Kensington Hillside Home Approved; Port Costa Rehearing Denied
Planning Commission • Contra Costa CountyOctober 15, 2026
Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.
The Contra Costa County Planning Commission unanimously approved a contested hillside home on Kensington's Willamette Avenue, rejecting neighbors' objections over bridge views, sunlight, environmental review and landslide risk. Earlier in the Oct. 14 meeting, commissioners voted 4-1 to deny a rehearing on a Port Costa house caught in a long fight over a century-old creek culvert. In both cases, the remaining safeguards are engineering reviews at the permit stage and possible appeals to the Board of Supervisors.
- Appeal denied 5-0: Two-story, 3,293-square-foot Kensington home with variances clears the commission
- Slope safety deferred to permits: County peer-review geologist must approve a supplemental geotechnical report before any grading or building permit
- Neighbors' CEQA and redesign arguments fail to sway commissioners on 0 Willamette Avenue
- Port Costa rehearing denied 4-1 as culvert dispute at 58 Canyon Lake Drive moves to building review
Kensington Home Wins Unanimous Approval Over Appeal
The commission voted 5-0 to deny an appeal and approve a two-story, 3,293-square-foot house and detached garage with variances at 0 Willamette Avenue. The decision followed more than an hour of testimony on a project that began in 2023.
Why it matters: On a steep lot that neighbors say sits in a state-mapped landslide zone, the key slope-safety check now happens at the permit stage rather than at the commission.
Where things stand: The zoning administrator approved the plan on April 20, 2026, after several continuances and a unanimous recommendation from the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council in January 2026. Appellant Han Qing Zhao and his co-appellant, Ms. Chen, filed their appeal on April 29. They cited views, loss of sunlight to the kitchen and study at 255 Willamette, site suitability and the project's exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The variances allow the garage to sit inside the 20-foot setback and approve a retaining wall that falls short of the standard 9-by-19-foot parking dimensions. "In order to push the garage back 20 feet, we would have to either burrow a tunnel or have a driveway that wouldn't meet the building code in terms of steepness," said architect Jasmeet Rangar.
Applicant Jasmine Rashid Eames described neighbor agreements, story poles and repeated revisions. "Every stage when a concern was raised, we made a concrete adjustment," she said.
The other side: "The owner proposed option blocks our view of the Golden Gate Bridge," said Zhao, who asked that the house be pushed back eight feet. Eames said that change would block the view of the neighbor uphill. Rangar added that it would increase excavation and partially bury a bedroom.
Attorney Susan Burns Cochran, representing the appellants, argued that because a variance is discretionary, CEQA applies. She said the narrow access road, steep topography and required geotechnical update are unusual circumstances that should trigger an environmental study. She also argued that nothing about the parcel justifies a variance: "It's their preference to build here."
Three neighbors spoke in support of the appeal. Renate Holub and Elena Carruthers said the geotechnical report is incomplete. Carruthers read a geologist's letter listing five gaps and noting the state's earthquake-induced landslide zone mapping. Robert Hillman raised concerns about liability, narrow street access for heavy equipment and whether the builder would post a bond.
Staff said the design review weighs views, but "it's not a technical view protection ordinance." Staff also said grading and building permits cannot proceed until the peer-review geologist approves a supplemental geotechnical report. "I want to make it clear that I'm satisfied that it's a categorical exemption," said Commissioner Donna Allen.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Commissioner Ross A. Hillesheim moved to deny the appeal. He pointed to one of the appellants' own exhibits as a fair balance. The vote was For: 5 (Hillesheim, Allen, Vice Chair Bhupen Amin, Commissioner Calabrigo, Commissioner Bob Mankin); Against: 0; Absent: 1 (Commissioner Kevin Van Buskirk).
Amin noted that the commission had denied a continuance request. "Given the fact that the appellant was present and they had counsel present, I think within our discretion we decided to go ahead and hear the matter," he said. The owners can move toward permits, while uphill and across-the-street neighbors lose their bid for a redesign.
What's next: Appeals to the Board of Supervisors are due by 5 p.m. Oct. 26, 2026, with a $250 fee.
Port Costa Culvert Fight Heads to Permit Stage
The commission voted 4-1 to deny a request to reconsider its approval of a 2.5-story, 3,187-square-foot house at 58 Canyon Lake Drive in Port Costa. The commission had earlier rejected an appeal by Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGuire and approved a small-lot design review with variances.
Why it matters: The vote closes the reconsideration route. Questions about the Bull Valley Creek drainage culvert will now be settled during building permit review.
Where things stand: County counsel said the legal test was "whether or not they're alleging new pertinent factual or legal bases that weren't considered originally," and not whether those claims are correct. Staff planner Sid said the dispute concerns "the location and size of a portion of the Bull Valley Creek drainage culvert," not the design or variances. Conditions 14 and 15 require the culvert to be verified before a building permit is issued.
The other side: Ryan Palacio, arguing for the appellants, said the county paused the project for two years over the culvert's size. "So we either stayed a process for 2 years for something that didn't matter or it mattered so much that we stayed a process for 2 years to get these dimensions," he said. He also alleged conflicting stamped engineering documents. Chris Palacio cited ground-penetrating radar results. "My measurements don't line up with what Ryan is stating," he said.
Applicant Ryan Bosworth said he crawled into the fieldstone culvert, measured it and hired geotechnical and civil engineers. Co-owner Tommy Tran described losing the home in a 2020 fire. "We've been trying to build a house for the past 6 years," he said.
Hillesheim asked whether the county approves outside engineers. Staff said planning does not verify licenses. That job falls to building inspection, which has structural engineers who review plans.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: "I actually do think there's new pertinent factual or legal information that's come before us," said Hillesheim. He cited inconsistent engineering documents and the conditions' reliance on the applicant's good faith. Amin disagreed: "Today is simply whether there's new information that would justify a second hearing."
Calabrigo moved to deny, and Amin seconded. The vote was For: 4 (Amin, Calabrigo, Allen, Mankin); Against: 1 (Hillesheim); Absent: 1 (Van Buskirk).
What's next: Staff said any appeal to the Board of Supervisors, with a $250 fee, was due by 5 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026.
- Late submissions: Commissioners said an applicant's multipage email arrived hours before the hearing. Staff said submissions can't be blocked, but the commission can continue items.
- Measure J: Mankin said the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is "prepping to go to the ballot in '28 to extend that sales tax out to 2054." Staff said the authority has not contacted planning.
- Newport Point dog park: A commissioner asked why a dog park disappeared from the 2023-approved, 67-home Discovery Bay subdivision. "I just don't want to feel like a hood ornament," he said.
Looking ahead: The commission next meets at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2026.