In Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, the Oakland City Council found a project under consideration to be fully consistent with 14 of the 17 pertinent policies set forth in the Oakland Comprehensive Plan (OCP), although it was in conflict with three other policies. The appellate court concluded approval of the project did not require consistency with every possible policy set forth in the city's general plan. "Respondents also argue that none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and that a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every OCP policy. We agree. Indeed, it is beyond cavil that no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the OCP, and that state law does not impose such a requirement. . A general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of competing interests--including those of developers, neighboring homeowners, prospective homebuyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, jobseekers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all types of city-provided services--and to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. Once a general plan is in place, it is the province of elected city officials to examine the specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be 'in harmony' with the policies stated in the plan. . It is, emphatically, not the role of the courts to micromanage these development decisions." (Ibid.)