Save Seven Hills Ranch worked diligently to alert our County decision makers of the opportunity for an accessible Seven Hills Ranch. Supervisors could have denied the developer’s request for a GPA unless truly beneficial and innovative changes were incorporated into the development plan. County representatives could have supported integrated green spaces next to an existing city park, encouraged the protection of wildlife habitat and provided public access to incredible vistas. A petition with over 4,000 signatures was gathered requesting these simple changes, but these requests were ignored completely by the Board of Supervisors to the puzzlement of residents and voters. The Board approved the developer’s plan without realistic question of its impacts. Stay informed by sending your email address to SaveSevenHillsRanch@gmail.com

THE PROCESS: Below is an outline of the process this proposal went through for approval (sadly) of this project by the County. The request for the General Plan Amendment was considered as a part of the entire Spieker project proposal. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or EIR (a report on impacts the project will have on the environment) was required. Currently (May 2023) several lawsuits are pending against the County regarding the project.

Contra Costa County website on the project: CLICK HERE

(!!!Send an email to Sean.Tully@dcd.cccounty.us and ask to be notified of any significant actions on this project. This lets the County know there is still extreme interest surrounding this development request!!!)

PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED STEPS:

1) DONE approx. April, 2020 Preliminary project review and discussion between County Planning Staff and Spieker.

 2) DONE June, 2020 General Plan Amendment (GPA) Feasibility Study. County staff received authorization from the Board of Supervisors to continue with the General Plan Amendment process.

 3) DONE July 30, 2020 to February 2021 Spieker planning application filed, reviewed by County Staff. Corrected, updated and finalized.

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

  6) DONE 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) DONE 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) DONE 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) DONE 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) DONE: 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) DONE: 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) DONE: 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) DONE: Oct 26, 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) DONE: Nov 29, 9am 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
The Supervisors 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.