California Legal Brief

The Rule of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development is that a city does not abuse its discretion in approving a mixed-use housing project without requiring a master plan when the general plan uses discretionary language ("encourage") regarding joint redevelopment and the project furthers the plan's substantive objectives for improved circulation, access, and residential uses, under circumstances where the general plan policy contains undefined terms, aspirational goals, and acknowledges practical difficulties with joint redevelopment.

Appeal from denial of petitions for writ of mandate and post-judgment costs order in Superior Court, Contra Costa County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development — a group opposing the infill housing project on an aging shopping center site.

Defendant Respondent was City of San Ramon — the municipal agency that approved the mixed-use development project after finding it consistent with the general plan and exempt from CEQA review.

The suit sounded in administrative mandamus challenging municipal land use approvals. The case also included a CEQA challenge and a dispute over record preparation costs.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were TRC's proposal to redevelop 3.91 acres of the Marketplace Center shopping center by demolishing a former grocery store and building 44 residential units plus renovating a Starbucks, which Citizens claimed violated general plan requirements for a "master plan" and mixed-use design standards.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied both petitions for writ of mandate and awarded costs to the city, ruling that substantial evidence supported the city's consistency findings and CEQA exemption determination.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the city abused its discretion by approving the project without requiring a master plan as allegedly mandated by the general plan; 2. Whether the project qualified as "horizontal mixed use" under the zoning ordinance; 3. Whether the project was properly exempt from CEQA review; 4. Whether the city could recover record preparation costs when the petitioner elected to prepare the administrative record.

The Appellate Court held that the city did not abuse its discretion because the general plan's master plan policy used discretionary "encourage" language rather than mandatory requirements, contained undefined terms and aspirational goals, and the project addressed the policy's substantive objectives for improved circulation and mixed uses even without a formal master plan.

The case is inapplicable when the general plan contains concrete, unambiguous mandatory requirements using clear directive language, when the project fails to address any of the general plan's substantive objectives, or when the general plan defines key terms with specificity rather than using aspirational language.

The case leaves open how to analyze master plan requirements when general plans contain mandatory rather than discretionary language, the scope of deference owed to cities when general plan language is more specific and defined, and the application of Housing Accountability Act protections in cases where consistency findings are not upheld.