DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4201 (Applicant/Appellant/Owner: Janetra Johnson; Authorized Representative: Ryan C. Jackson, PLS)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4201 as revised by the Applicant to propose creation of two 3.37-acre parcels from an existing 6.74-acre parcel in the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
If your Board chooses to grant the Appeal with modifications as requested by the Applicant and overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4201, it would be appropriate to:
1. Make the required four Findings specified in Section 860.5.060.D for approval of a variance stating the basis for making each finding; and
2. Approve Variance Application No. 4201, with modifications to permit the creation of two 3.37-acre parcels, subject to Conditions of Approval, as recommended by Staff, including an additional indemnification condition.
The subject parcel is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of S. Cherry Avenue and E. Jefferson Avenue and approximately 0.25 miles east from the unincorporated community of Easton (APN: 334-090-02).
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended action. This item comes before your Board on appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial (6 to 0, with three commissioners absent) at its April 9, 2026 hearing. On appeal, the Appellant has requested to revise request and reduce the overall scope of the Variance by requesting the creation of two 3.37-acre parcels from an existing 6.74-acre parcel in the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District, rather than the creation of three parcels (one 2.74-acre parcel and two 2-acre parcels).
Department staff notes that the Zoning Ordinance requires your Board to determine, independent from the decision of the Planning Commission, whether the application should be approved, approved with stated conditions, or denied. A copy of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment B) dated April 9, 2026, includes background information and analysis of the original proposal. The Applicant’s appeal is included as Attachment C, which includes as discussion of the reduced number of requested parcels. This item pertains to a location in District 1.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Your Board may choose to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application (VA) No. 4201 if unable to make all four required findings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended action. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant/Owner has paid $7,030 in land use processing fees to the County for the processing of the Variance Request. The Appellant/Owner paid $555 in fees to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal, as originally considered by the Planning Commission, was to allow the creation of a 2.74-acre parcel, and two 2-acre parcels from an existing 6.74-acre parcel located in the AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District with a mapping procedure to follow. In the appeal, the Applicant requested to modify their proposal to create two 3.37-acre parcels.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Chapter 860.5, the following four Findings must be made:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other property in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification; and
2. Such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification.
3. The granting of a Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the vicinity in which the property is located.
4. The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
Department staff would like to clarify that the subject parcel, which is located within the County-adopted Easton Community Plan, has a land use designation of Low-Density Residential Reserve with a Public Facilities overlay for a future elementary school. Section 771-01:1.00b of the Easton Community Plan defines reserves as land designated for limited agricultural with an indicated future urban use. Low Density Residential allows for one dwelling unit per 36,000 square feet with the provision of urban services, specifically community water and sewer systems. Department staff notes that community sewer and water are not currently available to the site. It should also be noted that both the Washington Union Unified School District and Washington Colony Elementary School District indicated they do not anticipate future construction of a new school on the subject parcel.
Although the reserve designation cites the potential for a future smaller parcel size, subdivision to that size would require approval of a rezoning and the availability of urban services, which are not currently provided to the area. Also, while there are no future plans to establish an elementary school on the subject parcel, the request to create two 3.37-acre parcels could frustrate future attempts to subdivide due to the general difficulty of assembling smaller parcels under different ownership into a single development proposal. In addition, further division of the 6.74-acre parcel would make it less consistent with the existing AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
At its April 9, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Department’s staff report, staff’s presentation, and testimony from the Applicant/Owner’s representative. Three letters of opposition were received via email the morning of the hearing, and copies of the letters were printed and provided to the Planning Commission during the hearing (Attachment E). The letters raised concerns regarding groundwater demand, traffic safety, and that approval of the VA No. 4201 would conflict with the area’s agricultural zoning and active agricultural uses and could encourage additional parcelization in the area. It should be noted that staff, in its report to the Planning Commission, was unable to recommend making Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as required for approval of a Variance.
Following staff’s presentation, the Applicant’s representative testified in support of making Findings Nos. 1, 2, and 4.
After the Planning Commission considered public testimony from the Applicants and the public, a motion was made to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny VA No. 4201 based on the inability to make the required findings.
On April 21, 2026, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny VA No. 4201, with the stated reason for the appeal being that the Applicant believes the subject parcel has a unique legal and historical status that the Planning Commission did not sufficiently consider in their decision (Attachment C). In the appeal, the Applicant modified their proposal from creating a 2.74-acre parcel, and two 2-acre parcels, to creating two 3.37-acre parcels. The site plan for this revised configuration is included as Attachment D. The Applicant believes this revised request strengthens the case for granting the appeal.
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting approval of VA No. 4201, then it would be appropriate to grant the appeal and approve the revised Variance Application (stating in its motion the manner in which the four required Findings can be made) subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval (Attachment F) and any additional conditions your Board determines appropriate.
Staff recommends that if your Board approves the request, the following indemnification and Site Plan compliance conditions be included in your motion:
1) The Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for all legal costs associated with its approval of VA No. 4201 and provide security in an amount determined by the County for any such legal costs incurred. The agreement and payment of security shall be due unless the litigation period has expired, in which case the requirements for the indemnification agreement and security shall be considered null and void.
2) Development shall be in substantial compliance with the modified Site Plan to create two 3.37-acre parcels as approved by the Board.
Staff also notes that should the Variance be approved, the Variance will expire two years from the date of your Board’s approval unless a mapping application to create the parcels is filed. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays, the Applicant may request a time extension to be presented to the Planning Commission.
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting VA No. 4201, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial would be appropriate.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
It has been determined pursuant to Article 5: Review for Exemption, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines: the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - G
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia