## Facts

- Property owners sought a use permit to construct an automobile service station on their parcel in the City of Milpitas.
- The parcel was located in the city’s “HS” Highway Service District, where service stations were listed as permitted uses subject to issuance of a use permit and specified dimensional requirements.
- The property met the ordinance’s stated lot size and width requirements for a service station.
- Milpitas had adopted a Comprehensive Master Plan and a zoning ordinance stating broad objectives, including stable, balanced development and protection of public health, safety, convenience, and welfare.
- The planning commission denied the use permit, and the city council affirmed the denial.
- The stated bases for denial included (i) an adequate number of service stations already existed in the area and were better located at major intersections, (ii) approval would set an undesirable precedent, and (iii) the proposed station was too close to a residential area and inconsistent with broader planning objectives.
- The applicants petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate to compel issuance of the permit; the trial court denied relief, and the applicants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the city retained discretion to deny a use permit for a listed use that satisfied specific dimensional standards, based on the Master Plan and general welfare provisions of the zoning ordinance.
2. Whether the permit denial was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by evidence, or an improper attempt to suppress economic competition.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment denying the writ of mandate.
- The court held the city had discretion, under the integrated Master Plan and zoning ordinance, to deny a use permit when the proposed use conflicted with broader planning objectives, even if technical standards were met.
- The court found the denial was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or an unlawful effort to regulate competition.

## Legal Principles

- A conditional use permit decision is administrative or quasi-judicial and must be made within the authority and standards supplied by the zoning ordinance as construed with the adopted general plan.
- Listing a use as allowable in a district and providing dimensional criteria does not necessarily create a ministerial duty to approve; the permitting body may consider general plan policies and the ordinance’s general purpose provisions where the scheme contemplates such review.
- Zoning authority cannot be exercised solely to suppress economic competition, but land-use decisions may consider legitimate planning concerns even if they have economic effects.
- On mandamus review of local land-use determinations, a denial will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Milpitas’s denial of a service-station use permit because the zoning ordinance and Master Plan preserved municipal discretion to reject a technically compliant proposal that conflicted with adopted planning goals, and the record supported the city’s stated planning reasons rather than impermissible economic protectionism.


Van Sicklen v. Browne, 15 Cal. App. 3d 122, 92 Cal. Rptr. 786 (Ct. App. 1971)