California Court of Appeal

In an action seeking to set aside a city's Water Supply Assessment (WSA), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and review process under CEQA for a proposed large scale industrial/business park development, grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) the WSA is a technical, informational document and not a "final" act or determination subject to mandamus review; 2) plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and the city had the authority to address plaintiff's claims concerning the WSA; and 3) until the city certified the EIR and approved the underlying project, the adequacy of the WSA was not subject to judicial challenge.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/16/2008
• Published 04/16/2008

Judges

• WOODS, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Babak Naficy and Babak Naficy for Plaintiff and Appellant., Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Eric N. Robinson and Hanspeter Walter, Sacramento, for Amicus Curiae Association of California Water Agencies.


• For Appellees:
  
• Lagerlof, Sebecal, Gosney & Kruse and Thomas S. Bunn III, Pasadena, for Defendants and Respondents Newhall County Water District and Newhall County Water District Board of Directors., Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Anne E. Mudge and Sarah E. Owsowitz, San Francisco, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents Gateking Properties and Mark T. Gates Jr., Carl K. Newton, City Attorney of City of Santa Clarita;  Burke Williams & Sorensen, Geralyn L. Skapik and Timothy H. Irons for Real Party in Interest and Respondent City of Santa Clarita.