Laurel Heights Imp. Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California

• Decision Date: 09 July 1987
• Citation: 238 Cal.Rptr. 451,205 Cal.App.3d 354
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Previously published at 205 Cal.App.3d 354 205 Cal.App.3d 354, 40 Ed. Law Rep. 837 LAUREL HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. A036955.

Page 451

238 Cal.Rptr. 451

Previously published at 205 Cal.App.3d 354

205 Cal.App.3d 354, 40 Ed. Law Rep. 837

LAUREL HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

A036955.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

July 9, 1987.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 4, 1987.

Review Granted Oct. 1, 1987.

Kathryn R. Devincenzi, Law Offices of Duane J. Perry, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

James E. Holst, Karl E. Droese, Jr., Office of Gen. Counsel, The Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Ethan P. Schulman, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady Robertson &amp Falk, A Professional Corp., San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.

KING, Associate Justice.

In this case we hold that approval of an environmental impact report constitutes an abuse of discretion when the report provides an inadequate description of the project and provides insufficient discussion of project alternatives, and when there is no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that potential environmental impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

The Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. (Association) appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging the approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) by respondent Regents of the University of California (Regents). The EIR involves the proposed relocation of University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) biomedical research facilities from their present location on the UCSF campus on Parnassus Avenue to a building in the nearby Laurel Heights neighborhood. The Association's petition, filed under the aegis of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), contested the informational sufficiency of the EIR and challenged its conclusion that the project's anticipated significant environmental impacts--including the venting of toxic and radioactive substances into the atmosphere--would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The trial court concluded the EIR complied with the provisions of CEQA and was properly approved. We disagree, and reverse the order denying the petition for writ of mandate.

This project has caused intense, heated debate in the Laurel Heights neighborhood. The debate has focused largely on whether research employing toxic chemicals, carcinogens and radioactive materials is too high-risk to be conducted in a densely populated residential neighborhood. This question, as well as the philosophical debate over the use of hazardous substances, are essentially matters of a political and social nature which, of course, are not before us. At the present time there is no legal prohibition on the type of research conducted by the Regents, nor is there a prohibition on its being conducted in areas of high population density. The value of research in biomedicine, microbiology, immunology and related fields is not disputed. Such activities are, however, subject to the stringent requirements of CEQA and especially the informational disclosure and the analytical discussion of an EIR. The limited question we decide in this case is whether the EIR at issue is in compliance with California's environmental protection statutes and administrative guidelines. In other words, we decide whether the Regents have provided the public, including the Laurel Heights community, with sufficient information concerning the project and an adequate analysis of its anticipated impact on the environment.

A

We scrutinize the EIR with the aid of familiar points of reference. "CEQA demonstrates a legislative intent to maintain 'a quality environment for the people of this state' and to regulate conduct 'found to affect the quality of the environment' ... 'so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.' " (Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 615, 216 Cal.Rptr. 502 [quoting Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, subds. (a), (g) ].) CEQA "is to be interpreted broadly in order to afford the fullest protection to the environment consistent with the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Ibid.; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049.)

Generally, an EIR is an essential prerequisite of any project with a potential significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, 21151; Cal.Admin.Code tit. 14, §§ 15064, 15081, 15082.) ¹ The EIR is the "heart of CEQA", an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810, 108 Cal.Rptr. 377; see Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 822, 173 Cal.Rptr. 602.) An EIR is an "informational document" designed to inform "public agency decisionmakers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect[s]" of proposed projects. (Guidelines, § 15121.) "The EIR identifies significant effects of a project on the environment, the way those effects can be mitigated or avoided, and the alternatives to the project." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 822, 173 Cal.Rptr. 602; §§ 21002.1, subd. (a), 21061, 21100; Guidelines, §§ 15121, 15126.) The document also helps to ensure that the project's proponents carefully consider the environmental effects and do not simply render a " 'post hoc rationalization' of a decision already made." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 284, 152 Cal.Rptr. 585, quoting Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 36-37, 143 Cal.Rptr. 365.)

The EIR process involves the preparation of a draft EIR, which is released to the public for review and comment and is then evaluated in light of comments received. (§§ 21092, 21153; Guidelines, §§ 15081-15088.) The agency proposing the project then prepares a final EIR incorporating comment and evaluation of the draft. (Guidelines, §§ 15089, 15090, 15132.) Before approving the project the agency must certify it has considered the final EIR, and must make findings that the project's significant environmental effects have been avoided or mitigated, or that unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project's benefits. (§§ 21002, 21002.1, 21081; Guidelines, §§ 15091-15093.)

A judicial review of the approval of an EIR does not pass upon the validity of the document's environmental conclusions, but only on its sufficiency as an informational document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 189, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.) Our standard of review is the same as the trial court's: whether the agency approving the EIR (here the Regents) abused its discretion, either by approving the document without proceeding in the manner required by law or by rendering an approval decision not supported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1071-1072, 230 Cal.Rptr. 413.)

CEQA requires "an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts ... which must be genuine [and] open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect" of a project. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1185, 207 Cal.Rptr. 425; see Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 366, 212 Cal.Rptr. 127.) The reviewing court must determine that the EIR and its approval process has fully complied with the procedural requirements of CEQA, "since only in this way can the important public purposes of CEQA be protected from subversion." (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 71-72, 198 Cal.Rptr. 634; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 842, 115 Cal.Rptr. 67.)

B

The present campus of UCSF provides facilities for the Schools of Medicine, Nursing Pharmacy and Dentistry. A long range development plan prepared in 1982 indicated serious space constraints at the Parnassus campus, and concluded there was a need to "develop space in University managed off-campus locations for academic and support activities currently located on campus where space can be released for essential needs. ..." These essential needs were defined to include classrooms, laboratories, and research.

To overcome the space constraints at Parnassus, the Regents acquired the former Firemen's Fund Insurance Company headquarters building, a spacious four-story office building at 3333 California Street in the Laurel Heights neighborhood. The Regents filed a Notice of Exemption with the State Secretary of Resources, declaring that the purchase of the site had no significant environmental effect, and was categorically exempt from CEQA and its EIR requirements "because it involves the acquisition and operation of the existing facilities and site and involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing." (See §§ 21080, 21084; Guidelines, §§ 15300, 15301.) The Regents informed the public that the building would be used for "administrative and academic" functions.

For reasons which we cannot ascertain from the record, the use referred to in the quoted portions of the Notice of Exemption appears to be different than the use contemplated by the present plan of the Regents. We do not know if they were correct when the notice was filed, but were affected by later decisions of...