Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 5th 1245·226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 432
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2017B280815California5,082 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Raphael, J.

*1249 I. INTRODUCTION

This is the second appeal in this case, in which plaintiffs brought a mandate petition challenging under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. ) the environmental impact report (EIR) and related project approvals for two natural resource plans for the proposed Newhall Ranch development in northwest Los Angeles County. 1 Our review is shaped by the first appeal, which resulted in an opinion from our Supreme Court and our subsequent opinion on remand.

In this appeal from the post-remand judgment, plaintiffs argue that the judgment and accompanying writ were erroneous under CEQA for two purely legal reasons: they claim that Public Resources Code section 21168.9 2 prohibits partial decertification *434 of an EIR, and that the same section prohibits leaving project approvals in place while decertifying an EIR. We hold that both actions are legally permissible under CEQA. We thus affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The first appeal was taken from a 2012 trial court judgment, and a corresponding writ of mandate, that set aside the Newhall Ranch project approvals, *1250 ordered defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.