
At our last meeting the Council discussed several significant items:
- We approved the employment contract for our new City Manager, Kris Lofthus. Mr. Lofthus comes to us from Suisun City where he currently serves as the Recreation, Parks, and Marina Director and prior to that as the Deputy City Manager. With over 28 years of municipal experience, I am excited to welcome Mr. Lofthus as our next City Manager.
Related, this was also the last Council meeting that our current Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, will be attending in this capacity. I want to thank Adam for all he has done in the time that he was here. As a retiree, he is limited in the number of hours he can work. Because of this, and the nature of interim roles, typically the focus is only on things that can reasonably be accomplished during the allotted time. But in working with Adam, you wouldn't know this because of the vigor in which he approached the role.
I am appreciative of what Adam has been able to accomplish, especially reorganizing the staff at City Hall to be more efficient and effective. I am grateful for his leadership, guidance, and counsel.
- We heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's granting of a one year extension for the Oak Creek Canyon development project. Extensions for development projects may be granted upon finding of good cause. The Planning Commission heard the request from the developer and based on their judgment and staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission granted the extension. The rational was that site work was continuing, but due to continuing efforts to locate specific underground petroleum pipelines.
A nearby property owner appealed this extension, asserting among other things that the project violates the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan, that the water detention basin size was inadequate to support potential future development on neighboring property, that the City has failed to comply with the State housing element law, and that certain provisions of the approvals have not been incorporated into the City's General Plan.
Before Council on appeal was the granting of the extension of the Development Permit, only. All other issues raised were not able to be appealed. As such, after discussion, the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision to grant an extension and denied the appeal on a vote of 4-1. Councilmember Cloven voted no. Cloven stated that when he voted in favor of the appeal for the Olivia project, he faced community dissatisfaction, and that he felt that if the City granted this extension, then it would set precedent for future extension requests.
This is of course, incorrect on the facts and the law. As a policymaking body and at times a semi-adjudicative body, the Council is charged with exercising its judgment based on the fact pattern presented. Different fact patterns call for different judgments. In fact, the standard of "good cause" is intended to convey the need for judgment on a case by case basis. Granting an extension for one project does not mean that extensions must be granted for all projects. This is a fallacy.
The standard for granting an appeal is showing of Good Cause, though the term "good cause" is not specifically defined in the City's municipal code. This is likely intentional as this term is used throughout statewide government code without a standard definition in order to give municipalities latitude in exercising judgment.
- We also received an update on discreet action items that can help further the City's strategic plan. Given the transition to a new City Manager, staff wanted to focus on certain short term items while continuing to plan for the larger efforts in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please support our cause with a small donation today!
Great summary of the meeting Jeff. Keep up all your hard work.
ReplyDeleteCloven is a wimp. He has no spine and has no business being on the city Council. Peter please go away.
ReplyDeleteCloven voted for the Olivia extension and was criticized. He was so upset that he was criticized by Clayton residents for this vote, he used it as an excuse for voting against the Oak Creek Canyon development project extension. Glad he is leaving.
ReplyDeleteCloven stated that when he voted in favor of the appeal for the Oliva project, he faced community dissatisfaction, and that he felt that if the City granted this extension, then it would set precedent for future extension requests. BS. Cloven should look in the mirror and ask himself why he accepted campaign money from the Moita family. Nice try Peter, but your didn’t give them (the moita's) their monies worth. You are a phony and the city of Clayton will be better off without you. Adios amigos.
ReplyDeleteIf ever there should be any “investigations” it should be into whether Cloven pressured the Planning Commission to vote no on that project in 2021. Isn’t strange there was so much opposition to houses from the same group that happily voted for the Olivia?
DeleteDid somebody get paid off?
ReplyDeleteLet me understand this. Cloven voted for the Olivia extension and because he was criticized, and because of his fear of being criticized again, he could never vote for another extension. Is Cloven trying to set the city up for a lawsuit? Holly Tillman also voted for the Olivia extension. I guess she was not criticized.
ReplyDeletePeter Cloven, pompous and self-righteous makes all the wrong decisions on the council. Peter is clearly one of the worst council members of all time right behind his cohort Tillman. It’s also funny Tillman was unaware her close friend was not an engineer when she deferred to him, making them both look like fools.
ReplyDeleteGiven Cloven's job performance, prudent decision.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about the extension granted for the Oak Creek Canyon project. It was stated that the delay is due to buried pipeline location problems. This strikes me as odd: did the planning commission ask for, and receive, details on this issue? What was their plan for locating these, why is it taking longer, and how much longer will it take? How deep are these pipelines buried? Who owns them? Even if you need to hire a crew to dig with shovels, it shouldn't take too long to figure this out.
ReplyDelete