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

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!
ReplyDeleteMatt K, People like you are what’s wrong with this country.
DeleteIt’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.
Matt K is an idiot. He should be banned from Nextdoor and Clayton Watch.
DeleteJust 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.
DeleteMatt K, What is your problem? You can comment here. Eagerly awaiting to hear what you have to say.
DeleteDoes the project have any requirements of a retaining wall to keep the property above from shifting?
ReplyDeleteDoes the developer have the experience required for a project of this scale?
DeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Are we building a project—or preserving an entitlement?
DeleteWho voted to approve this project? Three stories is just not a good fit.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
DeleteFast 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.
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.
DeleteNo 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?
DeleteDoes $10 million realistically move an 81-unit project forward in today’s market? Hell no!
ReplyDeleteWhere 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.
ReplyDeleteHave school mitigation fees been paid—and if so, how much? He’s started construction.
ReplyDeleteIf everything is being done right—why are so many questions still unanswered?
ReplyDeleteMany 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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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