CALIFORNIA
FOUNDATION V. REGENTS OF THE
Filed 9/3/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION et al.,
Plaintiffs
and Appellants,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
et al.,
Defendants
and Respondents.
A122511
(Alameda
County Super. Ct.
Nos. RG 06301644, RG 06302967)
STORY CONTINUE
FROM PART II….
Finally, several of the
Regents' experts noted that, for purposes of complying with the building and
fire codes, the Athlete Center will be distinct from the
Stadium with respect to construction type, emergency egress, fire separation,
electrical and water services, and occupancy type.[1] For example, with respect to construction
type, the Athlete Center will be classified as a
Type II One-Hour building and the Stadium is a Type I Fire Resistive
building. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 24, §§ 504.2, 505.1.2.) With
respect to occupancy type, the Athlete Center will have a primary
classification of A-3 Assembly while the Stadium has an A-4 Stadium
classification. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 24, § 2901.2) The two
buildings will also have separate water and electrical service and egress in
case of emergency.
Appellants' experts, not surprisingly, disagreed with
many of these opinions. In particular,
these experts, who also include experienced architects and engineers, opined
that, even if the Athlete Center is designed to have independent â€
| Description | Appellants challenge the judgment entered after the trial court denied their petition for writ of mandate (petition).[1] In that petition, appellants sought to compel the Regents of the University of California (Regents) to rescind certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for seven related projects at the University of California at Berkeley (University), and its approval of the proposed Student Athlete High Performance Center (Athlete Center), the first phase of one such project.[2] On appeal, appellants contend the Regents violated two statutes in certifying the EIR and approving the Athlete Center: the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), Public Resources Code, section 2621 et seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.[3] For reasons soon explained, we conclude the Regents complied with both statutes in certifying the EIR and approving the Athlete Center project. Specifically, we conclude that, while the Athlete Center is subject to the Alquist-Priolo Act based on its proposed location within an earthquake fault zone, the Regents could properly find the Athlete Center will not be an †|
| Rating |
