Opinion ID: 1436310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: (6a) The board of supervisors properly approved the final subdivision map for Rancho Del Dios.

Text: On October 25, 1975, when the board of supervisors approved the final subdivision map for Rancho Del Dios, the new San Dieguito Community Plan called for two-acre homesites in the area of the subdivision. (7) (See fn. 4.) Plaintiffs contend that the final subdivision map providing for lots of less than two acres conflicted with the general plan then in effect, and thus that the board's approval of that map violated Business and Professions Code sections 11526 and 11549.5. [4] (6b) The county and the developer in response maintain that under Business and Professions Code sections 11549.6 and 11611 the county was required to approve a final map which conformed to a properly approved tentative map if the subdivider had complied with all conditions attached to the approval of the tentative map. [5] We shall explain why we agree with the county's construction of the governing statutes. Prior to 1971, no statute required a subdivision map to conform to a general plan. With respect to approval of final maps, Business and Professions Code section 11610 [6] provided generally that a final map conforming to the approved or conditionally approved tentative map may be filed with the legislative body for approval after all required certificates on such map have been signed and, where necessary, acknowledged. Section 11611 then specified that The governing body shall at its next meeting or within a period of not more than 10 days after the filing approve the map if it conforms to all the requirements of this chapter and of any local ordinance applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map.... [7] If the governing body fails to act within the time limit the map, if it conforms to all the requirements above set forth, shall be deemed to be approved.... ( Id. ) The requirement that subdivision maps conform to a general plan was added by the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1301 in 1971. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1446, § 4, p. 2853 and § 7, p. 2856.) When first passed by the Assembly, the bill contained two provisions requiring final maps to conform to a general plan. Section 11526, subdivision (c) stated that No city or county shall approve a tentative or final subdivision map unless the governing body shall find that the proposed subdivision ... is consistent with applicable general or specific plans of the city or county. [8] (Italics added.) Section 11549.5 then specifically listed all grounds which require the governing body to deny approval of a final or tentative subdivision map; the first ground listed, in subdivision (a), is That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. [9] (Italics added.) Since no statute specified which general plan is applicable when the governing body takes up the question of approval of a final map, sections 11526 and 11549.5 could have been construed either to require a final map to conform to the general plan in effect when that map came before the governing body for approval, as plaintiffs contend, or to require it only to conform to the general plan in effect when the tentative map was approved. The state Senate, however, amended Assembly Bill No. 1301 to add an additional section which resolves this ambiguity. This new section, Business and Professions Code section 11549.6, provided that A governing body shall not deny approval of a final subdivision map pursuant to Section 11549.5 if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the final map is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map. [10] The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendment and the bill as finally enacted included section 11549.6. The purpose of section 11549.6, as we perceive it, was to confirm that the date when the tentative map comes before the governing body for approval is the crucial date when that body should decide whether to permit the proposed subdivision. Once the tentative map is approved, the developer often must expend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that approval. These expenditures will result in the construction of improvements consistent with the proposed subdivision, but often inconsistent with alternative uses of the land. Consequently it is only fair to the developer and to the public interest to require the governing body to render its discretionary decision whether and upon what conditions to approve the proposed subdivision when it acts on the tentative map. Approval of the final map thus becomes a ministerial act once the appropriate officials certify that it is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map. ( Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal. App.3d 403, 411, 414; Longtin, Cal. Land Use Regulations, op. cit. supra, at p. 600.) Plaintiffs, taking issue with our interpretation of section 11549.6, point out that although both sections 11526 and 11549.5 require the governing body to disapprove final maps which are not consistent with applicable general plans, section 11549.6 by its terms only limits the governing body's power under section 11549.5. Plaintiffs conclude that despite section 11549.6, the governing body under mandate of section 11526 must still disapprove a final map which does not conform to the general plan in effect when the final map is filed for approval. The narrow construction of section 11549.6 proposed by plaintiffs, however, would render the enactment of that section a futile and useless act insofar as it purports to bear upon the power of the governing body to reject a final map which fails to conform to the general plan. Because section 11549.5 was the provision in Assembly Bill No. 1301 which specifically listed each finding which compels rejection of a map, legislative attention was drawn to this provision; the amendment adding section 11549.6, we believe, was intended not merely to qualify the language of section 11549.5, but also to qualify the duty of the governing body, described by section 11549.5, to reject a final map which does not conform to an applicable plan. We conclude that the language and import of the three sections  11526, 11549.5, and 11549.6  can be reconciled, and each section given full effect, only if we construed the term applicable general plan in sections 11526 and 11549.5 to mean the general plan in effect when the tentative map was approved. [11] Plaintiffs do not contend that the final map for Rancho Del Dios does not substantially comply with the tentative map or that Santa Fe Company failed to fulfill the conditions attached to approval of the tentative map. Having held, as we stated earlier, that the board of supervisors properly approved the tentative map, we conclude that the board acted properly in approving the final map. [12]