Petition for a "Resident-Only Parking Permit Program - Sign Today!

By Clayton Watch

Dear Neighbor:

We just started a petition for a "Resident-Only Parking Permit Program" here in Clayton and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

This request is being made because past Clayton City Council members C.W. Wolfe, Tuija Catalano, and Julie Pierce originally approved a three-story 81-unit apartment building in historic downtown with insufficient parking. With Peter Cloven, CW. Wolfe and Holly Tillman recently voting to approve a one-year extension for the developer, now is the time for the citizens of Clayton to make their voices heard.

Our goal is to reach 4500 signatures. You can read more and sign the petition by clicking the following link. https://chng.it/bFF9YVxJ

The Olivia on Marsh Creek” high-density housing project in Historic Downtown is just one example of the City of Clayton failing to protect its citizens from undue hardship. Not requiring “The Olivia on Marsh Creek” project to provide sufficient parking for the eighty-one (81) approved apartments is deplorable and unacceptable. Maybe it’s time for the developer to consider downsizing the project to a size that can accommodate on-site parking.

Please sign the petition today. https://chng.it/bFF9YVxJ

Thanks,

Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Public Notice - It’s Official – Mark Your Calendar!

By Clayton Watch

We have been notified that our proposed Parking Permit Program will be heard at the next Clayton City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 16 at 7 PM.

We need to get the word out and pack the place, so please plan on attending and tell your family and friends to attend.

The approval of "The Olivia on Marsh Creek," an 81-unit high-density housing project downtown, failed to mandate adequate parking for residents. The city allowed the developer of the Olivia project to provide less than 100 onsite parking spaces for the 81 units with no offsite parking spaces identified.

This oversight enables parking to spill over into surrounding neighborhoods and downtown areas, which increases traffic, noise, and inconvenience while infringing on homeowners' and renters' rights to peacefully enjoy their properties.

The Clayton City Council must act now to implement a residential permit parking program with downtown restrictions. Additionally, all future housing projects should provide ample on-site parking to prevent community impacts.

It's time for the City Council to Just Say "No" to developers and listen to their constituents.

Let us work together to preserve the character of our downtown and our neighborhoods while allowing for managed and controlled growth in the right locations.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program - Mission One Complete

By Clayton Watch

Mission One Complete! As of last night, Tuesday, July 18, 2023, we are now officially on the next City Council agenda for action to be taken. We will notify everyone of the date and time once we receive the information from our City Clerk. Your support and participation will be needed at the next meeting in order to make the Parking Permit Program a reality. So stay tuned.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

⁃ ALERTING ALL RESIDENTS ⁃

By Clayton Watch

DO YOU SUDDENLY HAVE RATS, MICE, and DUST EVERYWHERE?
You can thank Bill Jordan. He didn’t follow the Conditions of Approval as outlined for the Olivia on Marsh Creek project and now we have serious problems with rats, mice, and harmful dust throughout the community.

- Rats and mice are known to carry many diseases. These diseases can spread to people directly, through the handling of rodents; contact with rodent feces (poop), urine, or saliva (such as through breathing in air or eating food that is contaminated with rodent waste); or rodent bites.

- Dust and Unhealthy Air can be detrimental to your health. So please take the necessary precautions to protect yourself.

Contact Bret Prebula our City Manager at 925-673-7313 and let him know enough is enough. And tell him to start enforcing the Conditions of Approval Now!
__________________________________________________

There are over 119 Conditions of Approval that Mr. Jordan must follow to keep our community safe and clean, and the City Staff must start enforcing these conditions. If you see where Mr. Jordan may be out of compliance and want to file a complaint or have any questions or concerns, contact Clayton City Staff immediately.

Condition 11. Reads as follows: At least thirty (30) days prior to any demolition or groundbreaking activities, the applicant shall retain an exterminator who shall evaluate the site and make recommendations for the control and/or eradication of any on-site rodents. The exterminator’s recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall comply with the approved exterminator’s recommendations prior to initiation of any demolition or groundbreaking activities.

Condition 29. Reads as follows: Standard dust control methods shall be used to stabilize the dust generated by construction activities in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program Advances - To Be Heard By City Council

By Clayton Watch

Hello Clayton Community:

We have been notified that our proposed Parking Permit Program will be heard at the next Clayton City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 16th at 7 PM. We need to get the word out and pack the place, so please plan on attending and tell your family and friends to attend.

Petition summary and background:

We the residents of Clayton, California, petition the Clayton City Council to take action. Specifically, we request the establishment of a resident-only parking permit program for select neighborhoods, including restrictions on downtown on-street parking.

Past council members approved a development project that will negatively impact parking and quality of life without requiring sufficient provisions to mitigate these effects.

The approval of "The Olivia on Marsh Creek," an 81-unit high-density housing project downtown, failed to mandate adequate parking for residents. The city allowed the developer of the Olivia project to provide less than 100 onsite parking spaces for the 81 units with no offsite parking spaces identified.

This oversight enables parking to spill over into surrounding neighborhoods and downtown areas, which increases traffic, noise, and inconvenience while infringing on homeowners' and renters' rights to peacefully enjoy their properties.

The Clayton City Council must act now to implement a residential permit parking program with downtown restrictions. Additionally, all future housing projects should provide ample on-site parking to prevent community impacts.

As representatives of Clayton citizens, we urge you to take steps to remedy the parking and quality of life issues caused by insufficient planning requirements for new developments. It's time for the City Council to Just Say "No" to developers and listen to their constituents.

Let us work together to preserve the character of our downtown and our neighborhoods while allowing for managed and controlled growth in the right locations.

Don’t Forget Tuesday, January 16th at 7 PM - See You There!

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Manager Meeting on Olivia on Marsh Creek Oversight

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Clayton City Council,

COMPLAINT # 1

It is very disturbing that our City Manager, Bret Prebula, is trying to blame Gary and me, and other Clayton residents for all the questions, concerns, and complaints he is receiving regarding construction occurring on the Olivia site.

Apparently, he sent an email to the entire city council (and possibly others) accusing us of harassing him and city staff over Olivia. It appears he believes asking questions is harassment. I view these accusations very seriously and I am quite surprised he didn’t reach out to us before complaining to the entire city council about these baseless claims. I also find it hard to believe, as a professional city manager, that he thought this approach was a good idea as I have never seen this backward approach work.

Moreover, a city manager would have to be pretty naive not to know that whenever construction would start at Olivia, it would generate a lot of questions, concerns, and community outrage.

This is a housing project the community did not support, a project the community believes the city did not listen to or address their concerns, a project the community believes the city put the interest of the developer above the concerns of the residents, a project that would have an enormous impact on Historic Downtown and our little town, a project residents were so opposed to because of the huge impact it would have on their quality of life, that they filed a lawsuit against the city. Some community members believe the city is in the pocket of a less-than-credible developer.

Based on the above, in my professional opinion, most, if not all, of the questions, concerns, and complaints about Olivia's construction could have been avoided if Bret had been proactive instead of reactive. He created his own mess by his inaction on this project. He should have gotten out in front of this issue by developing and implementing a community outreach program before construction started on Olivia. (Without going into a lot of detail, an effective plan would include, community outreach meetings with impacted residents, enforcement of the COAs, an effective communications plan, and oversight, etc., etc.).

I have to assume his staff advised him of the start date, and instead of getting out in front of this issue, Bret has been chasing it. This is eating up a lot of his time and staff time. He is still not forthcoming with information, and he has handed off communications to Kennedy and Associates. According to their contract, this is not one of their responsibilities.

If you know what you are doing is not working, and you are getting overwhelmed, a good crisis manager would pull resources together, develop a plan to address the situation, and change direction, and not blame others for the outrage. In my opinion, these are all huge missteps on his part.

I also find it hard to believe he does not understand the public's anger when he continually tells them Olivia is an approved project that has been fully litigated when they complain about the lack of oversight. It is never a good idea to put people on the defensive to avoid criticism and start the blame game, especially when you are a public official and are on the public's payroll.

Bottom line, instead of developing an effective community outreach plan ahead of Olivia's construction, he let construction start without any community notification or outreach and then seemed to be surprised/outraged when people had questions, concerns, and complaints. Apparently, he doesn’t understand the value of effective communication.

I would like to put this issue to bed. Therefore, I would ask the city council to encourage Bret to do a reassessment of his harassment accusations and publicly retract these statements, and apologize to Gary and me.

COMPLAINT # 2

On to another serious incident. I attended a meeting on Wednesday, October 18th, at City Hall where Gary Hood, Bret Prebula, Larry Theis, Andrew Kennedy from Kennedy and Associates, were in attendance. Gary arranged this meeting with Bret so we could work out some of the oversight issues we were observing on Olivia.

When Brett agreed to meet on the 18th, I was encouraged by the fact that Bret said he we would have his team (city engineer and a representative from Kennedy and Associates) at the meeting. I have always found it beneficial to have all the players involved at the table.

To me, this was going to be a meeting to discuss Olivia's oversight and get some important information about COA enforcement that we could feed back to the community. As we entered the meeting room my expectations faded. Bret and his staff seemed to be very agitated and unfriendly.

The meeting began with a lecture from Bret saying what we were doing was wrong and causing an unnecessary burden on his staff. He went on to tell us Olivia was an approved project that had been fully litigated. In other words, shut up and move on. I am not sure why he thought this approach would work because it never does—and it didn’t work this time.

Gary pushed back telling Bret we did not come to the meeting to receive a lecture from him, and I advised Bret we were aware Olivia was an approved project and we were at the construction and oversight stage (which I thought was the purpose of the meeting). At this point, Bret gave us a stern warning that if we did not behave, he would end the meeting.

We tried many times to ask Andrew Kennedy questions about their level of oversight and violations of the COA we have observed, (dust/particulate control, lack of perimeter fencing, hydroseeding, and rodent control, which was generating all the questions and community outrage) but Andrew Kennedy was rude and condescending. He proceeded to tell us the developer has complied with all the COA’s and then bragged about his qualifications. I showed him a picture of the dust being generated by a bulldozer on the site, but he got annoyed and did not want to look at it.

Larry was disengaged and busy looking at his iPad until he started scolding us in a loud voice for bringing up gaps in past COA violations. The meeting went downhill from there and Bret did nothing to control his staff or try to de-escalate the situation. Then they loudly called an end to the meeting and Bret shouted “Get out”.

It is apparent to me that Bret and his staff came to the meeting angry, and confrontational and were very agitated that we would have the audacity to question their management of Olivia and point out gaps in COA enforcement. This meeting would have been a good opportunity for Bret to bring us together on Olivia, but he either doesn’t know how or did not want to reach a resolution. Clayton has always welcomed community input, concerns,and questions from citizens. This is usually how a small town works and always has in Clayton.

I am shocked by the unprofessional behavior displayed by Bret and his staff at this meeting and his unprofessional handling of Olivia. I have facilitated and attended many community meetings for over 30 years as a former councilmember and mayor right here in Clayton, and Public Affairs Manager for a Fortune 100 company, with public officials, elected officials, and angry community members. In my experience, Bret’s childish and abusive approach does not work. Normally citizens look to city officials for answers and leadership.

Based on these two incidents, it appears to me Bret could use some additional training. I would suggest the council urge him to receive additional training in the following areas:

1. Anger Management
2. Community Relations
3. Community Outreach Meetings with an Angry Crowd
4. De-escalation Techniques and Skills
5. How to Manage a Controversial Development

(All of which are available through the University of Phoenix Online College or Diablo Valley College,)

Please be guided accordingly and take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program - Facts

By Clayton Watch

1. A high-density residential development known as "The Olivia on Marsh Creek" has received approval directly across from Stranahan, despite inadequate onsite parking provisions.

2. The project will consist of 81 units, yet it will provide fewer than 90 parking spaces for the entire complex.

3. There will be merely 5 guest parking spaces available, along with limited accommodations for handicapped parking.

4. According to census data, approximately 37% of residents in Clayton own two vehicles, while around 58% possess three or more. It is reasonable to expect that this development will reflect similar trends.

5. Clayton's parking regulations stipulate a requirement of 2.23 parking spaces per unit, which aligns with the current census data. This would imply a need for over 180 parking spaces for the Olivia project.

6. The parking analysis submitted by the developer, which was approved by the city, suggested a provision of 1.1 parking spaces per unit. This figure was derived from a 2008 study of a 55+ age-restricted community in Pennsylvania.

7. It is important to note that this development does not impose any age restrictions and is not designated as a senior housing project for individuals aged 55 and older.

8. The neighborhood can expect an influx of over 100 additional vehicles without corresponding onsite parking facilities.

9. The approved plan includes 36 two-bedroom units and 45 one-bedroom units.

10. Only 7 of these units will be designated as low-income; the remainder will be rented at market rates, which typically involves a two-income household and at least two vehicles.

11. The likelihood of parking overflow into surrounding neighborhoods and downtown areas is assured.

12. Given that Clayton has limited public transportation options, commuting by bus is not a feasible alternative.

13. The responsibility for addressing these issues must rest with the developer and the city, rather than the residents.

14. In light of the city’s approval of this project, a request will be made for a no-fee parking permit program for residents. Additionally, the developer had initially pledged $2,500 to establish a parking permit program, although this commitment was altered in the final resolution.

15. The implementation of the parking permit program will only take effect once the developer commences construction. (The program will be activated upon the start of construction.)

Once the development is completed, it will be too late to impose any parking restrictions.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe - Beware

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Neighbors, Friends, and Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe,

Please tell them their actions have consequences. Those of us that watched the city council meeting on Tuesday, December 5th with great disappointment. What should have been a simple rotation for the position of Mayor once again devolved into the bitter verbal attacks that have become all too common this past year from Council Members Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman.

Instead of professionally conducting the vote for our next mayor, Mr. Cloven opted to give an inflammatory speech detailing why he refused to support Mr. Wan in the past. He then blamed this on Mr. Diaz, claiming he was threatened into not supporting Mr. Wan.

These dubious allegations strain credulity. I have the screenshots of Mr. Cloven's own text message explanation for overlooking Vice Mayor Wan after the 2020 election. Nowhere does he mention being threatened by Mr. Diaz. He cites only campaign rhetoric and lack of support. Yet now he changes his story and levels accusations. Which version should I believe, Mr. Cloven? The truth is plain - your actions were motivated by pettiness and vindictiveness, not threats.

This is not Mr. Cloven's first instance of vindictive politicking. He orchestrated similar maneuvers against Commissioner Frank Gavidia on the Planning Commission. And his supporter Council Member Tillman has now fallen victim to Mr. Cloven's thirst for power, as his machinations prevented her from becoming Mayor as would have occurred under the original rotation.

The community lost out on what would have been our first African-American mayor. Again, Mr. Cloven's actions paved the way for two white men to become mayor ahead of the Asian-American candidate. I cannot ignore the racial undertones here.

Ms. Tillman is now paying the price for Mr. Cloven's naked ambition. It appears he used her to get elected but in reality does not care about supporting diversity in leadership roles.

Mr. Cloven, your divisive politicking has gone on long enough. For the good of Clayton, please resign from City Council immediately so we can move forward with more unity. Let your replacement be someone committed to serving all citizens, not sowing division.

I urge Ms. Tillman to distance herself from Mr. Cloven's toxic example.

Signed,

A 50 Year Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia Update - Review of Over 325 Documents

By Clayton Watch

(Letter was placed in Public Comment at the City Council Meeting)

Dear Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, and the Clayton Community:

We are writing to provide a professional courtesy update regarding our September 5th letter, in which we requested documents about the Olivia on Marsh Creek project.

We aim to inform you and the community about our ongoing research into the project and the potential for litigation.

Please know we do not dispute the project's approvals or its success in defending legal challenges. Our concerns stem solely from interpretations of Resolution #07-2020 and others related to Olivia on Marsh Creek, as well as enforcement of the project's Conditions of Approval (COA).

We had hoped that the Council would announce its position on the Olivia on Marsh Creek project after its closed-door meeting on September 7th, as mentioned in our previous letter. Specifically, we were interested in hearing about any violations, enforcement issues, and the City Attorney's opinion regarding the project's compliance with Resolution #07-2020, and other resolutions as they relate to the Olivia on Marsh Creek project.

The Council's silence on these matters raises many unanswered questions. If the project fully complied with the Resolutions, the City presumably would have reported that back to the community. The lack of an announcement suggests issues with how the project was approved and why it has not progressed diligently, as required in the Resolution.

After a lengthy review of over 325 pages of documents obtained through our September 5, 2023, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which covered January 1, 2023, through September 14, 2023, we have organized the materials chronologically and analyzed them with our legal counsel to prepare an initial report of our findings and conclusions for the Council and community to see.

Side note: Councilmember Holly Tillman's accusations of misuse of our FOIA requests are baseless and inappropriate. First, exercising one's legal rights should never be considered wrongdoing. Second, these requests would have been unnecessary if the City had properly enforced Resolution #07-2020 and the law. (Asking questions should never be considered inappropriate!)

Because the documents were not sent to us chronologically, we had to spend many hours organizing them to understand the timeline. After arranging the documents and reviewing most with our legal counsel, we have identified observations and conclusions about what happened.

The City's oversight and enforcement should be called into question by several COA violations, including, but not limited to:

· improper construction fencing,

· inadequate dust mitigation,

· failed hydroseeding,

· lack of rodent control,

· falsely applying for permits as an owner-builder. (See below)

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB).

1. An owner-builder is a property owner who acts as their general contractor on a construction project instead of hiring a licensed contractor to manage the work.

2. The owner-builder may perform the labor themselves or hire employees and subcontractors.

3. However, owner-builder projects must be on the owner's primary residence that they have lived in for at least 12 months before completing the work.

4. Furthermore, the owner cannot build and sell more than two structures in any 3-year period, which aims to prevent abuse of the owner-builder exemption.

Interestingly, the defensive, arrogant, and rude response from the City Manager, City Engineer, and Kennedy and Associates when questioned about oversight of Bill Jordan's owner-builder Olivia project at our November 5, 2023 meeting can likely be explained in #3 and #4 above. The point is, that the property was not his primary residence, and he plans to build more than two structures. The application misrepresented the developer's owner-builder status and number of buildings constructed, violating eligibility requirements. In addition, there was no oversight and they all knew it.

However, there was another important takeaway from this meeting: Olivia's oversight seems to be reactive (complaint-driven) rather than proactive (through site visits). Ironically, this reactive approach has led to the City Manager feeling overwhelmed and frustrated by the high volume of complaints, even as he ignores more proactive oversight.

Based on several of the documents we have reviewed, it appears that Bill Jordan the developer, is buying time and the City of Clayton is being played as a fool.

The Resolution lacked necessary provisions like performance requirements, penalties for noncompliance, or other enforcement mechanisms.

1. The developer violated many Conditions of Approval by the March 3, 2023 deadline.

2. He requested an extension from the Council, which was approved on a 3/2 vote. The same evening, he requested the extension, he lied to the council and said he would be building the project when all along he had the project listed for sale on LoopNet.

3. In a letter dated March 10, 2023, the Community Development Director reported to an unknown individual (the name was redacted) about the COA received to date. The Community Development Director clearly states in this letter that groundbreaking activities have not started yet.

4. In a letter dated August 10, 2023, he asked the Community Development Director how many times he could renew his permits.

5. In a letter dated July 17, 2023, he mentions he is having problems finding financing.

6. The oversight agreement with Kennedy and Associates was not signed until September 19, 2023, yet work began earlier over Labor Day weekend.

7. On Sunday, September 17, 2023, the Clayton Police were contacted about work being conducted over the weekend. The document we received indicates that Sergeant Rich Enea contacted Bill Jordan at the property location. Bill Jordan said he had a permit to work on weekends, when in fact he did not. This is in complete violation of the Conditions of Approval #25.

8. It now appears Bill Jordan is reaching out to the State of California - Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and non-profit groups looking for help.

9. In one of the letters dated 8-1-23 that we received, a group contacted him about a "Sober Living Environment" being built or occupying the Olivia property.

Lastly and most importantly, as recognized by the construction industry, and in the legal profession, the diligent start of construction means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure depicted on an approved site plan, such as pouring of slabs or footings, installation of piles, construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation of a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, tree removal, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation of footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms. Therefore, based on industry standards, the city and developer would struggle to prove the diligent start of construction occurred by March 3, 2023.

In our opinion, the City of Clayton is unwilling to enforce resolution #07-2020 themselves based on the hold harmless clause within it. This clause requires Bill Jordan to cover the City's legal fees if sued by an outside group over lack of enforcement. While the City may view avoiding its legal costs as a smart business move, this approach fails to truly enforce the resolution if violations occur, leaving citizens unrepresented and unprotected. The core issue remains unresolved - the City must take responsibility for enforcing the laws it passed, not pass that duty to citizens through legal technicalities.

At this time, we are still reviewing additional documents and assessing our options. Our legal counsel recommended pausing over the holidays to regroup in January, which we agreed was prudent.

The new year brings an opportunity for a fresh start. We are optimistic we can work together to thoroughly yet efficiently review this project's details and hold the developer accountable with your help.

Let's begin 2024 with a renewed commitment to open communication and good faith. The Clayton community deserves no less.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Non-Profit Group Causes Disruption in City Council and Community

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Clayton Community,

The actions of a non-profit group in Clayton have caused significant issues for both the city council and its citizens, almost resulting in the loss of the right to provide public comments during meetings. This group, known as the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), has been a source of controversy due to the behavior of its members, including their use of profanity and their tendency to dominate city council meetings.

The CBCA was established in 1984 as a community organization that aims to serve the Clayton community. Despite claiming independence from the City of Clayton, California, their past actions and influence suggest otherwise.

One concerning aspect is the control that CBCA members have exerted over the city council for the past 39 years. It is evident that a conflict of interest exists, as four out of five council members have been active participants in the CBCA. Surprisingly, during this time, the city council has never thoroughly examined the Master Agreement Fee Agreement with the CBCA or the City's Fee Schedule, raising questions about their motives.

A former city manager, who served for over 20 years, summarized the CBCA's behavior as self-serving and focused solely on their own interests. They have been known to resort to intimidation tactics to silence anyone who dares to question them.

Furthermore, the CBCA has violated the rules and guidelines governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations by endorsing and promoting candidates for City Council and Planning Commission positions. This blatant disregard for regulations further highlights their lack of integrity.

One particular incident that exemplifies their conflict of interest occurred when the CBCA requested that the mayor, chairperson of the planning commission, and the chief of police report directly to them during their monthly meetings. Fortunately, this practice was swiftly halted after a concerned citizen raised the issue in 2020.

It is clear that the actions of the CBCA have caused significant disruption within the city council and the Clayton community. Their behavior raises serious concerns about their true intentions and their commitment to serving the best interests of the community as a whole.

The actions of CBCA members have had a significant impact on all residents of Clayton. Two years ago, Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman, both CBCA members, disregarded tradition by bypassing Vice Mayor Jeff Wan for the position of Mayor. This decision, orchestrated behind closed doors by council members Wolfe, Cloven, and Tillman, occurred not once, but twice. The community was left divided, with many attributing the blame to Cloven and Tillman for their divisive politics.

Last year, two CBCA-endorsed candidates, Bridget Billeter and Ed Miller, were vetted by Clayton Watch, a community watchdog group. Despite high hopes for their election, both candidates were deemed unacceptable by Clayton Watch. Bridget Billeter was found to have major character flaws, including misusing her title and resources to harass Clayton Valley Charter High School, with Holly Tillman's knowledge and support. Ed Miller, on the other hand, was considered unreliable and made inappropriate comments, such as misogynistic remarks towards Councilperson Jeff Wan's wife. During the recent election, volunteers distributing flyers throughout the community faced harassment and surveillance.

Both Billeter and Miller faced defeat, with Miller finishing in last place. Jeff Wan garnered the highest number of votes, while Kim Trupiano secured the second spot.

Following the establishment of the new council, Jeff Wan was elected as Mayor by a 3/2 vote, with Jim Diaz chosen as Vice Mayor by the same margin.

The council wasted no time in getting to work. Their first order of business was to review the city's fee schedule. Upon examination of all city vendors, the CBCA's special use fee agreement was identified as outdated and subsequently terminated after more than a decade without adjustments.

Subsequently, CBCA members began to express their discontent. It became evident from their reactions that they were displeased with the outcome and sought to utilize Clayton downtown for their events without charge.

During city council meetings, CBCA members regularly voiced their opinions during public comments, with some participating via Zoom. For over ten months, both the council and the public endured negative and sarcastic remarks from this group, with no signs of the attacks ceasing.

Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven demonstrated their allegiance to the CBCA by consistently raising concerns and making comments about the CBCA during council meetings. Furthermore, during council staff reports, both Tillman and Cloven consistently brought up the CBCA, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest.

During the October city council meeting, the new fee schedule was approved by a vote. The approval came from Jim Diaz, Kim Trupiano, and Jeff Wan, while Cloven and Tillman dissented.

At the October 3 or 17 City Council Meeting, a former CBCA Board Member utilized Zoom during the public comment period for the city events committee to launch a profanity-laden, misogynistic tirade against Council Member Kim Trupiano.

Throughout the October meeting, Howard Geller, a longstanding CBCA member and former council person, verbally criticized Kim Trupiano. His frustration stemmed from the city's assumption of control over the concerts in the grove and the desire for more transparent financial reporting.

Over the course of the year, it has become commonplace for CBCA members to mock the way Council Members speak or the appearance of Mayor Wan. While it is understandable that CBCA is displeased with the new Master Fee Schedule, it is essential for everyone to contribute their fair share.

The conflict of interest and the pressure exerted by the CBCA board on City Council Members are difficult to overlook. However, this does not justify the use of Zoom by CBCA members to make offensive remarks towards Council Members who are striving to implement necessary changes to ensure the city is adequately compensated for police services, maintenance, and property usage.

During the meeting on November 7th, the use of Zoom for public comments was called into question. While instances of racist attacks in other cities were cited as a reason to discontinue using Zoom, the offensive language used by CBCA members was also a topic of extensive discussion.

CBCA President Carl Wolfe and the board appear indifferent to the use of profanity. They even defend it. The privilege of using Zoom was nearly revoked for Clayton due to a small faction within CBCA that prioritizes politics over charity. Carl Wolfe must take more decisive action to safeguard his organization and the public from such behavior. It is imperative that Carl Wolfe clearly states that all CBCA members must exhibit proper conduct when in the presence of the public.

It is evident that the individuals behind the negative and derogatory comments are all affiliated with the CBCA, including its members and board members. As a 501 c3 non-profit organization, the CBCA should refrain from engaging in political matters. Their behavior indicates an inability to gracefully accept defeat and relinquish control of the city.

Regrettably, the Clayton Pioneer, a biased newspaper owned by Tamera Steiner and her husband Bob, is also associated with the CBCA. This newspaper consistently fails to provide accurate information about the organization.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Construction At Olivia Takes A Pause As The Dust Settles Over The Surrounding Neighborhoods And The Mice Move In At Stranahan

By Clayton Watch

After being overwhelmed with complaints from neighbors, the city hired Kennedy and Associates in mid September to provide oversight of Olivia (an 81 unit, 3-story, 3 building apartment project in Historic Downtown) to insure the developer is following the "Best Management Practices" for the construction phase and that he is adhering to all the Conditions of Approval (COA's)--all 119 of them. Is it working? You decide.

Condition #53 required the developer to hydro-seed all the slopes greater than 5 feet in height prior to September 15th in order to allow the seeds to grow and stabilize the slopes before the rainy season . It did not happen. I guess the developer believes we are still in a drought. 

Condition #11, Rodent Control. At least, this pause in construction will allow all the rodents that left the site during all the grading a chance to return home for the holidays providing they are not washed out onto Marsh Creek Road when the rains come. 

Condition #107, No construction activity on weekends unless authorized by the city. The developer decided to ignore this condition and got caught after a neighbor complained. Oversight by the neighbors. 

Condition #29, Dust Control. On the day the picture below was taken (and many other days before and after this picture) the "Best Management Practices" allowed the developer to have someone walk in front of the bulldozer with a garden hose to control the dust as required by BAAQMD standards. That certainly worked out well. Just ask the surrounding neighbors. It makes you wonder. How many of the other 119 COA's are being ignored and who is pulling the "strings?" 

Your comments are welcome. Please keep them civil and to the point.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Holly Tillman - The Most Polarizing Figure Clayton Has Witnessed

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Council and Staff,

I have some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Let's start with Councilwoman Tillman. She promised transparency but has not been transparent at all.

She lied when responding to Mayor Wan's Town Hall recap and her behavior with Tamara Steiner. Many of us witnessed the interaction and she definitely fed Tamara questions to ask.

Her behavior on the dais, accusing other council members of making decisions before meetings, needs to be stopped.

Why hasn't the attorney stepped in? Also, her continued classification of Clayton as racist and unwelcoming is terrible.

Why does she constantly belittle the place she lives?

Her agenda seems to be making a name for herself at the expense of the citizens of Clayton.

She also needs to stop hijacking the council meetings. They are running too long, and no one wants to hear her go on about herself or what her husband does.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager - Disappointment and Frustration

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I am writing this letter to express my deep disappointment and frustration regarding the recent experience I had with the City Manager, Bret Prebula, and a few of his employees.

I believe it is important to bring this matter to your attention, and hope that it can be resolved properly, and to prevent some similar issues from reoccurring in the future. On October 13th I reached out to Brett via the phone and encouraged him to schedule a meeting with both Bill Walcutt and me so we could resolve our questions and concerns regarding the Olivia project.

Brett responded and said he would agree to meet with us on Wednesday, October 18th at 2 o’clock at City Hall and would have, Larry Theis, our city engineer, along with Andrew a representative from Kennedy and Associates present. It sounded like the stage was set for us to receive the answers we had been inquiring about for weeks.

Despite my initial expectations and previous constructive experiences with Brett, this particular meeting/incident has left me extremely dissatisfied with the level of service and professionalism on display by Bret Prebula, Larry Theis, and the consultant from Kennedy and Associates.

The main reason for this meeting was so that we could ask specific questions regarding the oversight of the Olivia Project. Before the meeting even got underway, Brett started to lecture us, in a very stern and unpleasant voice, about how we were disrupting the City of Clayton with our unfounded questions and misinformation that were being spread throughout the community. (Holly, as depicted in your useless weekend video, please show us proof of where we have been spreading rumors about Bret, and that he should be fired.)

I abruptly stopped him and told him we hadn’t come here to receive a lecture. We came to inquire about the oversight on the Olivia project. Matt Feski and the consultant immediately jumped in. Matt was rude and defensive and said Mr. Jordan was following the conditions of approval perfectly. We disagreed and tried to give him a few examples, but he refused to listen and constantly interrupted.

The consultant was very arrogant, just as he was to councilmember Kim Trupiano the prior night at the council meeting. He said he was watching Mr. Jordan very carefully. When I pressed him on the dust from grading, lack of fencing, and not protecting the trees, both of them came unglued and did not want to be criticized or exposed for their mishandling of this project. Larry Theis, the city engineer loudly and abruptly said “You’ve got ten minutes to explain the lack of oversight.” I immediately snapped back and told him he works for us and will not be put on his timeline. He loudly shouted, “This meeting is over.”

These individuals, Bret Prebula, Larry Theis, and Andrew from Kennedy and Associates are forgetting two important points, the citizens of Clayton pay their salaries, and they are expected to treat all members of the public and fellow city employees with respect, courtesy, concern, and responsiveness.

I appreciate your attention to this complaint and the urgency with which you handle this matter. I value our previous relationship and hope we can find a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

California Public Records Act Request - All Correspondence Between the City Manager, City Council, City Engineer, Community Developement Director, and Kennedy and Associates

Bret,

This is just another example of you causing additional work for you and your staff. I requested that you send me a copy of “ONE”email, again, just ONE email, you sent to the entire city council making some serious unfounded accusations about me and Gary Hood, and again no response. Because I do not know the date of this email and other communications from you to your staff and the council, it makes it more difficult for me to narrow the scope of a FOIA request. It is to bad you cannot be more forthcoming with a request for information, it would save you and me a lot of work. This is not the way I prefer to interact with the city.

Therefore:

Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records as follows:

All correspondence between and among the city manager, city council, city engineer, community developement director, Kennedy and Associates, from October 11, 2023 through October 20, 2023. The correspondence stated above shall include all emails, text messages, letters and voice mails.

Please respond within the 10 days required by law.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

California Public Records Act Request - Lead Based Paint Samples

By Clayton Watch

Hi Bret,

I specifically requested a copy of the Lead Based Paint samples report, not a report on mudflows.

1) Lead Based Paint samples report from the old barn that was demolished at 6490 Marsh Cree Road in September. LBP testing is required by COA, Condition # 40 and OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62.k

Please review the PRA request below and provide the information I requested. I know you are busy, but it would be a good idea to review the information before you reply to these request.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

California Public Records Act - Olivia on Marsh Creek - Lead Paint

By Clayton Watch

Hi Bret,

Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records concerning the Olivia on Marsh Creek project as follows:

1) Lead Based Paint samples report from the old barn that was demolished at 6490 Marsh Creek Road in September. LBP testing is required by COA, Condition # 40 and OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62.

2) If lead paint was identified in the samples, provide the name of the qualified lead abatement contractor that removed the contamination and the removal guidelines and procedures followed.

3) If Lead Based Paint samples were not taking as required by law and the COA's what enforcement action was taken against Mr. Jordan and the Olivia project.

The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten (10) business days.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify us of the appeal procedures available to us under the law.

Thank you for your prompt attention concerning this matter.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia Over-Sight andl Violations - Letter to City Manager

By Clayton Watch

Good Afternoon Bret,

I’m quite sure, you, the City Engineer, and the Community Development Director are aware of the lack of fencing at the Olivia project along with Mr. Jordan's many other COA violations.

With the size of this project and the recent activity, one would think that someone like a city engineer would be assigned to this project and be required to walk the site with the developer regularly making sure he (Mr. Jordan) is complying with the COA.

Below are a few important questions the community would like you to address:

1. Who's conducting the over-sight on this project? What are the costs associated with the over-sight? With past projects of this size, it’s always been the city engineer that conducted the over-sight.

2. If it is the city engineer, that is conducting the over-sight, what are his billable hours? Are they based on our new fee schedule?

3. Has Mr. Jordan paid for these billable hours? If not, why not? And what are the total billable hours to date?

4. If we don’t have a staff person dedicated or assigned to oversee this project, why don't we? The citizens of Clayton deserve better. It’s very apparent that Mr. Jordan doesn't give a dam about this town, and you as our current city manager need to hold him accountable for everything he does or doesn’t do.

From my observation, it appears that Mr. Jordan is doing most of the work himself and could quite possibly be on a tight budget. I would suggest that we (the City of Clayton) collect what is owed to us sooner rather than later before he becomes insolvent or skips town.

Looking forward to your prompt reply to these important questions.

Thanks,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Special Closed Door Meeting - After Receiving Letter From Clayton Watch

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney:

Shortly after sending you an email last week, it was announced that a Special - Closed Door Meeting would be held on Thursday, September 7, 2023, to discuss possible litigation regarding the Olivia on Marsh Creek project.

As of today’s date, we have not received a written response to our email, nor was it announced at the end of the Special - Closed Door Meeting as to what direction the mayor and council gave to the staff. We would think, as a professional courtesy, the mayor, city manager, or city attorney would send us a reply to our email.

We did not want to make an issue of this, but based on many unanswered questions and your lack of communication, we are making a formal FIOA request.

Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., we are requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records concerning the Olivia on Marsh Creek project from January 1, 2023, through September 14, 2023.

Request 1. All copies of public records, including all correspondence among and between city staff, council members, members of the public, city manager, city engineer, community development director, and Bill Jordan the developer/applicant, as it relates to the Olivia on Marsh Creek project from January 1, 2023 through September 14, 2023. (Correspondence would include all emails, letters, memos, voicemails, phone logs, and calendar of events.)

Request 2. All copies of public records, including all correspondence among and between city staff, council members, members of the public, city manager, city engineer, community development director, and Bill Jordan the developer/applicant, as it relates to a “Soils Report” for the property the Olivia on Marsh Creek project will be situated on, including a copy of the original “Soils Report” that is on file with the City of Clayton.

(Correspondence would include all emails, letters, memos, voicemails, phone logs, and calendar of events.)

Request 3. All copies of public records, including all correspondence among and between city staff, council members, members of the public, city manager, city engineer, community development director, and Bill Jordan the developer/applicant as it relates to the COA (Condition of Approval) from January 1, 2023, through September 14, 2023, including a list of completed COA items before March 3, 2023, and a list of all completed COA items from March 3, 2023, through September 14, 2023. (Correspondence would include all emails, letters, memos, voicemails, phone logs, and calendar of events.)

Request 4. All copies of public records, invoices, including all correspondence among and between city staff, council members, members of the public, city manager, city engineer, community development director, and Bill Jordan the developer/applicant as it relates to all costs and reimbursement by Bill Jordan to the City of Clayton for legal fees, due to the fact that Bill Jordan indemnified the city against legal costs associated with defending any lawsuits that were incurred by the City of Clayton because the lawsuit that was filed on April 9, 2020 against the City of Clayton and the developer by Clayton for Responsible Government. legal fees for this lawsuit because Jordan indemnified the city against legal costs associated with defending what he calls the “NIMBY (not in my backyard) suit.

If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform us if the cost will exceed $100.00. However, we would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of The City of Clayton's activity, enforcement, and position as it relates to the Olivia on Marsh Creek project.

The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten (10) business days.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify us of the appeal procedures available to us under the law.

Thank you for your prompt attention concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter to City Council - Trees Cut Down and Grading on Olivia

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor and City Council:

It has been brought to our attention by a neighbor that a letter was sent to City Hall regarding the Olivia project this past week.

As concerned citizens and nearby neighbors of the Olivia Project, we noticed over the weekend that several trees were cut down at the site along with some initial grading, which makes us believe that this project may be moving forward without all of the necessary permitting required by the city and the county.

I think we can all agree that it’s not the city‘s responsibility to move the project along, it’s Mr. Jordan‘s responsibility to comply with all the conditions of approval. If Mr. Jordan violates any of these conditions of approval, we would highly recommend that staff, void his agreement based on his inaction, lies, and not diligently moving the project along.

Based on the city's apparent lack of enforcement of the COA and the violation of city ordinances, we are planning to sue the city to force compliance.

Important note: We are also aware that the property on High Street was occupied in the past by a commercial business where hazardous chemicals were stored and used. To our knowledge, no soil study has been conducted to determine if hazardous chemicals are present.

Furthermore, based on the recent activity at the Jordan site, we are requesting that the approved agenda item regarding the “Parking Permit Program” be moved up to an early meeting and a decision be made by the council. Waiting until this project, or any other project, is underway makes no sense and gives the wrong appearance.

We must spend the time now, rather than towards the end of the year.

By taking action now, it would send a message to all developers (if approved) that a parking permit program has been enacted downtown and in select neighborhoods, and (developers) should plan accordingly if they plan on building in the Town of Clayton.

Looking forward to seeing this agenda item moved to an earlier date.

If you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood and Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter to City Council - Confirming Certified Letter to Dana

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mayor Wan and Council Members:

Good morning. I thought it would be a good idea for all of you to know that a certified letter was sent to Dana last week, along with the regular delivery of first-class mail to Bret. I have been made aware the letter, the certified letter, was received, and Dana has responded to me that she will answer all of my questions as soon as possible.

I am hopeful that by notifying you my questions can be answered and expedited sooner rather than later.

I'm concerned that the city may not be enforcing the condition of approval as specified in resolution 07-2020.

Below, please find a copy of the above-mentioned letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

Thanks, 

Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate