Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae

MOLINARI, P. J.

Plaintiffs

1

and interveners

2

appeal from a judgment validating certain zoning ordinances and a “Project General Plan” applicable to interveners’ property but invalidating the “Project Precise Plan” submitted for interveners’ proposed real estate development.

3

In conjunction with the appeal we are called upon to decide certain motions which have heretofore been presented to us, the nature of which we shall discuss after delineating our scope of review and the facts of the instant ease.

Scope of Review

Since these appeals are taken on the clerk’s transcript alone, the following rules of review apply: the record before us consists properly of only the judgment, findings of fact and conclusions of law in support thereof, and the pleadings ; we are not concerned with evidence taken in the trial court, either orally or through the admission of exhibits (whether or not said exhibits are incorporated into the clerk’s transcript); we presume that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court; and we are confined to the question whether the judgment is supported by the findings and whether reversible error appears upon the face of the record.

(Crummer

v.

Zalk,

248 Cal.App.2d 794, 797 [57 Cal.Rptr 185];

Pfleg

v.

Pfleg,

168 Cal.App.2d 53, 55-56 [335 P.2d 131];

Tibbets

v.

Robb,

158 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [322 P.2d 585];

White

v.

Jones,

136 Cal.App.2d 567, 569, 571 [288 P.2d 913].) Further, since none of the parties objected to the findings or conclusions of the court nor requested specific findings, we must resolve all conflicts and ambiguities in the findings in support of the judgment as well as infer logi