(a)If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following:
(1)A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part.
(2)If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.
(3)A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.
(b)Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with this division. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency’s proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division.
(c)Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 257 P.3d 81 (Cal. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (a) provides that if a court finds a public agency's finding or decision to have been made in violation of CEQA, "the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following" mandates.”
John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Res. Bd., 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“However, the Board raised as an issue whether it would be required to prepare the functional equivalent of an EIR under the trial court's Final Statement of Decision. We conclude that, to the extent the trial court intended to specifically order the preparation of the functional…”
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal. App. 4th 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“) Public Resources Code section 21168.9, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part, “The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency’s proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with…”
Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 19 P.3d 567 (Cal. 2001).
“However, Public Resources Code section 21168.9 authorizes issuance of mandamus to void actions taken without compliance with CEQA, by providing that the order be made “by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.”
Stopthemillenniumhollywood.Com. v. City of L.A., 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
“These rulings will not be considered here as we conclude that the project description used in this case was legally insufficient. The regulations implementing CEQA are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.”
Ultramar, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
“The Trial Court’s Order Is Not Overbroad Public Resources Code section 21168.9 provides, in pertinent part: “(a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made…”
Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 7 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1886 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The Remedial Actions To Be Mandated by the Trial Court Public Resources Code section 21168.9 sets forth the relief that may be granted when the court has determined that an agency has not complied with the provisions of CEQA.”
Ogawa v. City of Palo Alto CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “) Public Resources Code section 21168.9 specifically controlled the content of the court’s order, providing that if a court finds a violation of CEQA, the court’s order must include “[a] mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.