Saturday, March 28, 2026

Top Story, March 28, 2026

Olivia on Marsh Creek: Progress — Or Just Enough to Keep It Alive?

Construction activity has reportedly begun on the long-delayed Olivia on Marsh Creek project, originally approved for 81 residential units.

After years of little to no movement, seeing equipment on site and dirt moving can feel like a big step forward.

And to be fair, progress is a good thing.

But the real question is:

Is this true progress… or just enough activity to keep the project alive?

Because sometimes, moving a little dirt doesn’t necessarily mean you’re moving the project forward.

Good projects withstand good questions. The Olivia project is no exception.


Approved Project — But What Was Actually Approved?

Let’s start with the basics.

Yes, this project was approved.

But what exactly was approved matters just as much as the approval itself.

This is not a 55+ senior housing project.
It’s an 81-unit residential development that includes a small number of low-income units, which were required as part of the original deal.

That means there are commitments tied to this project—real ones.
Not just about building homes, but about how and what gets delivered.

So the question becomes:

- Is what’s happening today consistent with what was originally approved?

- Did the developer diligently move forward with construction in 2022 after receiving a one-year extension?

- And perhaps most importantly, has the developer complied with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Resolution? 


Construction Activity — What Does It Really Mean?

We’re hearing construction has started.

Great. But let’s pause for a second.

What actually counts as “construction”?

Is it:

  • Real, measurable progress toward finishing the project
    or
  • Just enough activity to show, “Hey, we’re working on it”?

There’s a growing sense in the community that what we may be seeing is just enough movement to check a box.

And if that’s the case, it leads to a very practical question:

Is this activity helping preserve the project’s entitlements by showing ongoing effort, making it harder for the City to step in based on past inactivity?

That’s not pointing fingers, it’s just understanding how the system often works.


Financial Reality: Does This Project Pencil Out?

According to reliable sources, the developer has indicated that about $10 million has been secured to move things forward.

Now, in today’s construction world… $10 million doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.

In fact, it appears to be well short of what would be needed to complete even a portion of a project this size.

So naturally, people are asking:

  • Is there enough funding to actually finish Phase 1, or 2, or even 3???
  • What happens if the money runs out again?
  • Are we looking at another stop-and-start situation?

Because nobody wants to see a project sit half-finished for another decade.


Experience Matters: Who Is Building This Project?

There are also questions about execution.

The developer, Bill Jordan, has reportedly only recently obtained his contractor’s license and now plans to build the project.

That raises some fair questions:

  • Is there enough experience behind a project of this scale?
  • Who’s overseeing the quality and compliance?
  • Will seasoned contractors be brought in?

Building a project like this isn’t a learning exercise, it needs to be done right the first time.


Phased Construction — Planned or Improvised?

Originally, this was approved as a single 81-unit development.

Now it looks like it’s being built in phases.

That’s fine, if that was part of the plan.

But if not, then it’s worth asking:

Was phasing originally approved, or is this a shift in strategy?

If it’s being phased now, then:

  • Each phase should stand on its own
  • Infrastructure needs to be complete
  • All original conditions still apply
  • And yes, low-income housing requirements don’t get pushed down the road indefinitely.

Parking: The Issue Nobody Can Ignore

Let’s talk about the one thing everyone notices first, parking.

With 81 units, parking isn’t a side issue. It’s a front-and-center issue.

And right now, there are real concerns that there simply may not be enough of it.

So residents are asking:

  • Does the plan realistically match real-world demand?
  • Where do guests park?
  • What happens when overflow spills into nearby neighborhoods and businesses?

Because we’ve all seen how that story ends.

Instead of waiting for complaints later, this is something the City can get ahead of now.

Reinstating a Parking Permit Committee would be a smart, proactive move, not a reactive one.


Affordable Housing: Not Optional

The project includes a small number of low-income units.

That wasn’t a suggestion, it was part of the approval.

So naturally, people want to know:

  • Are those units part of what’s being built now?
  • If not, when do they show up?
  • What ensures they don’t quietly disappear over time?

Because commitments like that matter, to the community and to the integrity of the project.


School Mitigation Fees: Paid or Still Pending?

Another important piece:

  • Have school mitigation fees been paid?
  • If so, when, and how much?
  • If not, when are they due?

These aren’t minor details, they directly impact local schools and infrastructure.


City Responsibility: Who’s Watching the Store?

At the end of the day, this brings us back to a bigger question:

What role is the City playing right now?

People want to understand:

  • Is financial capacity being looked at?
  • Are qualifications being reviewed?
  • Are original conditions actually being enforced?
  • Is there active oversight?

Because once a project gets rolling, it’s a lot harder to hit the brakes.


The Bottom Line

This isn’t about stopping development.

Clayton needs thoughtful, well-executed projects.

But it is about making sure things are done:

  • As approved
  • With proper oversight
  • And with the community in mind

So the questions are simple, and fair:

  • Is this real progress, or strategic activity to keep entitlements alive?
  • Is the project financially solid?
  • Is there enough experience behind it?
  • Is parking actually adequate?
  • Are low-income housing commitments being met?
  • Are we addressing impacts now… or later?

Clayton Residents Deserve Clarity

This project may be moving forward.

And that’s fine, if it’s being done the right way.

But before it gets too far down the road, the public deserves clear, honest answers.

Because in the end:

Moving dirt is easy. Building it right, and earning public trust—is the hard part.


The Clayton Watch Team

53 comments:

  1. I try to take down this spam post on nextdoor but "voters" say it doesn't break the guidelines. You can't comment on the post because these people fear the other side. It's preposterous!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt K, People like you are what’s wrong with this country.

      It’s kind of hard to take comments like this seriously.
      Someone tries to get a post taken down…
      then turns around and complains they can’t comment on it.

      You can’t have it both ways.
      If the post doesn’t violate guidelines (as already determined), then it stays.
      If you want to challenge it, do it with facts—not by trying to silence it.

      Also, let’s be honest—if the concern is really about “discussion,”
      then shutting off comments isn’t the issue…

      It’s that the argument doesn’t hold up when it’s actually questioned.

      But at the end of the day, it comes down to something pretty simple:
      If something is wrong in the article—point it out.
      If not, calling it “spam” doesn’t make it go away.

      And the irony here is almost too good:
      Trying to shut something down…
      then complaining about not being able to respond…
      Go figure Matt, it’s time to go back to your day job. No common sense in your household.

      Delete
    2. Matt K is an idiot. He should be banned from Nextdoor and Clayton Watch.

      Delete
    3. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't have a valid opinion. This has been, and will continue to be a Country with free speech.

      Delete
    4. Matt K, What is your problem? You can comment here. Eagerly awaiting to hear what you have to say.

      Delete
    5. Where's Matt K? I bet he’s still trying to figure out how to get his foot out of his mouth.

      Delete
  2. Does the project have any requirements of a retaining wall to keep the property above from shifting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does the developer have the experience required for a project of this scale?

      Delete
  3. This is not a 55+ senior housing project? What happened? I was getting ready to move my parents in there. So are you saying someone lied to us? Please tell me more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was never a senior housing project. The developer called it that in the hopes that the community would not rise up and object to the 3 stories, insufficient parking, and next to no space between the buildings and the sidewalk. It doesn't fit in with our downtown theme.

      Delete
    2. That’s right, Julie Pierce, Tuia, Catalano, and Carl Wolff lied to the community. For some strange reason, they all wanted this project. They all knew it was never going to be a 55 and older, senior housing project, and the parking was insufficient.

      Delete

  4. The project’s entitlements, didn’t they expired due to his inactivity? I read the resolution and it clearly stated the word diligent. Plus it said he had to keep his permits current. My neighbor checked, and he let many of the permits expire years ago. What’s up with this project? Can someone please explain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we building a project—or preserving an entitlement?

      Delete
  5. Who voted to approve this project? Three stories is just not a good fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The project was originally approved by then-Mayor Julie Pierce, along with Councilmembers Tuija Catalano and Carl Wolfe. Councilmembers Jeff Wan and Jim Diaz voted no.

      Fast forward to the extension request.

      A local resident appealed the extension, raising concerns that many in the community shared. But in the end, Councilmembers Holly Tillman, Peter Cloven, and Carl Wolfe voted to grant it.

      And here’s where it gets… interesting.

      On the very same night the extension was approved, Bill Jordan had the property listed for sale on LoopNet. . .while at the same time telling the Council he was the best person to build the project because he lived in the community.

      You’ve got to admire the efficiency. . .pitching yourself as the ideal long-term builder… and marketing the property at the same time.

      I guess that’s one way to keep your options open.

      Delete
    2. He considered himself the best person to build it even though he had never done a project over $100,000 (if my memory serves me right). Yes, the figure is One Hundred Thousand dollars.

      Delete
    3. No to only did he list the property right away but he also moved out of Clayton to Indiana. So much for being a member of the community. Seems like people do things that are bad for Clayton and then move out. Julie Pierce was 100% for this thing as well. Where does she live now?

      Delete
  6. Does $10 million realistically move an 81-unit project forward in today’s market? Hell no!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where do 81 households actually park—on paper vs. in reality? We should all ask Julie Pierce and Tuija Catalano, they were the geniuses behind this project.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Have school mitigation fees been paid—and if so, how much? He’s started construction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If everything is being done right—why are so many questions still unanswered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the people Clayton are asleep at the switch.

      Delete
  10. Many of us have been mislead by the developer 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.

    In order to be a 55+ senior housing project the developer would have to meet several federal and state guidelines. In addition, 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 developer never attempted to comply with any of these requirements or any of the other State and Federal regulations required to restrict age.  In other words, he never attempted to qualify this facility as a senior restricted housing project. Again, this is Not a qualified senior housing facility. 

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill Jordan is a real estate agent. But suddenly, on March 6 of this year he passed the general contractor exam. After having the project listed for several years, no one was interested. He lowered the price and eventually just had it listed with “make me an offer.” No general contractor in his right mind would partner with Jordan for the obvious reason, he doesn’t have the money to build it. So now he becomes a general contractor and thinks he can build it. This is not a rational business man.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 4 years of experience to get your contractors license. He claimed to have been working on this project for 4 years in order to qualify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s been moving dirt for four (4) years and bullshitting us along the way.

      Delete
  13. He's also not qualified to build such a project as a new contractor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’ll never build it, guaranteed!

      Delete
  14. Bill Jordan was conned into doing this “project” by his so called “friends” who served on the council. One was mediocre real estate agent, the other an over glorified politician who was on council for too long. The entire real estate community thought “wow, eventually 81 condos will be available for us to make 6% commission!” Even the out of business newspaper editor wants this thing because she thought she would get ads from realtors for all these condos. What’s funny here is how many people who are poor business people are for this thing because they thought it would somehow turn into dollars for them. That includes the failed realtor who is the first to comment wanting the Nextdoor alert for this article taken down. Apparently he needs something to sell because so far he hasn’t sold anything. The real estate lobby is one of the biggest ones in the country. Never underestimate what a 6% commission can motivate. Now, can a real estate agent who took a crash course to pass a general contractor license build a 3 building 81 unit apartment complex? With only 10 million? Sure he can, he just needs 10 million in decks of cards.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is the current activity enough to demonstrate “diligent progress” under the entitlements? Someone needs to find out. If not, someone needs to put him on notice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For such a small city with beautiful vistas and walkable trails, there are so many liars, scammers, and schemers here that twist words and actions to their benefit. Some of these people should really see what it's like to spend time in jail cells for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is all just crazy. If the developer is not meeting any conditions the city should been taking care of it. All these questions on CW are just noise. If you have concerns bring them to a city council meeting or a planning commission meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope to see you there.

      Delete
    2. Nothing at the planning commission meeting tonight.

      Delete
  18. Remember who voted for this folks! All of them except for one are gone. The only one still in office is Holly Tillman who went as far as writing a newspaper column in support of this bad idea. She doesn't live near there so she doesn't care. Of course, she will tell you over and over again she isn't for high density housing but then turn around and vote for things like Olivia and write newspaper columns in support. Typical politician, tells you one thing but in the end votes for what her campaign donors want.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The most important question is whether Bill Jordon's entitlements to build Olivia are still valid or did they expire March 3, 2023?

    Here is why: 
    Condition #16 of the Development Agreement states: “This approval expires two years from the date of approval (expires March 3, 2022), unless a building permit has been issued and construction has diligently commenced thereon and has not expired,”  
     
    Then on May 25, 2021, by a 4/1 vote (Planning Commissioner Frank Gavidia voting NO) the Planning Commission approved a one year extension for the developer of the Olivia project to start the construction process. This one year  approval, extends the initial two year approval granted by the city council on March 3, 2020 and expiring on March 3, 2022, to March 3, 2023. 
     
    Please note Condition #16 states the Development Agreement expires unless a building permit has been issues and construction has diligently commenced. By all accounts, there has been no activity on this project since March 3, 2023 (over 3 years) except for weed abatement. It would be a real stretch to argue that weed abatement constitutes diligent construction. In addition, were building permits issued and did they remained valid during this period? 

    The city attorney has a lot of explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot to mention the one year extension approved by the Planning Commission was appealed to the city council with CW Wolfe, Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman voting in favor of the one year extension and Jim Diaz and Jeff Wan voting no.

      Delete
  20. What is our city council doing about this horrible project? 

    ReplyDelete
  21. Keep in mind, there are those who wish to bring more of this type of housing to what little open space we have left in Clayton. A few years ago, a real estate agent applied to be on the planning commission who stated she wanted to see all of downtown paved over and become apartments. Real estate agents will do ANYTHING to create more "inventory" in the name of 6% commissions. They don't care about the community, they only care about making their commissions. We can't elect people who want to turn Clayton into a high density housing haven. Our density is higher than surrounding cities because of how compact Clayton is. Also, not so long ago, an applicant who was a state registered lobbyist for high density low income housing managed to sneak onto our planning commission without fully disclosing her conflicts of interest. Citizens need to pay attention or one day they will wake up with an Olivia style project in the front porch.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Has anyone contacted our city manager or city attorney about entitlements or conditions of approval?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Not on the agenda for upcoming council meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting to note that Jeff Wan has nothing in the council reports for upcoming meeting. Everyone else reports. He is just too important to waste his time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of people don't like to waste time and I just wasted mine reading your post.

      Delete
  25. Some council members report a lot and do nothing, and some council members do a lot and report nothing. I prefer the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You are clearly a Jeff hater. Most of the items in council reports are meaningless. Nobody cares about which dinners were attended or how many meetings focused on pride. These efforts do nothing for Clayton and are simply a waste of time and energy—just self-promotion by self-involved individuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t disagree that much of it is meaningless. But it is their duty to report out what city business they are conducting. All of them.

      Delete
    2. Most of them aren't doing city business, that's the point. Tillman, for example, always posts about pride. Pride is NOT city business. Pride is Tillman's pet project, since she believes we should indoctrinate our children with her beliefs. It's better to teach acceptance and kindness of all humanity, not just those in the LGBTQIA+ community. Enea is another with the dinners, unless he's actually presenting some Clayton information, and what it is, who cares. Diaz and Trupiano at least keep it Clayton-related for the most part.

      Delete
    3. You need to re-read Diaz and Trupiano. And Wan reports nothing...so not doing any city business between cc meetings? The point is they should be reporting what they did to conduct city business at any of these events they went to. Otherwise who care about any of it.

      Delete
    4. Wan does city business at city hall no reports required! Only CBCA people want “reports” that basically useless self promotion. The best thing they did was remove these silly self serving reports from the agenda and replaced them with written reports. Why don’t you try reading Jeff Wan’s write ups? Far more useful info there than on any silly report. And yes, odds are you are Jeff Wan hater still upset your CBCA friends are no longer in charge.

      Delete
    5. If there are no reports required, then eliminate those. And then you wont know what our leaders do except at CC meetings. I have read Jeff Wan's write-ups. They are just his re-cap of meetings with his personal opinions on what was done or not at meetings. He should express his opinions at CC meetings and not waste time at regurgitating what was discussed. A waste of time. If you want to know what happens at CC meetings watch videos and/or read minutes. Don't need Jeff to re-cap with his spin. Useless

      Delete
  27. Is it possible to conduct a city council meeting without Participant Tillman posing the most unnecessary and ill-informed questions? This individual appears to have a penchant for speaking continuously.

    ReplyDelete

Please keep your comments clear, concise, and appropriate for the discussion. Thank you