In Yolo Land and Water Defense v. County of Yolo (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 710, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a CEQA petition and upheld the County’s memorandum of costs. In the published portion of the opinion, the court upheld the lower court’s award of costs to the County for record preparation, despite the petitioners’ election to prepare the record.

Background

Teichert, Inc. sought permission from the County of Yolo to mine sand and gravel at a 319.3-acre site for the Teichert Shifler Mining and Reclamation Project. Following mining activities, approximately 113 acres of the Project site would be reclaimed to agricultural use with another portion reclaimed to a lake, grassland, and riparian woodland. The project included a proposal to transfer specified tonnage allocations from two of Teichert’s existing mining operations to the Shifler location upon their completion, which are anticipated to cease either on January 1, 2028, or when the maximum amount of permitted removal is reached.

Following the County’s certification of an EIR, and approval of the project, project opponents filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging the County violated CEQA. The petitioners also filed a notice electing to prepare the administrative record under Public Resources Code section 21176.6, subdivision (b)(2). The petitioners then submitted a Public Record Act request to the County, requesting the documents for the record. The trial court denied the petition and awarded the County $3,813.45 for costs it had incurred in facilitating the preparation of the record by the petitioners. The petitioners appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

In the published portion of its decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s award of costs to the County for record preparation.

The petitioners first argued that the respondent agency could not recover costs for preparing the record because the petitioners had elected to, and did, prepare the record in the case. The court, however, held that section 21167, subdivision (b)(2), does not preclude an award of costs to the respondent agency under these circumstances. According to the court, despite the petitioners’ election to prepare the record, the County incurred costs in producing the documents that comprised the record and the agency is required certify the record’s accuracy under subdivision (b)(1).

The court explained that generally, under Civil Code of Procedure (CCP) section 1032, a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs unless otherwise provided by statute. Further, CCP 1094.5, subdivision (a), requires the petitioner to bear the cost of preparing the record unless otherwise specified by statute. According to the court, nothing in section 21167.6 bars a prevailing public agency from recovering those costs.

The petitioners also argued that Couty could not recover costs because the petitioners obtained the documents through the Public Records Act, which prohibits recovery of staff and consultant time associated with production of documents. The court again disagreed, ultimately finding that the County was entitled to recover its costs as the prevailing party, and that the petitioners failed to show that the County’s account of staff time and hourly rates were unreasonable.