notice order

8/14/2019 notice order

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 1/9

Case No. RG 06301644

NOTICE OF ORDER AFTER HEARING

[ VIA FACSIMILE]

AUG-26-22008 TUE 05:19 PM Sanger & OlsonFAX NO, 415 693 9322

P. 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FILED BY FAXALAMEDA COUNTY

August 27, 2008

CLERK OFTHE SUPERIOR COURTBy Robbi McIntosh, Deputy

CASE NUMBER:

RG06301644

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

JOHN M. SANGER, ESQ. (SBN 49758)CHARLES R. OLSON, ESQ. (SBN 130984)SANGER & OLSON, A Law Corporation576 Sacramento Street, Seventh Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3023Telephone: 415-693-9300Facsimile: 415-693-9322

CHARLES F. ROBINSON, ESQ. (SBN 113197)ERIC K. BEHRENS, ESQ. (SBN 79440)KELLY L. DRUMM, ESQ. (SBN 172767)UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA1111 Franklin Street, 8th FloorOakland, CA 94607-5200Telephone: 510-987-9800Facsimile: 510-987-9757

Attorneys for Respondents,THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; andEDWARD J. DENTON, in his official capacity

PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION, anon-profit corporation,

Petitioner,

V.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of California,

Respondent.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

--•••.,̂ .-.r̂ r̂ YT' '



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:19 PM Sanger & OlsonFAX NO, 415 693 9322

P. 03

1 CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal )

corporation, ))

Petitioner/Plaintiff, )

)v. ))

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, )BERKELEY; REGENTS OF THE )UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES)2 THROUGH 50, inclusive )

)Respondents/Defendants. )

))

))

CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION, SAVE )THE OAKS AT

)

MCGEE-SPAULDING-HARDY HISTORIC )INTEREST GROUP, DONA SPRING, )DOUG A. BUCKWALD, SARAH )SHUMER, HENRYLINDSAY)VUREK, PATRICIA EDWARDS, ANNA )MARIE TAYLOR, STAN SPRAGUE, and )CARRIE SPRAGUE, )

)Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )

)v. )

)

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF )CALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of )California, and DOES II-XX, )

)Respondents/Defendants, )

and

)

)

)DOES XXI-XXX )

)Real Parties in Interest. )

Tyrrnr


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 3/9K:4DOM001110231P1ea1Pmi-T1 4ptFilings in Mal CougtNic of O rder After Hcaring,DOC — 1— 0 8 / 2 6 / 2 n 0 A 5 : 1 3 PW

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:

Please take Notice that on August 26, 2008, the Court entered the Order After Hearing

attache reto as Exhibit A.

Dated , 2008 R.n

'ORATION

/

' ' Ni

00/ : „Jo San , Esq.

Attar or Respondents

TH r REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

BERKELEY; and EDWARDJ.DENTON, in his official capacity

SAN

A LAw Co

xTnrivnr

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:19 PM Sanger & Olson FAX NO 415 693 9322 P. 04



AUG-26-2008 TUE 0520 PM Sanger & Olson FAX NO 415 693 9322 P. 05

EXHIBIT A

pornmn[15- '"1 1191$1108 A:MI PM



PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION,a non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff/Petitioner,

VS.

THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, an

agency of the State of California, et al.,

Defendants/Respondents.

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES

AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & OlsonFAX NO. 415 693 9322 P. 06

08-26-08 0 4 : 2 7 p m F r o m - S U P E R I O R C O U R T H A Y W A R D H A L L O F J U S T I C E +6106602824 1-668 P.002/006 F-248

HUI)AIDACOMY

AUG262008

OLEnx vasszORCOTaT

B yD em

SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN ANJ3 FOR THE COUNTY OF AL DA

No. RG06-30164RG06-302934

RGO6-302967

ORDER AFTER HEARING

Pursuant to an Orderto Show Cause issued on August 8, 2008, the above-

referenced consolidated proceedings carne on for hearing on August25, 2008, in

Department 512 of the above court, Judge Barbara T. M iller presiding.

Respondents The Regents of the University of California,the Universityof

California Berkeley, and Edward J. Denton (collectively, "Respondents"} appeared

by their counsel, Charles Olson, of Sanger & Olson. Petitioner Panoramic Hill

1



A U G - 26-2008 TUE 05:20 P11 Sanger & OlsonFAX NO. 415 693 9322 P. 07

08-28-08 04;2Tpm From - S U P E R I O R C O U R T H A Y W A R D H A L L O F J U S T I C E +8108802824 T-038P.003/006 F-248

Association appeared by its counsel, Michael R Lozeau, of Lozeau Drury LLP.

Petitioner City of Berkeley appeared by its counsel, Harriet A. Steiner, of

McDonough Holland & Allen PC. Petitioners California Oak Foundation, et at_,

appeared by their counsel, Stephan C_ Volker, of the Law Offices of Stephan C.

Volker.

Petitioners' Motion to Vacate Judgment and for New Trial was previously

also set for hearing on August 25, 2008. On August 15, 2008, Petitioners filed a

notice of withdrawal of that motion

The court has considered the documents filed by the parties in response to

the Order to Show Cause, as well as the arguments presented at the hearing, and,

good cause appearing, HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The court will enter judgment forthwith in favor of Petitioners in part

and in .favor of Respondents in part.

2. Based on Respondents' representations contained in their Response

to the Order to Show Cause, filed August 19, 2008, the judgment shall become

effective and enforceable, and the preliminary injunction previously issued in this

proceeding shall be dissolved, immediately upon entry of the judgment.

3. The court notes that on duly 22, 2008, the Clerk issued a Peremptory

Writ of Mandate. The court deems Respondents' "Response to June 18 Order in

Anticipation of the Court's Intended Issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus"

and supporting documentation, filed June 27, 2008, as constituting Respondents'

2



AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & OlsonFAX NO, 415 693 9322 P. 08

08-26-0/ 0428pm From-SUPERIOR COURT HAY WARD HALL OF JUSTICE +6108802824 T-838 P.004/005 F-248

return and concludes that Respondents have complied with the Peremptory Writ of

Mandate; the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code

section 2621, et seq. ("Atquist-Priolo"); and the California Environmental Quality

Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA7'). The return

demonstrates that the University has removed "additional capacity events" as an

approved feature of the Project. The return likewise demonstrates that the

University has approved modifications to the Project that would omit the following

design features that the court found would constitute "alterations" to the California

Memorial Stadium ("CMS") within the meaning of the Alquiist Priolo: (i) a grade

beam to be installed along the base of the west wall of the CMS ; (ii) the demolition

of two Staircases; and (iii) certain "ground floor slab penetrations" proposed to

facilitate the installation of a telecommunications system for the Student Athlcte

High Performance Center.

4. With respect to CEQA compliance, the court has considered

Petitioners' arguments regarding the adequacy of Respondents' return and the

propriety of accepting Respondents' return at this stage of the proceedings. As to

Petitioners' contention that The Regents must approve project changes relating to

deletion of the additional events, the Court finds that the University's

documentation provides adequate foundation for the University's contention that

the appropriate University officials took action in response to the court's Order.

Petitioners' other contention is that accepting Respondents' return at this stage of

k 3



4

Bub= J. her

Judge of the Superior Court

Dated

AUG-28-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & OlsonFAX NO 415 693 9322

P. 09

08-28-08 04:28m F r o m - S U P E R I O R C O U R T R A MO HALL OF JUST ICE +5108002824 T-838 P.005/005 F-248

the proceedings would deprive Petitioners of due process. However, Petitioners

have not articulated the nature of the process they would be entitled to under the

present circumstances, where the University has chosen to comply with the court's

er (and anticipated writ) by withdrawing the proposal to increase the number of

capacityevents at the CMS. Petitioners have not suggested that the withdrawal of

these events will result in new significant environmental effects or an increase in

the severity of any significant environmental effects previously identified. The

University has subm itted competent evidence that the design changes, and in

particular the omission of the gr ade beam, will not result in safety r isks. Therefore,

it does not appearthat any f urther process is required or would s erve any useful

purpose.

5. With respect to Alquig-Pnolo compliance, the court finds that the

University acted within its discretion to remove the design features identified in

paragraph three in response to the court's Order and anticipated that

appropriate campus officials acted within their authorityto approve the changes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



Documents

notice order