Court Hearing on Environmental Impact Report

Tuesday, February 23, 2010, an appeal on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lab's 2006 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) was heard by a three judge panel in the California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4, in San Francisco. (Case A123948 -- Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California: See Case Information on the Court's website.) Save Strawberry Canyon is not a litigant but has provided financial support for this important lawsuit.

Among the issues argued were whether LBNL provided a legitimate off-site alternative for their long-term growth and whether CEQA even required an off-site alternative analysis for the long range development plan of existing developed property. The Regents’ attorney justified what was a limited off-site alternative analysis arguing that physical proximity of buildings was necessary for intellectual synergy between people. Richard Drury of Lozeau and Drury, LLP argued for the plaintiffs challenging the fundamental assertion that buildings would need to be in walking distance in order to realize intellectual synergies. The growth at UCSF was used as an example in which the Regents developed four campuses throughout the City of San Francisco rather than continue to expand their footprint at Parnassus Heights.

Also at issue was whether the Lab should have recirculated the Climate Change Impact Analysis. The public’s first opportunity to study the analysis was in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Regents’ attorney argued that recirculation was unnecessary because no one physically appeared before the Regents and made this request. The Plaintiffs’ attorney argued that the Sierra Club submitted written comment asking that the document be circulated to wit the Regents’ attorney argued the Sierra Club did not ask for it to be recirculated and that as such the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies.

A ruling will be issued within 90 days. A ruling in the Plaintiffs’ favor means that the Climate Change Impact Analysis will be recirculated to the public and that the Lab will need to develop an offsite alternative for all of the proposed 980,000 gsf of new buildings. A ruling in the in the Defendents’ favor would maintain the status quo.