Design Team Outlines Amended Plan
For King Estate Project
The SCA on Feb. 26 hosted a community meeting about the proposed King Estate development in the hills above Olympic Blvd., near the Tice Valley Blvd. intersection. Work on this project was halted in 2005 because of numerous violations by the contractors during construction, with only two of the six planned homes built. Now the property owner, working with a new team of design consultants, has applied to the county to complete the project. Members of this team presented their plans at the Feb. 26 meeting, which was held at Grace Presbyterian Church on Tice Valley Blvd.
Some 90 notices about the meeting were mailed by the development team, using a list provided by the county Department of Conservation and Development. Fourteen people, including five members of the SCA board of directors, attended the meeting. Three members of the current design team—the planner, the construction / project manager, and the civil engineer—outlined their plans at the meeting, as they had briefly done earlier that month at a meeting of the SCA board. The SCA has been asked by the county to review and comment on the amended application.
The presenters readily acknowledged that the original developers had made changes on-site that weren’t authorized in the plans approved by the county in 2000. Their talk focused on three of the most significant issues and how they propose to address them. These areas were amplified in a handout:
Loss of scenic easement. The amended development plan results in a net increase of 13,520 square feet of scenic easement over that specified in the original plan.
Loss of trees. While 12 trees not planned for removal were removed, 35 that were marked for removal were left standing.
Excessive grading. Because of the significant slope of the property, inaccurate topographic maps, and decisions made during construction, grading was done in areas not approved by the county. The new design team plans to ask for an exception to the requirement that additional grading be done to bring the project in compliance with county standards, which allow a maximum grade of 20 percent. Their plan calls for a 22 percent grade on portions of the road and up to a 25 percent grade near the entry to the property.
Forcing them to meet the county standard, they say, would require an additional 2200 cubic yards of excavation, the loss of more trees, and increases in the height of retaining walls on two of the lots (there are already two “stacked” 20-ft. retaining walls). They noted that additional steps have been taken to mitigate the steeper grade, including changing a wood post guardrail to a steel post guardrail at the bottom of the road that exceeds CalTrans standards. They said that other walls on other lots would need to be higher if the grade variance they’re requested isn’t approved by the county or the fire marshal.
The design team acknowledged too that the original project had left a “bad taste in people’s mouths” and said they were looking for ways “do something to remedy it.” They noted that none of the contractors involved in the original development would be involved in the proposed next phase. No applications for permits to build the four remaining homes in the development have been submitted, they added.
Following their presentation, design team members fielded comments and questions from audience members, promising in several instances to “look into” issues raised that they did not have answers to.
Exhibits included 1) an illustration of road grades on site and those places where the road grade exceeded the county’s 20 percent maximum and 2) a site plan illustrating the changes to the scenic easements to increase the number of protected trees, and to eliminate—from those easements—the driveways to houses that had previously encroached.
The SCA will be notified of a hearing once the staff report is issued. This will probably be followed by a Planning Commission hearing.
Prior to the meeting, the SCA Application Review Committee had visited the site, reviewed the amended development plans, requested and reviewed additional documents, and met with the contract planner assigned to the project by the county.
The SCA helped arrange the Feb. 26 meeting venue as a service to the community. We did not sponsor or moderate the meeting.
- At the advice of its Application Review Committee, the SCA responded to the county’s request to comment on the amended King Estate application with a letter recommending approval, with certain requested stipulations.
- To have your name added to the list of those the county’s notification list for this project, send your request to
Darwin Myers, C.E.G., Project Planneror e-mail the Department of Conservation and Development via the “Contact Us” form at their Website, http://www.cccounty.us/forms.asp?fid=45.
Department of Conservation and Development
Community Development Division
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095