Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Sunnyvale City Council
190 Cal. App. 4th 1351
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- CEQA challenge to Mary Avenue Extension (MAE) project in Sunnyvale, with superior court granting a writ to set aside approval and FEIR certification.
- FEIR analyzed traffic and related impacts using 2020 baseline conditions, assuming full build-out, rather than current existing conditions.
- City Council approved MAE on October 28, 2008 despite arguments that baseline should be current conditions.
- Peer reviewer warned that baselining to 2020 could understate impacts and suggested evaluating against existing conditions.
- Final FEIR incorporated drafts, responses, and revisions but did not replace the 2020 baseline with current conditions.
- Court affirms trial court, holding that using a 2020 baseline violated CEQA and that the record lacked substantial evidence to justify deviation from the existing-conditions baseline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2020 baseline was proper under CEQA | Sunnyvale West argues baseline should be current conditions. | City relies on VTA guidelines and predicts project timeline to 2020. | Baseline use improper; must compare to existing conditions. |
| Whether use of future baseline prejudicially biased EIR | Baseline skewed results, understating local impacts. | Baseline provides fuller disclosure of reasonably foreseeable impacts. | Prejudicial error established; improper baseline invalidates EIR. |
| Whether the record contained substantial evidence supporting deviation from baseline rule | Record showed 2020 baseline chosen to reflect time of project opening. | VTA guidelines justify considering future growth and timing. | No substantial evidence to support deviation; improper reliance on guidelines. |
| CEQA compliance of EIR and alternatives analysis | FEIR failed to adequately disclose traffic/noise/air-quality impacts on existing environment and to analyze no-project and alternative impacts against current baseline. | FEIR discusses multiple alternatives and anticipates cumulative effects under future conditions. | FEIR failed to comply with CEQA; information disclosure and baseline error undermined analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (baseline must reflect existing environmental conditions, not hypothetical permits)
- Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno, 150 Cal.App.4th 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (baseline must reflect real conditions on the ground)
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (requires reasoned analysis of alternative baselines and methodologies)
- Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura, 70 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (existing traffic baseline appropriate in certain contexts)
- In re Bay-Delta etc., 43 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal. 2008) (CEQA focus on significant effects and alternatives; baseline context)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA review focuses on impacts, not unfounded conjecture)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th (Cal. 2002) (agency decisions must reflect existing baseline; guidelines cannot override CEQA)