Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development v. City of San Ramon

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reviewed consolidated appeals challenging San Ramon’s approval of a mixed-use infill housing project and a related post-judgment record-costs award. The court upheld the city’s findings that the project was consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance, rejected the CEQA challenge to the categorical infill-development exemption, and affirmed the costs order. The opinion is certified for publication except for specified portions addressing CEQA and record costs.

Holdings

1. The City did not abuse its discretion in finding the project consistent with the general plan. The master-plan policy was amorphous and aspirational rather than an unequivocal mandatory requirement that compelled preparation of a master plan for this project.
2. The City did not abuse its discretion in finding the project consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance's horizontal mixed-use provisions.
3. A writ petitioner’s election to prepare the administrative record does not preclude the prevailing public agency from recovering reasonable costs it actually incurred in preparing the record.
4. The City's CEQA exemption determination was upheld because substantial evidence supported the findings that the project was consistent with applicable planning and zoning requirements and would not cause significant traffic effects.
5. Citizens forfeited its challenge to the amount of the costs because it failed to provide an adequate appellate record containing the City's memorandum of costs and supporting materials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City abused its discretion by finding the housing project consistent with the general plan despite the absence of a master plan.
2. Whether the City abused its discretion by finding the project qualified as horizontal mixed use under the general plan and zoning ordinance.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the City's determination that the project qualified for CEQA's infill-development categorical exemption, including the finding that it would not cause significant traffic effects.
4. Whether the City was entitled to recover reasonable costs it incurred in preparing the administrative record even though Citizens elected to prepare the record.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of administrative-record costs awarded to the City.

Disposition

affirmed