4) Staff conducted an environmental review and determined an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for this project. The final EIR will outline the impacts on the environment by the proposed project and offer suggestions to mitigate those impacts.

 5) June 2021 A consultant is chosen by County staff to prepare the EIR.

  6) July 21, 2021: a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued. The purpose of the NOP is to give notice that an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) will be required for the project. The County is required to then seek input from interested parties as to what should be included in the EIR. Written public comment was accepted until Aug 23, 2021, verbal comments were accepted at the Aug 16 Scoping session (see below).

 7) Aug 16, 2021 “NOP Scoping meeting” -NOP Public Comments Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 submitted and spoken by the public and interested entities may be viewed in three parts here (The file was large -lots of comments - and had to be split into the three parts; allow time for the files to load!)

The scoping meeting was held via Zoom during a meeting of the County Zoning Administrator on Monday, August 16, 2021, at 3:30 PM. Members of the public were able to view, listen and participate to the meeting. An archive of the meeting should be available at: https://contra-costa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13.

 8) Mar 11, 2022 The consultant David J. Powers prepared and summited the administrative Draft EIR to County Staff who then reviewed it and released it for public comment (See step 9 below). A Notice of Availability (of the Draft EIR) was issued and a 60 day public review of the Draft EIR begins - see step 9.

 9) MAR 2022: County Staff released the DRAFT EIR for public comment. The complete Draft EIR document can be viewed on the County’s project webpage at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7911/Spieker-Senior-Continuing-Care. (Scroll down the County page and click the blue Draft EIR button.) There was a 60 day review period ending May 10 for the public to submit comments, which become part of the public record. SSHRanch submitted a substantial comment paper as did many individuals and groups who pointed out deficiencies in the document. The County’s consultant and County must now review and respond to ALL comments. Their responses will be included with the Final EIR.

Timeline notes: Perhaps the Final EIR and County staff report will be available by second week of October with the proposal possibly getting before the Planning Commission by late October. But exact timing is difficult to predict. The County MUST allow at least 10 days between the release of the Final EIR before it and the proposal is added to the Planning Commission agenda.

 10) OCT 2022 The County and their County’s consultant are now reviewing all comments submitted during the DRAFT EIR public comment period. The link to the submitted public comments is no longer readily available from the County. You may request it or we have downloaded copies that we can share with you. They are too large to create a link here. Send an email to us SaveSevenHillsRanch@gmail.com and we can share with you. (Note: SSHRanch’s comment is listed under Greenfire Law and includes a 45 page base document and 20 attachments.)

ALL public comments submitted during the Draft EIR comment period must be addressed in the Final EIR. All the written and (transcribed) verbal public comments are included as a chapter in the Final EIR. Typically the right edge of the comment page is bracketed with assigned comment numbers, and each comment letter is numbered separately as well. Then the EIR County consultant must go through each numbered comment and provide a written response, for anything substantive on the Draft EIR contents. They don't have to respond to comments on the merits of the Project, maybe other than to say "Opinion of the commenter noted" or "Concerns of the commenter noted".

11) This step did not take place; the County did not recirculate the Draft EIR. IF significant new information is added or revised to the Draft EIR then the County must recirculate the Draft EIR for the public to once again review and comment on it. If the County does not request significant changes then their consultant may revise the Draft, if needed, without further public comment, and proceed with preparing the Final EIR.. It appears the County has done the latter.

12) Oct 11, approx. The Final EIR is published and released. There is no public comment period. It goes before the Planning Commission along with the County Staff report and recommendations. Both the public and County decision makers see the document at this point, as noted in step 10 above.

13) Oct 22, 2022 approx. Staff report released. The County Staff reviewed and prepared written recommendations regarding the certification of the Final EIR AND the entire Project request. The Staff Report recommended approval, and along with the Final EIR and responses to Draft public comments was released to the County Planning Commission and the public on approximately Oct 22.

14) Oct 26, 2022 5pm Planning Commission Public Hearing A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on Oct 26, 2022. The Planning Commission considered the merits of the project, including all the project requests or entitlements such as the request for the General Plan Amendment. The public hearing was held on Oct 26, at 5pm, and after a 7-hour long Zoom meeting with more that 400 in attendance the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the project by the County Board of Supervisors. The Commission expressed that the information on the Project seemed incomplete with many unanswered questions, that the developer hadn't gone to the community enough, and that the benefit to the County wasn't clear.

15) Nov 29, 2022 9am SUPERSIZED not SENSIBLE wins over with the County. The Board of Supervisors placed consideration of the project on their normal meeting agenda. They heard more than 6 hours of public comment. 1025 Escobar St. Martinez, CA. (County Administration Bldg) Meeting video: CLICK HERE
Commentary: The Supervisors (with Karen Mitchoff in the lead “representing” voters in District 4 where Seven Hills Ranch is located) took a vote and approved the proposal and its attached applications/entitlements, one of which was the General Plan Amendment (GPA). They could have denied the project as a whole, or partially, or require modifications before approval. Based on their vote, the proposal may proceed. Several entities consequently filed lawsuits based on the inadequacy of the process for approval.
It is sad and regrettable that the County Board of Supervisors chose to vote for the developer and approve 5-0 all aspects, with no modifications, of the Spieker Development “The Glen at Heather Farm” aka “Diablo Glen” proposal for Seven Hills Ranch. (12/16 Click HERE to see numerous “Letters to the Editor” following the Board’s decision.) This approval vote came despite the day-long meeting’s comments from the public that questioned many aspects of the project and despite the fact that the County’s own Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny approval due to the many questions surrounding the development.
The Supervisors seemed to have made up their minds prior to the meeting. They chose to turn the conversation to the idea that public opposition was only about the private school next door to the proposed project being unhappy with the disruption from the construction. There were far more substantial and valid points brought up by the public about the project but the Supervisors chose to ignore those. Long-standing county ordinances currently in place, such as hillside ordinances and tree removal ordinances, were ignored.
The Board also chose to hold the meeting two days after a holiday weekend and limited each public comment to 90 seconds as opposed to the normal 2-3 minutes allowed per comment. Their cavalier actions and attitude showed extreme disrespect for the public that sought their assistance in reining in the extreme project proposal and bringing a sensible plan to this site. They accepted “empty” concessions from the developer which do not come close to being realistic improvements to the plan. The developer probably was jumping for joy and with glee at pulling off their feat.
The Walnut Creek City Council must now decide if an entrance through their city is acceptable despite past public General Plan promises that such a cut-through at Kinross Drive would NEVER be allowed. In addition the issue now moves into the legal arena.

16) December, 2023 SUPERSIZED wins over SENSIBLE with the Walnut Creek City Council With Councilmember Kevin Wilk the only dissenting vote, on Tuesday, Dec 19, 2023 the City Council of Walnut Creek held a public meeting (agenda and public notice) and, despite years-long strong community opposition, voted to allow developer access through Walnut Creek City neighborhoods for the massive planned development for Seven Hills Ranch. This despite the evidence and Environmental Impact Report indicating that the County’s existing access road is an environmentally superior option. It should be noted that the Council took a page from the County Board of Supervisors’ playbook and showed a lack of respect for the local community’s interest and concern on this issue by scheduling this important vote during a busy holiday season, six days before Christmas. (The County BOS scheduled their vote two days after Thanksgiving weekend in 2022.)
Arrogance or ignorance on display by your representatives? You decide. (Or is it arrogance AND ignorance??)

Details regarding the City’s “giveaway” to the developer: The City of Walnut Creek’s Promise - The City in 1970 created a strip of land, “Lot A”, purposely to prevent Kinross Dr (north of Marchbanks) from extending to Seven Hills Ranch. The City confirmed the protective intent of “Lot A” in subsequent City General Plans. Speiker development would now like the City to sell or transfer “Lot A” to them and allow them to extend Kinross Dr. for use as a main entrance to their proposed development. This is exactly what “Lot A” was put in place to prevent - disruption to adjacent, established City neighborhoods, communities and streets (including Ygnacio Valley Rd and Marchbanks Dr) from County approved development for the Seven Hills Ranch property. Many questions surround not only the sanity but also the legality and ethics of such a transfer. The Council must decide if they will renege on the documented historical promise that Kinross Dr. never be allowed to connect to Seven Hills Ranch. (Scroll down for historical documentation links.) MAP of proposed Kinross Extension and 1’ x 50’ Lot A. Visit the “Proposed Entrance” page of this website for greater understanding of this matter.

17) June, 2024 HOA lawsuits resolved We learned through public records that the three lawsuits filed by the local Heather Farms Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding the destructive proposal for Seven Hills Ranch have been resolved. We do not know the details at this time and are unsure how much information can be shared by the HOA regarding what we presume is some kind of settlement. Following the Walnut Creek City Council’s December 2023 decision to capitulate to the developer (thereby choosing to ignore strong objection by Walnut Creek residents) Save Seven Hills Ranch did not have the wherewithal to further oppose Spieker Development’s inappropriate and destructive plans for the ranch. The HOA filed an environmental lawsuit against the County(see it here: N23-0179) and lawsuits against the City regarding the approved access and the public records act (see them here: N24-0100 and N23-2065). At the request of the HOA these suits have been dismissed “with prejudice” (meaning they can not be tried again by the HOA).

18) January, 2025 401 Water Certification given After extensive study the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board gave their “Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Certification” for Spieker Development’s “Glen at Heather Farm”/Seven Hills Ranch project. This certification comes with specific performance and final success requirements. We want to believe that the developer will adhere to the requirements therein but wonder if that is truly possible with the amount of impact which will be inflicted by this monstrous development plan. Read the Board’s 401 Water Quality Certification and Order HERE