Showing posts with label Community Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community Letters. Show all posts

Monday, November 1, 2021

Unwanted Advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven - Council Rotation

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 and City Council,

Here is some unwanted advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven: If you really believed in bringing the community together, promoting council harmony, inclusiveness, diversity, transparency, following council guidelines and procedures and "Doing the Right Thing", then you would have selected Jeff Wan as Mayor and Carl Wolfe as Vice Mayor. This would have brought both sides and the community together and is something you said you wanted to do. For the good of Clayton, please reconsider your actions. We don't need more divisiveness.

Signed,

Concerned Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Monday, July 19, 2021

Olivia on Marsh Creek Extension

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 and City Council,

I see no reason to give Mr. Jordan two more years to build a bankrupt project. It should not be the council's concern that Mr. Jordan probably paid two much for the property and the project does not pencil out.

Here are some reasons to deny the extension:

1. Building cost have skyrocketed, will continue for years to come, and the council should consider whether Mr. Jordan has the financial capacity to complete the project.

2. Mr. Jordan redesigned his project from a 2 story building to a 3 story, 3 building 81 unit apartment that he knew would generate considerable community opposition, a potential lawsuit and eventual delay.

3. Mr. Jordan moved away from a profitable 2 story project to an unprofitable 3 story project in an attempt to punish the community because they did not welcome his project with open arms.

4. Mr. Jordan has changed the scope of the project from senior housing to market rate apartments.

5. The state wants the city to approve viable projects that can and will be built in a timely manner to increase the housing inventory.

6. Approving this extension and tying up these parcels for two more years with a bankrupt project project will exclude another developer from coming forward with a viable project that can be built within this time frame.

Bottom line, City Council should deny the extension and move on to another developer.

Enough is Enough!

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Progressive Pride Flag - Develop a Flag Policy

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 City Council,

This is to address item 11.b on the June 15, 2021 council agenda. The new Progressive Pride Flag being proposed is moving away from a lifestyle message of the gay community to a more social and political message. It adds the chevron (progress or progressive) and a black and brown stripe (people of color). Both are social and political movements. While they both may have merits it sets precedent for other flags to be flown on city flag poles.

I would like to see the Thin Blue Line Flag displayed May 15th, Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week. I am sure other groups would also like to see their flags displayed during the year.

The city should develop a flag policy so other groups have equal access to city flag poles and the process for approval. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Friday, June 4, 2021

Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - 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.

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

Appeal of Planning Commission Decision in the matter of: The Olivia on Marsh Creek – Request for Extension of approvals of a Density Bonus (DBA-01-019), site Plan Review Permit (SPR-04-17) and Tree Removal Permit (TRP-24-17)

Background of Appellant: For the purpose of background I want to take a moment to inform the members of this Council and those in the Public that I am speaking on this matter from 20 plus years of involvement in commercial, retail, and municipal projects each with an approval "process" similar to the one that was undertaken for the Olivia Project. My experience and expertise has been as an advocate for projects (both Public and private sector), a builder of projects who had to comply with all of the conditions put on the project both prior to and after their completion and on time, and as a participant in similar approval processes in Clayton as a 
Planning Commissioner.

Rationale as to why this ruling by the Planning Commission was an improper or erroneous interpretation:

1. The Developer has already been afforded a reprieve from the customary and normal 1 year period (the project was approved on March 3, 2020) and has since failed to perform. During my service on the Planning Commission 3 projects were reviewed and approved that involved changes to both zoning and project density adjustments. Each time, these Developers were required to and able to complete their plans and start within the 1 year requirement. The same rules should apply to this Developer.

2. The Planning Commission failed to recognize that by allowing such an extension this commits the City to this Developer without any recourse or ability for necessary adjustments from the specifics of their prior approvals. As such, it does not protect the City from this applicant selling the “entitlements” associated with this application which could be passed along with the property to an applicant or developer that the City can neither properly vet, control, or even be allowed to consider whether or not this would be an appropriate Developer to perform this project in our Community.

3. Despite the fact that new concerns were pointed out to the Commission subsequent to their initial approval and at the time of this current hearing about both the negative impacts to quality of life, and the real costs to the City that would result should this project be permitted to proceed as it is currently conditioned, the Planning Commission, instead of taking time to further examine and determine the validity of these issues, in their haste to approve, chose to ignore these concerns. 

Examples of some of these issues that have surfaced since the original approval and that were brought to the attention of the Commission at the hearing but not addressed are:

• Addressing costs associated with providing for offsite parking accommodations to meet the demand caused by this project both in real infrastructure, maintenance and compliance costs.

• Related issues to pedestrian safety infrastructure that will be needed for the areas adjacent to this project and the real costs to not only to provide this infrastructure initially but the costs to maintain the infrastructure as well.

• Addressing the imposition of and the payment of the necessary annual fees that need to be assessed to fund the added stress and impacts on our parks both Community and Downtown due to the number of persons that this project will add to our community. (We all pay these fees and assessments on per household basis why shouldn't this project?)

• Addressing the Public Safety Issue of the overhead power lines that need to be addressed (put underground) as part of this project. (Why should the rate payers have to be burdened with this expense when it is solely for the project's benefit?)

Further rationale as the why the Council should rule to deny this extension:
It is my view that we have had several iterations of this project since this project was first proposed that have been presented in a manner that seemed to be lacking in proper public inclusion, vetting and collaborative discussion with each new iteration. It also seems to me that the iterations that were presented, were presented with a predetermined outcome in mind, as they were mostly influenced by the interests (agenda) of the Developer, some in City Management (including several City Planning Department heads since moved on), and a consultant as well as other influences by former Council members.

Was the process undertaken in such a way as to be biased towards a certain outcome or was there an overriding agenda that clouded this process? This can be a matter of debate but if you allow the extension there will be no further discussion or an ability to make suitable adjustments. Denial is your opportunity to remedy this, it is your discretion and duty.

Correspondingly, from the start of this project there has been an inconsistent enforcement (at least when viewed against historical practice and precedent) in the matters of environmental review, application of public safety and zoning standards and ordinances. If you study the evolution of this project, it appears that the matter of housing density and not working towards and arriving at a Project that was complimentary to the community were at odds. It seems also that the scales and balance of outcomes were constantly being tipped towards the Developer and not to Clayton’s standards, tradition and precedents.

To illustrate as an example of this inconsistency, for the Clayton Community Church’s original downtown project it was insisted to by the Council to have a full environmental review including traffic studies, soil and geologic studies, parking studies etc. complete with story poles erected to show the mass of the project. This review deemed necessary for a project that supposedly had the same potential environmental, parking, zoning, historical use impacts as well as other Public Safety issues was not done for the current Olivia project. In fact it can be suggested that the Olivia project in its present form will have a far more negative impact on the community than a downtown Church. 

Therefore it seems that it is rather rational that the Council deny this extension so you have the opportunity to revisit this decision, require a more comprehensive review and as they are determined require mitigations to address the issues and negative impacts that have been overlooked.

Conclusion and Recommendation: In conclusion it would appear that Olivia Project was given a fair and reasonable window of opportunity to move forward with this project. They have failed to perform. On this basis alone the Olivia Project be denied an extension.

A denial of this extension would not only be an opportunity to permit the City and the Community to regroup and move forward in a more thoughtful, consensual and comprehensive process that would benefit the entire community and still resolve the issues surrounding appropriate re-zoning and a higher density project allowance. This is why I recommend overturning the Planning Commission decision and a denial of the extension.

Respectfully submitted,

Glenn D. Miller
Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Councilmember Carl Wolfe Orchestrated a Plan - Violation of the Brown Act?

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.

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

Mayor, and Councilmembers:

At the December 1, 2020 council meeting, Councilmember Carl Wolfe orchestrated a plan (and in violation of the Brown Act) to appoint himself as Mayor and Councilmember Peter Coven as Vice Mayor and pass over Vice Mayor Jeff Wan (an Asian American) for Mayor.

This was Peter Cloven's first day on the job. Clayton has three ethnic Councilmembers and the two Caucasians are in leadership positions. Smells like racism to me.

Jeff Wan is a very popular, intelligent, competent Councilmember and has proven his leadership abilities over the last year. He has an overwhelming amount of community support and many wrote letters to the council that was read at the December 15th meeting asking for the council to reverse their decision and appoint Jeff as mayor.

The community is outraged at the way Jeff Wan was treated and there is no logical reason for him to be passed over.

I do not believe Clayton is a raciest city. To the contrary, I believe the community has continually supported and voted for ethnic candidates, thus the make up of the current council. It does appear that racism has crept onto the city council.

The vice mayor and mayor position in Clayton is rotational with each Councilmember having an opportunity to serve as vice mayor and mayor. For the past forty years the vice mayor has always been appointed Mayor except for one vice mayor that did not win er-election and one vice mayor that had to resign because he was convicted of a felony. It has also been a long tradition that the one who receives the highest number of votes will be elevated to vice mayor (Jim Dias received the highest number of votes in the November 2020 election).This did not happen on December 1st. These guidelines and traditions are in place for a reason. It is to prevent what occurred at the December 1st council meeting.

Peter Cloven has indicated he could not support Jeff Wan for mayor because Jeff supported Frank Gavidia's (a Hispanic American) candidacy for city council. Instead he supported Wolfe who is the only other non-ethnic councilmember. As a planning commissioner, Cloven could not support Frank Gavidia, (a two year commissioner and next in line for vice chair), for vice chair of the commission and instead he supported a non-ethnic commissioner with only a couple of months on the commission. Seems to be a pattern here. What happened to diversity and inclusion. Still waiting for Peter Cloven and Carl Wolfe to explain their actions.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Friday, October 2, 2020

No to State Mandates

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,

This is one of the most important elections in Clayton’s history.  We are at a crossroad, we either rollover and let the state force another 400 to 800 new high-density apartments down our throats or we fight them. 

On one hand, we have two council candidates, Catalano and Cloven that voted to approve a 3-story, 3-building apartment in historic downtown. We have three candidates, Catalano, Cloven and Tillman, that said they will support the state’s mandate of 400 to 800 new high density homes in Clayton-they said, no problem.

On the other hand, we have two candidates Diaz and Gavidia, that voted against this monstrosity in historic downtown. We have three candidates, Diaz, Gavidia and Miller, that will fight against the state’s draconian mandates.

The choice is simple, we either elect candidates that will fight or we elect candidates that will be advocates for the state destructive housing plan and let them destroy our little town-as they said, NO PROBLEM.

Please give Clayton a fighting chance and vote for Diaz, Gavidia and Miller.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt
Concerned Citizen

Friday, April 24, 2020

The Cost of Bad Public Policy

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 and Council:

Thank you Vice Mayor Wan and Councilmember Diaz for representing the interest of Clayton residents and voting against the atrocious 3-story development in our historic downtown. As a former Clayton Councilmenber and Mayor, I am appalled that our majority, pro-growth, Council members voted to approve a project that will completely destroy the historic rural ambiance of our historic downtown forever. The developer should be ashamed.

I am really disappointed in Mayor Pierce, who along with me and many other former Counilmembers, Planning Commissioners and citizens spent hours in community meeting and public hearings developing the Town Center Specific Plan. A plan that was developed to protect our historic downtown and Clayton's small town rural character. Pretty sad day for Clayton

I read with reproach the response from our land use attorney Councilmember. I wish she would have used all her attorney land use skills and knowledge to develop findings (reasons) to deny this atrocious development instead of excuses for approving it. A development she said she had mixed feelings about. And then to say if you do not like our decisions you can file a lawsuit. I guess I would expect that from an attorney. In addition, she has warned us that more is to come this year because the State is going to require cities to rezone underutilized land. Sounds like a done deal. A zoning change is a legislative act and can be challenged through the referendum process unless the state has also taken that right away from us.

I am really getting tired of the stale argument that we need all this high density development in Clayton so our kids, teachers, fire fighters, and police officers can live hear. The police offices, fire fighters and teachers that live in my neighborhood would not want to downsize to live in an apartment.

High density development makes no sense in Clayton. It should be located near mass transportation hubs and job centers. Clayton has limited transportation and it does not have a job center. Every home we build puts 2 more cars on the road each day which adds to more congestion, more carbon emissions-something Sacramento said they want to reduce. Hypocrisy.

It is ironic that California can choose to violate federal law and file lawsuits against the federal government for everything the federal government does they do not like, but them require the cities and counties in this state to abide by all their draconian rules, regulations and laws. Cities are just roiling over. Clayton has Councilmembers on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and California League of Cities-both are very powerful lobbying groups. I wish they would use their political clout to fight for the sovereignty of our cities and counties. If the state is going to run our cities, then we certainly do not need all the expense of local government.

Moreover, building affordable housing in California and Clayton is a joke. Sacramento is attributing housing affordability to the cost of a mortgage or rent while at the same time doing everything in their power to increase the cost of living in California- making living in California less affordable. Hypocrisy. Mortgage payments and rent are only one aspect of housing affordability.

California has the highest construction cost in the nation, the highest property taxes, highest insurance rates, most costly entitlement process, highest building material cost, highest water and electrical meter hookup cost for new construction, highest construction equipment cost because of CARB regulations, highest labor cost, highest utility cost, highest water rates, highest gas tax, highest gas prices (because California requires a special formula CARB gas), highest income taxes, highest vehicle registration cost, highest sales tax, and on and on.

Guess who is responsible for all of this--Sacramento. They are not addressing any of these cost and, in fact, they are contributing to this self induced crisis. And then they want the taxpayers to subsidies their destructive living cost policies. Hypocrisy at its best. I guess this is why people are leaving California.

I wish our city council would use their skills, knowledge and political clout to fight for the protection of our little town.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

To Councilmember Peter Cloven - Tree Claim - 5838 Clayton Road

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.

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

Peter Cloven,

The subject tree claim that occurred on October 25, 2020 causing approximately $30,000 damage was denied by the city council at their February 16, 2021 based on a recommendation by MPA, Municipal Pooling Authority. The city manager indicated the tree was inspected and trimmed annually and this California pepper tree fell because of root rot and high winds. After learning that the tree was not inspected by a qualified arborist, it was just trimmed for traffic light clearance, Councilmember Jim Diaz brought this claim back to the city council for further review and action at the August 3, 2021 council meeting. The council gave the city manager direction to correct the information given to MPA to see if it would change their recommendation.

On March 25, 2022 I sent you an email regarding this tree claim to see if the city manager complied with the direction given to her at August 3, 2021 council meeting. That is, did she correct the information given to MPA (the tree was not inspected by a qualified arborist, it was just trimmed) to see if it would change their liability recommendation. Instead of following up with the city manager, you sent my request to her for a response. After a week with no response from the city manager and followup from you, I sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to her to get answers to these two simple basic questions. On April 11, 2022 I received the information requested. After reviewing all this information it appears the city manager did not correct the information provided to MPA as directed by the city coumcil. Why?

It also appears that the city manager was trying to let the statute of limitations clock run out on this claim. She was sent an email on February 18, 2021 by MPA advising her the statue of limitations would expire on August 17, 2021. The city manager's last communication to staff requesting information for MPA was August 18, 2021 (one day after the statute of limitations) even though the council directed her to correct the information give to MPA on August 3, 2021. She did nothing for 15 days. Why?

In addition, as part of MPA's review, on November 16, 2020 they sent a list of questions regarding this claim to the city manager. Among other things MPA specifically asked if there was any know issues with this tree. Staff' said the tree was visually inspected, trimmed and appeared healthily. Clayton's maintenance staff is not qualified to assess the health of a California pepper tree and this information should have been provided to MPA.

Then on November 25, 2020 MPA wanted to know if the city monitors trees near the end of their lifespan to remove them before they fall. This question was never answered. They also provided information about the California Pepper Tree from www.gardeningknowhow.com as follows: "You'll need a spot in direct sun with well-drained soil. California pepper tree care is increased significantly if you choose a planting site with poorly drained soil, since root rot pathogens are likely to attack the tree". And last, they wanted to know who placed the rocks around the base of the tree (city or homeowner). I could not locate any response from city staff regarding these specific questions. A qualified arborist should have been contacted by city staff to give MPA an opinion regarding this tree's soil and drainage conditions. Why weren't these questions answered by the city manager. Obviously, MPA felt this was important information to help them make a judgement about the claim.

Furthermore, this tree was over 100 years old. Not only did city staff not answer MPA's questions above regarding drainage, they did not advise MPA that the city widened Clayton Road in the early 1990's, installed curbs and sidewalks, most likely placed the rocks around the base of the tree, and paid for the installation of the fence that was install for sound attenuation on Clayton Road. All of this work most likely destroyed the root base and left this tree surrounded by asphalt, concrete and rocks. This would have been very obvious to a qualified arborist, but the tree was never inspected.

Peter, I am appalled by all of this. It is not my job to chase down these citizen complaints or track the city manager to ensure she has completed work direction give to her by the city council, it is your job. I am sure you were given a copy of the Freedom of Information Act Request I received on April 11, 2022, so I don;t need to provide it to you. I would ask, did you review the file to make sure the city manager completed work direction given to her by the council on August 3, 2021? And did you review the file to see if there were any extenuating circumstances that may have changed MPA's recommendation to deny the claim? Below is my recap of claim. It is oblivious to me that the city's negligence led to failure of this tree that caused the damage to the property at 5838 Clayton Road.

In Summary:

-The California pepper tree was over 100 years old

-California pepper trees are vulnerable to root rot pathogens-which it had and it was not inspected by a qualified arborist

-California pepper trees must have well drained soil-it did not

-The tree was never inspected by a qualified arborist to determine it's health-it should have been

-The tree was only visually inspected by city maintenance (not by a qualified arborist to determined it's health) it was just trimmed for traffic light clearance

-MPA was given insufficient information to property evaluate this claim-twice. MPA requested additional information and it was not provided

-A qualified arborist was never asked to give an opinion about the tree's soil conditions and drainage-a qualified arborist would have advised MPA this tree did not have proper drainage

-MPA was not advised that Clayton Road was widened, curbs and sidewalks were installed, a sound wall fence was installed and tree roots were destroyed-important information omitted

-MPA was not advised by staff that this tree did not have proper drainage because it was surrounded by asphalt and concrete-important information omitted

-The city manager never responded to a question by MPA regarding who placed the rocks around the tree's base-it is obvious the city placed the rocks around the tree's base because it is in the city's right-of-way, however MPA was not given this information

-The city manager never updated the information give to MPA as directed by the council on August 3, 2021- why?

-The city manager was intentionally running out the statue of limitations clock-pathetic

-This California pepper tree should have been inspected by a qualified arborist and removed before it fell

Peter, it is time to resolve this claim. Bring it back to the city council for review and action, pay the claim and apologize to Maryam Maheri for all the pain and suffering, loss of privacy and destruction caused by the city's negligence.

I look forward to your timely response.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

To Councilmember Peter Cloven - Downed Tree & Statue of Limitations

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.

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

Peter,

Thank you for confirming what I already knew. I agree, you can’t create documents that don’t exist about conversations that never occurred. A little advise, you are elected to represent the citizens of this town, not work for the city manager. In addition, city managers and city attorneys are not good PR managers so you would probably be better off writing your own email responses if you can. Now on to the tree claim. Because you have not answered my questions on previous emails about this tree claim, I am interpreting my understanding of your responses below:

1-As our elected representative, you are refusing to contact MPA to verify the city manager verbally answered their question about who placed the rocks around the base of the tree and her answer.

2-As our elected representative, you are refusing to contact MPA to verify the city manager verbally corrected incorrect information originally provided to them by her and as directed by the city council on August 3, 2021, and her response.

3-As our elected representative, you are refusing to investigate why the city manager did not inform MPA that this California pepper tree did not have proper drainage.

4-As our elected representative, you are refusing to contact Waraner tree service for an opinion if their visual inspection can adequately determine the health of a California pepper tree.

5-As our elected representative, you are refusing to investigate why all correspondent regarding this claim are in writing via email, except for answers to very important questions generated by MPA to the city manager and compliance to direction given to her by the council.

6-As our elected representative, you are refusing to answer why the city manager waited until the day after the statue of limitations expired, and 15 days after council direction, to contact city staff for additional information about this claim.

7-As our elected representative, you are refusing to provide MPA additional information I have provided to you regarding tree roots being destroyed during Clayton Road widening, the installation of curbs and sidewalks and the installation of the sound wall fence.

8-As our elected representative, you are refusing to correct the record and bring this item back to the council to reevaluate the claim and let the council decide the proper outcome.

Peter, I hope this captures your positions correctly. In my opinion, this is total complete incompetence by the city manager and you are condoning it by your inaction. If I left something out, please let me know, and please don’t have the city manager or city attorney respond because we don’t need to spend any more taxpayer money on your emails to me.

Regards

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier - Do the Right Thing!

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 Congressman Mark DeSaulnier,

As a past Recreation and Park Administration Major and a graduate of Sacramento State University, I'm very concerned with the National Park Service/Federal Government/Department of Interior, and field of spineless government officials, not taking the necessary steps to preserve the names of some very historic sites at Yosemite National Park. (Camp Curry, also known as Curry Village, and The Ahwahnee Hotel.)

It's now your chance to do something of value. Your past year of the meet and greet is disappointing and this is not what we elected you to do, and it's time for you to go to work. It's time for real action to be taken by you. We need you to lead the fight and save these historic sites' names.

After doing some research on these historic sites, I'm sure you will agree this is a perfect cause for you to get involved with, and one we as citizens need to tackle with your help. It's time we tell corporate America who's in charge, take control of this situation, and not allow them to hijack the names we've all come to associate with Yosemite National Park.

Below, I have provided you with some of the history of these names and will leave the rest up to you and your staff.

Please contact me so we can discuss this matter in more detail.

Best regards,

Gary Hood
Clayton, CA

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier - Do The Right Thing

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 Congressman Mark DeSaulnier:

Some on the left, including yourself, are trying to delegitimize the President by saying he’s not a legitimate president because your side didn't win.

After the historic election comes the historic inauguration. No matter what party you belong.

To see members of Congress, including yourself, boycott this inauguration was disrespectful.

Your party misread the polls and the public, and the results shouldn't surprise you. Your party is about as corrupt as it can get, and your actions are dangerous.

Russian hacking may have occurred, but remember the Russians didn't write the emails, your party did.

The Democrats’ absence was motivated by disrespect for the office and disrespect for the millions of Americans that elected our new President.

If your stance was taken for political gain, or to receive meaningful committee assignments, you have made a big mistake.

For once, the American people are being told the truth and you and members of Congress will be held accountable.

We didn’t pay you to stay home.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Monday, January 2, 2012

CCC Board of Supervisors Martinez, CA 2012 - Fire Station 11 Closure

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 Board of Supervisors, (Please read to the bottom) On behalf of the Citizens of Clayton, I am writing to convey our deep concerns with the shutdown of our fire station (Station 11) along with other stations throughout the county. In short, implementation of the current practice could seriously jeopardize the safety and well being of not only the citizens of Clayton but others throughout the county as a whole.

Unfortunately, it appears from the closures and proposed closures—and the lack of sustained formal public engagement with stakeholders—that the best interests of the citizens have not been adequately heard, much less ascertained. The safety and well-being of our citizens, including their ability to obtain emergency medical services, should be foremost considerations in any reasonably deliberative policymaking process. Placing money before safety just isn't, an option.

Continuing down this path has no apparent solution in site and as responsible leaders and citizens we must make some hard choices. Those choices are quite obvious; and the way we conduct business with ourselves and the unions needs to stop.

Recognizing all stakeholders have rights, we need to constantly remind ourselves that we must first meet our responsibility to the communities we serve, employees must come second. What this means is that we need to remember that the entities that we are managing are in the public sector and not the private. Wages and benefits have clearly been pushed beyond what our resources will allow. Had these decision i.e., wages, benefits, and expansion been made in the private sector, we would have been out of business long ago.

The station closures are just not acceptable and create a "risk" we just cannot afford.

At a time when budgets face ongoing dramatic reductions and the local economic picture continues to wane, it’s truly perplexing that the Board of Supervisors is considering a policy framework that will put our citizens at risk and in harms way.

Policy making should be responsive to the reality on the ground, in the communities, and in the county. The Clayton citizens and the rest of the Contra Costa Community deserve political leadership and policy stewardship that understands that reality.

The citizens are watching. It's time to start doing what is right rather than what is political acceptable or considered the norm.

Based on where we are today, we would respectfully request the following course of action be taken until we can get the rest of our (county) affairs in order,

1. Reopen all the fire station and file bankruptcy.
2. Fire all county employees and hire them back at public wages, not private wages.
3. Recall all supervisors and look into campaign financing and spending.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Fire Services Ad-Hoc Committee

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

Update: CLAYTON, Calif. (KGO) -- With the closest station five miles away, one East Bay community is celebrating the return of its own fire house. Fire Station 11 in Clayton reopened quietly Friday morning after being shut down since 2012 because of budget cuts during the recession.

Station 11 in Clayton is back in business after being closed down over two years ago. The station is now staffed with one engine and three firefighters, 24 hours a day seven days a week. Click on the following link to learn more. https://abc7news.com/clayton-fire-station-11-reopens-closed/478742/

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!