City Managers View Point - Not a Legal Opinion - What Laws Are You Referring To?

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 Interim City Manager Adam Politzer,

Thank you for taking the time to address this important matter in your busy schedule. Your dedication and commitment to resolving this issue are truly appreciated.

I want to warmly welcome you as a valuable addition to our team at City Hall. Your experience is highly valued, and I am confident that your presence will have a positive impact. I particularly resonated with your statement during the recent city council meeting, where you emphasized the importance of city managers remaining in the background.

In my view, the previous two city managers lacked the necessary management skills, which unfortunately reflected poorly on the staff and city. However, I am genuinely excited to have you on board, as I believe your years of knowledge and expertise will greatly assist us in overcoming the challenges we currently face.

Regarding your email response, I want to let you know that I respect your view. However, I must reiterate that according to the Brown Act, the League of California Cities/Your Role as a Local Elected Official - reopening public comment is not solely within the Mayor's discretion, and is not as straightforward as you mention in your email. It requires a collective decision and cannot be done unilaterally. Any Council Member may move to suspend the rules if necessary to accomplish a matter that would otherwise violate the rules. The motion requires a second, and a majority vote is required for passage. No such motion was made or a vote taken.

My primary concern lies in the recurrence of this issue, as it resurfaced during our most recent city council gathering. Reopening public comment improperly raises significant concerns regarding fairness and equal access, as it may mislead certain residents, both in person and online, into thinking they have already been allowed to voice their opinions, with some of them leaving the meeting after they speak. Arbitrarily reopening public comment at a later time could benefit one side and undermine public trust and accountability.

It's a little challenging to summarize, but during the Clayton City Council meeting on April 16, 2024, Mayor Diaz and the council did not seek guidance or input from the city attorney. Surprisingly, she willingly interrupted the discussion when public comment had been closed by the Mayor.

In my view, the City Attorney acts as a parliamentary advisor for the City, providing advice and clarifying situations based on Roberts Rules of Order, and California Open Meeting Laws. While the Mayor has the final say on parliamentary procedure, the Council can question and challenge those decisions.

Many cities establish rules of procedure to ensure the effective and fair conduct of City Council meetings, which helps promote public confidence. If our city does not have such documented procedures, I would strongly recommend creating them.

For reference, I would like to know what law(s) you are referring to that gives the Mayor discretionary authority to reopen public comment - as it would be helpful to know this in the future.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this whenever you have a moment.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

It's Been 20 Days Since My Last Communication with the City Attorneys

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.

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

Hello Mala and Joanna,

I trust this message finds you in good health. It has been about 20 days since my last communication to your office. From that, I gather that you may not be inclined to address the concerns I raised in my letter dated April 18, 2024. Furthermore, I have been made aware you failed to inform the city council about my original letter and my concerns.

Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I couldn't make it to the city council meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 2024. However, I did watch the meeting on the city website the next morning. I was disappointed to see that you didn't bring up the topic I wanted to discuss during the meeting.

If it suits you better, I am open to resolving this matter privately. In such an event, I kindly ask for a written response from you as a professional gesture. If a mistake was made, please acknowledge and correct it. If the situation is complex, I would appreciate a clear explanation regarding why you feel the public comment should have been reopened.

However, if you choose to ignore my request, I'll have no choice but to escalate the matter to the city council and make it public.

Although I would like your firm to keep representing Clayton, I cannot endorse your current approach. Disregarding issues and dismissing them does not instill the necessary confidence in me or the public that you are truly looking out for the Clayton community.

I eagerly await your timely response to address this issue so I can focus on other important matters.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program – Meeting Recap

By Clayton Watch

The first meeting of the Parking Permit Ad Hoc Committee took place in Stranahan Park on Monday, April 29th at 4 pm. Present were Council Member Jeff Wan, Council Member Holly Tillman, and Chief of Police Richard McEachin, as well as 25 to 30 community residents. During this gathering and relevant discussion, we urged committee members Jeff Wan and Holly Tillman to recap their ideas and our ideas and put the parking permit program on the agenda for consideration and approval as soon as possible.

Background and History: Approval for The Olivia on March Creek, an 81-unit apartment project, was granted by the city council on March 3, 2020, through Resolution No. 7-2020. Misleading information regarding the parking impact was presented to the residents. In response to developers neglecting to provide adequate parking, the concept of implementing a parking permit system for residents and downtown emerged. It is important to highlight that any financial support pledged by the developer to address parking and safety concerns was withdrawn during the concluding negotiations and concessions. Consequently, the responsibility of addressing these issues falls upon us.

General Recap: During the meeting, Jeff clearly stated his opposition to the city funding a parking permit program, emphasizing the achievements of the Regency parking permit program. However, he did express his support for implementing a parking permit program in Stranahan, lower Easley, and downtown. The attendees had many questions and suggestions. They inquired about expenses, how guest permits would be allocated to residents, the enforcement protocol, and the need for significant penalties for violators. The folks present unanimously decided that the city should launch the initiative in Stranahan, lower Easley, and downtown areas, with a strong focus on "Resident Parking Only" and "No Overnight Parking." Jeff projected a completion window of 60 to 90 days for the parking permit program. . . once they get started. A specific timeline for Jeff and Holly to meet was not disclosed nor would he commit to a timeframe. Jeff talked about the expected expenses for implementing the program, which includes staff and administrative costs. However, it seems that these costs are not accurate. Since the existing city staff and legal counsel are already being paid, the development of the program will not incur any additional costs. The main expenses will be for signage and installation. It is important to mention that the city was identified as the cause of the problem and therefore should be made responsible for resolving it.

What Happens Next? Jeff and Holly must convene promptly to present their findings and recommendations to the entire council, who will decide the program's fate.

Anticipated Timing for Implementation of Parking Permit Program? Soon, rather than later.

What Can We Do? Get in touch with the city council members, Jeff and Holly, by giving them a call or sending them an email. You can reach Jeff Wan at 925-673-7323 or email him at jeff.wan@claytonca.gov. For Holly Tillman, dial 925-673-7321 or drop her an email at hollyt@claytonca.gov. It's important to let them know it's high time to take proactive measures instead of reactive ones.

Stay Tuned and Informed

For more information and updates on meeting dates, keep in contact with your neighbors. For in-depth details about the Olivia on Marsh Creek project, visit the following websites:

1. The City of Clayton's website provides a comprehensive overview of resolution No. 07-2020, along with the conditions of approval (COA). https://claytonca.gov/. If you have trouble locating the information, call the city at 925-673-7300

2. Visit Loopnet.com to see the full listing of the Olivia project, currently priced at 8.7 million dollars, reduced from 9 million a month ago. The property has been intermittently listed for over four years and does indicate that it is under contract. The entitlements are included in the purchase, and any alterations to the project would require approval from the planning commission. https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/6170-High-St-Clayton-CA/30612659/

3. Check out Contra Costa County's website to review permit activity for the Olivia project. Many permits have expired, and a "building permit" has not yet been issued. https://epermits.cccounty.us/CitizenAccess/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Building&TabName=HOME

Reminder: The Olivia on Marsh Creek monstrosity will not be a 55+ Senior Housing Project. With the estimated rental rate ranging from $3000 to $3500, each household is likely to have a minimum of two cars, along with extra vehicles for teenagers and other family members.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City of Clayton. . . it’s Time to Get Back on Track and Hire the Right City Manager

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:

I've read all of the rhetoric, professional commentary, retrospective analyses, and online criticisms surrounding the issues of our past city managers.

In summary, based on my analysis, it appears that our previous city manager Bret Prebula rode into town with his own agenda and poor management skills. As a side note, the city manager before him, Reina Schwartz, worked remotely from Sacramento most of the time, which proved ineffective in providing the real leadership needed by city staff.

My findings are as follows: We don’t need a Grand Jury to tell us what is going on at City Hall. The recent accusations from councilmember Holly Tillman and tabloid newspaper owner Tamara Steiner wrongly place blame on council members Wan, Diaz, and Trupiano for supposed meddling at city hall clearly stems from Tillman and Steiner's dissatisfaction with the past election's outcome rather than any actual wrongdoing by Wan, Diaz, and Trupiano.

Staff turnover in any organization is caused by various factors. Employees are leveraging the current labor market to jump to new opportunities, but what's making them leave in the first place? None of us will ever know for sure why people are leaving, but in many instances, it is caused by the lack of leadership. My research tells us good employees quit for many reasons.

The saying “people don't quit companies; they quit their bosses” is as true as the sky is blue.

Here are a few reasons why employees quit their jobs:

1) Rude behavior - Studies have shown that everyday indignities hurt productivity and result in good employees quitting. Rudeness, assigning blame, back-biting, playing favorites, and retaliations are among the reasons that aggravate employee turnover.

2) Employee misalignment - Organizations should never hire employees (internal or external) unless they are qualified for the job and in sync with the culture and goals of the organization. Managers should not try to force a fit when there is none.

3) Coaching and feedback are lacking - Effective managers know how to help employees improve their performance and consistently give coaching and feedback to all employees. Ineffective managers put off giving feedback to employees even though they instinctively know that giving and getting honest feedback is essential for growth and building successful teams and organizations.

4) Bad Management and Leadership - When the manager ignores difficult team members and the problems they cause, strong performers often get frustrated. They also may dread coming to work for fear of having to deal with their toxic coworkers. That leads to unhappiness on the job and is a big reason why good people leave.

5) Underpaid Relative to the Market - While many employees in recent years have prioritized company culture and flexibility over pay, those who feel undercompensated and mismanaged compared to the market are more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Here is the real question we should all be asking ourselves. . . Who’s driving the bus? Who is in control of the team? THE CITY MANGER should be, not the City Council.

Holly and Tamara are you following along, are you listening? Please stop with the divisive rhetoric and misinformation.

It appears our past City Clerk, Janet Calderon got it right when she attributed the "lack of leadership" and a “toxic work environment” from the past two city managers as the sole reason for her departure.

When Bret came to town he wasn't in sync with the culture of Clayton. He brought his own agenda. When his agenda was rejected by most of the city council and the citizens, he packed his bags and left.

End of story.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton - Non-Profit - True Colors Shine Through

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.

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

Clayton Community:

In my previous post on Next Door, I explained the history behind the growing division in our town, which I believe is important background for this discussion. I would suggest you read it as a prerequisite to this post. It’s long but informative, but a must-read.

https://nextdoor.com/p/WQ-2dhXcrNN4?utm_source=share&extras=NTM2NTcwNzQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713622198329

Recently at a city council meeting, Vice Mayor Trupiano shared concerning news. She has worked diligently to secure sponsorships for city-sponsored special events and has had great success this year. However, some sponsors told her that members of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) contacted them, questioned their support of city events, and pressured them to withdraw sponsorship.

This bullying and intimidation tactic is unacceptable and has fueled division in our town. I've included a video of Vice Mayor Trupiano reporting this troubling information at the city council meeting on April 16, 2024. https://youtu.be/E9i4Io0OJzQ?si=A-qohvlXoK-EgZwh

This divisive behavior from the CBCA must cease immediately for the good of our community.

Concerned Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Attorney Meddling and Intervention at April 16, 2024 City Council Meeting

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 Attorney Malathy Subramanian and Joanna Gin:

I am writing to express my respectful disagreement with Joanna Gin’s intervention at the April 16, 2024, Clayton City Council meeting. While I apologize for speaking out of turn from the audience without being recognized, I felt Joanna Gin’s guidance to reopen public comment on agenda item 8a was legally questionable and could set an unhealthy precedent.

Mayor Diaz exercised his discretion to have the members of Community Financial Sustainability (Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and applicant Frank Gavidia) speak last during the public comment period under Item 8a, as he had indicated they would before opening the floor to comments.

Under the Brown Act, public comment must be allowed on each agenda item before action is taken. However, once public comment is closed, there is no provision to reopen it on the same item. Doing so raises issues of fairness and equal access, as some residents may have left already believing they had their chance to speak.

My concern is less with this one instance, but rather the precedent it could set. If a mayor can arbitrarily reopen comment later to allow one side to speak again, it damages public trust and accountability. I would urge adherence to the Brown Act, League of Cities Guidelines, and California's Open Meeting Laws which guarantee and protect equal public participation.

If Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and the applicant Frank Gavidia had been listed under a separate agenda item like 8.b., your intervention would have been justified.

While city attorneys have leeway, adherence to open government laws and fair proceedings is paramount. I understand your role is to advise, but in this case, your guidance seemed to contravene core public access principles.

In conclusion, I am optimistic that one of you will address this critical issue at our next council meeting, scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, so that the council and the public have a better understanding of open meeting law and policies.

Above all, I thank you for your service and commitment to our community, despite this disagreement.

Please accept my apology again for my outburst.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Why is Clayton so Divided? Is it About Power and Control? You Decide (Social Media Post from a Resident)

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.

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

Clayton Community:

Throughout this post, I will share some factual information that a few community members may prefer I didn't. However, it's important for the community to know the full history behind why I believe our town has become so divided. I will stick to the details I know to be factual and avoid speculation. The common denominator on division is obvious, but I’ll let you decide for yourself.

⁃ Over the past 25 years, the Clayton City Council has had 4 to 5 members that were also part of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), formally known as CBPA. This, in my opinion, created a potential conflict of interest that raises ethical concerns, even though it may not be illegal.

⁃ Historically, there were several steps involved in getting on the Clayton City Council. 1) Candidates would typically join CBCA, 2) They would get appointed to the Planning Commission, and 3) After being endorsed by the CBCA, they could run unopposed for a City Council seat backed by Tamara and Bob Steiner of the Clayton Pioneer newspaper, and the CBCA. Important note: Though a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the CBCA's political involvement may have violated IRS regulations, but that’s a discussion for another day.

⁃ Tamera Steiner, her husband Bob, Julie Pierce, and her ex-husband Steve have been longstanding, active members of the CBCA; Bob and Steve both previously served as president. While the organization does important work for the community, its close ties to political figures like Julie Pierce, our 28-year council member and 7-time mayor, have raised concerns about undue influence in city affairs. This makes a strong case for exploring term limits in the future.

⁃ Previously the CBCA requested the City Manager, Planning Commission Chair, and Police Chief to provide monthly reports at CBCA meetings. However, in early 2021, the City ended this practice, as it had become apparent that requiring these reports was dividing the community and was inappropriate.

⁃ Recently, tensions have been rising between city leadership and local newspaper owner Tamara Steiner. For reasons that remain unclear, three of the five city council members refuse to speak with Tamara or cooperate with her publication. Tamara appears increasingly frustrated, perhaps because she is losing some influence and control over the city affairs that her newspaper once held.

⁃ Ever since Jeff Wan first ran for political office, Tamara has appeared to oppose him. Since Jeff was an outsider who thought independently, Tamara selectively edited his responses to her 2018 candidate questionnaire, likely trying to sabotage his campaign. Readers should review Jeff's original response and draw their own conclusions.

⁃ Since Jeff Wan's election to the City Council, The Pioneer newspaper has made repeated attempts to undermine his credibility. Just a reminder, Jeff is an outsider and not a member of the CBCA.

⁃ The town's divisiveness and animosity between factions stem from the 2020 mayoral appointment when Vice Mayor Wan was bypassed for Mayor as Councilmembers C.W. Wolfe, Holly Tillman, and Peter Cloven seized control. Disregarding the City Council Handbook's guidance, Tillman nominated Wolfe while Wan was still speaking. Wan was again passed over the next year when Cloven became Mayor.

⁃ This past year the CBCA has lost control and influence over the Planning Commission, as three out of the five current commissioners are not CBCA members.

⁃ One of the Planning Commissioners supported by Council member Holly Tillman in 2021 worked as a registered lobbyist in California and had two prior arrests, according to the commissioner's website. However, neither Tillman nor the commissioner disclosed this background during the initial interview and appointment process. When the commissioner's term expired and she reapplied, Tillman voted against reappointment, apparently because the commissioner's background had been revealed publicly by a community member.

⁃ After the City Council’s extensive community feedback and consultation with residents, CBCA members, and an outside expert, a new Master Fee Schedule was implemented in 2023 to better align rates with the city’s actual operating and recovery costs. While most speakers at the public meetings were CBCA members, their input - though passionate - was often unconstructive, with some using profanity. It was apparent that the CBCA members and their leadership were upset because they wanted to continue to use our downtown for free.

⁃ The city's fee schedule had gone unreviewed for years, according to city staff who admitted they could not find records of when fees were last examined. This lack of oversight raises concerns and questions about past city councils' financial priorities over the past 25 years, as they may have focused more on supporting the CBCA than responsibly managing city finances. Outdated fees that failed to keep pace with expenses could have indirectly subsidized the CBCA's events for decades at the expense of Clayton citizens.

⁃ Over the last few years, tensions have risen between the city government and the local non-profit CBCA group due to disputes over proposed changes to the city's Master Fee Schedule along with other changes at City Hall.

⁃ Last year, the CBCA's annual donation to the city's Concerts in the Grove summer event plummeted from $5,000 to a mere $500, a 90% funding reduction. According to reports, the CBCA made this drastic cut out of spite after the city instituted a new master fee schedule.

⁃ The city’s Fourth of July parade planning committee, co-chaired by two volunteers, sought to choose a new master of ceremonies for the prestigious role. However, City Manager Bret Prebula unilaterally overruled the committee's decision and reinstated C.W. Wolf, the CBCA President, a controversial choice. Right before this appointment, the CBCA had donated $1,000 to the city for the parade when they had not contributed a nickel for four (4) years prior. This sequence of events led to allegations of a "pay to play" arrangement and quid pro quo between Bret Prebula and the CBCA, resulting in C.W. Wolf's selection. The committee co-chairs and volunteers were deeply upset by the perceived interference and lack of consultation from the City Manager. The situation demonstrated growing distrust and poor communication between Bret Prebula, his staff, and the community.

⁃ The City of Clayton Special Events Committee was formed to organize major city events like Concerts in the Grove, Fourth of July Parade, and more, however, according to a city staff member, Bret opposed the committee and instead wanted to give the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) more control over these events because he said his staff was overworked. Three out of five council members pushed back and voted to keep the city’s special events under the control of the city.

⁃ At a recent meeting of the CBCA, Vice Mayor Kim Trupiano faced criticism from CBCA board members C.W. Wolfe, Ed Hartley, Keith Hayden, and Pat Middendorf when she asked for a donation to support the city's special events. According to meeting attendees, Trupiano was verbally attacked for requesting assistance for these events. It was apparent that the CBCA board, along with some long-standing members remained frustrated about paying the city's standard rental fees to use city-owned streets and venues for CBCA events.

In summary, The Clayton Pioneer newspaper, reporter Tamara Steiner, the CBCA organization, and City Council members Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven appear to be fueling tensions in Clayton. The city and residents should communicate to the CBCA that despite having several members on the Council, it does not control City Hall or Council decisions.

For the good of our small city, the CBCA must end its divisive tactics, which seem driven by a power struggle rather than any real issue. This unproductive conflict needs to cease.

Sincerely,

Concerned CItizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Residents – Get the Truth, and Know the Facts!

By Clayton Watch

Regarding staff turnover under City Manager Bret Prebula's leadership, former City Clerk Janet Calderon offered concerning insights during public comments at the March 19th City Council meeting. Calderon resigned after 9 1/2 years due to the "toxic and hostile work environment" at City Hall that she attributed to a "lack of leadership" from the past two city managers. She indicated this was the sole reason for her departure, not any issues with the Clayton community or City Council.

Calderon's revealing statements about the work culture help explain the high staff turnover under Prebula. This likely won't be the last word from her on the matter.
Tamara Steiner and Holly Tillman requested an investigation into the City Council, but their concerns appear unfounded based solely on Janet's isolated comments.

However, broader questions have been raised about Bret's management approach that warrant further examination, such as why he was allowed to bring his full team despite skipping standard hiring protocols like background checks and drug testing.

The California Government Code mandates that cities must publicize job openings at least 10 days before the application deadline, typically by posting on the city website, advertising in local media, or listing on employment sites. However, staff have indicated the city failed to publicize recent openings through any of these required channels, violating state law. The reasons for this apparent disregard of the legal requirements remain unclear.

Additionally, Bret has threatened at public forums that he would leave City Hall if his plans were not implemented verbatim - which seems less like collaborative leadership and more like a coercive ultimatum.

Before dismissing employee complaints, the City Council should investigate the workplace culture Bret has cultivated, including whether it promotes hostility or toxicity. This examination could reveal opportunities to improve leadership, transparency, and accountability.

It’s a known fact. The city manager's primary duty is to carry out the elected officials' policies and oversee daily operations through planning, engineering, public safety, budgeting, and other city departments. In most cases, the city manager also hires key personnel like police and fire chiefs, finance and public works directors, and other department heads.

These employees all report to the city manager, not the city council or mayor. If the council overstepped its bounds, Bret should have promptly raised the issue with the appropriate council members and resolved it immediately. It is healthy for City Council members to know city staff, provided they do not try to direct their work.

The staffing issues at City Hall were caused solely by Bret. Since these matters involve confidential personnel information, the reasons behind the turnover will likely remain unknown. However, given that the staff were under Bret's leadership, it seems clear that he struggled to effectively manage his team.

Additionally, Bret's and Holly's comments about the staff being overworked due to unnecessary demands and requests from the council and public are unfounded. Staff members have informed me that an outside company completed all research and public information requests. I agree, the requests would have been unnecessary had Bret answered our questions when first asked and did not push back, but he chose to dig in.

Research indicates that while most city managers are technically prepared, they lack an understanding of the organization's culture and rarely have detailed strategies for transitioning into the role.

In our view, city managers should spend their first six months learning the city's history and culture rather than immediately instituting changes, which risks failure without established loyalty and trust that require time to develop.

In conclusion, Tamara Steiner, The Clayton Pioneer, and several other individuals seem to be unfairly targeting those with dissenting views without facts. There appears to be no room for balanced discussion, only one-sided arguments.

This black-and-white approach to reporting is problematic, as quality journalism requires factual, unbiased coverage of issues.

After 20-plus years one would think Tamara, and her small group of supporters, would have learned this early on.

The United States is a country founded on free speech. However, the local newspaper should avoid using its platform to unfairly support a particular political party disguised as a nonprofit. The group seems especially upset about Bret Prebula leaving, which raises questions about their motives.

Clayton remains an excellent place to live despite this turmoil. Still, residents deserve transparency about how the conflict started and whether it indicates larger issues at City Hall or with hired management styles.

If we listen, compromise, and refocus on shared goals, Clayton's future can remain bright. The infighting must end. Enough is enough!

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Meeting Date with Councilmembers Jeff Wan and Holly Tillman

By Clayton Watch

Councilmembers Jeff Wan and Holly Tillman,

Just checking to see if you have decided on a meeting date for the Parking Permit Program. I know you are busy, but there is some urgency now to move this along because it appears Olivia has a buyer. Mr Jordan shows Olivia as "Under Contract" on Loopnet and potential parking restrictions in surrounding neighborhoods are "Material Facts" that must be disclosed to a potential buyer under California Law. This disclosure becomes troublesome if there are no details on the program and there has been no official action by the committee or the council.

I look forward to our first meeting. Please me know the date and time of this meeting.

Thank you

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Why Can’t I Park In Front Of My House?

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

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 approving a one-year extension for the developer, now is the time to take action.

Their approval of the recent “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 any undue hardship due. Not requiring “The Olivia on Marsh Creek” project to provide sufficient parking for the eighty-one (81) approved apartments is deplorable.

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

Thanks,

Clayton Watch

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

Look at the crazy nonsense your city council and staff have discussed.

* 81 units with only one parking stall

* Comments by city council Julie, Wolfe, Catalano, and staff.

* Maybe they can use the AT&T parking lot right next door (Julie)

* Comments by developer

* 55 and over senior project

* Bus passes for one year

* Cover parking

* Trash bins

* Parking study

* Donate for crossings and parking permits (Stranahan)

* Any spillover into surrounding neighborhoods or downtown is unacceptable and will lead to increased traffic, noise, lower property values, and parking inconveniences for family and visitors, and will negatively affect the right to “quiet enjoyment” as granted to every homeowner and tenant by law. (Staff)

* Outdated parking study

* Average car 2.3 Clayton study

Summary: Any reasonable person would conclude that The Olivia on Marsh Creek” project should have never been approved based on the facts. Number of units, and no senior restrictions, one can safely assume that over 100 cars will be looking for a permanent parking place.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Meeting - Community Outreach

By Clayton Watch

Hi Holly and Jeff,

Thanks for your quick reply regarding meeting up with the community. Sorry for the test email. I'm not sure what caused the error.

Anyhow, moving forward, the community is very excited about moving these meetings forward.

Question? Please let us know what your plans are to reach out to the community before setting up a meeting date. Posting this information on the city website would be great along with a few social media posts.

Please advise,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Did the Developer Falsify His Application? You Decide!

By Clayton Watch

It looks like William Jordan's little scheme as an owner-builder for his 81 unit apartment building project with insufficient parking has been exposed! According to some new documents filed in Contra Costa County against Mr Jordan, he is being called out for fudging, or some would say lying, on his owner-builder application for the Olivia on Marsh Creek project.

Here's the scoop: To get an owner-builder permit, you have to live at the property for at least a year prior to the application and meet other prerequisites. We all know Mr Jordan didn't live at that little historical, stucco house on Marsh Creek Road he is claiming as his primary residence because it has been a rental for years, unless he pitched a tent in the horse corral. Sure looks like Mr Jordan is trying to pull another fast one. You can get all the scoop in this hot link:

https://claytonca.gov/fc/agendas/CC%20Public%20Comment/2024/Public%20Comment%20020624.pdf.

Please be sure to read pages 2 through 4 to see for yourself all the details of the complaint.

Here is the sore point: Clayton City Staff knew about Mr Jordan's shady owner-builder application for months and didn't say squat to the County. I believe it is city staff's job to keep people like Mr Jordan in check, but unfortunately, we citizens have to play investigator, inspector, informer, and compliance manager. The residents of Clayton deserve better oversight from our City Manager Bret Prebula and City Engineer Larry Theis.

I'll keep you posted as this drama unfolds. For now, if you want to chime in, keep it respectful and to the point.

Additional Clarification: 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 6or 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.

In our opinion: 1) the property was not his primary residence, 2) he plans to build more than two structures and 3) he has been trying to sell the land with his entitlements to build this project for over a year.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

California Public Records Act - Request for Five-Year Forecast Material

By Clayton Watch

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

I hope this letter finds you well. I wanted to reach out regarding the Five-Year Financial Forecast for FY 2024-2028 that was recently presented.

My understanding is that when Councilmember Jeff Wan kindly requested to review the supporting materials for this forecast, there was some hesitation from City Manager Bret Prebula to provide the full details. I do not wish to cause any trouble, but I believe having access to these materials is in the best interest of our city's transparent financial planning.

Therefore, I am making a friendly request under the California Public Records Act for:

1. All worksheets, projections, analysis, and related correspondence used to create the Five-Year Forecast presentation. This would include any emails, memos, letters, etc. among city staff, council members, and consultants pertaining to the forecast.

2. Invoices and receipts for any consulting or other costs associated with preparing the forecast.

I know there may be some time and costs involved with gathering these records, so please let me know if fees would exceed $100. I would be grateful if these could be waived, as releasing this information contributes to public knowledge about our city's budget planning.

I understand the law requires a response within 10 days. If for any reason you are unable to fulfill all or part of the request, please cite the specific legal exemption and let me know the options for appeal.

I appreciate you taking the time to consider this friendly request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia on Marsh Creek - We Were Bamboozled!

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:

Attention Seniors 55 and over, do you like shuffleboard, bocce, checkers, bingo and playing cards? Well the Olivia on Marsh Creek in Clayton surely isn’t for you, because it has none of these amenities, and is not a 55+ senior housing project.

Let me explain before you go off on me.

Many of us have been mislead by the developer, his consultants, and the city staff from the beginning. This development is not a senior housing project! It’s plain and simple, Resolution #07-2020 only calls for the Olivia development to have seven, (Again Only Seven), affordable, age restricted (55+), housing units, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

I ask those who continue to spread false information to please reconsider and acknowledge the truth - we were all misled by the developer, consultants, city staff and elected officials, including Mayor Julie Pierce and Council-members Tuija Catalano, and Carl Wolfe.

In order to be a 55+ senior housing project the developer would have had to meet several federal and state guidelines as follows:

1. The Unruh Civil Rights Act contains provisions regulating the establishment of specialized housing designed to meet the physical and/or social needs of senior citizens.

2. The Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) has additional requirements that the developer would have needed to comply with in order for the development to be considered senior housing.

3. The Fair Housing Act specifically exempts three types of housing for older persons from liability for familial status discrimination.

4. Such exempt housing facilities or communities can lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children only if they qualify for the exemption.

In order to qualify for the "housing for older persons" exemption, a facility or community must comply with all (ALL) the requirements of the exemption.

The Housing for Older Persons exemptions apply to the following housing:

1. Provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of HUD has determined to be specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program);

2. Intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older; or

3. Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older.

How Does a Facility Qualify for the “55 or Older” Exemption? In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

* At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and

* The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and

* The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

(The above is just a cursory outline of what the developer must have demonstrated in order for the project to be considered a 55+ senior housing project.)

As we have discovered, the developer never attempted to comply with any of these requirements and elected to pursue density bonus law and request concessions from the City of Clayton in order to build 81 units, with only 7 of the units being affordable housing units. As a reminder, just in case you forgot, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

If you’ve made it this far in my post, I think it’s fair to say that this is a complicated matter. I would encourage everyone to research the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) to gain more in-depth knowledge on this subject.

There's no shame in admitting we were tricked - but let's not continue the false narrative. Olivia on Marsh Creek is not what we were promised. It is not a 55+ Senior Housing Project.

Important update: The City Council has formed an ad hoc committee to discuss implementing a parking permit program in affected neighborhoods and historic downtown. Stay informed about upcoming committee meetings by contacting Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com - one of our volunteers will gladly answer any questions and welcome your participation.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Ad Hoc Committee

By Clayton Watch

Councilmembers Jeff Wan and Holly Tillman,

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Parking Permit Ad Hoc Committee and working with the community to find solutions to mitigate the impact of Olivia's lack of parking on our neighborhoods. We know you are busy, but we ask that you move this up on your priority list because there is urgency. As you know, Mr Jordan has the project listed for sale and he will be required to disclose the details of the parking permit program to a potential buyer once they are approved by the council.

Please let us know what you are proposing for potential meeting dates. We recommend a separate meeting in each of the affected neighborhoods and historic downtown. In addition, please let us know how you will inform the community of the meeting dates.

We are eagerly awaiting your response.

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

Failed Oversight - Olivia on Marsh Creek

By Clayton Watch

Once again, city staff has failed to provide oversight of the Olivia on Marsh Creek 81-unit apartment project. Specifically, William Jordan claimed "owner-builder" status on his application to Contra Costa County and it appears he provided false information on this application. See the attached complaint filed with Contra Costa County on 01/25/2024 by a member of Clayton Watch.

As you know, Contra Costa County requires an owner-builder to have resided at the property for 12 months beforehand, along with meeting other prerequisites. Let's cut to the chase - we all know William Jordan falsely claimed to be an "owner-builder" on his application to the county. The lot at 6170 High Street is an empty dirt lot. Unless Mr. Jordan was living in a tent amongst the tumbleweeds, it's impossible he met the residency requirements. Lot 6450 Marsh Creek Road, as listed on his owner-builder application, has been a rental unit for many years. The adjacent lots don't pass the smell test either.

In our opinion, this sleight of hand was done purposely because he doesn't have a licensed and bonded contractor to complete the required work as of today's date.

We raised this issue with written communication to the City Manager, Bret Prebula, along with the City Council on 10/18/23, 10/23/23, and 12/18/23. We also raised the issue at a meeting on 10/18/23 with the City Manager, Bret Prebula, and the City Engineer, Larry Theis and both said they weren’t concerned with how the permits were obtained and therefore took no action to investigate this or notify Contra Costa County of this serious irregularity.

It is unfortunate, that City Staff continues to abrogate their responsibilities to provide oversight of Olivia to the citizens of Clayton.

Please contact us if you have any questions or updates on rectifying this situation. The community demands and deserves better.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia Complaint Filed with Contra Costa County

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff,

Once again, city staff has failed to provide oversight of the Olivia on Marsh Creek 81-unit apartment project. Specifically, William Jordan claimed "owner-builder" status on his application to Contra Costa County and it appears he provided false information on this application. See the attached complaint filed with Contra Costa County on 01/25/2024 by a member of Clayton Watch.

As you know, Contra Costa County requires an owner-builder to have resided at the property for 12 months beforehand, along with meeting other prerequisites. Let's cut to the chase - we all know William Jordan falsely claimed to be an "owner-builder" on his application to the county. The lot at 6170 High Street is an empty dirt lot. Unless Mr. Jordan was living in a tent amongst the tumbleweeds, it's impossible he met the residency requirements. Lot 6450 Marsh Creek Road, as listed on his owner-builder application, has been a rental unit for many years. The adjacent lots don't pass the smell test either.

In our opinion, this sleight of hand was done purposely because he doesn't have a licensed and bonded contractor to complete the required work as of today's date.

We raised this issue with written communication to the City Manager, Bret Prebula, along with the City Council on 10/18/23, 10/23/23, and 12/18/23. We also raised the issue at a meeting on 10/18/23 with the City Manager, Bret Prebula, and the City Engineer, Larry Theis and both said they weren’t concerned with how the permits were obtained and therefore took no action to investigate this or notify Contra Costa County of this serious irregularity.

It is unfortunate, that City Staff continues to abrogate their responsibilities to provide oversight of Olivia to the citizens of Clayton.

Please contact us if you have any questions or updates on rectifying this situation. The community demands and deserves better.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

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

Code Enforcement Online Complaint Form 01-25-2024

Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
Code Enforcement Division
Phone: (925) 655-2710
Toll Free Phone: (877) 646-8314

Below is the form used to file code enforcement complaints within the County's jurisdiction. Complete the appropriate information and click the SUBMIT button on the bottom of the form.

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
Fill in all fields with an asterisk. Anonymous complaints cannot be processed. Your contact information will be kept confidential.

Your contact information is required so the code enforcement officer (inspector) may contact you if more information is needed or to let you know if the reported property violation is not within the County's jurisdiction.

Complainant First Name:

REDACTED

Complainant Last Name:

REDACTED

Phone Number with area code:

REDACTED

E-Mail:

REDACTED

ALLEGED VIOLATION / NATURE OF COMPLAINT INFORMATION

Type of Violation (Check one or more boxes)

Building, Grading, Other

Address of Violation

6450 Marsh Creek Road

City

CLAYTON

DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE NATURE OF VIOLATION/COMPLAINT

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

January 25, 2024

Dear Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has misrepresented information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

• The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.
• Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us, along with the City of Clayton, written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we await your swift intervention on this urgent issue.

Sincerely,

REDACTED
(Plus many other concerned residents.)

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff - Owner Builder Complaint CC County

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor and City Council,

Once again, city staff has failed to provide oversight of the Olivia on Marsh Creek 81-unit apartment project. Specifically, William Jordan claimed "owner-builder" status on his application to Contra Costa County and it appears he provided false information on this application.

As you know, Contra Costa County requires an owner-builder to have resided at the property for 12 months beforehand, along with meeting other prerequisites. Let's cut to the chase - we all know William Jordan falsely claimed to be an "owner-builder" on his application to the county. The lot at 6170 High Street is an empty dirt lot. Unless Mr. Jordan was living in a tent amongst the tumbleweeds, it's impossible he met the residency requirements. Lot 6450 Marsh Creek Road, as listed on his owner-builder application, has been a rental unit for many years. The adjacent lots don't pass the smell test either.

In our opinion, this sleight of hand was done purposely because he doesn't have a licensed and bonded contractor to complete the required work as of today's date.

We raised this issue with written communication to the City Manager, Bret Prebula, along with the City Council on 10/18/23, 10/23/23, and 12/18/23. We also raised the issue at a meeting on 10/18/23 with the City Manager, Bret Prebula, and the City Engineer, Larry Theis and both said they weren’t concerned with how the permits were obtained and therefore took no action to investigate this or notify Contra Costa County of this serious irregularity.

It is unfortunate, that City Staff continues to abrogate their responsibilities to provide oversight of Olivia to the citizens of Clayton.

Please contact us if you have any questions or updates on rectifying this situation. The community demands and deserves better.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Contra Costa County Officials - Complaint - Olivia on Marsh Creek

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 Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" at 6170 High Street in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has falsified information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we hope you will act swiftly to remedy this situation.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

· The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.

· Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law and protect the integrity of our hometown.

We await your swift intervention on this urgent issue. Should we not receive a timely reply, we will need to escalate this issue publicly through social media and local news outlets.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Code Enforcement Online Complaint

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.
_______________________________

Code Enforcement Online Complaint Form 01-25-2024

Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
Code Enforcement Division
Phone: (925) 655-2710
Toll Free Phone: (877) 646-8314

Below is the form used to file code enforcement complaints within the County's jurisdiction. Complete the appropriate information and click the SUBMIT button on the bottom of the form.

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
Fill in all fields with an asterisk. Anonymous complaints cannot be processed. Your contact information will be kept confidential.

Your contact information is required so the code enforcement officer (inspector) may contact you if more information is needed or to let you know if the reported property violation is not within the County's jurisdiction.

Complainant First Name:

REDACTED

Complainant Last Name:

REDACTED

Phone Number with area code:

REDACTED

E-Mail:

REDACTED

ALLEGED VIOLATION / NATURE OF COMPLAINT INFORMATION

Type of Violation (Check one or more boxes)

Building, Grading, Other

Address of Violation

6450 Marsh Creek Road

City

CLAYTON

DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE NATURE OF VIOLATION/COMPLAINT

January 25, 2024

Dear Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has misrepresented information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

• The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.
• Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us, along with the City of Clayton, written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we await your swift intervention on this urgent issue.

Sincerely,

REDACTED
(Plus many other concerned residents.)

Sincerely,

Stanahan Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate