The University of California, Davis, will ask the California Supreme Court to hear a case regarding the scope of an environmental study prepared for a 15-year campus growth plan. A state appeals court yesterday rejected the university's second request for a rehearing. "We're not surprised by the appeals court rejection," said Assistant Vice Chancellor Jerry Hallee. "But we felt it was important to ask for a rehearing because the court's decision contained factual errors. "We're determined now to argue the merits of this case before the California Supreme Court," Hallee said. "We have complied precisely and absolutely with both the spirit and the letter of the law in preparing our Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) and its accompanying environmental documents and believe that the Supreme Court will agree with an earlier Superior Court judgment in the University's favor." The university must file a brief with the Supreme Court by Feb. 10. The court then has 30-60 days to decide if it will hear the case. The lawsuit challenging the campus's 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) -- a former low-level radiation research site currently undergoing environmental assessment and cleanup a mile south of the main campus. Hallee says the lawsuit amendment misuses the environmental review process to stop campus growth. He points to a May 1989 letter to the Davis campus from Bidinian and Maeda: "They say, 'We contend that the mission of the UC system is better served by the growth, development and academic improvement of other institutions or by new UC campuses." 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 Nov. 1 that the LRDP should be set aside because its environmental impact report did not include the LEHR site. The same court upheld this ruling Dec. 31 after rehearing the case at the university's request and yesterday refused a second rehearing. Hallee said the university "continues to be very concerned about the cost of this lawsuit, but we must also consider the substantial expenses we would incur because of unwarranted delays and having to unnecessarily duplicate environmental efforts at LEHR."