Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners explain variance rules and site-visit practices as residents push back on enforcement
Summary
Planning staff outlined the county variance process, when site visits occur, and the state-law findings required for numerical variances; public commenters criticized the countys use of variances and described instances where they believe staff relied on drawings rather than field verification.
County planning and building staff reviewed how variance and site-visit processes work during the committees Nov. 4 meeting, answering repeated public concerns that variances were being used to legalize construction after the fact.
Planning staff (Albert and colleagues) explained a variance is a discrete permit to provide relief from numerical zoning standards (for example, a setback or parking-space requirement) where unique lot characteristics make strict compliance impracticable; they stressed there is no "use variance" in California and that variances must meet state-law findings and often go to a Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing. "It is a specific permit that we issue," one staff member said. Staff said variances are issued several times a year to address odd lot shapes, slopes or other constraints and that they follow state-law findings and local code.
Public commenter Kelly Abreu sharply criticized county practice, saying variances are "rampantly" abused to legalize work already completed and that staff do not adequately verify site conditions before approving permits. She provided the Fairview example as an instance she said demonstrated ex post facto legalization.
Building department staff (Daniel) described two routine circumstances for site visits: code-required construction inspections (a permit-driven inspection sequence during active construction) and visits triggered by code-violation reports. Staff said for discretionary planning permits they typically request permission (an affidavit) to visit private property and prefer an invitational, guided visit rather than surprise inspections; staff also said they must report observed health and safety hazards encountered during any visit.
Supervisors balanced concerns about fairness with staff obligations. Several supervisors asked staff to be clear about what will be inspected and urged sensitivity to applicants while emphasizing legal obligations to report violations. Staff said they will work to provide clearer guidance to applicants and supervisors about what to expect from site visits and when variances are appropriate.
Next steps: staff offered to meet with applicants or community members who feel site visits are being handled insensitively and noted training for MAC/planning commissioners is available; no formal action was taken.
