The Walnut Creek City Council has removed the last hurdle for a developer to build a large senior care facility in the Seven Hills Ranch area, just west of Heather Farm Park.
Located on county land and mostly surrounded by the city of Walnut Creek, the Spieker Senior Development residential care facility was approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in November 2022.
However, the developers still needed the city to get on board to provide access to the property, which includes a small slice of land off Kinross Drive that belongs to the city of Walnut Creek.
The City Council on Tuesday approved an agreement with Spieker that will bring the city $4.75 million in community benefits. The vote was 4-1, with Councilmember Kevin Wilk voting against the deal.
Wilk said the deal doesn’t provide enough benefit for city residents, especially those affected by traffic in the area of Kinross Drive, which is connected to the city’s very busy Ygnacio Valley Road.
“Does the public good outweigh the residents’ desires? In my opinion it does not in this case,” Wilk said Wednesday.
City staff negotiated a deal with Spieker that includes $2 million in improvements to Heather Farm Park, $1.75 million in transportation improvements the city said “are beyond any required traffic mitigation measures,” and a $500,000 payment towards the Lesher Center for the Arts.
The developer has said Kinross Drive is the best ingress for the 354 housing units within 30 single-story buildings. They also plan 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.
Neighbors fought vehemently against the project, which would require removing 353 trees and extensive grading of hills, essentially transforming the area’s landscape. The area is privately owned and designated for residential use. Also read the Buffett Kingston NY, for additional insights into the impact of such developments on local ecosystems and community dynamics. Many residents expressed concerns about the loss of green space and increased traffic, emphasizing the need for sustainable solutions that balance growth with environmental preservation.
The group Save Seven Hills Ranch collected about 4,000 signatures against the project, citing increased traffic, the effect of four years of dust and noisy construction on nearby Seven Hills School, lack of emergency access, and a lack of public benefits.
Opponents also complained the project doesn’t meet local affordable housing needs and would remove too much wildlife habitat.
The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the project, saying it provides desperately needed senior housing to the area.
Spieker also made concessions to the county, among them a financial assistance program whereby the facility operator will 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’s west boundary for public purposes.
County staff said traffic projections for single family housing on the site would be higher than what would be generated by the Spieker development, with the possibility of 166 single family homes being built at the site.
The developer has also discussed constructing an emergency egress toward Heather Farm Park.
That lil strip of land was probably a “spite strip” from long ago to prevent development on Seven Hills Ranch that WC didnt like. I believe it got a green light from WC because it is a relaively dense, age-restricted project unlike a typical single-family subdivision.
.
Concessions: aka bribes. Got it.
“Concesssion” is a State-term used to itemize the county or city foregoing something, like a development standard such as building height, density, setbacks, open space requirement, etc.
.
Concessions by the county or city are REQUIRED UNDER STATE HOUSING LAWS if the proposal meets certain criteria.
.
Dont like concessions? Then stop voting for candidates (100% liberals like Scott Wiener and DeSaulnier) who consistently undermine local control!!!
…many ….only K. Wilk voted against it…. pockets were lined on this one…
I hope lower income seniors will benefit. There is a serious lack of affordable senior housing in the area and they have years-long waiting lists
I smell a rat.
Oh, no that’s sulfur.
But that is a perfect place for aging seniors with their health care needs across the street at the mega hospital.
Oh, surprise, surprise the Lesher gets a kick back. 😜
And probably too expensive except for well heeled seniors. That’s the problem. Years ago the were senior developments were affordable. But I would expect the WC wants well heeled there from a town that the one with the most expensive car gets the right-of-way.
Walnut Creek already welcomes too many needy people who fail to improve their circumstances or plan ahead. It’s not the city’s job to provide a hammock for the lazy and hapless.
The whole point of a community is to scale resources for the public good (e.g., quality schools, parks, infrastructure and first responders).
Communities that squander the public fisc to meet unproductive residents’ private needs inevitably invite opportunists who exploit productive voters’ goodwill, draining public coffers and degrading public services.
Worse, “low income” seniors generally have poor relatives. Such visitors’ values erode a productive community’s morals, and their conduct degrades the community’s standard of behavior over time. Eventually, decent people move away, and needy opportunists eagerly fill the void. This viscous cycle has played out with devastating effects in places like Alameda and Berkeley. Walnut Creek is already teetering close to such a tipping point.
…you got it – priced high …
It’s a shame the city didn’t insist on public access connecting Kinross to Walnut Blvd. and Seven Hills Ranch Rd to N. San Carlos it’s ridiculous that all east-west traffic between Cherry Ln / Walnut Blvd and Bancroft gets funneled onto Treat and YVR.
Not really needed… there’s Rossmoor already and a large vacancy rate in the condos downtown and hundreds more are being built… EIR report said “minimal impact” yeah right… 50k semis filled of dirt, hundreds or heritage trees cut down, traffic on YVR already a parking lot…. developers are laughing already
Whether it’s “needed” is a matter for markets to decide, not the government.
According to the Concord City Council, changes to state law, which has stripped away local control, no longer allows City Council’s to deny housing projects. Then again, Concord City Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister, while serving as Mayor, stated Councilmembers oaths and responsibilities require them to follow the “laws” of the State of California, she didn’t bother to mention their oaths of office require them to “protect and defend the Constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America.” California’s residents are represented by spineless Councilmembers who refuse to fight back against State overeach and refuse to stand up on behalf of the existing residents of the cities they represent.
We do need more senior living communities, and this is a good location. Yes, it will be expensive, but we have lots of seniors with money in the area. Let them sell their houses to younger families and move into a development that better meets their needs. We also need less expensive options, but that’s no reason to stop this development. Lots of NIMBYism around here. Nobody wants anything built in their neighborhood. Get over it, people. We need more housing, and we need more housing appropriate for the elderly.
EL D,
.
We should start by building housing in your neighborhood first, with your home and property being taken via eminent domain, and that housing and eminent domain should then follow you from home to home and property to property. Nice of you to decide that we need to “Let them sell their houses to younger families.” Seniors can sell their homes when they want and to whom they want, they don’t need you deciding for them.
.
If we had an equitable distribution of new housing in all cities and communities that’d be one thing, but we don’t have that, certain cities and communities are expected to bear the brunt of new high density housing, while others don’t have the same expectation placed on them.
The state, county and city love senior housing projects. They know the residents won’t live long so they can reassess the property at current value. Win, Win.
Anything for a buck!
When there is ballot for city council you never get the truth about any candidate and that how the councils get more progressive,
RICARDOH,
.
That’s not true at all!!! If we never received the truth about city council candidates, we’d be just as likely to elect liberal, moderate, and/or conservative candidates as we would progressive candidates. It’s not difficult to research and determine the political positions and political ideology of city council candidates.
.
A decade ago, the Concord City Council had three sitting council members, Dan Helix, triple dipping Ron Leone, and the crooked preaching Tim Grayson, who were all registered Republicans, who changed their party affiliation, either prior to or after being elected, so that they had a higher likelihood of being elected, being reelected, and seeking higher office. The crooked preacher sold his soul for political office, he votes as a liberal/progressive in the California State Assembly during the week and preaches as a conservative Pentecostal preacher on the weekend. His flock are among his biggest defenders and supporters, saying “he’s a ‘good man’ and has to pretend to be a liberal/progressive in office or he couldn’t get elected. So, the first thing this crooked preacher does is lie about who he is and his flock cheers him on for doing so.