Sunnyvale West CEQA Win Rippling Effect Throughout California Courtrooms

The Sunnyvale West v City of Sunnyvale Council Appellate CEQA win is causing an immediate impact and rippling effect throughout the state of California courtrooms. In Southern California, for example, attorneys for both sides are using the Sunnyvale decision as arguments for the Expo Line Phase 2 lawsuit.

Published Dec 22, 2010 “The Sunnyvale Decision” and Phase II of Expo: Game Changer or Footnote?  Damien Newton writes “After NFSR lawyer John Bowman introduced case-law that was decided five days ago, Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, things changed.  In Sunnyvale, a state superior court ruled that the city’s environmental review of a road extension violated state law because it based it’s review on traffic projections for 2020 instead of current conditions.  The mitigation plan for Expo are based on traffic projections for 2030.”  

City of Sunnyvale Found GUILTY of Violating CEQA Law Rules Appellate Court

Congratulations and Joyous Holiday Wishes to Plaintiffs Dr. Bill Mathews, Eleanor Hansen, Tammy Salans, Gopal Patangay, as head of the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association and Attorney Zan Henson who sued the City of Sunnyvale Council to decertify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed bridge at the north end of Mary Avenue (at Almanor) called the Mary Avenue Extension Project EIR and WON!

For the ruling, click here.

The City of Sunnyvale Council must set aside its approval of the Mary Avenue Extension Project until a legally adequate EIR has been prepared and considered.

Certified for Publication and filed 12/16/10, the California Court of Appeals rules “The City of Sunnyvale’s use of hypothetical traffic conditions of Year 2020 violates CEQA Law. The failure to comply with the law subverts the purposes of CEQA if it omits material necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation.”