November 3 Meeting Cancelled

 The Council meeting regularly scheduled for Nov 3 has been cancelled.  That will be election day, please remember to vote!

10.20.20 Meeting Summary

 There was one key item on the agenda last night and that was a discussion about what process we should engage in to determine how the open city owned downtown lot should be utilized.  There were a few options presented:

1. Hold public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council only (3-6 months)
2. Community Meetings with consultant resource and public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council.  This would work out to approximately 3 community meetings, a Planning Commission study session, and a City Council study session.  From there conclusions would be brought by city staff for final Council decision.  (6-12 months and $12K - $15K)
3. Community Meetings and Charette Sessions with consultant resources and public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council.  This would work out to approximately 4 community meetings, 4-5 Charrette Sessions with the intent to get maximum community involvement, a Planning Commission study session, and a City Council study session.  From there conclusions would be brought by city staff for final Council decision.   (12-18 months and $34K - $50K)

Ultimately the whole council was in favor of #3, with the caveat that it should not take 12-18 months.  I think this option ensures the maximum public involvement which is critical for the city to ensure that we hear as much input as possible before deciding how to proceed.  I raised a concern that the longer more involved process may be difficult for interested community members to participate in, but I think if we publicize the process, record it, and take feedback from all available channels, it could mitigate that risk.

We gave direction to staff to move forward with preparing an RFP for #3 with a reduced timeline of 9-12 months.

There was also a closed session to discuss the open City Manager position.

Election is Two Weeks Away - Support Frank Gavidia

I want to thank everyone for sharing in my support for Frank Gavidia. There's just a couple weeks left, but it is still important to speak with your friends and neighbors in town and let them know why Frank is the best candidate to advance the city. 

One common thread of criticism I’ve seen is this idea that myself, or Frank want to “fight Sacramento” and that necessarily means litigation. I know folks have either implied or stated this to be the case, but it's not so. I have no plans or intentions to "fight Sacramento". What I really want is for us as a city and a group of cities to advocate our interests. Many other cities do this, even nearby cities, but we don't. 

With the Olivia, my hope was to put the city and the residents on a more favorable footing for negotiation. Because the city conceded on every point that the developer asked for, it didn't give the residents or the city much room to negotiate for a more agreeable project. This is what Gavidia, and Diaz would want to do as well. We weren't able to because we didn't have enough votes both on the Planning Commission and at the Council. This is important because the Olivia developer owns multiple other adjacent parcels and seemingly intends to put similar projects there as well. We need creative councilmembers who will take the residents interests into consideration. The only way to incentivize the developer is to put the city and residents in a stronger negotiating position. I tried to do that recently by asking the city to stop defending the lawsuit brought by the residents, however the Council collectively chose to take no action. 

I've always advocated that we as a city follow the law. I also think we can take creative measures that balance the desires of residents with the need to follow the law. We haven't done that thus far but I know in working with like minded people like Gavidia we can start. So as I've said, it's not a fight against Sacramento, but a fight FOR the residents of Clayton. 

That means collaborating with other like minded cities, working with allies in the legislature, clearly taking a position on relevant legislation, joining advocacy groups that will truly represent us. In no way would I ever push for litigation because I don't think that's right for us, nor do I think it's an effective way to go. But those other steps, we don't do any of those things because the views we would argue for aren't shared with a majority of the Council. We need to change that and it starts with electing people who will represent these views.

www.frankforclayton.com

Upcoming Council Meeting 10.20.20

For our next meeting there is one significant item on the agenda and that is to take input on what the process should be in determining the vision for the city owned downtown lot where all of the festivals are held.  The Council may then provide direction to staff in order to move the process forward.

Staff is presenting three options and approximate times and costs to complete:

1. Hold public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council only (3-6 months)
2. Community Meetings with consultant resource and public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council (6-12 months and $12K - $15K)
3. Community Meetings and Charette Sessions with consultant resources and public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council (12-18 months and $34K - $50K)

Time is a consideration as Sacramento is making overtures to claim unused land and force housing on it.

If you have any thoughts or questions, please let me know.

Frank Gavidia on the Olivia

 Frank Gavidia's take on why the Olivia is the most important issue this election (watch with subtitles)

Here Frank shows what the Olivia would look like right next to the neighbors, and in our downtown. One challenge with the renderings provided by the developer is that they do not show context. There are no houses present and they don't reflect the surrounding area. In order for the developer to show the project most favorable to themselves, they left out Stranahan. 

But because the developer's drawings lack context they aren't valuable in assessing the visual impact these structures may have especially on the nearby residents that will be most impacted.

A pullback rendering that is done with the actual houses shown in the picture, the actual street shown in the picture, that's valuable because it adds relevant context.

10.6.20 Meeting Summary

Last night, there was also a great presentation by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District that talked about the work they've been doing, and things that our residents should be aware of.  I'll link to the presentation when it's posted at the city's website.

Afterwards, there were two significant items discussed last night:

We made permanent the pilot preferential parking program near Regency Gate. What was adopted last night differed than the original pilot in a few key areas:

• Made the effective time 24/7.  The pilot program was during the day on weekends and holidays.  Due to change in patterns of utilization we felt it appropriate to expand the effective times of the restrictions
• Increase the fine from $45 to $49 to normalize with other fines in the city and in our neighboring cities
• Leave costs for permits the same, but change them to one time fees instead of annual therefore residents don't have to pay each year to renew.  This eases administrative burden and cost on the police department.  The fees and fines thus far has already lead to a near break even with the initial cost outlays.
• Adjust boundaries back to what they were at original pilot inception (leaving open the bottom of Regency, and the other side of Seminary where no cars are).  We had expanded the permit area to the bottom of Regency shortly after the Shelter in Place orders were issued.  While these are still present, we felt that having available no permit parking at the end of Regency allows us to accomplish our primary goal of ensuring residents are able to park in front of their house, while still allowing general access to the trail head.  Part of the recommendation was to install a type of rubberized parking block at the demarcation point to make it clear where the permit and no permit areas are.

We  adopted a 2 year Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with certain city employees for various compensation related changes.

In addition, I requested as a future item that we discuss the city taking over maintenance of the Clayton Dog Park.  The park was originally approved in 2000.  Over the next several years, a non-profit was formed for the purpose of funding improvements to the park, including a water line and shade structure.  These were installed sometime around or after 2005.  After that time, the non-profit group has paid to replace and maintain the bark at the park and perform weed abatement, while the city has performed other maintenance items.  Given the park is owned by the city, and the costs involved are relatively low for the work that being done by the non-profit, I think it's appropriate for us to discuss the city taking over this activity.

Upcoming Meeting 10.6.20

 There are two significant items on the agenda for the upcoming 10.6.20 meeting:

• Making permanent the pilot preferential parking program near Regency Gate.  When this program was first started it was as a pilot.  Staff is recommending we finalize this program and make it permanent with some modifications.
• Adopting a 2 year Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with certain city employees.  Currently the city has a represented group of employees within our police force, and an unrepresented group that consists of all others.  This item is to discuss an agreement with the latter for various compensation related matters.

There will also be a closed session to discuss ongoing efforts to fill the City Manager position with a permanent person.  Currently our City Manager is serving in an interim role.

If you have any questions or comments regarding these items, please let me know.