Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

• Decision Date: 30 December 1993
• Docket Number: No. S027252,S027252
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 864 P.2d 502, 88 Ed. Law Rep. 264 LAUREL HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 231

26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231

6 Cal.4th 1112, 864 P.2d 502, 88 Ed. Law Rep. 264

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

No. S027252.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Dec. 30, 1993.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 24, 1994.

Kathryn R. Devincenzi, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Joel Reynolds, Los Angeles, and Nora Chorover, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.

James E. Holst, John F. Lundberg, Oakland, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Falk, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Ethan

P. Schulman, Anna C. Shimko and Anne E. Mudge, San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Roderick E. Walston, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodora Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Craig C. Thompson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Ronald A. Zumbrun, Robin L. Rivett, James S. Burling, Donald V. Collin, Jo Anne M. Bernhard, McDonough, Holland & Allen and Richard E. Brandt, Sacramento, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

PANELLI, Justice.

After the passage of almost five years, we are again called upon to evaluate the efforts of the Regents of the University of California (Regents) to comply with the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) in connection with the proposed relocation within the City of San Francisco of the biomedical research facilities of the School of Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278 [hereafter Laurel Heights I ].) We undertake review of this dispute between the Regents and the Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. (Association), a second time in order to address the question of what constitutes "significant new information" in a final environmental impact report (EIR) so as to require its recirculation for public comment before certification pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1. ¹ We also consider the standard of review to be applied to the decision whether to recirculate.

We conclude that recirculation is only required when the information added to the EIR changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly reduce such an effect and that the project's proponents have declined to implement. We further conclude that a decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence. Finally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Regents' decision in this case not to recirculate the final EIR; therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.

II. BACKGROUND

A. A Project Mired in Controversy

The early history of the dispute between the Regents and the Association is set forth in detail in Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pages 388-390, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278. A brief reprise of these facts as well as what has occurred since that case was decided is essential to understanding this continuing controversy.

"The UCSF Parnassus campus in San Francisco is the site of the University's Schools of Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry. In 1982, the University of California (University) prepared a long range development plan for UCSF, which indicated there were serious space constraints at the Parnassus campus and concluded there was a need to develop off-campus locations for academic and support activities.

"To alleviate these space constraints, in February 1985 the Regents ... purchased the Presidio Corporate Center, formerly known as the Fireman's Fund Insurance Building, located in the Laurel Heights neighborhood of San Francisco, approximately two miles northeast of the Parnassus campus. The Laurel Heights neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial development. The facility purchased by the Regents is a 10-acre site containing a 354,000 square-foot building (exclusive of parking area) and a 13,000 square-foot annex." (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 388, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.) The Regents decided to relocate the School of Pharmacy biomedical research units to the Laurel Heights facilities.

After the relocation decision was made, UCSF began the CEQA review process. A draft EIR was prepared and circulated. During the period for public review and comment on the EIR, it became evident that the proposed relocation was the subject of intense controversy. Neighborhood opinion coalesced around the question of whether "scientific research using toxic chemicals, carcinogens, and radioactive materials is too high-risk to be conducted in a residential neighborhood. [After a public comment period,] the Regents held a public meeting to respond to comments received during the review period. UCSF proposed measures to mitigate the identified environmental effects and prepared a final EIR, concluding that the environmental effects had been 'reduced to a level of insignificance.' The Regents certified the final EIR." (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 389, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.)

The Association challenged the final 1986 EIR on grounds it failed to comply with CEQA. The trial court upheld the Regents' certification. In 1987, the Court of Appeal reversed on three primary grounds: insufficient description of the project, inadequate discussion of feasible alternatives to the project, and a lack of showing that significant environmental effects would be mitigated. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 389-390, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.)

We granted review. In December of 1988, we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal on the first two grounds, but reversed on the third. After discussing the mitigation measures in the final 1986 EIR at some length, we held that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Regents' finding that any significant adverse effects of the project would be mitigated. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 407-422, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.) Because of deficiencies in the project description and the discussion of alternatives, however, we directed the Regents to prepare and certify an adequate EIR. We stated that, with respect to mitigation measures, the new EIR was required to discuss only those mitigation measures necessary for new or more significant adverse environmental effects not discussed in the final 1986 EIR. (Id. 47 Cal.3d at p. 422, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.) We also specified that the Regents were not to expand or add additional operations at the Laurel Heights facilities until a "proper" EIR was certified. (Id. 47 Cal.3d at p. 428, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278.)

In the wake of our decision, the Regents produced a completely new and more thorough draft EIR. After the draft EIR was published in October 1989, UCSF solicited public comment over a sixty-day period, sponsored two informational meetings, held a public hearing over three successive evenings, evaluated the comments, and prepared detailed responses to the comments.

UCSF received voluminous written comments on the draft EIR. According to the Regents and undisputed by the Association, the Association alone submitted letters containing over 50 pages of comments on over 150 separate topics or issues and included in its written comments 2 boxes of unindexed documents containing nearly 5,000 pages of exhibits.

In April 1990, the final EIR was published. The final EIR consists of six volumes containing more than two thousand pages analyzing the environmental consequences of the proposed relocation. ² The final EIR contains information that was not present in the draft EIR. According to the Association, the new information includes three new noise studies, two new studies relating to potential toxic discharges, a clarification that one loading dock, rather than three, will be used for shipping and receiving, the recognition that "night lighting glare" could result from the use of the laboratories in the evening and early morning, and an expanded analysis of the alternative of expansion at the Parnassus campus. The final EIR was not recirculated for public comment, although the Association and others requested orally and in writing that it be recirculated. On May 18, 1990, the Regents certified the final EIR, adopted findings required in connection with the certification, as well as a mitigation monitoring program, and approved the Laurel Heights project.

The Association filed a writ of mandate challenging the validity of the final EIR on numerous grounds and requesting vacation of the Regents' certification. The trial court denied the petition. The Association appealed.

Finding it necessary to reach only one of the Association's numerous contentions, the Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the final EIR contained "significant new information," which, under section 21092.1, required that the final EIR be recirculated for additional public comment prior to certification.

We granted review to consider the issue addressed by the Court of Appeal. ³

B. The CEQA Review Process

The dispute over the proper interpretation of section 21092.1 cannot be resolved without an understanding of both the purposes and framework of the CEQA review process.

We have repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the "heart of CEQA." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, 276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 801 P.2d 1161 [hereafter Goleta Valley II ]; Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278; see also Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (a). ⁴) "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible...