photo credit: google earth
By Tony Hicks –
After hearing from at least 50 speakers – including two callers on other continents – spanning about six hours, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved the Spieker Senior Development residential care facility in unincorporated Walnut Creek.
Spieker will build 354 housing units within 30 single-story buildings, an 85,000-square-foot medical center, a multi-story clubhouse, a recreation building, a maintenance building, and a parking garage on the 30-acre site.
The site, known as Seven Hills Ranch, is unincorporated open space, mostly surrounded by Walnut Creek, near Heather Farm Park. The developer will remove 353 trees from the site, which they said will be replaced by more than 1,000 new trees.
“This is not going to remain pristine open land,” said board chairperson Karen Mitchoff, whose District 4 includes the area. “It’s private property. It was private property before the developer bought it and it’s still private property.”
The space is zoned for housing, requiring a change in zoning to accommodate the mixed use. Board members said the property would be developed either way, and there’s a need for more senior housing.
“(There are) good policy considerations in having this type of infill development for a badly needed type of housing – for seniors,” District 1 supervisor John Gioia said. “Every single-family home that a senior moves out of to move into this project frees up that home right for a family.”
Speakers showed which side they were on by their green or blue colored clothing. Most were against the project, at least 13 of whom were children. Most identified as students of nearby Seven Hills School, which will be impacted by the development.
Common complaints included the effect of four years of construction on the school and surrounding neighborhoods, additional traffic, lack of emergency access, and lack of public benefits.
Opponents also complained it doesn’t meet local affordable housing needs and would remove too much wildlife habitat.
“This project is a huge commercial enterprise with over 225 employees … plunked down in the middle of a residential area,” said Rosalie Howarth, a nearby resident and a leader of Save Seven Hills Ranch, a group which gathered about 4,000 signatures in petitions against the project.
“The developer pretends it’s housing when it suits them but then they’re very quick to point out that they are not bound by the kinds of restrictions and amenities required of true housing developments because they are not housing,” Howarth said. “You can’t have it both ways.”
Supporters said it’s a good use of the land. Spieker has agreed to implement a financial assistance program whereby the facility operator would establish an annuity of $2 million toward subsidies for lower- income households that would not otherwise have the financial means to live in the facility.
Spieker will also pay $3 million over 10 years to county parks, trails or open space in the Walnut Creek area. Spieker has said security concerns preclude it from allowing trails and public access to the site, but the company would dedicate 2.4 acres along the site west boundary for public purposes.
“This project provides much needed independent housing for seniors and it also makes available neighborhood housing for families as those seniors sell their homes to move into this community,” said Amy Worth, an Orinda city councilmember and board member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
County staff said traffic projections for single family housing on the site would be higher than what would be generated by the Spieker development. Staff said the county projects 166 single family homes could be built on the site, not including extra attached units that could be added.
Amenities will include a swimming pool, tennis and bocce courts, dog parks, gardening center, walking trails, gym, auditorium, restaurants, bar, theatre, library, and clubhouse. The site will include 594 parking spaces.
33 comments
This is all about greed. They don’t have to build on every little open space that is available.
Yes they do. We have a housing shortage.
Jim
We do not have a housing shortage. We have a state that allows any illegal who wants to come here, to come. We have an illegal population crisis.
I need a new BMW and society owes me that. I certainly don’t have the money for it, but I will vote to have the government create lots more of them until the price falls to where I can afford it. I’m owed that, because, well, I just am.
A thumbs up from me because you made me laugh.
We don’t have a housing shortage. We have an affordable housing shortage.
This project is upscale senior living for wealthy seniors and therefore will make zero contribution to Bay Area housing problems. Walnut Creek will never contribute to low income housing. Even with subsidies the cost of living in WC will drive the low income folks right out to more affordable locations.
The appropriate lubricants have been applied to the appropriate parts.
That’s all it takes.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think the board of $upervi$or$ already made up their minds long before the public meeting.
And what happens to the equestrian center now?? Boo!
Hopeful the equestrian center will be spared from what the photo shows
It is not on their property so it should be OK. It borders it though.
The land where the equestrian center sits is not part of the Hale family’s property.
And is within Walnut Creek city limits.
You might want to look at the city of Walnut Creek master plan for HFP.
That will tell you whether the equestrian center has a future at HFP.
Have you ever attended any events at the equestrian center? Do you have a horse?
Surprise! surprise! surprise!
New tax revenue trumps the environment every time!
This mandate to build and build and build isn’t good for California, we don’t have the water or electricity to provide to the current number of homes, not to mention the added strain on infrastructure. I wish I could say I was surprised by this outcome, but nothing the Supervisors touches ever makes sense.
Our elected officials apparently do not care about the will of the people. I was disappointed as the only access to this parcel is through a pair of small residential streets. There will be about 2000 vehicle trips per day, 7 days a week, for as long as the facility is in business. This extra traffic would be a non-issue had this been on a main thoroughfare. The blanket approval by the county supervisors was also surprising as they also approved a change in the zoning from low density residential to high density commercial. Finally, they approved a project that will result in dynamiting down several hills and then hauling away 6000 truckloads of rock/dirt.
Money talks !! The supervisors don’t live there why would they care. I would take the decision to court, but I don’t have the money for that.
I am certain the voiceless creatures and animals who have inhabited there long before we showed up would disagree with this decision. Nature always bats last.
It’s useless to try and fight this.The politicians have made up there minds had there pockets lined and they are happy.Regardless of what the community or citizens want.
Shame on you for hating seniors.
How is this hate for seniors? Please explain.
Bocce Court and a Bar, Approved!!!
What good is a big beautiful park like Heather Farms without lots of automobile traffic coming and going?
Heather Farm (no ‘s’) has always had tons of traffic running through it.
Have you ever watched drop off and pick up for the private school on the hill? Most of the children who attend the school do not live in Walnut Creek. They can’t ride their bikes from Danville, Alamo, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda.
Those parents want their kids to get a good education, learn responsibility .and good moral values. Public schools don’t offer any of those things. Public school kids are getting dumber and dumber. That is a statistical fact. If public schools did what they are supposed to do, parents would not have to drive miles away from home to get their kids a good education.
If any of you are thinking this is going to help poor seniors think again. This place is only for very rich people. They pay big time to get in and even if they live there two months and kick off they have no equity.
But why should we help the poor seniors? They didn’t do enough to set themselves up when they were younger. So, any housing should be housing that people pay for.
They probably spent too much money spoiling their ungrateful children.
The overall process was a big disappointment. The developer ruled it from day one, staff did just enough to get through CEQA with a EIR that was flawed. Basic County development standards over hillside building were ignored. The decision was made long before any prior reviews and the additional bribe of money to the County by the developer sealed the fate. The Board of Supervisors gave Mitchoff a farewell gift. Happy to see her leave the Board. Have we seen any development turned down?
The boat sailed years ago when Seven Hills Ranch could have been bought as dedicated open space, or could have been annexed by the City. Cannot blame the heirs for wanting to get the land value out of the property.
Look out for traffic, noise and visual impacts if you live or work or go to school near the property.
The Supervisors decided it long ago – hearing others opinions and a flawed EIR are all part of the very typical agenda – pretend to listen to residents to satisfy laws and the masses then they do whatever they want… we’ve seen it at every level – city, county , state…. until we vote them out it continues.. get ready for even more gridlock in WC and water rationing
Boo. Horrible.
“The developer pretends it’s housing when it suits them but then they’re very quick to point out that they are not bound by the kinds of restrictions and amenities required of true housing developments because they are not housing,” Howarth said. “You can’t have it both ways.”
Genuine question, it’s a senior housing development, so I assume that means space for health care type of employees, probably food services of some kind for residents and staff, as well as an amount of administrative staff.
Is it because of the support staff this wouldn’t be considered “true housing”? What exactly is meant by “true housing”? Just curious about where the division lies between “true housing” and this project.
Comments are closed.