Filed 2/6/18 Bussard v. City of Santa Rosa CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


PAUL BUSSARD et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA,
Defendant and Respondent;
REAL EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.

A148882

(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. SCV-256670)


I. INTRODUCTION
Appellants Paul Bussard and Lynn Denley-Bussard (the Bussards) filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to set aside several approvals granted by the City of Santa Rosa (the City) relating to a housing development project (the project) proposed by real parties in interest, Real Equity Partners, LLC and Real Equity Property Holdings, LLC (the Developers). The trial court denied the petition, finding that the City followed proper procedures and acted within its authority. The Bussards contend they are entitled to writ relief because the project violates (1) Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (the general plan), and (2) provisions of the Santa Rosa City Code that protect trees impacted by development. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
II. THE GENERAL PLAN
A preliminary overview of the City’s general plan provides context for our review. Every county and city must adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 65300.) The “general plan provides a ‘ “charter for future development” ’ and sets forth a city or county’s fundamental policy decisions about such development. [Citation.] These policies ‘typically reflect a range of competing interests.’ [Citation.] Nevertheless, a city’s land use decisions must be consistent with the policies expressed in the general plan. [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815.)
The parties submitted a joint request that the trial court take judicial notice of several excerpts from the general plan that was in effect when the project at issue in this case was approved. With the caveat that these excerpts are not comprehensive, we discern some useful facts about the nature and purpose of the City’s general plan.
The general plan serves the following functions: It “[o]utlines a vision of long-range physical and economic development that reflects the aspirations of the community, and provides specific implementing policies that will allow this vision to be accomplished”; “[e]stablishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with said vision”; “[a]llows city departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards”; and “[p]rovides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs such as the Zoning Code.”
The general plan is divided into 13 chapters with the following titles: (1) Introduction; (2) Land Use and Livability; (3) Urban Design; (4) Housing; (5) Transportation; (6) Public Services and Facilities; (7) Open Space and Conservation; (8) Growth Management; (9) Youth and Family; (10) Economic Vitality; (11) Historic Preservation; (12) Noise and Safety; and (13) Arts and Culture. Aside from the introduction, each chapter addresses a distinct “element” of the general plan, and is “organized to provide a short statement of existing conditions and vision, followed by goals and policies. In some instances, commentary is also included.” Elements of the general plan are often referred to by their acronyms. Goals and policies are tied to a given element by reference to the acronym for that element.
The Bussards focus their appeal on two elements of the general plan, Land Use and Livability (LUL) and Growth Management (GM). Chapter 2, which addresses the Land Use and Livability element, incorporates a “Land Use Diagram” that “designates the proposed general location, distribution, and extent of land uses” for parcels of property within the City’s jurisdiction. According to the general plan, the “text, goals, and policies of the Land Use and Livability Element and the Land Use Diagram . . . constitute the physical framework for the General Plan.” Each parcel of property is assigned a land use classification on the “Land Use Diagram.” For residential property, there are seven possible classifications, ranging from “Country Residential” (5 to 20 acres per residential unit), to “Mobile Home Parks” (4.0 to 18 residential units per gross acre).
Chapter 8 addresses Growth Management, an element that was added to the general plan in 1991 “in response to record growth in the mid-1980’s and concern regarding the city’s ability to provide adequate services.” The purpose of this element is to balance new development with other factors, such as the City’s ability to provide necessary services to the new area, the protection of existing social and economic values, conservation of open space and natural resources, the provision of decent housing to all income levels, community goals regarding overall size and character of the City, and stable growth supportive of a healthy business economy.
Finally, we note that the general plan is designed to be amended. Chapter 1-7, which is titled “Changing the General Plan,” makes four basic points. First, although the general plan is a “premier policy document” that “is not changed without good cause,” it can be amended for a variety of reasons, including “circumstances” that arise in the community; “changing policies” of the city council; or in order to better “meet the needs of the community.” Second, chapter 1-7 clarifies that either the “Land Use Diagram or the text of any element” of the general plan “may be amended”; that an application for an amendment may be filed by a project applicant or may be initiated by various city officials; and that a general plan amendment may be processed concurrently with other land use applications. Third, chapter 1-7 states that “[a]pplications for General Plan Amendment must address why an amendment is warranted, describe events which have rendered the General Plan inadequate or unattainable, and describe any studies which have brought policies or portions of the plan into question.” Finally, chapter 1-7 limits the number of general plan amendments to three times per year, and specifies application deadlines and hearing schedules consistent with that restriction.
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Project
Developers own 408 Calistoga Road, a 0.99-acre parcel located in the Monte Verde subdivision of Santa Rosa (the property). There is a single family home on the property, which is accessed by a driveway connecting to Calistoga Road. The property is bordered on one side by a school, and on the other by a lot on the corner of Calistoga Road and Monte Verde Drive. The back border of the property abuts a larger parcel with an address on Monte Verde Drive, which is owned by the Bussards.
On October 1, 2013, Developers filed an application for a general plan amendment to change the land use designation for the property on the “Land Use Diagram” in the general plan from “Very Low Density Residential” to “Low Density Residential.” The “Very Low Density” classification authorizes “[r]esidential development from 0.2 to 2.0 units per gross acre.” According to the general plan, “[t]his density range accommodates rural and hillside developments within the UGB[ ] and is intended for single family detached units, but clustered single family attached and multifamily may be permitted.” The “Low Density” classification that the Developers requested would allow them to use the property for “[s]ingle family residential development at density of 2.0 to 8.0 units per gross acre.” According to the general plan, this “classification is mainly intended for detached single family dwellings, but attached single family and multiple family units may be permitted.”
As part of their application for a general plan amendment, the Developers provided the following answers to the questions outlined in chapter 1-7 of the general plan: “Question: Why do you want a General Plan Amendment? [¶] Response: The City’s encouraged infill development. It’s serviced by transit routes. [¶] Question: What changes or events have occurred or what new evidence has arisen since the General Plan was adopted which now warrant a change? [¶] Response: The need for housing. Infill housing is a method to achieve this. [¶] Question: Have detailed neighborhood plans or other studies revealed the need for a General Plan Amendment? [¶] Response: Not that we’re aware of. [¶] Question: Describe the effect the proposed change will have on the surrounding uses. Describe how the proposed change will affect achievement of the General Plan in this and the surrounding area. [¶] Response: Impacts to the neighbors are negligible. The site takes its access off Calistoga road with a minor adjustment to the existing driveway. When compared to surrounding sites by using a current aerial view, this proposal is consistent in terms [of] scope and scale. Infill on this site will provide additional needed housing opportunities.”
In addition to their application for a general plan amendment, the Developers also filed applications for the property to be rezoned from the “Rural Residential” (RR-40) zoning district to the “Single-Family Residential” (R-1-6) zoning district; approval of a tentative parcel map, subdividing the property into four lots and authorizing construction of three additional homes on the newly subdivided lots; and an environmental assessment of the project impacts.
In May 2014, the City’s Department of Community Development completed an initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the project. According to that study, the “project would not result in potentially significant impacts.” The Department reported that “[t]he Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document has been prepared in consultation with local, and state responsible and trustee agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)” and would “serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for any subsequent phases of the project and for the permits/approvals required by a responsible agency.”
In June 2014, the City’s planning commission held a public hearing to address whether it should approve the project. A staff report prepared by the Department of Community Development recommended that the commission (1) approve the mitigated negative declaration and tentative parcel map, and (2) recommend that the city council approve a general plan amendment and rezone the property. The staff report discussed several substantive issues, including the Developers’ responses to questions about the need for a general plan amendment, general plan goals applicable to the project, findings required to make a general plan amendment, pertinent provisions of the zoning law, and the environmental review that was completed.
The staff report also addressed concerns raised by neighboring property owners, including increased density, disruption of the rural environment, and traffic impacts. Staff advised the commission about a petition signed by the Bussards and others who objected to the project on the following grounds: (1) the proposed subdivision would violate “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions” (CC&R’s) governing the Monte Verde subdivision, which established that the acceptable lot size was between 1 and 1.6 acres, and limited building to one single family unit per lot; (2) rezoning the property would endanger the “rural lifestyle” of residents in the neighborhood; (3) neighbors opposed high density developments; (4) no other lots bordering Calistoga Road had additional homes built behind the home that fronted the road; and (5) the proposed lot configuration would require four homes to share a driveway, while no other homes in the area shared a driveway.
At the planning commission hearing, the city planner presented the staff report and took questions, Developers made a presentation, and the assistant city attorney answered questions about the impact of CC&R’s on the project. Several members of the public commented on the project, including the Bussards who each gave powerpoint presentations and voiced their opposition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the planning commission passed a resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration, and the tentative parcel map subdividing the property into four lots. The Commission also passed resolutions recommending that the city council approve the general plan amendment; rezone the property from rural residential to single-family residential; and approve the tentative parcel map.
The Bussards filed an appeal with the City, urging the city council to reject the planning commission recommendations. A public hearing on the appeal was held on September 16, 2014. At the conclusion of that hearing, a motion to deny the appeal and adopt the commission’s findings and recommendations failed to pass by a vote of three to four. The following week, however, the council passed a motion to reconsider their vote on the project.
On November 18, 2014, the City held another public hearing on the project. Presentations were made and members of the public were invited to speak. Then, the city council took another vote, passing resolutions to (1) deny the Bussards’ appeal and adopt the mitigated negative declaration for the project, (2) approve the general plan amendment changing the designation for the property from very low density residential to low density residential, and (3) approve a tentative parcel map subdividing the property into four lots, subject to an amendment that would require hand trenching around oak trees, an onsite arborist, and screening along the shared property line if requested by the adjacent residents.
At the November 18, 2014 hearing, the city council also voted to adopt an ordinance amending the Santa Rosa City Code and reclassifying the property to a different zoning district. However, when the ordinance was submitted for a “second reading” at a December 2, 2014 city council meeting, there were insufficient votes to adopt it, with three members in favor, three opposed, and one absent. The matter was continued for consideration and action at a future meeting.
On January 6, 2015, the city council held another public hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Staff recommended that the council approve the ordinance to rezone the property. Pertinent reports and documents were submitted and members of the public were invited to comment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the motion to adopt the ordinance was passed by a vote of five to two.
B. The Writ Proceeding
On January 30, 2015, the Bussards filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to set aside (1) the resolution approving the general plan amendment that changed the property designation from very low density residential to low density residential, (2) the resolution approving the tentative parcel map subdividing the property, and (3) the ordinance rezoning the property from rural residential to single family residential. The Bussards alleged that the City abused its discretion by failing to consider pertinent provisions of the general plan, failing to proceed in the manner required by law, and making findings that were not supported by evidence.
On May 11, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the merits of the petition. The tentative ruling was to deny the petition based on evidence that the City followed proper procedure and did not exceed its authority, and that the project addressed a critical need, “a shortage of housing in the city of Santa Rosa.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adopted its tentative ruling and denied the petition.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The General Plan Amendment
1. Issues Presented and Standard of Review
Most of the issues on appeal pertain to the general plan amendment, which, as discussed above, changed the classification of the Developers’ property from very low density to low density. The Bussards contend that the City’s approval of this amendment must be set aside because (1) the project is not consistent with the general plan; (2) the City failed to consider the correct criteria for evaluating a proposed amendment to the general plan; and (3) the plan amendment is not in the public interest. The Bussards further contend that, without the amendment, the other approvals that were issued in connection with this project must also be reversed.
“ ‘The adoption or amendment of a general plan is a legislative act. (Gov. Code, § 65301.5.) A legislative act is presumed valid, and a city need not make explicit findings to support its action. [Citations.] A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government’s policy decisions. [Citation.] Judicial review of a legislative act under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is limited to determining whether the public agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 509.)
2. Project Consistency
The Bussards’ contention that the project is not consistent with the general plan implicates a second layer of review that dovetails with the standard set forth above. A city’s determination that a project is consistent with its general plan “comes to this court with a strong presumption of regularity. [Citation.] To overcome that presumption, an abuse of discretion must be shown. [Citation.]” (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 514.) As our Supreme Court has recently confirmed, “a consistency determination is entitled to deference as an extension of a planning agency’s ‘ “unique competence to interpret [its] policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” ’ [Citations.] Reviewing courts must defer to a procedurally proper consistency finding unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion. [Citations.]” (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 155.)
Here, we find that a reasonable person presented with the information summarized in the staff reports presented to the planning commission and the city council could conclude that the project is consistent with the general plan. The pertinent evidence shows, among other things, that the project will provide housing through the City’s preferred method of infill development, and that it will have a negligible impact on neighbors. Furthermore, the project area is surrounded by similar residential uses; the increased density will provide housing opportunities within walking distance of public transportation, a commercial center, schools and recreation areas; the project site is physically suitable for the increased density because services and utilities are already available; and the rural quality of Monte Verde Road (the Bussards’ street) will be preserved because access to the new homes will be directly off Calistoga Road.
The City also acted reasonably by determining that the project will advance six express goals of the general plan: fostering a compact rather than scattered development pattern by reducing travel, energy, land, and materials consumption (LUL-A); promoting livable neighborhoods by ensuring compliance with high building standards, and ensuring that everyday services, parks, and schools are within walking distance (LUL-E); enhancing the diverse character of neighborhoods (UD-F); designing safe, human-scaled and livable neighborhoods through compact development, multi-modal connectivity, and reducing energy use (UD-G); preventing “urban sprawl by focusing growth within the Urban Growth Boundary (GM-A); and meeting the housing needs of the City’s residents (H-A). With regard to this last goal, the project would also advance a stated policy in the general plan (policy H-A-2) to “pursue the goal of meeting Santa Rosa’s housing needs through increased densities, when consistent with preservation of existing neighborhoods.”
The Bussards contend that the plan amendment changing the classification for the property violates two “mandatory” policies in the general plan and, therefore, it does not matter whether the project is consistent with many or even most of the goals and policies in the general plan.
“[G]eneral and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. An agency, therefore, has the discretion to approve a plan even though the plan is not consistent with all of a specific plan’s policies. It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan. [Citations.]” (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510–1511; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719 720.)
Nevertheless, even under our deferential standard of review, a consistency determination will be overturned if a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence that was before the local governing body. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1338 (FUTURE).) Therefore, inconsistency with even one general plan policy may be “enough to scuttle a project,” if that policy is “fundamental, mandatory and . . . clear” and the record compels the conclusion that the policy was violated. (Id. at pp. 1341–1342; see also Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782.)
FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, was a writ proceeding challenging a county’s approval of a massive residential subdivision project in an open space area of rural El Dorado County, referred to as “Cinnabar.” (Id. at p. 1335.) In granting writ relief, the appellate court found, among other things, that the county’s approval of a low density residential (LDR) designation for Cinnabar was inconsistent with the land use element policy in the county’s draft general plan. That policy stated, in part: “ ‘The application of the LDR land use designation shall be further restricted to those lands contiguous to Community Regions and Rural Centers to provide for a transition of density into the Rural Regions. This designation shall not be assigned to lands which are separated from Community Regions or Rural Centers by the Rural Residential land use designation, nor any areas contiguous to Natural Resources unless it is for the purpose of recognizing existing platted lands (lands which have previously been subdivided.[).]’ ” (Id. at p. 1340.)
In concluding that the county abused its discretion, the FUTURE court acknowledged that a project does not need to be in complete conformity with every policy in a general plan, but it reasoned that “the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1341.) In the case before the court, the land use policy was “fundamental” because it was identified as such in the draft general plan, and the policy was also “mandatory and anything but amorphous . . . .” (Id. at pp. 1341–1342.) Furthermore, the project’s “inconsistency with this fundamental, mandatory and specific land use policy” was “clear” because there was no conflicting evidence. (Id. at p. 1342.) In this regard, the court found that undisputed, unequivocal evidence established that granting Cinnabar a LDR designation violated every restriction in the policy quoted above and that no reasonable person could conclude otherwise. (Id. at pp. 1340–1341.) Under these circumstances, the county’s finding that the project was consistent with other general policies in the plan could not be used to “overcome the specific, mandatory and fundamental inconsistencies with the LDR land use polices noted above.” (Id. at p. 1432.)
In the present case, the Bussards contend that this case is analogous to FUTURE because the Developers’ project is inconsistent with two fundamental, mandatory and specific policies in the general plan. We disagree, for the following reasons.
First, the Bussards rely on LUL-E-4, which states: “Protect the rural quality of Very Low Density areas within the Urban Growth Boundary through design and development standards in the Zoning Code, and development review.” The Bussards characterize LUL-E-4 as a “specific and mandatory” policy requiring the City to protect the rural quality of 408 Calistoga Road because it is a low density area. They contend that the general plan amendment changing the classification of the property from very low density to low density violates this mandate because it does not protect the rural nature of the property.
This interpretation of LUL-E-4—which would essentially preclude the City from ever changing a very low density classification—is not compelled by the language of the policy itself and is not consistent with the rest of the general plan. LUL-E-4 is part of chapter 2-6, which sets forth several goals attendant to the land use and livability element, and several policies relating to these goals. LUL-E-4 is directly tied to goal LUL-E, which states: “Promote livable neighborhoods by requiring compliance with green building programs to ensure that new construction meets high standard of energy efficiency and sustainable material use. Ensure that everyday shopping, park and recreation facilities, and schools are within easy walking distance of most residents.” LUL-E-4 is one of five policies designed to implement goal LUL-E. In other words, protecting the rural quality of a neighborhood is only one of several potentially competing factors the City considers when pursuing its goal of promoting livable neighborhoods. This policy is not even remotely analogous to the fundamental, mandatory directive at issue in FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 1332.
Furthermore, the record does not support the Bussards’ contention that the City failed to consider this policy. The record contains substantial evidence that 408 Calistoga Road can be subdivided into four lots without damaging the rural nature of nearby properties on Monte Verde Drive. The assistant city manager made this very point at one of the many hearings in this matter: “The project site is located on the perimeter of the Monte Verde neighborhood and takes access off Calistoga Road. While it was included as part of the Monte Verde annexation, it is functionally part of the Calistoga Road residential neighborhood because of its orientation. [¶] . . . The proposed subdivision does not include any changes (e.g. street lights, sidewalk, etc) along Monte Verde Drive keeping the rural character of the Monte Verde neighborhood intact.”
The second policy the Bussards invoke is GM-A-2, a policy associated with the growth management element, which states: “Clarify to project applicants that the low-intensity General Plan designations are not ‘interim’ and that the intent of these designations is to accommodate a variety of housing types within the UGB, rather than reserve areas for future development.” This policy is supplemented with the following commentary: “This applies specifically to the rural Very Low Density Residential designation, as rural residential pockets will be retained within Santa Rosa’s UGB to accommodate all lifestyles.”
The Bussards propose two alternative interpretations of GM-A-2, thus undermining their own premise that this policy is a clear and mandatory directive. First, they contend that GM-A-2 mandates that very low density classifications are not “interim,” which means they are permanent. Under this interpretation, a very low density classification can never be changed. There are several problems with this interpretation of policy GM-A-2.
First, on its face, GM-A-2 does not mandate anything. The fact that a classification is not “interim” does not mean it can never be changed. If the City had intended to make this classification permanent, it could easily have said so. Second, when viewed in context, GM-A-2 cannot be reasonably interpreted as precluding the City from ever changing the classification of a very low density parcel. As noted in our overview, the Growth Management element was added to the general plan for the express purpose of encouraging decision makers to balance a variety of factors when considering whether to approve new development. GM-A-2, the policy the Bussards’ construe in isolation, is intended to advance the following goal: “Prevent urban sprawl by focusing growth within the Urban Growth Boundary.” Other policies associated with this goal emphasize the need to contain development within the UGB (which the project in this case does). When viewed as a whole, these policies require the City to balance two potentially conflicting factors—the desire to preserve rural very low density areas and the desire to contain growth within a defined area. The Bussards ignore this balancing test by misinterpreting one policy as trumping the others.
A third problem with this interpretation is that construing GM-A-2 to preclude changing a “Very Low Density” classification ignores the fact that a fundamental purpose of the general plan is to outline the procedures for effectuating such a change when necessary to proceed with a project that furthers the overall goals of the general plan.
The Bussards argue in the alternative that the City violated GM-A-2 because of the way it evaluated the Developers’ application. Under this theory, GM-A-2 is a “fundamental” and “mandatory” policy that commands the City to take affirmative action by clarifying to project applicants that low density classifications are not interim classifications. The Bussards contend that the City violated this policy because there is no evidence that the City performed its mandatory obligation to convey this message to the Developers. This interpretation dilutes the value of GM-A-2 by mischaracterizing it as a procedural obligation, which would do little to advance the Growth Management goal of preventing urban sprawl. As discussed, when this policy is viewed in context, its obvious function is to ensure that classification changes are not made without considering the impact on the rural character of the area.
The Bussards repeatedly complain that there is no evidence in the record that the City actually considered GM-A-2, or found that this policy was consistent with a plan amendment changing the density classification of the property. Again, the record shows otherwise. Indeed, the Bussards themselves repeatedly invoked this policy during proceedings before the City.
The Bussards concede they relied on GM-A-2, but insist that their concerns were ignored. The fact that the City did not accept the Bussards’ arguments does not compel the conclusion that this policy was ignored. Rather, under our deferential standard of review, the undisputed fact that the Bussards repeatedly invoked GM-A-2 constitutes substantial evidence that the City did consider this policy, but disagreed with the Bussards’ contention that this policy required the City to disapprove the project. On this record, the City’s conclusion was reasonable.
3. Procedure for Changing the General Plan
The Bussards contend that the resolution approving the plan amendment was arbitrary and capricious because the City failed to “consider” the “criteria” for adopting a plan amendment. The record shows otherwise.
The findings that are required to make a general plan amendment are set forth in the City’s zoning code. Specifically, the City must find: (1) “The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan”; (2) “The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City”; (3) “The site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested/anticipated land use developments”; and (4) “The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
In this case, the City’s staff reports explicitly addressed these requirements and summarized evidence supporting each of the findings. That evidence showed that the project is consistent with the general plan because it “is surrounded by similar residential uses and the increased density along an arterial street provides housing opportunities within walking distance of public transportation, a commercial center, schools and recreation areas”; the project site is physically suitable for increased density because utility, emergency, community, commercial, and transit services are all readily available; the project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and the CEQA review was successfully completed.
The Bussards do not challenge the City’s findings on any of these matters. Instead, they contend that chapter 1-7 of the general plan imposes additional requirements that the City ignored in the present case. As noted in our overview, chapter 1-7 states that an application for a general plan amendment “must address why an amendment is warranted, describe events which have rendered the General Plan inadequate or unattainable, and describe any studies which have brought policies or portions of the plan into question.” The Bussards construe this language as establishing a mandatory standard that restrains the City’s ability to amend the general plan by requiring it to make findings supported by the record evidence. We disagree. The mandatory language in this part of chapter 1-7 is directed at the project applicant, not at the City. Obviously, the questions that must be answered in the application pertain to information that will assist the City in making a determination about whether to approve the application. However, nothing in the language of chapter 1-7 supports the Bussards’ argument that this provision restricts the City’s discretion to determine whether a plan amendment is warranted.
The Bussards argue that even if the application questions that are set forth in chapter 1-7 are “not part of the findings required under the Zoning Code, no reasonable person could have concluded that [these criteria] should not be considered, which is what happened in this case.” However, the record shows that these criteria were explicitly addressed in the staff reports and at the public hearings. The fact that the City did not use these criteria to deny the application for an amendment does not support the Bussards’ self-serving inference that the criteria were not considered at all.
4. The Public Interest
The Bussards argue that the general plan amendment is not in the public interest because there is “no evidence” that (1) there is a “critical need” for housing in Santa Rosa or (2) that the City was actually motivated by a desire to address a need for housing.
The Bussards provide no legal authority for their premise that the City had to make an affirmative finding that the project furthers the public interest. As noted earlier, the findings required to support a general plan amendment are set forth in the zoning code, and include a finding that “[t]he proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.” A finding that a project would not be detrimental to the public interest is not the same thing as a finding that a project will affirmatively serve the public interest.
The City’s finding that the general plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest is supported by substantial evidence that the project will not adversely impact the environment; is consistent with other developments in the area; can utilize existing safety, utility, and commercial services; and will provide housing within walking distance of transportation, schools, shops, and recreation areas.
B. The Tentative Parcel Map
In a separate argument, the Bussards challenge the City’s approval of the tentative parcel map subdividing the property into four lots. “Approval of a tentative subdivision map is a quasi-judicial act subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. [Citation.]” (Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 651, fn. 2.)
The Bussards contend that the City abused its discretion here because it approved a tentative parcel map that “violates” two requirements codified in section 17-24.050 of the Santa Rosa City Code (section 17-24.050), which regulates “[t]ree alteration, removal or relocation on property proposed for development.” In this argument, the Bussards accuse the Developers of violating two distinct provisions of section 17-24.050.
First, the Bussards rely on section 17-24.050(A), which states in relevant part: “All development proposals and subdivision applications shall clearly designate all trees and heritage trees on the property by trunk location and an accurate outline of each tree’s drip line and shall indicate those trees which are proposed to be altered, removed, or relocated and those trees proposed to be designated protected trees. The reasons for the proposed removal of any tree shall be stated in writing. The development plan or tentative subdivision map shall indicate the genus and species, the shape, the drip line and the trunk circumference of each tree and heritage tree. These tree delineations must also be shown on every page of the development and improvement plans where any work is proposed within the root zone of any tree . . . .”
The Bussards argue that section 17-24.050(A) requires that “the tentative subdivision map shall indicate the drip line of each tree and heritage tree,” and that the Developers’ map (that the City approved) violates this requirement because it does not “show the correct drip line of trees” that are currently on the property. This argument fails because the Bussards misconstrue the relevant language in this code provision.
Section 17-24.050(A) does not state that a tentative parcel map must depict the correct drip line of trees. It states that the genus, species, shape, drip line, and trunk circumference of each tree must be indicated on “[t]he development plan or tentative subdivision map.” (Italics added.) The City opines that it makes sense to provide a developer with this option of using the development plan to document its compliance with this tree ordinance because the tentative parcel map is only a preliminary step in the construction process. In any event, the first prong of the Bussards’ claim rests on the false premise that section 17-24.050(A) requires that the tentative parcel map depict the drip lines of trees on the property.
The second prong of the Bussards’ claim pertains to section 17-24.050(D), which states in part: “Protected Trees. The following requirements shall apply to every person who develops any property upon which a protected tree is located: [¶] . . . [¶] (5) No concrete or asphalt paving shall be placed over the root zones of protected trees. No artificial irrigation shall occur within the root zone of oaks. [¶] (6) No compaction of the soil within the root zone of protected trees shall occur.”
The Bussards argue that the Developers’ tentative parcel map violates section 17-24.050(D) because it depicts a concrete driveway that will be placed “within the root zones of Protected Tree numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7” on the property. This argument fails for two independent reasons.
First, the Bussards’ factual description of the tentative parcel map is not supported by the record citations they provide. Instead, they refer this court to two different maps, neither of which describes the type of material that will be used to construct a driveway on the property. Furthermore, although one map includes drawings of several trees near the border of the envisioned driveway, that map does not depict the root zones for those trees.
Second, the Bussards fail to justify their assumption that section 17-24.050(D) regulates the content of a tentative parcel map. Nothing in the language of that code provision supports this assumption. On its face, section 17-24.050(D) is a tree ordinance that affords substantive protection to trees during the actual construction process.
The parties argue extensively about whether the Developers will violate this tree ordinance if and when they implement their project. As these arguments are not relevant here we decline to address them. Instead, we hold that the Bussards have failed to establish that the City abused its discretion by approving the tentative parcel map.
V. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded costs on appeal.


 





_________________________
RUVOLO, P. J.


We concur:


_________________________
REARDON, J.


_________________________
STREETER, J.
























A148882, Bussard v. City of Santa Rosa