Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board resolves Kensington 279 Colusa appeal with negotiated changes; approves new residence with conditions
Summary
After mediating between neighbors, supervisors approved construction of a new single‑family residence at 279 Colusa Avenue in Kensington and denied the appeal, with conditions that reduce eaves and deck size, raise certain windows, and slightly alter setbacks to reduce impacts on a nearby home.
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors on Oct. 21 denied an appeal and approved a development plan and Kensington design review allowing construction of a new single‑family residence at 279 Colusa Avenue in Kensington, after a negotiated set of design changes both parties accepted.
Background and the dispute: the application proposes a new approximately 1,780‑square‑foot single‑family residence behind an existing house; the owner proposed converting the existing dwelling to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and building a new primary residence toward the rear of the lot. Neighbors appealed the zoning administrator and planning commission approvals, arguing the two‑story rear structure would significantly affect sunlight, views, privacy and the character of surrounding properties.
Mediation and agreed changes: Supervisors and county staff engaged with the owner, architect and the principal appellant in advance of the hearing. The parties reached a set of conditions to reduce privacy and light‑and‑view impacts. The superintendent’s summary of agreed revisions included: reducing eave projections from 12 inches to 8 inches; shortening a second‑story roof terrace and reducing its porch depth; moving the terrace screen wall inward; raising the sill and header height of certain second‑story side windows (10‑inch raise) and using textured glass for bathroom and laundry windows; reducing the overall building width by 9 inches; and adjusting side setbacks so the southern side setback increases to approximately 12.25 feet while the northern side becomes about 4.25 feet (still meeting Kensington setback rules and the Kensington combining district standards).
Legal and planning context: staff said the project conforms to the R‑6 zoning and the Kensington combining district standards and that the accessory‑dwelling rules applicable in unincorporated Kensington allow the proposed configuration when design standards are met. The board’s review focused on compatibility and the specific design adjustments negotiated at the hearing.
Board action: a majority of supervisors supported staff’s recommendation, denied the appeal and approved the project with the negotiated conditions. The appellant said he would not pursue further legal action if the conditions were applied and confirmed his willingness to forego litigation; the applicant likewise agreed to the conditions. The vote was unanimous.
Ending: staff will require the applicant to submit revised stamped plans that incorporate the agreed changes before the county issues building or grading permits. The revisions will be enforced during plan check and construction inspections.
