Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV810069.
ORDER MODIFYING CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
Mihara, J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the concurring and dissenting opinion filed herein on April 24, 2008 be modified as follows:
On page 17 of the concurrence and dissent, delete the second full paragraph and replace it with the following three paragraphs:
Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d) provides that certain types of lot line adjustments are not subject to rules otherwise applicable to subdivisions. (Gov. Code, § 66412.) It specifies that the agency charged with reviewing and approving lot line adjustments is limited to determining whether the parcels created by the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning ordinances and “shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment” except to ensure conformance with local zoning ordinances or for other specified purposes not relevant here. (Gov. Code, § 66412, subd. (d).)
The current version of Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d) permits consideration of whether the parcels will conform to the general plan and conditions to ensure conformance with the general plan in addition to conformance with zoning ordinances.
Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d)’s restrictions currently apply only where there is “[a] lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels.” (Gov. Code, § 66412, subd. (d), italics added.) However, at the time of the 1998 conditional approval and the 1999 recordation of the notice of approval of B&B’s lot line adjustment, Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d)’s restrictions applied to “[a] lot line adjustment between two or more existing adjacent parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created . . . .” (Stats. 1994, ch. 458, § 2.) B&B’s lot line adjustment was between nine existing adjacent parcels, and it created just two parcels. Therefore, the version of Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d) then in effect precluded the imposition of any condition that was not designed to ensure conformance with the City of Mountain View’s zoning ordinances.
Nevertheless, the condition was not invalid. The lot line adjustment condition provided that “[a]ll development rights for Parcel 2 have been transferred to Parcel 1 and incorporated into the approved project, No. 028-98-PCZA [the Microsoft campus].” This condition was aimed at ensuring conformance with the City of Mountain View’s FAR restrictions in its zoning ordinance. B&B was permitted to build more floor area on Parcel 1 than the zoning ordinance permitted solely because it was allowed to use the acreage of Parcel 2 to supplement the acreage of Parcel 1 in the FAR calculation. By precluding the utilization of development rights on Parcel 2 that had already been used to develop Parcel 1, the lot line adjustment condition ensured conformance with the zoning ordinance’s FAR restrictions. As this type of condition is permitted under Government Code section 66412, subdivision (d), the lot line adjustment condition was not invalid.
This modification does not affect the judgment.