25 Cal. App. 5th 638
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Cambria Community Services District approved an emergency water supply project on January 30, 2014, and issued a Notice of Exemption under CEQA; LandWatch San Luis Obispo County filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate on October 14, 2014 challenging CEQA compliance.
- LandWatch elected to prepare the administrative record (per Pub. Res. Code § 21167.6(b)(2)) and requested documents via the Public Records Act; the District produced many documents but some production was delayed and partial.
- LandWatch did not present a draft administrative record index until August 2015 (well beyond the 60-day certification period in § 21167.6(b)(1)); the District prepared and certified a corrected administrative record on August 19, 2015.
- The trial court ordered a separate appendix for documents created after January 30, 2014; LandWatch delayed providing those documents, the District prepared the appendix under court warning, and certified it.
- Trial court denied LandWatch’s petition (finding the project approved on Jan 30, 2014 and exempt from CEQA) and awarded the District partial costs; LandWatch appealed the portions of costs for preparing the administrative record, the appendix, and certain other fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District may recover costs for preparing the administrative record after LandWatch elected to prepare it | LandWatch: election to prepare record bars District recovery for record-prep costs | District: petitioner's election is subject to 60-day time limit; petitioner delayed, so agency properly prepared record and may recover costs | Court: petitioner forfeited right by unreasonable delay; trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding record-prep costs |
| Whether District may recover costs for preparing a separate appendix of post-approval documents ordered by the court | LandWatch: District previously argued those documents were not part of the record, so District should bear appendix costs | District: LandWatch insisted appendix was part of record and obtained order; it created the appendix expense | Court: LandWatch caused the appendix expense by obtaining the order; awarding costs to District was proper |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in finding appendix-prep costs reasonable | LandWatch: court failed to independently verify reasonableness and merely halved the appendix claim | District: hours and pages justify requested amount; court reasonably reduced claim recognizing some agency culpability | Court: review is for abuse of discretion; reduction by 50% was within discretion and award is reasonable |
| Whether CourtCall fees, copying, and transcript costs were improperly allowed | LandWatch: telephone charges disallowed; copying/transcript costs excessive or improper | District: CourtCall is remote appearance service (not disallowed); copying and partial transcription were reasonably necessary; statutory provisions cited by LandWatch don't apply here | Court: CourtCall, copying, and awarded transcript costs were reasonably necessary and permissible; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- GHK Associates v. Mayer Group, Inc., 224 Cal.App.3d 856 (discussing appellate review focusing on evidence supporting prevailing party)
- Sprague v. Equifax, Inc., 166 Cal.App.3d 1012 (trier of fact need not believe uncontradicted testimony)
- Coalition for Adequate Review v. City & County of San Francisco, 229 Cal.App.4th 1043 (election to prepare record does not automatically bar agency recovery of record-prep costs; 60-day certification period relevant)
- Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist., 145 Cal.App.4th 765 (standard: abuse of discretion for cost item necessity and reasonableness)
- Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood, 39 Cal.App.4th 490 (trial court discretion to allow costs not listed in Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5 if reasonably necessary)