California Legal Brief

The Rule of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development v. City of San Ramon is that a city does not abuse its discretion in approving an infill housing development despite general plan language encouraging preparation of a "master plan," under circumstances where the general plan uses discretionary language ("encourage") rather than mandatory requirements and the project achieves the substantive objectives of circulation, access, and visibility improvements while introducing mixed-use residential development.

Appeal from judgment after writ proceedings in Superior Court, Contra Costa County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development — a group opposing residential development of a former grocery store site at an aging shopping center.

Defendant Respondent was City of San Ramon — the municipal agency that approved the 44-unit residential development project and found it exempt from CEQA review.

The suit sounded in writ of mandate seeking to overturn municipal land use approvals. Citizens also sought declaratory relief and challenged CEQA exemption determinations.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were: TRC Retail owned Marketplace Center, a 1980s shopping center zoned for mixed use since 2006. After the Nob Hill Foods grocery store closed in 2019, TRC proposed to demolish the vacant grocery building and construct 44 residential condominium units plus renovate an existing Starbucks on 3.91 acres of the site. Citizens opposed the project, arguing it violated general plan policy 4.6-I-26 requiring preparation of a "master plan" for joint redevelopment with an adjacent site, and claiming the project was not properly classified as horizontal mixed use.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Citizens' petitions for writ of mandate and awarded costs to the city, ruling that substantial evidence supported the city's consistency findings with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and that the CEQA categorical exemption for infill development was properly applied.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the city abused its discretion by approving the project despite alleged conflicts with general plan master plan requirements and mixed-use zoning definitions. 2. Whether the city properly applied the CEQA categorical exemption for infill development. 3. Whether the trial court properly awarded administrative record preparation costs to the prevailing city.

The Appellate Court held that the city did not abuse its discretion in finding the project consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance, where the general plan policy used aspirational language to "encourage" master plan preparation "where feasible" rather than creating mandatory requirements, and where the project achieved the policy's substantive goals of improving circulation, access, and visibility while introducing residential uses, even without formal joint planning with the adjacent property owner.

The case is inapplicable when the general plan contains unambiguous mandatory requirements using definitive language rather than discretionary terms like "encourage," when a project fails to achieve the substantive objectives underlying general plan policies, or when no reasonable person could conclude a project furthers general plan objectives.

The case leaves open questions regarding the precise boundaries of when general plan language transitions from aspirational to mandatory, the specific requirements for "master plan" preparation when not defined in the general plan, and the standards for evaluating traffic impacts from "diversionary trips" in CEQA infill development exemptions.