Meeting Held to Discuss Planned Residential Development in Downtown Clayton

December 4, 2015 8:42 am · 85 comments

A meeting was held on Thursday night to discuss the planned residential development in Downtown Clayton.

The notice for the meeting said the planned development would be on Marsh Creek Rd., just south of Center St. and directly across from Stranahan Circle.

Despite the notice to neighbors saying the plan will include up to 60 condos, the developer, Bill Jordan, says he plans to build 28 townhomes on three lots with 16 secondary units. Jordan describes the secondary units as a “unit connected to a single lot that has cooking, sleeping, laundry, and bathroom. Basically an in-law unit set up with a separate address to be sold within townhouse. It cannot be sold individually.”

Residents at the meeting had questions about zoning. The property was originally zoned agriculture, but it was announced at the meeting the zoning was changed to high-density around the same time the project was originally proposed.

Parking was another issue. Homeowners on Stranahan Circle are saying the project doesn’t have enough parking spots for additional residents, or guests, and they fear people will use Stranahan Circle as an alternative place to park.

The project would also set aside 10% of the housing for low-income residents.

We’ll keep you updated as the project progresses.

Click on each photo for a much larger view.

RELATED STORY & DISCUSSION >>>> Plans Underway to Build 60 Condos in Downtown Clayton

Rick December 4, 2015 at 8:45 AM

This looks awesome! Can’t wait for Clayton to be a more vibrant and fun city!!

Read Carefully December 4, 2015 at 8:52 AM

Build it now.

Cellophane December 4, 2015 at 8:55 AM

Lots of section 8 housing in there.

Congratulations Clayton, you are going to be just like Pittsburg. Full of degenerate scumbags demanding everything and contributing nothing.

Anonymous December 4, 2015 at 8:55 AM

Oh Rick stop it . Too transparent . But nice try mr Developer

Love Clayton as is December 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM

After attending the meeting last night it is clear that the city council has let us down. I am not opposed to building on these lots (although I prefer them to stay as is). I understand development is going to happen. My concern is with the number of units. Clayton just doesn’t need that much more housing. My impression last night was that this is the city’s and state’s doing. Not necessarily the builder’s. Many of us moved here for the small town feeling and we WILL lose that if that many units are built down town.

Boneguy1 December 4, 2015 at 9:24 AM

A shout out to the SAVE CLAYTON folks. Time to reveal the truth were you just a bunch of an anti Church haters or do you really care about Clayton as a small rural Town without the urbanization.

Julie Pierce (term expires in Nov 2016) plans with the help of Geller (term expires in Nov 2016) and Keith Haydon (time to recall) to shove this down your throats with the help of City Manager Gary Napper who doesn’t give damn about anything except spiking his benefits and pension.

Pierce on the other hand believes in Regional power not local power and will steal your liberty every chance she gets. As the President of ABAG who supports this regional “One Bay area Nonsense” which will mean no local control in the future, she is neither fit to serve the people of Clayton’s interests anymore but is actively working against them – she needs to go.

Time to stand up and say take your condos and urbanization of Clayton Mr. Jordan and get out of town – but we will see if the Save Clayton folks have been bought and paid for by a Bocce Ball Court won’t we.

TJ December 4, 2015 at 9:24 AM

Has a website been setup by the city and/or developer that has information about this project – particularly interested on how I can get on an interest list for potentially purchasing one of these townhomes?? Any information is appreciated.

Clayton should not have high density zoning!!! December 4, 2015 at 9:25 AM

Can you please confirm that this quote above is true? “It cannot be sold individually.” My understanding last night is that these “in-law” units COULD and would be sold individually. Halfway through the meeting, someone corrected him that these are not in-law units.

Fire Marshall Bill December 4, 2015 at 9:27 AM

The Cocktails & HorsD’oeuvres served last night at the meeting were fantastic.

From Clayton December 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM


New mayor is real estate broker December 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Geller is a high powered broker, has been on the Council for years, so is it any wonder the City Council wants more housing in Clayton? Lots of sellers, to pay those 6% commissions. Just think; 6% of a million dollar sale comes to 60 grand. That’s $60,000 folks, right off the top.

Always Right December 4, 2015 at 9:56 AM

Only 10% low income?

Concord city council agreed to 25% low income for the entire CNWS project, which will (unless a miracle occurs and we replace the all democrat council with some republicans) result in the construction of about 10,000 stack and pack units in Concord.

Sounds like Clayton city council got a better deal.

94521 December 4, 2015 at 10:00 AM

Unfortunately this means more traffic in Concord as gobs of claytonities scurry through the city to get to the freeway and BART. Perhaps we should set-up some toll roads?

Clay Tun December 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM

@ Boneguy1
Hey – you been gnawing on that bone too long? Your vile comments sure sound Christian like. You got the sole lock on how to Save Clayton, eh?

@#4 December 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM

I know, that’s exactly what I thought. Give me a break.

@#14 So, the guy expresses some opinions against local politicians and that equates to a vile Christian? I’m not religious myself, but I just don’t see how those particular comments should call for any christian bashing. I have yet to meet a politician that wasn’t pretty shifty.

funny man December 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM

convert ygancio road to 680 into a toll road, double deck ala the Nimitz freeway..let the tolls pay for everything!

Cornfed December 4, 2015 at 10:58 AM

Well, well, well. Looks like the scalawag urbanizers have broken through in Clayton. Complete with “low income” at that. That just means that the city will now get money from the developers AND the state. Crossing Clayton off my short list of places to relocate to.

Rick December 4, 2015 at 11:06 AM

I’m not a developer just a guy who like a nice downtown. With more people around the area maybe we can get some more nice things in downtown clayton.

Cornfed December 4, 2015 at 11:22 AM

The very thing that makes downtown Clayton nice is that there not a bunch of crap with elbow to elbow people. Which is why I know that you don’t live there. If that’s what nice means to you then move to the city.

debdvo December 4, 2015 at 11:45 AM

A little income diversity would look good on Clayton. Keeps attitudes in check.

Silva December 4, 2015 at 11:47 AM

94521, That’s meaningless by comparison to the CNWS nightmare to come. I personally have a problem with infill everywhere also, but it matches pretty well with what’s directly on the other side of MCR. It it could be much, much worse. The beauty that once was Clayton is gone, that horse left the barn many years ago. Hold this developer’s feet to the fire as far as quantity AND QUALITY, and maintain your energy and the worthy struggle NOT to have large corporate retailers in Clayton.

Silva December 4, 2015 at 11:58 AM

And make absolutely sure you all don’t get SEENOED or a comparable clone.

FB December 4, 2015 at 12:12 PM

I don’t live in Clayton but go to its downtown for three events: the Art & Wine Festival, Oktoberfest, and the summer concert series in the park. Plus I like to go to the nursery on Marsh Creek Road and stop by Ed’s for a meal. I like the small, quiet, uncluttered downtown. A few businesses providing the basics, and if people need more they can take a drive down Clayton Road into Concord. I would think that with the planned development, the place will be jammed with cars like there is an event going on every day.

Jim Shoes December 4, 2015 at 12:22 PM

I’m not necessarily for these but FYI Clayton already has a bunch of low income and moderate income housing.

Although this does look much nicer than the 3 story, 60 units we feared it would be.

The Concord 13 December 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM

@13. 94521

Toll roads ? How about road blocks? I remember a while back some Claytonites were trying to redraw the legislative district lines to align themselves with Danville and Blackhawk, didnt like being lumped with Concord. I say block ‘ em off with access via Kirker Pass and Marsh Creek. Lump ’em in with east county and Livermore where they belong. Change the name to Vasco Norte.

tweedle December 4, 2015 at 1:10 PM

Not to sound like an elitist, but us claytonites would likely fit in better with alamo and Danville anyway. We in clayton have a little more than most in this area.

Silva December 4, 2015 at 1:43 PM

Could be office buildings. Businesses not really invested in Clayton.

Devin December 4, 2015 at 1:52 PM

People complain way too much for nothing. You cant stop a great city from growing. It is inevitable. These look amazing and wont have any noticeable increase in traffic. Get over it.

Claytonista December 4, 2015 at 1:55 PM

28 units spread over 3 lots really isn’t so bad, although I am concerned about the 16 proposed “secondary” units. So they’re basically in-law units, which we all know means they will be rentals. Is this a thing now? What kind of buyers is this aimed at? What kind of people are the type who will rent such a space?

Cellophane December 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM

@ Devin

I agree, look at Detroit, Chicago, DC. Claytons next on the list.

Bob Foo December 4, 2015 at 2:16 PM

I would really love to buy a condo in a compex where renting isn’t allowed, only owner occupancy.

I live across the street from a condo complex and pretty much all of them are rented out to trashy people who live 4-6 deep in a two bedroom home, park their crappy old oil-leaking cars up and down the street, have domestic disturbances, etc. I can see why people wouldn’t want this kind of riff-raff moving into their neighborhood.

Is it possible to pass some kind of ordinance to limit renting units in an HOA? I know some HOAs have their own rules against it, but does the city have a right to make their own rules?

Love Clayton December 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM

.I agree with love Clayton as it is. This is the city’s mistake While we won’t love having anything built over there We understand that something has to be done And would prefer single-family homes to preserve the look of Clayton And our property values

Responsible 30 year Resident December 4, 2015 at 4:11 PM

I missed the meeting. Did they mention that these townhomes would all be super cheap?
As a longtime and current resident looking to be able to actually own a home here, I would love a chance to buy a brand new one. For the 3 homes that they would sell to “low-income” residents, what are the proposed qualifications? Because I certainly can’t afford anything on the market right now and would love a chance.
It’s a sad world when someone who makes less than $100k/year is automatically lumped into the rough element who should be shunned and not allowed to live where they grew up.

Aspirin December 4, 2015 at 5:59 PM

Gloom and doom over housing?? Better than a slaughterhouse, boiler factory, or a Walmart.

Count your blessings.

Smelly Foot December 4, 2015 at 5:59 PM

Weird, just weird. Folks in Clayton are surprised to hear that more people want to live in their community. That’s just wrong eh? Disgustingly wrong.

If you know of a vacant lot and want to stop it from being developed, please by all means buy it yourself. You can pay the monthly rate on a 30 year mortgage on a vacant parcel, all while it generates no revenue for you, and all while you pay to clear the weeds/trash/transients from it. All so you can keep your little happy vacant lot from being developed. Put up or shut up.

Aspirin December 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM

I recall tears being shed when the great eucalyptus trees were felled in Clayton’s city center. “The rural character of Clayton is being destroyed.”

Anon1 December 4, 2015 at 8:48 PM

Look at the lower left picture, it shows the houses on stranahan that are all packed in like sardines with no yards. They are one step below a condo and right next to downtown. If the developer would ditch the idea of the “in law unit” I think people would be more accepting.

Straight Outta Concord December 4, 2015 at 8:52 PM

Mr. Jordan,

Where can we forward our Section 8 housing applications?

Your Homies at Mi Casa Ct.

ClayDen December 4, 2015 at 9:29 PM

I remember when 1/4 acre lots in Clayton were considered high density housing. This is NOT responsible development that fits in Clayton.

Silva December 4, 2015 at 10:40 PM

Nah, it does look like a terrible fit.

AnonReformed December 5, 2015 at 7:18 AM

Clayton is on it’s way to be the next Antioch, what a dump.

h2o December 5, 2015 at 7:19 AM

For years Mr Jordan has let his German Sheppard bark outside all day long for years. People in the Marsh Creek Rd / Lower Easley area have been trying to get him to cooperate. Very inconsiderate person to his fellow neighbors. Just to let you know of his kindness to our neighborhood. NOT.

I hope he gets the same consideration for his project as he does for his neighbors.

Qbert December 5, 2015 at 9:36 AM

Again, a developer scrapping a plan for condos and building townhomes. Is the condo market really that bad?

George December 5, 2015 at 10:02 AM

This looks like a sustainable development idea. Oh, good ol’ Agenda 21 at it again. These people need to be exposed.

Jaydub December 5, 2015 at 10:54 AM

We in Clayton prefer to be referred to as ” Claytonians” not “Claytonites “.

smylingjay December 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM

Where did the info from this article come from? I attended the meeting and the in-law units were scrapped around the same time 66 3-story units dropped to 44 2-story units. According to Jordan’s script-reading, 44 units would be comprised of 28 full-size 2-story units (3-4 bedroom; ~1600 sq.ft each) and 16 peanut-size units (studio, NO BEDROOM; 400-600 sq. ft.) with 8 of 16 facing Marsh Creek Rd. NO IN-LAW UNITS.10% of 44 units (5 given rounding) would be “affordable housing.” Overall income limits were discussed and Jordan couldn’t talk about it without stammering. He finally admitted income could be as low as $19,950/ yr. for property owners (which can include mutiple sources like unemployment). And there would be occupancy limits (there can’t be by law) so occupancy could be family of 10 and all their entended family and friends. Also, 44 full-size units have garages, while the 16 studios have carports. AND there is currently only one way in and out to access the 44 units off Marsh Creek Rd. (Jordan claimed a traffic study had been completed…hmmm) Traffic backups on one-lane road? Car parking insufficient and spilling over to adjacent neighborhoods like it already is from downtown? Any discussion re:crime (Jordan said he was totally unaware of current crime problems and “that’s the police department’s job” not his. Rush to rezone from agriculture to HIGH-DENSITY condos? Timing suspect. Residents not opposed to development, but want to make sure it’s RESPONSIBLE, thoughtful development. MAJORITY SENTIMENT: Residents want to talk with Clayton City Council on Dec. 15 (next mtg) to discuss options before decision is made. Perhaps rezone from high-density condos to single family homes. Greed should not drive this project. Property values and way of living should NOT be negatively impacted. We want to work WITH the council we elected in order to achieve responsible development in Clayton. Please, NO ON HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING. (p.s. Mr. Jordan — Your architect’s (Ray) condescending, rude tone is not good for your PR efforts. Between his dismissiveness and your lack of knowledge at the meeting, you’re not putting your best foot forward.)

smylingjay December 5, 2015 at 11:05 AM

I meant “no occupancy limits” above.

claytonguy December 5, 2015 at 11:06 AM

Thank you H2O. So that’s where Mr. Jordan lives, up on a very nice secluded hill looking down on the the Greystone development, with the fence surrounding his property right down to the property line. At the meeting on Thursday he said that he lives over that way looking down on Greystone. That’s a very nice and very expensive looking custom home he has there. Figures.

You’re right about the dogs. They have always barked a lot and he never did anything about it to mitigate that noise. They snarl and bark and show teeth to anyone walking by and scare the hell out of women and children, men too.

Evidently Mr. Jordan is quite the narcissist and all that matters is what he wants. People like that are actually pathetic.

Mr. Jordan’s demeanor and attitude at the meeting on Thursday reminds me of a line from the movie “Wall Street” where Gordon Gekko stated “for lack of a better word GREED is good”.

Miss Morse December 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM

Even at 1600 sqare feet for the 28 larger models is pretty tiny. The 16 units of 400 to 600 square feet is dog kennel size. Yes, Clayton does merit a reasonable developement of single family homes with space between and around. This is trash. A palm or two surely were greased here.

Miss Morse December 5, 2015 at 12:17 PM

And yes, agenda 21 is very real.

anon99 December 5, 2015 at 12:40 PM

#40 may be jesting but it’s funny because it’s true. You cannot choose who you want in that sec.8 housing and I will tell you from down here in Concord there is a very rough crowd coming in the last few years, much worse than previous years, and I strongly believe you will regret ever letting that door open in Clayton if it comes to pass.

Aside from increased crime, they show complete disregard for common human decency. Twice I have witnessed somethig that I cannot wrap my head around and that is a woman planting herself on the bottom shelf in a store, sitting cross-legged having pushed whatever what was on the shelf to the side and floor, while the children run around the aisle and store screaming and throwing things. Just sitting there, her *ss on the shelf, not a care in the world, as if this store were her personal hacienda. Once I asked a store employee to do something about it and her response was to imply I was some kind of uppity woman. This will be the norm if you dare to complain about such behavior in your little downtown, get ready to be accused of racism and white privelege.

Also code is obviously not being enforced in Concord and there have been comments here mentioning that the CPD have stopped enforcing them because of threats of lawsuits from powerful special interest groups accusing them of discrimination. The result is that broken glass and garbage are everywhere and loitering and public drinking are the norm.

If Clayton were able to choose to have the lovely people on Sec. 8 that have physical disabilities move into those units it could work out very nicely for everyone because as it is they are forced to run a gauntlet of layabouts sitting at their apartment entrance and intimidating people. But you do not get to choose. Because diversity is a beautiful thing and why can’t we all co-exist.

Frankly, Claytonites have always turned their noses up at the good people down in Concord going back to the 60’s and 70’s when it was only a few miles and $10,000 difference in home values that separated us. Given that, you people will never ever be able to accept what is dumped in those units.

Clayton Residents MUST Mobilize! December 5, 2015 at 1:30 PM

Amen to #48 – you hit the nail on the head.

YES on responsible development in Clayton.
NO on HIGH DENSITY condos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clayton residents MUST mobilize and not be complacent. Too much is on the line. I’ve seen the fallout from this type of ill-conceived development (both local, in CA and in other states I’ve lived in). It NEVER ends well. It can impact your taxes (for additional police officers, infrastructure, etc.) NOT just your way of life and property values.

ATTN: Clayton City Council — You can’t un-ring the bell once this decision becomes final. Earn the respect of your residents and show that you can work together to find a reasonable solution. Be open and transparent. Not expedient for greed’s sake. Put this project on hold until proper forums have been held. We all want what is best for the community — for those that live here now AND in the future. Thank you.

Harold Diaz December 5, 2015 at 2:51 PM

I would sell out Jordan to the biggest non profit affordable housing builder in the county. Let those snobs in Clayton deal with them since don’t have any tolerance for poor people albeit 5 affordable units in 44. What a pathetic day in your City to see the vulgar at the meeting and the blog. Never have I seen such an uneducated and redneck crowd in one place. Or build apartments on each lot and let them park their overflow parking on Gamay Dr. and Stranahan. And put a sign for a public park in that low income project across from you. It looks the same as it did when it was built. Ugly. You can’t say you didn’t try to do something nice. H. Diaz and that is my email.

TIFOKCIS December 5, 2015 at 3:31 PM



Folks who earn a better place to live and have a chance to raise another generation of descent working, contributing members of society……..snobs?

Lump of coal for #55 December 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM

Dear Harold Diaz,
Clearly, you weren’t listening during the meeting.

Snobs, pathetic day, vulgar, uneducated and redneck crowd, ugly? REALLY? Your unintelligible rant makes it sound as though you have a sizable chip on your shoulder.

Clayton residents have maintained a highly desirable community, unlike many surrounding areas, thanks in large part to educated, passionate citizens. If avoiding overdevelopment and 3-story structures that would block the stunning views of Mt. Diablo that define Clayton is “ugly” to you, then that’s your prerogative. However, your vitriol is unwarranted and provides no solutions. I’m not sure why you’re so vested in hating Clayton residents. I’m sorry for you and hope you get a life. Happy holidays!

smylingjay December 5, 2015 at 5:08 PM

The developer said the smaller units had to be 400-600 sq. ft each to reach the “density required” by the Clayton City Council.

“High-density multifamily units with small-town feel” seems like an oxymoron. Is there such a thing?

Wine Cooler December 5, 2015 at 5:12 PM

I think people in Clayton can be very snobby. I grew up in La Jolla and we raised our children in Danville. Those are wealthy areas, and I saw snobs occasionally, and avoided them. But at least most of those folks really were wealthy, not pretending to be.

In Clayton, they act like their little town is Beverly Hills. Clayton is a middle class town. Always has been, and always will be. They’re like Hercules. They want to believe they’re above and beyond what they really are.

Clayton has a low crime rate because of their small population and high percentage of home ownership.

If Clayton has a pretentious reputation, they brought it on themselves.

You can hardly tell when you’re leaving Concord and entering Clayton. If Clayton was what they pretended to be, you could tell.

Dr. Jellyfinger December 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM

@ Wine Cooler……….. Clayton is like Hercules?
Yeah….. & Boone’s Farm Strawberry Hill is like Chateau Montelena Estate Cabernet Sauvignon.

Whatchu smokin?

TIFOKCIS December 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Like some ignorant drunk ranting on calling people snobs makes them a better person…….oh make that two ignorant drunks.

Harold Diaz December 6, 2015 at 5:32 AM

good luck trying to get high density off the lot. You have been asleep and should have resisted when it was changed 10 years ago. Surprise! Every other city gets it and Clayton is no different. Next housing update will get you 40 units a lot. Welcome to jerry Brownsville. Vote dem from now on, use your real name and email. Go Hillary and berniE.

Resident December 6, 2015 at 8:03 AM

Oh HELL NO! We live in Clayton for a reason- to be away from “low income,multi dwelling housing. We work hard for it too…. I can’t believe this is even being proposed- I’m sure their is available land for these “units” elsewhere

TIFOKCIS December 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM


I concur.

density requirement? December 6, 2015 at 9:34 AM

This is coming from higher up. You folks need to wake up before we are living on top of each other. This is a political agenda. Better make a statement next November!

claytonguy December 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM

I think the trouble with using an election to oust the city council is that nobody but them wants the job. It seems that they run pretty much unopposed. It pays peanuts.

Those interested in the job either have lots of free time with nothing better to do OR, they are real estate agents (like Geller or the many agents before him) and lawyers, who want it as a highly visible and rich source of business clients and referrals which translates into tons of commission income.

Consequently they feel beholding to nobody and feel entitled to make decisions based only on what they want.

There is no “DO THE RIGHT THING” concept in their minds.

We have to keep trying though. I just swish there was a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” choice on the ballot.

Anyone have ideas on how to deal with the city council?????

Wine Cooler December 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM

Dr. Jellyfinger #60

I don’t smoke anything. What I meant by “Clayton is like Hercules” is they think they’re an affluent town, and they aren’t. If you look at zip code data, Clayton is classified as a middle class town (property values and income). You can google it yourself.

I don’t like the town of Clayton, and I’m entitled to my opinion. Disliking Clayton (because of they’re mindset) is very common, including people who live in Clayton.

Affluent towns in this area are long the 24/680 corridor. It’s common knowledge.

smylingjay December 6, 2015 at 1:09 PM

Presumptuous and misinformed, Mr. Diaz, you are embarrassing yourself. First of all, I was NOT asleep…I did not live in Clayton 10 years ago. Secondly, we discussed accurate and inaccurate attributions to Jerry Brown during the meeting (were YOU asleep?)…including the inaccurate attribution you’re making. It’s no longer in effect. Your threatening rhetoric is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Oh, by the way, I AM a democrat. Any other ignorant statements you’d like to make?

Harold Diaz December 6, 2015 at 1:20 PM

Gather all those who don’t want it high density and buy it. Make offer now so you can stop your crying. Control the land. Make it a park or donate it to save mt. Diablo group. Just thinking aloud. Get a nice tax write off to. City council will laugh at you all coming up to tell them to stop this since they want it and need it. H.Diaz. Former Clayton resident residing now in beautiful Concord where families come first.

claytonguy December 6, 2015 at 1:49 PM

I think it would be good and maybe more appropriate if we all stick to voicing personal opinions and comments about the issues and not let the column degenerate into attacking someone else’ s response.

TIFOKCIS December 6, 2015 at 2:06 PM

Ignore the fact Hillary, Gore, Pelosi and their ilk never have and never will have low income housing next door…………..but the bottom of the food chain democrats are brainwashed into believing they are doing “our party duty”.

Cut through the chase and house some of these wonderful suckers in your homes, expose your daughters to their underprivileged “I am entitled” mindset and see how it works out for you.

Conner Hall December 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM

Take a look at the City of Clayton website and the org chart. On top of that org chart are the Citizens of Clayton. Just below the Citizens of Clayton is the Clayton City Council.

This coventional structure obviously demonstrates gross insubordination by our City Council if they approve something that the Citizens of Clayton adamantly disagree with. It is no coincidence that this property was recently re-zoned to accommodate this proposal. There is obviously more self interest involved by these council members and very little community interest.

This is what happens when there are no term limits for our elected city officials.

claytonguy December 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM

The following is public info, right off the internet. Maybe we should picket Jordan’s home…address included below:


The license information shown below represents public information taken from the Bureau of Real Estate(CalBRE) database at the time of your inquiry. It will not reflect pending changes which are being reviewed for subsequent database updating. Also, the license information provided includes formal administrative actions that have been taken against licensees pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and/or the Administrative Procedure Act. All of the information displayed is public information. Although the business and mailing addresses of real estate licensees are included, this information is not intended for mass mailing purposes.

License information taken from records of the Bureau of Real Estate on 12/6/2015 4:09:56 PM
License Type:

Jordan, William Patrick

Mailing Address:

License ID:

Expiration Date:

License Status:

Salesperson License Issued:
11/09/84 (Unofficial — taken from secondary records)

Broker License Issued:
01/24/91 (Unofficial — taken from secondary records)

Former Name(s):

Main Office:



Affiliated Licensed Corporation(s):



>>>> Public information request complete <<<<

Rollo Tomasi December 6, 2015 at 6:50 PM

@ Wine Cooler:

“Disliking Clayton (because of they’re mindset) is very common, including people who live in Clayton.”

Residents of Clayton know the difference between “they’re” and “their”. That education you got in La Jolla has served you well, I see.

Wine Cooler December 6, 2015 at 8:37 PM

Rollo Tomasi #75

They’re (not their) is a typo. I know the difference, but I do make typo’s.

Here’s something that’s not a typo, but a grammatical error that you make all the time.

The period goes inside the quotes “their.” Not outside “their”. Something you learn in elementary school. I spent eighteen years in school, thank you.

Just for the record, brush up on your grammatical correctness before you make an attempt to correct others. You look foolish.

So much for your education at YV.

Puddintain December 6, 2015 at 10:11 PM

Uh, Wine Cooler aka 73 Monte Carlo, Rolo Tomasi’s period is at the end of his sentance, therefore it is correctly placed to the right of the last quotation mark. Someone paid too much for that fancy education there!

Puddintain December 6, 2015 at 10:27 PM

Oh another thing, typo is short for typographical error, which means you strike the wrong key, not use the wrong word in a sentance.

smylingjay December 6, 2015 at 11:37 PM

Mr. Diaz, check the Clayton government org chart. The City Council REPORTS TO the Clayton citizens. I don’t think the Council would laugh too long at those who have the power to elect or oust them. Residents want to work WITH them, a concept you don’t seem to grasp. I am SO grateful you and your ignorance have left Clayton. I agree with all the other residents who care about our fabulous, unique community. We care enough to maintain the beauty and work together to develop land responsibly. I hope you’re enjoying your crime-ridden Concord. Oh, by the way, check out our latest police report and please keep your trash out of our community. It seems some folks from Concord just love to come to Clayton.

Harold Diaz December 7, 2015 at 2:18 AM

If the guy follows the rules how is it irresponsible development? It looks better than Stranhan by far. Say cookie cutter in that hood. Play the lottery, you have a way better chance winning there than changing state mandates. Concord is doing fine for me. No attitude in 94519, See you at the cc meeting? Cc isn’t going to do anything about this. They would lose a lawsuit. And you would pay on your tax bill for the legal fees. Move to my city now? Multicultural and diverse in this zip code. Culturally rich. Acceptance of poor people who need help here. We got Laura for mayor. Smart.

Wine Cooler December 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Puddintain #77 and #78

The period always goes inside the quotes. No exceptions. Sentence is spelled “sentence,” not “sentance.”

If you’re going to attempt to correct someone, correct the person correctly.

I don’t like (and have never lived) in Clayton. I’m entitled to my opinion, and if people want to get upset about it, that’s their problem.

Rollo Tomasi December 7, 2015 at 10:49 AM

The use of a period outside of quotation marks is a logical use rather than a conventional use. Placing periods inside of a quotation mark was started by American typesetters for convenience, so it is yet another bastardization of the written King’s English. Therein lies the exception.

“They’re” and “their” on the other hand…

Harold Diaz December 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM

You’ll have to change from smilingjay to teedoffjay. Why doesn’t anyone use their real name? H.Diaz esq. emeritus

Puddintain December 7, 2015 at 1:29 PM

Uh, Wine Cooler aka 73 Monte Carlo, Unlike yourself, I’ve never touted my lofty education on this or any website for all to marvel over at every possible opportunity. So annoying. Fact is, I can’t spell properly. I’ve said so myself, often. It’s a brain injury. I’ve lost the ability to spell properly in all of the languages I speak. I do try to catch my own errors rather than use spellcheck or such. And I never proofread anymore. Life’s too short. But as I said, I don’t brag about my grand education often.

Rollo Tomasi, I’ve never heard of that. Do you mean to say that your sentence 😉 ‘Residents of Clayton know the difference between “they’re” and “their”.’ should have ended with a quotation mark instead of a period? Scratching my head…

Wine Cooler December 7, 2015 at 2:40 PM

Puddantain, I’m not picking fights with people. Others are picking fights with me. I’m defending myself. There’s a difference.

You seem to think all women are the same person. You thought Rose Garden, Michelle, and several others were all the same people too. And Ya Phooey and Wowza, and several others. Ya Phooey is NOT the only woman who doesn’t have children. A lot of women don’t. I’m not the only person who attended college. A lot of adults attend college. If I mentioned not having children (but we do), would you think I was Ya Phooey, Run Dog Run too? Perhaps it’s your brain injury. It comes across as harassment.

A LOT of people annoy me on Claycord (including you), but I usually let it slide. Sometimes, anyway. It’s the risk you take on a public blog. Claycord has a very large audience.

You only come out to attack people (always women). I’m not sure what your problem with women is, but I don’t really care. I’m not a psychologist.

As far as Rollo Tomasi, you are correct. What he said is incorrect, but he thinks he’s always right.

If you can’t spell correctly, why would you even attempt to correct someone? Wouldn’t it make more sense to stick to things you’re familiar with.

I don’t proofread on blogs either. Only important things, personally and professionally.

I don’t harass you. Maybe you can grant others the same courtesy.

Puddintain December 7, 2015 at 3:04 PM

Uh, Wine Cooler aka 73 Monte Carlo, Check out your post at #59 again. You kinda dissed the whole town of Clayton, dear.

Harold Diaz December 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM

No on high density? It’s already on it from what I Just saw in housing element, maybe it’s a mistake?? you have to change your position to: “please don’t let someone develop the lot even if existing zoning allows it. And we just don’t like him in general. He shouldnt be able to develop it. And no one ever told us it was going to change from barns to condos. And we just don’t care about property rights.” Good luck on that one. H. Diaz. Email: Ps. I’m wearing a name tag tomorrow.

Harold Diaz December 16, 2015 at 7:21 PM

Good luck stopping this development. It’s all ready a done deal. Your town needs this for abag. H.diaz

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: