CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION V</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >CALIFORNIA</b><b<br /> > OAK<br /> FOUNDATION V. REGENTS OF THE </b><b<br /> >UNIVERSITY</b><b<br /> > OF </b><b<br /> >CALIFORNIA</b><b<br /> ></b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/3/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=331 valign=top ><br /> <br/>CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION et al.,<br /> <br/> Plaintiffs<br /> and Appellants,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA<br /> et al.,<br /> <br/> Defendants<br /> and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=307 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> A122511<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> (Alameda<br /> County Super. Ct.<br /> <br/> <br /> Nos. RG 06301644, RG 06302967)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Appellants challenge the judgment entered after the trial<br /> court denied their petition for writ of<br /> mandate (petition).[1] In that petition, appellants sought to compel<br /> the Regents of the University of California (Regents) to rescind<br /> certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for seven<br /> related projects at the University of California at Berkeley (University),<br /> and its approval of the proposed Student Athlete High Performance Center (Athlete Center), the first phase of one<br /> such project.[2] On appeal, appellants contend the Regents<br /> violated two statutes in certifying the EIR and approving the Athlete Center: the Alquist-Priolo<br /> Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), Public Resources Code, section 2621 et seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act<br /> (CEQA), Public Resources Code, section<br /> 21000 et seq.[3] <br /> <br/> For reasons soon explained, we conclude the Regents<br /> complied with both statutes in certifying the EIR and approving the Athlete Center project. Specifically, we conclude that, while the<br /> Athlete Center is subject to the Alquist-Priolo Act based on its proposed<br /> location within an earthquake fault zone, the Regents could properly find the<br /> Athlete Center will not be an â€