## Facts

- Jay Cormier bought a 7-acre unimproved parcel near the U.S. Highway 101/Thompson Road interchange in San Luis Obispo County for $150,000.
- At purchase, the parcel was designated for highway commercial use (C-1-D), and Cormier intended to develop a motel-restaurant.
- During a comprehensive revision of the South County General Plan, county planning staff proposed changing the parcel’s designation to rural-residential, substantially limiting permissible development.
- Cormier opposed the proposed change through contacts with the planning department and efforts to influence local advisory input.
- The Planning Commission recommended, and the Board of Supervisors adopted, the amended land use element and implementing ordinance that down-zoned the parcel.
- Cormier alleged the down-zoning reduced the property’s value and claimed the action was arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, and invalid because the Board did not make specific findings tying the change to public health, safety, and welfare.
- Cormier sought a writ of mandate compelling reclassification/rezoning back to commercial and sought declaratory relief invalidating the amendment as applied; the trial court denied relief and upheld the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether a county’s adoption of a general plan amendment that results in rezoning is a legislative act that requires specific findings of fact.
2. Whether the down-zoning of Cormier’s parcel was arbitrary, discriminatory, or an unconstitutional exercise of the police power.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment denying mandamus and declaratory relief.
- The court held that a general plan amendment resulting in rezoning is a legislative act and does not require specific findings of fact.
- Applying deferential review, the court upheld the amendment and ordinance as valid and constitutional, rejecting the claim that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption or amendment of a county general plan that effectuates rezoning is a legislative act.
- Legislative zoning enactments are presumed constitutional and are upheld if reasonably related to legitimate public purposes under a “fairly debatable” standard.
- Specific findings of fact are generally required for quasi-judicial land-use decisions, but not for legislative rezoning through general plan amendments.
- A decrease in permissible uses or property value, standing alone, does not invalidate a zoning change if the regulation bears a reasonable relation to public health, safety, or welfare.

## Conclusion

The court treated the county’s comprehensive general plan amendment and resulting down-zoning as a legislative act entitled to a presumption of validity and “fairly debatable” deference, holding that no express findings were required and that the rezoning was a constitutional exercise of the police power.


Cormier v. County of San Luis Obispo, 161 Cal. App. 3d 850, 207 Cal. Rptr. 880 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)