Page 2 - gateking051309

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Babak Naficy and Babak Naficy for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Lagerlof, Senecal, Gosney & Kruse LLP, Thomas S. Bunn III; Carl K. Newton,
City Attorney; Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP, Brian A. Pierik and Gregory M.

Murphy for Defendants and Respondents.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Anne E. Mudge and Sarah E. Owsowitz for Real Parties

in Interest.

_____________________________

This is the second time we address issues associated with a proposal to develop an

industrial park in the City of Santa Clarita, the City’s environmental impact report (EIR)

for the proposed project, and water. Four years ago, we ruled that the City’s EIR did not

include an adequate discussion on the subject of water supplies for the proposed project.
(See California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219

(California Oak).) At that time, we directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandate

commanding the City to decertify its EIR, and to prepare and recertify an EIR complying
1
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We further

directed the trial court to retain jurisdiction over the cause until the City recertified its

EIR.

The consolidated appeals before our court today arise from two judgments which,
together, have the effect of approving the City’s recertification of its EIR –– with a final

additional analysis (FAA) –– for the proposed project. We agree with the trial court that

the City’s EIR/FAA now complies with CEQA, and affirm both judgments.

1
See Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. All section references are to the
Public Resources Code, except where noted otherwise. All references to the CEQA
Guidelines are to the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.

2