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

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

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

The Clayton Community is Counting on Leadership! - Downtown Parking Permit Program

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor, Council, Staff, and Community Members,

During Tuesday's City Council Meeting, City Manager Bret Prebula’s justification for postponing action on a downtown parking permit program was disappointing if not downright embarrassing to the people in attendance. While a comprehensive parking study could provide useful data, implementing basic parking restrictions does not require significant resources or outside consultants. It was quite obvious that Bret has a different agenda for Clayton and all of us (including the City Council) need to wake up before it's too late. It was very apparent by Bret’s word salad and his long-winded excuse on the cost to implement a full-blown parking permit program, that his vision for Clayton is not aligned with 95% of the residents.

If you watch his video about Olivia on the city website, the last 15 seconds of it will tell you all you need to know about his vision.
https://share.repd.us/og/clayton/en/4631. He wants more of the Olivia-type projects to come to Clayton. Whoever hired this guy needs to take action now.

Rather than delay, we need to take simple, common-sense steps now. For instance, a simple signage program with some teeth might be the answer. Additionally, increasing parking citation fees would discourage illegal parking without requiring new staff or processes. Our $20 fee is not enough of a deterrent. A modest increase could reduce repeat violations, freeing police resources for other priorities such as patrolling downtown and other areas such as Stranahan and surrounding neighborhoods.

We cannot accept continuing to ignore an issue that will affect so many. I hope we can work together to take decisive action. The community is counting on leadership to address challenging issues, rather than evade them. Bret, I would have assumed you had learned from your lack of action on the Olivia oversight problems, but it seems you did not.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program – Talking Points

By Clayton Watch

• A high-density housing project “The Olivia on Marsh Creek” has been approved across the street from Stranahan with insufficient onsite parking.

• 81 units will be built with less than 100 parking spaces for the whole complex.

• Only 5 guest parking spaces with limited handicapped parking.

• Census data shows approximately 37% of Clayton residents have 2 cars, and about 58% have three cars or more. There is no reason this project will be any different.

• Clayton's parking standard is 2.23 parking spaces per unit, consistent with current census data. This would mean 180 to 250 cars for the Olivia project.

• The parking study presented by the developer, and accepted by the city, of 1.1 parking spaces per unit was based on a 2008 parking study of a 55+ age-restricted community in Pennsylvania.

• This project has no age restriction and is not a 55+ senior housing project.

• 100+ additional cars without on-site parking spaces will come to your neighborhood.

• 36 two-bedroom units and 45 one-bedroom units have been approved. With the possibility of 45 more high-density housing units being placed on the Hoyer property.

• Only 7 units will be restricted as low-income; the rest will be leased at market rates, which means a two-income family and at least two cars, not one.

• Spillover into the neighborhoods and downtown is guaranteed.

• Clayton has limited bus service, so taking the bus to work is not viable.

• We must place the burden on the developer and the city, not the citizens.

• If a Parking permit sticker is required – A no-fee program will be requested for the residences due to the city approving this project. In addition, the developer supposedly committed $2,500 to institute a parking permit program.

• The parking permit program will only commence when the developer starts construction. (Once he starts, the program is activated.)

• Once the project is built, it will be too late to try to place restrictions on parking.

• A citywide parking permit program would ensure that spillover from the

proposed high-density projects would place the burden on the developers.

• Developers need to provide adequate onsite parking.

• Parking should be the developer’s responsibility.

• Developers should not affect neighborhoods.

• Spillover parking should not be allowed in neighborhoods.

• The city council needs to take immediate action.

• The council did not listen to the residents.

• The parking study was a joke.

• Downtown business will be affected.

• The post office and city park will have limited parking if renters are allowed to park overnight.

• Neighborhoods will be littered with unwanted cars in front of their homes.

• Why wasn’t a parking study done in California?

• The project is not senior housing, why is it referred to as one?

• Three stories are unacceptable at its current location.

• The project will harm Clayton.

• There will be 100 to 250 new cars looking for a place to park.

• We must place the burden on the developers and the city, not neighborhoods.

• Most people and families have at least two cars.

What was the council thinking?

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

⁃ ALERTING ALL RESIDENTS ⁃

By Clayton Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Parking Permit Program Advances - To Be Heard By City Council

By Clayton Watch

Hello Clayton Community:

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

Petition summary and background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Manager Meeting on Olivia on Marsh Creek Oversight

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton City Council,

COMPLAINT # 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPLAINT # 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be guided accordingly and take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia on Marsh Creek Update

By Clayton Watch

Dear Clayton Community,

Many of you have asked about the status of the Olivia on Marsh Creek development. Unfortunately, as outlined in our latest report to the City Council, the situation is not looking favorable.

Please click the link below to view the details we submitted. https://claytonca.gov/fc/agendas/council/2023/Public%20Comment/PublicComment12192023.pdf

We want to emphasize that our report aims to outline the facts without intending to be rude, disrespectful, or mean-spirited. The information comes directly from documents and videos provided by the City of Clayton.

Residents are welcome to contact City Manager Bret Prebula at 925-673-7313
or bretp@claytonca.gov to respectfully share concerns over enforcing the development's conditions of approval.

To submit questions directly to Bret and receive a video response, please use this link: (This service is no longer available.)

We appreciate you for reading this article.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia Update - Review of Over 325 Documents

By Clayton Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· improper construction fencing,

· inadequate dust mitigation,

· failed hydroseeding,

· lack of rodent control,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

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

By Clayton Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

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

By Clayton Watch

Dear Mayor and City Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

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

Bret,

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

Therefore:

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

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

Please respond within the 10 days required by law.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

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

By Clayton Watch

Hi Bret,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your prompt attention concerning this matter.

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia Over-Sight andl Violations - Letter to City Manager

By Clayton Watch

Good Afternoon Bret,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to your prompt reply to these important questions.

Thanks,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Bret Reengage Your Team

By Clayton Watch

Bret,

Thank you for your recent reply to our letter dated September 25, 2023. It is unclear why you would need to “reengage your team” when you notified us in your letter that a 14-day extension was needed to complete our original request.

Which one is it? Is our prior request to produce information complete? Or, do you need more time to fulfill our original request to produce public information? Please clarify your statement.

Our original request was to inspect or obtain copies of public records concerning the Olivia on Marsh Creek project from January 1, 2023, through September 14, 2023. We are not sure how extending our original request by fourteen days would have much impact on our original request since you are now mentioning that you will need to “reengage your team” to complete our expanded request.

If we understand your prior correspondence correctly, the majority of the public information we requested is complete, so please send over what you have ready, and reengage your team to fulfill our new extended request.

We will expect the balance of our expanded public records request from September 15, 2023, through September 28, 2023, within the required 10-day time frame.

Thank you for your prompt attention and open communication concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch

P.S. Bret, I left you a phone message yesterday around 1:00 p.m., but I have not heard back from you. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, as we need to talk.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate