AUG-26-2 008 TUE 05:19 PM Sanger & Olson

FAX NO, 415 693 9322

P. 02

FILED BY FAX
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1 JOHN M. SANGER, ESQ. (SBN 49758) August 27, 2008
CHARLES R. OLSON, ESQ. (SBN 130984)
2 SANGER & OLSON, A Law Corporation CLERK OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT
576 Sacramento Street, Seventh Floor By Robbi McIntosh, Deputy
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3023
Telephone: 415-693-9300 CASE NUMBER:
4 Facsimile: 415-693-9322 RG06301644
5 CHARLES F. ROBINSON, ESQ. (SBN 113197)
ERIC K. BEHRENS, ESQ. (SBN 79440)
6 KELLY L. DRUMM, ESQ. (SBN 172767)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
7 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
8 Telephone: 510-987-9800
Facsimile: 510-987-9757
9
Attorneys for Respondents,
10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; and
11 EDWARD J. DENTON, in his official capacity

12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
14

15
PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION, a Case No. RG 06301644
16
non-profit corporation,
NOTICE OF ORDER AFTER HEARING
17
Petitioner,

V.
18

19
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of
20 California,

21
Respondent. [VIA FACSIMILE]

22

23

24

25 \\\

26 \\\

27 \\\

28 \\\

--•••.,^.-.r^ r^YT
AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:19 PM Sanger & Olson
FAX NO, 415 693 9322 P. 03

1 CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal )

corporation, )
2 )
Petitioner/Plaintiff, )
3 )
v. )
4 )
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, )
5 BERKELEY; REGENTS OF THE )
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES)
6 2 THROUGH 50, inclusive )
)
7 Respondents/Defendants. )
)
8 )
)
9 )
CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION, SAVE )
10 THE OAKS AT )
MCGEE-SPAULDING-HARDY HISTORIC )
11 INTEREST GROUP, DONA SPRING, )
DOUG A. BUCKWALD, SARAH )
12 SHUMER, HENRY LINDSAY )
VUREK, PATRICIA EDWARDS, ANNA )
13 MARIE TAYLOR, STAN SPRAGUE, and )
CARRIE SPRAGUE, )
14 )
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )
15 )
v. )
16 )
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF )
17 CALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of )
California, and DOES II-XX, )
18 )
Respondents/Defendants, )
19 )
and )
20 )
DOES XXI-XXX )
21 )
Real P arties in Interest. )
22

23

24

25
26
27

28

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

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:

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

3 attache reto as Exhibit A.

4 Dated , 2008 SAN R .n

i
A LAw Co ' ' ORATIO N
N
/

6 00 :„/
Jo San , Esq.
7
Attar or Respondents
r
8 TH REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;
9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
10 BERKELEY; and EDWARD J.
DENTON, in his official capacity
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

K:4DOM001110231P1ea1Pmi-T1 4ptFilings in Mal CougtNic of Order After Hcaring,DOC —1— 08/26/2n0A 5:13 PW

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

EXHIBIT A

1191$1108 A:MI PM
- 1'"
pornmn[15
 AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & Olson
FAX NO. 415 693 9322
P. 06
08-26-08 04:27pm From-SUPERIOR COURT HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE +6106602824 1-668 P.002/006 F-248

HUI)
AI DACOMY

AUG262008
OLEnx vasszORCOTaT
By
Dem

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN ANJ3 FOR THE COUNTY OF AL DA

PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION, No. RG06-30164

a non-profit corporation, RG06-302934
RGO6-302967
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
ORDER AFTER HEARING
VS.

THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, an
agency of the State of California, et al.,

Defendants/Respondents.

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES

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

Pursuant to an Order

25, 2008, in
referenced consolidated proceedings carne on for hearing on August

Department 512 of the above court, Judge Barbara T. Miller 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
 AUG- 26-2008 TUE 05:20 P11 Sanger & Olson
FAX NO. 415 693 9322 P. 07
08-28-08 04;2Tpm From -SUPERIOR COURT HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE +8108802824 T-038 P.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 & Olson
FAX NO, 415 693 9322 P. 08
08-26-0/ 0428pm From-SUPERIOR COURT HAYWARD 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

k3
 AUG-28-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & Olson
FAX NO 415 693 9322
P. 09
08-28-08 04:28m From-SUPERIOR COURT RA MO HALL OF JUSTICE +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 circums tances, where the University has chosen to comply with the court's

er (and anticipate d 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 pre viously 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 furth er process is required or would s erve any useful

purpose.

5. With respect to Alqui g-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 O RDE RED.

Dated
Bub= J. her
Judge of the Superior Court

4
AUG-26-2008 TUE 05:20 PM Sanger & Olson
FAX NO. 415 693 9322 P. 10

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Whitney Carlson, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the following statements are true and correct:
(1
I am at least 18 years of age and am not a party to the within action.
0
2. My business address is Sanger & Olson, 576 Sacramento Street, Seventh Floor,
San Francisco, California. My mailing address is Sanger & Olson, 576 Sacramento Street,
Seventh Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3023.
6
3. On August 26, 2008 I served the attached document(s) entitled:
7
NOTICE OF ORDER AFTER HEARING
8
on the following named persons in this action:
9
Michael R. Lozeau, Esq. Kelly L. Drumm, Esq.
10 LOZEAU DRURY, LLP UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
1516 Oak Street, Suite 216 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor
11 Alameda, California 94501 Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Fax: (510) 749-9103 Fax: (510) 987-9757
12
Stephan C. Volker, Esq. Harriet A. Steiner, Esq.
13 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN
VOLKER PC
14 436 - 14th Street, Suite 1300 555 Capitol Mall, 9 th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814
15 Fax: (510) 496-1366 Fax: (916) 444-8334
16
X BY MAIL by placing said copy in a sealed envelope for collection and processing for
17 mailing and, being familiar with my employer's mail collection and processing practices, know
that said mail is collected and deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day it
18 is dated, and know that postage thereon is fully prepaid.
19 BY PERSONAL SERVICE by causing the same to be personally served by on the
above-named person at the above-stated address on this date.
20
X BY FACSIMILE by transmitting the same by facsimile transmission to the above-named
21 person at the above-stated fax number, and received a printed confirmation of successful
facsimile transmission.
22
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL by causing the same to be served via overnight mail on the
23 above-named person at the above-stated address on this date.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
25 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of August 2008 at San Francisco,
California.
26
27

28