Pfeiffer

Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council

Good Law
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380·200 Cal. App. 4th 1552·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1465
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 28, 2011No. H036310California9,683 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bamattremanoukian, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This CEQA 1 case arises from a proposal to expand a medical campus in the City of Sunnyvale (City). The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) proposed to demolish one existing medical office building, a parking lot, and *1557 three single-family residences, and replace them with a larger medical office building, a parking garage, and a storage and waste management area. After preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) concerning PAMF’s proposed project and considering public comments, in June 2009 the City of Sunnyvale City Council (city council) certified the EIR and approved the project. Two neighboring homeowners, appellants Jeni L. Pfeiffer and Eleanor Hansen, challenged the City’s certification of the EIR and approval of PAMF’s project by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court. The trial court denied the petition after rejecting their contentions that the EIR was inadequate and the proposed project was inconsistent with the City’s general plan.

On appeal, Pfeiffer and Hansen (hereafter, appellants) contend that the trial court erred in denying their writ petition because (1) the PAMF project as approved is inconsistent with the…

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.