The California Supreme Court today declined to hear a case regarding the scope of an environmental study prepared for a 15-year growth plan for the University of California, Davis. But the court decertified the opinion of a state appeals court that set aside the campus's Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) because its environmental impact report did not include a former low-level radiation research site currently undergoing environmental assessment and cleanup a mile south of the main campus. A decertified court opinion may not be cited by attorneys in future cases. "While we're disappointed the Supreme Court chose not to review the case, we're very pleased that it's taken the rather unusual step of decertifying the appeals court ruling," said UC attorney Clem Shute. "This means that other UC campuses and other public agencies will not have to suffer with an opinion that's frankly wrong. Of course, we will abide by the appeals court ruling and amend the LRDP's environmental impact report as we continue to implement the plan." The lawsuit challenging the LRDP was filed in 1989 by Davis residents Larry Bidinian and Bruce Maeda of the West Davis Community Association. They questioned the plan on such aspects as a proposed football stadium on the west side of campus and the university's plan for addressing increased traffic and the preservation of air quality. In 1990, the suit was amended, substituting as the sole issue of contention the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR). Jerry Hallee, assistant vice chancellor for management and analytical services, says the lawsuit amendment misuses the environmental review process to stop campus growth. "We've felt all along that the LRDP and its accompanying environmental documents were properly prepared and we believe the Supreme Court's decertifying of the lower court's opinion supports our contention," Hallee said. An Alameda Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the university in September 1990 and denied the amended challenge to the lawsuit. The appeals court, however, ruled in October 1991 that the LRDP should be set aside because its environmental impact report did not include the LEHR site. The same court upheld this ruling in December 1991 after rehearing the case at the university's request and in January 1992 refused a second rehearing. The case now goes back to the Superior Court for determination of specific actions to be taken by the university. Shute said he hoped a hearing could be scheduled within the next 30 days.