Summary
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the City of San Ramon’s approval of an infill housing and mixed-use redevelopment project and upheld the project’s categorical exemption from CEQA. The court also affirmed an award of administrative-record preparation costs to the city. On rehearing, the court deleted a CEQA footnote from the unpublished portion of its April 24, 2026 opinion; the modification did not change the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the city abused its discretion by finding that the housing project was consistent with the general plan despite the absence of a master plan.
- Whether the city abused its discretion by finding that the project qualified as horizontal mixed use under the general plan and zoning ordinance.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the city's determination that the project qualified for CEQA's categorical exemption for infill development, including the finding that it would not cause significant traffic effects.
- Whether the city could recover reasonable administrative-record preparation costs even though Citizens elected to prepare the record.
- Whether Citizens demonstrated that the amount of the record-preparation cost award was excessive or unreasonable on the appellate record.
Holdings
- The city did not abuse its discretion in finding the project consistent with the general plan. The general plan's master-plan policy used discretionary and aspirational language and did not impose an unambiguous mandatory prerequisite to redevelopment.
- The city did not abuse its discretion in determining that the project qualified as horizontal mixed use under the general plan and zoning ordinance.
- Substantial evidence supported the city's determination that the project satisfied the CEQA categorical exemption for infill development.
- A prevailing public agency may recover reasonable costs it actually incurred in preparing the administrative record even when the petitioner elected to compile the record.
- Citizens failed to demonstrate that the $38,568.62 cost award was excessive or unreasonable because it did not provide an adequate appellate record.
Key quotations
“A project is consistent with a general plan “ ‘ “if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” ’ ”” (p. 5)
“We review the city’s decision, not the trial court’s.” (p. 5)
“Altogether, the master plan policy is amorphous and aspirational.” (p. 7)
“Determining project consistency is, by design, nearly always an exercise of discretion: the city’s job is to interpret the language, weigh and balance the various policies and interests reflected in it, and determine whether, overall, the project is compatible with, and does not frustrate, the general plan.” (p. 8)
“But the fact that Citizens elected to prepare the record, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (b)(2), does not mean the city had no recoverable costs associated with preparation of the administrative record.” (p. 15)
Factual background
Marketplace at San Ramon, LLC owned a shopping center designated and zoned for mixed use. It proposed redeveloping 3.91 acres by demolishing a former grocery-store building and constructing 44 residential units while renovating an existing Starbucks. The city found the project consistent with its general plan and zoning ordinance and exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemption for infill development. Citizens challenged those determinations and later challenged the city's recovery of administrative-record preparation costs.
Procedural history
Citizens first petitioned the Contra Costa County Superior Court for writ relief and sought a temporary restraining order before the project was approved. After the planning commission approved the project and the city council denied Citizens' administrative appeal, Citizens filed a second writ petition challenging the final approval and CEQA exemption. The superior court consolidated the cases, denied both petitions, entered judgment for the city and Marketplace at San Ramon, LLC, and awarded the city $38,568.62 in record-preparation costs. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and costs order; its April 24, 2026 opinion was modified on May 19, 2026 after rehearing was denied, without changing the judgment.