Cal. Oak Found. v. The Regents Of The Univ. Of Cal.

McGuiness, P. J.

THE COURT:

McGuiness, P. J.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 3, 2010, be modified as follows:

1. On page 6, the following sentence contains a typographical error. The italicized number should be $111,948, 000.

"The Committee thereafter adopted a recommendation that the Regents approve the $111,948 budget for the Athlete Center, but deferred consideration of the EIR and final approval of the Athlete Center for several weeks. On November 16, 2006, the Regents adopted the Committees recommendation."

This sentence should read:

"The Committee thereafter adopted a recommendation that the Regents approve the $111,948, 000 budget for the Athlete Center, but deferred consideration of the EIR and final approval of the Athlete Center for several weeks. On November 16, 2006, the Regents adopted the Committees recommendation."

2. In footnote 18 on page 24, the opinion states:

"18. We acknowledge the Regents additional argument, set forth in their responding brief and reiterated at oral argument, that the Alquist-Priolo Act does not apply to them because it applies only to cities and counties. However, below, the trial court rejected this argument, a decision the Regents have not cross-appealed. As such, the Regents may not challenge the trial courts decision here. In any event, whether the Alquist-Priolo Act applies to the Regents is purely an academic question for purposes of this appeal, given our conclusion that the Athlete Center is not subject to the Acts value restriction because it does not qualify as an alteration or addition under the Act."

We order that the language of footnote 18 be modified as follows, with text to be inserted printed in italics, and text to be deleted printed in strike through:

"18. We acknowledge the Regents additional argument, set forth in their responding brief and reiterated at oral argument, that the Alquist-Priolo Act does not apply to them because it applies only to cities and counties. Howe ve r, be low, the trial court re je cte d this argume nt, a de cision the Re ge nts have not cross appe ale d. As such, the Re ge nts may not challe nge the trial courts decision here. In any event, However, whether the AlquistPriolo Act applies to the Regents is purely an academic question for purposes of this appeal, given our conclusion that the Athlete Center is not subject to the Acts value restriction because it does not qualify as an alteration or addition under the Act."

3. The Request for Modification of Opinion, filed September 17, 2010, at pages 3-4, asks that the opinion be modified on page 38. This request is denied.

4. The Request for Modification of Opinion, filed September 17, 2010, at pages 5-6, asks that the opinion be modified on pages 38-39. This request is denied.

DATE:

McGuiness, P. J.

Justice Jenkins and Justice Siggins concur.

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Barbara J. Miller

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Joshua A.H. Harris

Counsel for Defendants and Respondents: Reed Smith LLP, Paul D. Fogel, Dennis Peter Maio Office of the General Counsel, University of California, Charles F. Robinson, Eric K. Behrens, Kelly L. Drumm Sanger &Olson, John M. Sanger, Charles R. Olson Belzer, Hulchiy & Murray, Nicholas P. Hulchiy, Steven Barry Piser

California Oak Foundation et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., A122511