Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council
200 Cal. App. 4th 1552
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- PAMF proposed to expand its Sunnyvale medical campus by demolishing three Kenney Court residences, a surface parking lot, and a 72,065-sf building, and replacing them with a larger medical office building, an underground and surface parking structure, and a storage/waste area.
- The City issued an EIR; after public comments, the City certified the EIR and approved the revised project in June 2009, noting general plan consistency and mitigated significant impacts.
- Appellants Pfeiffer and Hansen challenged the certification and approval, contending inconsistencies with the general plan, inadequate EIR discussion of general plan conformity, incorrect traffic baselines, and traffic noise analyses, including construction noise mitigation.
- The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate, finding the EIR adequate on traffic baseline and noise analyses, and finding general plan consistency supported by substantial evidence.
- On appeal, appellants renew arguments about general plan inconsistency, inadequacy of general plan conformity discussion, traffic baseline, traffic noise baseline, and traffic noise discussion; the court affirms.
- The record shows the Kenney Court parcels are zoned R-2/0/PD (low-medium density with office PD) and that the general plan designation for those parcels includes office and low-density residential, with the City maintaining the current zoning rather than rezoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General plan consistency | Pfeiffer: project demolishes low-density residential area; not consistent with general plan. | PAMF/City: consistent overall; waiver and context defeat strict inconsistency claim. | No abuse; project consistent with general plan. |
| General plan conformity discussion in EIR | EIR failed to adequately address general plan conformity and respond to comments. | EIR adequately addressed general plan conformity; proper responses provided. | EIR satisfactory on general plan conformity response. |
| Traffic baseline used for impacts | EIR used a hypothetical background baseline, not existing conditions. | Baseline may include future conditions; not limited to existing conditions. | Baseline appropriate; no prejudicial abuse of discretion. |
| Traffic noise impacts baseline | EIR used background baseline; failed to show existing environment noise impacts. | Existing noise levels measured; project noise impact less than significant. | EIR adequate on traffic noise baseline and impacts. |
| Construction noise discussion | EIR insufficient mitigation/analysis to reduce construction noise to insignificance. | EIR identifies 11 mitigation measures; analysis adequate under CEQA. | EIR adequate; construction noise mitigation sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. App. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review for general plan consistency and baselines)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (CEQA baseline and disclosure requirements; strong emphasis on process and substantiation)
- City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 2009) (CEQA discussion of general plan conformity and response to comments)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (CEQA Guidelines baseline flexibility and adverse environmental effects)
- Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 2010) (distinguishes baseline choices for traffic analysis; emphasizes existing vs. projected conditions)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing EIR adequacy and burden of proof)
- Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. App. 2007) (reasonableness of general plan conformity and deference to planning authorities)