SECTION 15234. REMAND — CEQA Statute and Guidelines (2025

(a) Courts may fashion equitable remedies in CEQA litigation. If a court determines that a public agency has not complied with CEQA, and that noncompliance was a prejudicial abuse of discretion, the court shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the agency to do one or more of the following:
- (1) void the project approval, in whole or in part;
- (2) suspend any project activities that preclude consideration and implementation of mitigation measures and alternatives necessary to comply with CEQA; or
- (3) take specific action necessary to bring the agency’s consideration of the project into compliance with CEQA.
(b) Following a determination described in subdivision (a), an agency or project proponent may only proceed with those portions of the challenged determinations, findings, or decisions for the project or those project activities that the court finds:
- (1) are severable;
- (2) will not prejudice the agency’s compliance with CEQA as described in the court’s peremptory writ of mandate; and
- (3) complied with CEQA.

305

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines

(c) An agency may also proceed with a project, or individual project activities, during the remand period where the court has exercised its equitable discretion to permit project activities to proceed during that period.
(d) As to those portions of an environmental document that a court finds to comply with CEQA, additional environmental review shall only be required as required by the court consistent with principles of res judicata. In general, the agency need not expand the scope of analysis on remand beyond that specified by the court.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21005, 21168.9; Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 439; Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260; Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 353; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 681; Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Parks Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 282.