notice order
TRANSCRIPT
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' '
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 2/9
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
8/14/2019 notice order
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
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 4/9
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
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 5/9
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
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 6/9
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
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 7/9
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
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 8/9
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.
8/14/2019 notice order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-order 9/9