San Ramon: Firehouse 37 leaving Marketplace amid redevelopment plans

San Ramon’s Marketplace Shopping Center is set to be down by one more tenant in the coming days as a lawsuit against the city makes its way through county court, with a judge set to rule on the case later this month.

The bar and restaurant Firehouse 37 is the latest business to be vacating their space at the shopping center, with the last day of business set for Sunday.

“We appreciate and will forever cherish the friendships we have made,” Firehouse 37 management said in a note posted to the business’ door last month. “We thank everyone and the community for their continued support over the last 12 years.”

“Please be patient during these last couple of weeks, as this is an emotional time for our staff and we will be gradually offering a limited menu. We hope to see you all to say our goodbyes and farewells.”

The closure comes on the heels of the departure of CVS from the shopping center last month, and ahead of a hearing on the lawsuit from the group Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment Development (CAMPAD) seeking to halt redevelopment plans for the property that were approved by the city last year after an appeal from the group was rejected by the City Council.

CAMPAD organizers began the current court process on April 19, 2023, after the council rejected the group’s appeal that March of the city’s approval for the proposed Residences at Marketplace project, which would consist of 40 apartment units and four accessory dwelling units following the demolition of the existing commercial retail space.

In the initial petition filed last April, attorneys for CAMPAD from Greenfire Law called the planned redevelopment of the shopping center a “scheme” orchestrated by property owners TRC Companies Inc. “to exploit the Housing Accountability Act, make a mockery of the California Environmental Quality Act, and nullify the statutory and constitutional authority” of the City Council and Planning Commission.

While TRC has been the primary target of criticism from CAMPAD organizers in the lawsuit and elsewhere, the case is filed against the city, its council and planning commission, and Planning Services Manager Lauren Barr for what attorneys called their “acquiescence” in TRC’s alleged plan to take advantage of state affordable housing law as well as allegedly violating the city’s own laws and regulations in the process, including its General Plan and Mixed Use zoning regulations.

“Under the guise of powerful new laws intended to address the State’s serious housing shortage, TRC coerced the City to approve the demolition of a full-service grocery store building, dry cleaners, hair salon and pharmacy, totaling approximately 55,600 square feet of tenant space, to instead build only 40, million-dollar-plus condominiums at the absolute minimum residential density allowed on the project site,” attorneys for CAMPAD wrote in the initial petition.  

“This outcome may be immediately profitable for TRC, but it squanders a prime commercial site that offers the potential for significant housing and convenient, walkable shopping for a rapidly-growing nearby population,” they continued.

For their part, attorneys for the city from the law firm Burke, Williams, and Sorensen argued in an opposition brief that state housing law – specifically the Housing Accountability Act – did in fact prevent city officials from denying the application for the redevelopment project, alleging that “the tension between the HAA’s mandates and anti-housing politics is evident here.”

“The City found that the proposed infill housing development, replacing a surface parking lot and vacant grocery store, would advance the City’s vision for mixed use redevelopment. Further, the City found the Project to be consistent with the City’s applicable development standards, plans and policies,” attorneys for the city wrote. 

The city’s legal counsel further called CAMPAD “hostile” to additional housing in the city, pointing to the group’s opposition to a previous proposal for a 284-unit project on the Marketplace site that would have included 32 affordable housing units. 

While the 40 main units in the new proposal would not be reserved for affordable housing, owners of the units with the four attached ADUs would have the option to rent them out, with the requirement that they be rented at below market-rate, thereby making the project, according to the city, adherent to the HAA, which limits the authority of local jurisdiction to deny or limit new housing projects that would increase affordable housing.

Attorneys for CAMPAD argued in a reply brief that the group was not seeking to prevent affordable housing, pointing to the minimal impact that the current project would have on affordable housing in the city and countering that the city’s attorneys were misrepresenting the group’s goals and concerns.

“The Opposition Brief contains significant factual errors,” CAMPAD’s attorneys wrote. “It seeks to portray the Petitioner, Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development, a community organization composed of individuals, environmental organization and union representatives, as a ‘hostile’ NIMBY organization that has prevented the construction of 284 apartments in 2020 on the Marketplace Shopping Center, forcing the owner, TRC Retail to submit the low-density condominium proposal at issue here.”

“CAMPAD is anti bad planning,” they continued. “In truth, TRC never ‘applied’ to build an apartment complex, but only submitted a ‘concept review,’ which TRC quickly withdrew when the intrinsic deficiencies with the outlandish proposal met opposition from a wide cross-section of the public and decision makers.”

Attorneys also pointed to another major point of CAMPAD’s critiques of the current project – that it is “mixed-use in name only.” 

In addition to the 40 apartment units and four ADUs, the project is set to include a commercial component – despite the demolition of a majority of the existing commercial space – consisting of exterior renovations to the existing Starbucks location in the shopping center.

“The Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation (Mixed Use) and zoning designation,” applicants wrote in the project description.

Attorneys for CAMPAD called this classification of the project an “Orwellian turn” in their reply brief.

“The City now claims to believe that demolishing 55,636 square feet of prime commercial space and replacing it with a few dozen condos fosters a ‘premier retail corridor;’ any non-objective standards are categorically unenforceable; applicants determine compliance because the City has no role; staff can undermine the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s authority to determine compatibility with the General Plan and meaningful environmental review can be intentionally ignored,” CAMPAD attorneys wrote. “The City has plainly abused its discretion.”

While the debate and allegations from both sides remains ongoing, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Danielle Douglas is set to issue a tentative ruling on the case on April 25 ahead of a hearing at 9 a.m. on April 26. CAMPAD organizers said they were hopeful this week that the ruling would be in their favor.