Skip to main content
Contra Costa County Header
File #: 25-4454    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Discussion Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/10/2025 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 10/21/2025 Final action:
Title: HEARING to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a development plan and Kensington design review to allow for the construction of a new, approximately 1,780-square-foot, single-family residence located at 279 Colusa Avenue in the unincorporated Kensington area (County File No. CDDP24-03060) (Thomas Biggs, Applicant; Robel Asefaw, Owner) (David and Sandra Gerstel, Appellants). (Everett Louie, Department of Conservation and Development)
Attachments: 1. Attachment A CDDP24-03060 Findings, 2. Attachment B CDDP24-03060 Plans, 3. Attachment C CDDP24-03060 BOS Appeal Letter date stamped1.pdf, 4. Attachment D CDDP24-03060 Zoning Administrator Staff Report, 5. Attachment E CDDP24-03060 County Planning Commission Staff Report.pdf, 6. Attachment F - Additional Public Comment, 7. Attachment G CDDP24-03060 BOS Presentation
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultTallyAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

To:                                          Board of Supervisors

From:                                          John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development

Report Title:                     Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Approval of a Development Plan and Kensington Design Review for 279 Colusa Ave (County File #CDDP24-03060)

Recommendation of the County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                     OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a Development Plan and Kensington design review for 279 Colusa Avenue in the unincorporated Kensington area; RECEIVE testimony; and CLOSE the public hearing.

2.                     DENY the appeal of David and Sandra Gerstel.

3.                     DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) [new construction of a single-family residence].

4.                     APPROVE the Development Plan and Kensington Design Review to allow for the construction of a new, 1,780-square-foot, single-family residence at 279 Colusa Avenue (CDDP24-03060).

5.                     APPROVE the attached findings in support of the project.

6.                     APPROVE the project conditions of approval.

7.                     DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.

 

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

 

The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover all additional costs associated with the application process.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

This hearing is an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s August 27, 2025, decision to approve a Development Plan and Kensington Design Review for the construction of a new single-family residence located at 279 Colusa Ave. in the Kensington area, County File #CDDP24-03060.

 

The Development Plan and Design Review application was submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) on December 12, 2024. The project was scheduled for a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator on May 19, 2025. At the hearing the Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing and received testimony from the applicant and neighbors. The Zoning Administrator continued the project as a closed public hearing to June 2, 2025, in order to review the public testimony. At the June 2, 2025, hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with modifications to conditions of approval #1 and 2. Revised condition of approval #1 clarified the scope of the approval as to the proposed, new single-family residence. Revised condition of approval #2 clarified the plan versions and other documents upon which the approval was based. Subsequent to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, a letter appealing the decision was timely filed by David and Sandra Gerstel on June 6, 2025.

 

The appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission on August 27, 2025. After receiving public testimony, the County Planning Commission voted (4-2) to approve the project as proposed and as recommended by County staff. One letter of appeal was filed by David and Sandra Gerstel on September 5, 2025.

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

 

The applicant requests approval of a Development Plan and Kensington Design Review to allow for the partial conversion of the existing single-family residence into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and the construction of a new 1,643-square-foot, two-story single-family residence with a 54-square-foot front covered porch, and a 83-square-foot covered second story balcony for a total gross floor area of 1,780 square feet as defined in the Kensington Combining District (-K) ordinance. The project requires a public hearing because the total gross floor area of all existing and proposed structures on the site is 3,235 square feet, which exceeds the threshold for a hearing of 2,600 square feet. The residence is designed to include two main floors of a conditioned living area and a second story balcony that faces the frontage. There will also be a covered porch over the front door. The conversion of the existing residence to an ADU is processed ministerially in accordance with the County’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and is not subject to the discretion of the County and is not subject to the design review or development plan process. However, the approval to convert the existing residence to an ADU is only effective upon approval of the new single-family residence, which is subject to the development plan and Kensington design review process.

 

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING

 

An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the project was heard by the County Planning Commission on August 27, 2025. After receiving public testimony, the County Planning Commission voted (4-2) to approve the project. The County Planning Commission made no modifications to the project. The recommended conditions of approval are attached to this report. (Attachment A - CDDP24-03060 Findings and Conditions of Approval).

 

APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION:

 

On September 5, 2025, David and Sandra Gerstel, filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Development Plan and Design Review permit. A summary of the appeal points and staff responses are provided below. A copy of the appeal letter is attached to this report (Attachment C - CDDP24-03060 Board of Supervisors Appeal Letter).

 

Appeal Point #1: The project violates the Kensington Combining District Ordinance in regard to privacy, light, views and enjoyment and value.

 

Staff Response #1: The project is subject to the Kensington Combining District Findings which address privacy and property values. The County Planning Commission approved the project based on the Kensington Combining District Findings. Specifically, the project is designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood by exceeding the required development standards of the R-6 zoning district. The table below shows the proposed project and how the project exceeds the development standards. Most notable, the project is well below the maximum 35-foot height with a proposed height of 25-feet. The project exceeds the side, front and rear setback requirements and is subject to a sliding scale for reduced setback requirements because the property was created in 1913. Because the project exceeds the setbacks of the zoning district, privacy in the neighborhood is maintained by preventing the house from being built close to property line, direct sightlines into neighboring windows, yards and living areas are reduced, noise reduction is enhanced and visual clutter is reduced by creating a more spacious feeling between homes.

 

Development Standards

Proposed Project

Height - two and one-half stores or 35’

Two stories and 25.1’

Side Setback - sliding scale 8’ aggregate and 3’ min

15’-9” aggregate and 5’ 5/8” min

Front Setback - 20’

Greater than 60’

Rear Setback - 15’

15’- 413/16”

Parking - 1 covered space

1 covered space

 

The project is also designed to not overshadow the neighboring property at 283 Colusa Avenue by mimicking the height of the residence for 283 Colusa Avenue. The applicant has submitted a plan sheet that shows the proposed project will be of similar height to the neighboring house. Sheet A1.0 - Site Section, below shows that the project roofline is compatible with 283 Colusa Ave.

 

 

To address privacy concerns, the applicant has removed the previously proposed rooftop terrace deck from the project. This revision was made in direct response to concerns that the deck would afford direct views into neighboring bedroom and bathroom windows and rear/side yards. The elimination of the rooftop deck significantly reduces potential privacy intrusions and addresses visual and spatial concerns raised by multiple neighbors.

 

Lastly, improving the site with a new single-family residence that is consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood including generally meeting the R-6 standards will increase the parcel property value and enhance the existing neighborhood. New homes that meet zoning standards will increase the visual appeal of a neighborhood. As stated in Kensington Combining District Finding #5, construction of the new single-family residence will increase the value of the subject lot and maintain the value of the existing properties in the vicinity. Moreover, the project will increase the housing stock of this area (1 Single-Family Residence and 1 Accessory dwelling unit). The appellant states that the new residence is too large for the area. However, staff has found that the square-footage of the proposed residence is consistent with the surrounding area as shown on the table below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Address

Size of House

279 Colusa Ave. - Subject Property

1780 SF

275 Colusa Ave.

1586 SF

285 Colusa Ave.

1498 SF

295 Colusa Ave.

2570 SF

1511 Valley Road

2158 SF

305 Colusa Ave

1837 SF

 

Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. Thus, property values are maintained.

 

Appeal Point #2: The appellant states that the County improperly applied the Contra Costa County Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Chapter 82-24 when classifying the ADU.

 

Staff Response #2: Chapter 82-24.004 - Definitions defines an internal conversion for an ADU as the following: 82-24.004(d) - "Internal conversion" means the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit within an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit or within an existing accessory structure. The applicant applied for an internal conversion of the existing single-family residence under County File #CDSU24-00151. Staff and the prior decisionmakers determined that the proposed conversion satisfied the definition of “internal conversion” in the County Ordinance Code because the proposed ADU would be established within the existing space of an existing single-family residence. The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission determined that the ADU complied with County Code 82-24.006 in that one internal conversion accessory dwelling unit is permitted on any lot in a single-family residential district (R-6). Therefore, the ADU internal conversion is not improperly classified

 

Appeal Point #3: The appellant states that the ADU violates the height limit of 16 feet. 

 

Staff Response #3: The height limit of an internal conversion ADU is governed by Chapter 82-24.006(b)(1) - Permitting, states the following:

 

                     (b)An application for a permit to establish any of the following types of accessory dwelling units in a residential or mixed-use zoning district is not subject to the location requirements specified in Section 82-24.010 or the development standards specified in Section 82-24.012 and will be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing.

o                     (1)One internal conversion accessory dwelling unit and one internal conversion junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.

 

Pursuant to the code section above, an ADU that is an internal conversion is not subject to the development standards which restrict the height of the ADU. There is no height limit for an internal conversion since there is no expansion allowed with an internal conversion. Therefore, the ADU does not violate the height limit.

 

Appeal Point #4: The appellant claims that the Kensington Ordinance limits gross floor area to 0.5 of lot size and the ADU ordinance limits ADU lot coverage to 40%.

 

Staff Response #4: Chapter 82-24 - Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance does not have a lot coverage requirement. Therefore, ADU’s are not subject to lot coverage requirements under the County Code.

 

The Kensington Ordinance does not limit gross floor area to 0.5 of lot size. Rather, the ordinance requires any proposed development that results in a gross floor area that exceeds the threshold standard to be heard at a public hearing. The proposed gross floor area of 3,235 square feet exceeds the gross floor area threshold standard for this parcel which is 2,600 square feet. Therefore, this project is required to be heard at a public hearing.  A project subject to a public hearing will be reviewed in compliance with the standards of consideration under County Code 84-74.1206 which requires all development to be evaluated based on the following factors listed in County Code 84-74.1206:

 

84-74.1206(b): In reaching a decision, the zoning administrator shall apply a standard that balances the following factors: (1) recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property; (2) recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design; (3) minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors; (4) protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property; (5) maintaining the community's property values; (6) maximizing the use of existing interior space; and (7) promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety. Balancing of these factors will not result in the prohibition of development that is compatible with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale on parcels that have not been developed.

 

Staff evaluated the above seven (7) Kensington Combining District Findings that are found in Attachment A: Findings and Conditions of Approval. These findings include determining the following factors for approval:

 

                     The project allows the property owner to improve their value and enjoyment of the property.

                     The project is designed to be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design in that it meets the R-6 zoning standards and the size of the new residence is consistent with other surrounding residences.

                     The project minimizes impacts on surrounding neighbors by complying with the R-6 zoning standards in terms of height and setbacks, does not cast shadows onto neighboring properties or disturbs privacy.

                     The project protects the value and enjoyment of neighbors properties in that the project does not obstruct any views of the San Francisco Bay and does not create privacy concerns by orienting the balcony view points towards the front.

                     The project maintains the community’s property values because a single-family residence is an allowed use pursuant to the R-6 zoning district.

                     The project is not subject to the existing interior space factor as it is a new proposed residence.

                     The project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety of the area because it is a use that is allowed and will be required to obtain all the necessary permits.

 

A further detailed analysis of each finding is listed in Attachment A, Findings and Conditions of Approval. Therefore, because all criteria for approval stated in Section 84-74.1206 are satisfied for the proposed project as listed in the Findings, the proposed project can be found to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

 

Appeal Point #5: The appellant claims that the project has to mirror their own property at 283 Colusa Ave. in regard to the following aspects: floor area ratio; building separation; off-street parking and design. 

 

Staff Response #5: The Contra Costa County Zoning Code does not require a residential project to mirror the surrounding neighborhood in regards to floor area ratio, building separation, off-street parking and design. Below is County Staff’s responses to each claim.

 

                     Floor area ratio - Neither the Kensington Combining District Ordinance nor the R-6 Zoning District requires a property owner to exactly mirror the floor area ratio of their neighbor. The County Zoning Code does not have a floor area ratio requirement.

 

                     Building Separation - The County Zoning Code does not have a building separation requirement. The project complies with all setback requirements of the zoning district and will comply with the Building Code during building permit review.

 

                     Off-Street Parking - Residential projects are subject to the off-street parking requirements of the County Code and the proposed project complies with the R-6 parking requirement listed in 84-4.1202 by providing one off-street parking spot within the existing garage (the parcel was created in 1913 which qualifies for one parking spot). The Accessory Dwelling Unit does not need to provide a parking spot because an internal conversion accessory dwelling unit does not need to provide a parking spot per the accessory dwelling unit ordinance.

 

                     Design - The Kensington Combining District Ordinance requires potential projects to be compatible with the neighborhood in respect to design. 283 Colusa Ave contains a single-family residence in the rear and obtained a land use permit (CDLP85-2106) to establish a second residence in the front, over the existing garage. The project mimics a similar design layout to 283 Colusa Ave. with a new residence in the rear and an ADU above an existing garage in the front. 

 

Appeal Point #6: The appellant states that the project sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood as other properties may propose similar developments. 

 

Staff Response #6: This project would not set a bad precedent in the neighborhood as there are already numerous parcels within Kensington that contain two residential units. As shown in the table in Appeal Point #7, there are at least eight other parcels within 1,500 feet of the subject parcel that have two-residences established.

 

In this case, the project involves one primary dwelling unit and one ADU, which is consistent with State requirements that mandate local government to allow at least one ADU per lot with a single-family residence. The County does not have the discretion to prohibit an ADU on an otherwise eligible lot if the proposal meets applicable standards. Approval of this project therefore reflects compliance with the County Zoning Code, not the creation of a new exception. Moreover, any future applications for development in this area will be evaluated on its own merits and must demonstrate compliance with the County’s Zoning Ordinance, ADU ordinance and Kensington Ordinance. Approval of the project would not obligate the County to approve any future project that fails to meet code requirements or that seeks exceptions beyond what is allowed by right under State or County law. Therefore, approval of this project does not establish a precedent that undermines existing development standards or establishes a precedent to approve “maxed-out” developments elsewhere in the Kensington neighborhood.

 

Appeal Point #7: The appellant states that the applicant and County Staff made dubious claims in regards to project revisions and analysis of comparable parcels that have two residences.

 

Staff Response #7: During the initial review, the applicant removed the rooftop deck and lowered the house. Although not required, the applicant made these changes to address the neighbors’ concerns regarding privacy. In regard to the statement from the appellant that the County made false claims about comparable two-residence parcels in the neighborhood, the table below shows parcels within the neighborhood with a similar configuration.

 

 

 

 

Parcel

Configuration

Distance from project

571-350-017

2 SFR

South Neighbor Parcel

571-340-030

2 SFR

437 feet south

571-340-029

1 SFR + 1 ADU

478 feet south

571-340-027

2 SFR

560 feet south

571-340-026

2 SFR

560 feet south

571-320-005

1 SFR + 1 ADU

1315 feet south

571-300-015

1 SFR + 1 ADU

1006 feet southeast

571-170-010

1 SFR + 1 ADU

1897 feet east

 

 

Appeal Point #8: The appellant states that there are reasonable construction alternatives such as building a detached ADU, lowering the height or making the house smaller. 

 

Staff Response #8: A property owner is entitled to develop their property within the confines of the County Zoning Code. The proposed ADU was previously reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and was determined to be compliant with the County ADU Ordinance. In regard to lowering the height of the new single-family residence, during the review stage of the application, the applicant revised the project to reduce the overall building height from 26.7 feet to 25.1 feet and pulled back the roofline of the second-story balcony at the front of the home which reduced visual massing and created a more articulated, stepped-back appearance at the upper level, helping to break up the building’s vertical and horizontal scale. It is also important to note that the height limit in the R-6 is 35 feet while the project height is 25.1 feet. Therefore, the property owner/applicant is within their right to request the project.

 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

 

The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) - single-family residence. The proposed project will construct one new single-family residence. Therefore, the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) which exempts the new construction of one single-family residence. 

 

CONCLUSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and also with the intent of the Residential Medium Density (RM) General Plan Designation, the R-6 Single-Family Residential District (R-6) and the Kensington Combining District (-K). The project is consistent with the established area as single-family residences are considered compatible uses within a residential neighborhood. The project also conforms to the guidelines of the Kensington area with respect to compatibility of the neighborhood. Moreover, the applicant made several changes to the project such as lowering the building height and removing a previously proposed rooftop terrace deck in order to address privacy and view concerns. Lastly, parcels with two residential units are common in this area of Kensington. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and approve County File #CDDP24-03060, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

 

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

 

If the Board were to deny the project, the applicant/property owner would not be allowed to improve their property by constructing a new approximately 1,643-square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an approximately 54-square-foot covered front porch and an approximately 83-square-foot covered second story balcony.