COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Office of the County Counsel

 

 

To:                  Terry Burnes, Planning Administrator

                        Alison Sand, Planner

From:             County Counsel

Subject:         Rezoning Los Trancos Woods

Date:              April 10, 2001

 

You have forwarded to us questions from the Los Trancos Woods Community Association concerning a possible rezoning of the Los Trancos Woods unincorporated area. Here are our responses:

 

1.              Is it possible to link changes in building/zoning regulations to West Bay Sanitary District annexation? Is this “spot zoning?” An example would be to change building and zoning regulations that would attach only to the annexed area.

 

Building code regulations would not change, but zoning regulations could change under certain conditions. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the laws regulating Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCo) provide that a LAFCo decision approving an annexation cannot be conditioned on changes in land use density, property development or subdivision requirements. (Gov Code, § 56375, subdiv. (a).) Thus, LAFCo cannot condition approval of an annexation by requiring changes in local zoning. Any changes would have to be made by the local zoning authority itself. In this case, that would be the Board of Supervisors. From a legal perspective, it is theoretically possible that the Board could adopt different zoning requirements for lands within an annexed area, but there would need to be a legitimate rational basis to support the difference in treatment among property owners.

 

This would not be “spot zoning” in the traditional sense of the term. Spot zoning typically arises when one or a few parcels are rezoned in a manner that is substantially different than the zoning applied to surrounding parcels, and it usually involves down-zoning or a greater restriction on the use of the affected parcels. (See Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 960.) “Spot zoning” is illegal unless the agency can provide a legitimate rational basis to support the difference in treatment. Here, we assume that the intent is to apply different zoning to any parcel that is developed after annexation to the sanitary district, not just one or a few parcels. In that case, it would not fit the traditional definition of “spot zoning.”

 

However, whether or not the situation can be called “spot zoning,” the legal analysis is somewhat comparable. Any time similarly situated parcels are zoned differently, there is an issue whether the zoning violates the constitutional right to equal protection of the law. In order to be constitutional, the proposal will need a rational basis to support the differences in zoning standards.

 

2.              Could the community petition for changes that would occur simultaneously with annexation? Whether done simultaneous with or after annexation to West Bay, can a regulation be worded to run to all future West Bay annexation within Los Trancos Woods?

 

As indicated, LAFCo could not condition an annexation approval with zoning or other land use changes. However, the Board of Supervisors could adopt different zoning standards for parcels annexed to the district as long as there is a rational basis to support the difference in treatment. It would be legally preferable to enact this through a one-time rezoning of the zoning district and not rezoning of individual parcels on a case-by-case basis. Rezoning individual parcels could raise the issue of spot zoning as well as administrative and practical concerns.

 

Please feel free to call if you want to discuss this or need further information.

 

 

 

THOMAS F. CASEY, III, COUNTY COUNSEL

 

 

______________________________________

BY: MARY K. RAFTERY, DEPUTY

 

 

 

cc: Michael P. Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel