Board upholds planning approval for 568-sq-ft rooftop deck in Kensington, adds screening conditions

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on March 25 denied an appeal and approved a design-review plan to allow a 568-square-foot rooftop deck and Juliet balcony at 2 Highland Boulevard in Kensington.

The board voted 4-0 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt a revised condition requiring the applicant to install and maintain evergreen, drought-tolerant vegetative screening that extends at least 6 feet above the existing fence line and at least 8 feet wide between the properties. The condition requires landscaping plans at least 30 days before building-permit issuance and says the screening must provide sufficient coverage to prevent unobstructed views into the kitchen and dining room windows of the adjoining property at 7 Arlington Avenue before a building permit is issued. The board also added a requirement that the applicant use best efforts to mitigate winter leaf loss with durable decorative features during winter months.

The appeal was filed by neighboring property owners Himang Patel and Aditi Shastri, who argued the screening ordered by the Planning Commission would be inadequate, slow to mature and subject to trimming or removal that would defeat privacy protections. Planning staff and the applicants said the proposed screening combined with an existing maple tree provided privacy and that the modified condition is enforceable as a condition of approval. The applicant, Kane Barclay, said the project replaces an earlier unpermitted deck removed during a 2020 roof repair and that an oversized screening requirement would unduly reduce the home’s light and views.

Board member John Gioia, whose district includes the site, presented a set of clarified condition language to ensure the screening must effectively block views into the two most exposed indoor windows prior to permit issuance and to make clear that failure to maintain required screening could be enforced by administrative fines, citations or cease-and-desist orders. In discussion Gioia and other supervisors said the revised language clarified what the Planning Commission intended and addressed enforcement concerns raised by the neighbors.

The board explicitly left open enforcement remedies: if the screening is removed or fails to meet the approved plan after installation, code enforcement may issue a notice and seek compliance under county ordinance, including fines. Supervisors also instructed staff to treat the condition as an immediate requirement rather than something to be achieved years later through tree growth.

The board’s action preserves the Planning Commission’s design-review approval while tightening the language around screening, installation timing and enforcement. The final vote was 4-0 to deny the appeal and approve the plan with the amended condition; one supervisor did not record a vote on the motion as reflected in the 4-0 tally.

The appellants said they remain concerned about the time it could take newly planted vegetation to reach the required dimensions and about limitations on enforcement if plants are trimmed or die. The board said the revised condition should address those concerns by requiring the screening be in place and providing coverage at the time the permit is issued and by making removal or failure to maintain a violation under county code.

The project proponents will be required to submit detailed landscaping plans for County review at least 30 days before issuance of a building permit, and the county will inspect the installed screening prior to issuing the building permit. If the installed screening does not prevent unobstructed views into the specified windows, the building permit shall not be issued until the condition is met.