Complex Petit… · allege that the Project will consist of four beach volleyball courts covering...

MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893)

2 RICHARDT. DRURY (Cal. Bar No. 163559) BRIAN B. FLYNN (Cal. Bar No. 314005

3 LOZEAU I DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250

4 Oakland, CA 94607

5 Tel: (510) 836-4200 Fax: (510) 836-4205

6 E-mail:[email protected] [email protected]

7 [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ENDORSED FILED

ALAMEDA COUNTY

FEB O 8 2019

~" . s__\JE. pE.S\' ... \.1., .lel:fS. ,c: - :, ..,__~.- 4,:._.a:.u...J

9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

11 SA VE BERKELEY'S NEIGHBORHOODS, a 12 non-profit, public benefit corporation;

CLAREMONT ELMWOOD 13 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, a non-

profit corporation; PANORAMIC HILL 14 ASSOCIATION, a non-profit, public benefit 15 corporation; DWIGHT HILLSIDE

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION a non-16 profit unincorporated association; and PHILLIP

BOKOVOY, an individual, 17

18

19

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

vs.

20 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of California; CAROL T. CHRIST, in her official

22 capacity as Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley; VINI BHARGA VA, in her official capacity as Director of Physical and

24 Environmental Planning of the University of

21

23

25 California, Berkeley; and JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as

26 President of the University of California; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,

27

28 Respondents and Defendants.

Case No.:

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. ; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5, 1085)

Dept: CEQA Case

I VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLJ\RATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELI EF

2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Petitioners and Plaintiffs SAVE BERKELEY’S NEIGHBORHOODS, CLAREMONT

ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION,

DWIGHT HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION and PHILLIP BOKOVOY,

(collectively, “Petitioners”) petition this Court on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, on

behalf of the general public and in the public interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §

1085 and Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21168.5, or, in the alternative, pursuant to CCP §

1094.5 and PRC § 21168, for a writ of mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief directed to

Respondents and Defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CAROL

T. CHRIST, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, VINI

BHARGAVA, in her official capacity as Director of Physical And Environmental Planning of the

University of California, Berkeley, and JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as President

of the University of California, as well as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (collectively,

“Respondents” or “University”). By this verified petition and complaint (“Petition”), Petitioners

allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Petitioners bring this action to challenge Respondents approval of the Clark Kerr

Volleyball Complex (“Volleyball Complex” or “Project”) and the January 4, 2019 decision executed

by Respondent Vini Bhargava to issue a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) determining that the Project

is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act

(“CEQA”), Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21000, et seq. The NOE improperly applies a Class 3

Categorical Exemption for “New Construction or Small Structures” to the Project. See 14 Cal.

Admin. Code § 15303. “Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,

small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures;

and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor

modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” Id.

2. A project of this size, scope and type of use does not qualify for the Class 3

Categorical Exemption. The Project proposes to remove an existing intramural and practice softball

field located adjacent to Dwight Way at the northern edge of the Clark Kerr Campus and construct a

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

new intercollegiate beach volleyball complex. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon

allege that the Project will consist of four beach volleyball courts covering an approximately 14,000

square feet area; a 3,000 square feet building to house player locker rooms, rest rooms and storage;

about 3,000 square feet of concrete paving; a spectator berm that could accommodate up to 400

spectators; four approximately 40 foot tall field lights; a public address system; the demolition of a

separate building on the Clark Kerr campus, and; the hosting of intercollegiate beach volleyball

matches and tournaments, summer camps, and other special events. The existing softball field is not

being converted to another use with minor modifications. Rather, the softball facility is being

completely removed from the site. The type, scope and operation of the Project are inconsistent with

the criteria established for the Class 3 Categorical Exemption. The University abused its discretion

in applying the Class 3 Exemption to the Project.

3. An exemption also cannot be applied to the proposed Project because the Project will

violate several mitigation measures adopted in the environmental impact report prepared for the

University’s anticipated acquisition of the Schools for the Deaf and for the Blind campus (which

became the Clark Kerr campus) and the University’s site plan for the campus. (See Dwight-Derby

Site Reuse Study (Schools for the Deaf and for the Blind), Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dec.

1978) (“1978 DEIR”); Draft Dwight-Derby Site Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report

(Schools for the Deaf and for the Blind) (May 1979) (“1979 FEIR”).) In response to noise concerns,

the 1979 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure No. 25(f) providing that “[n]o University activities

involving spectators will be scheduled.” (DEIR, p. 380.) In addition, Mitigation Measure 25(e)

provides that “No rock concerts or other noisy activities will be scheduled in the recreation

facilities.” (Id.) Lastly, in order to address aesthetic impacts, Mitigation Measure 26(d) provides that

“[t]he attractive series of outdoor spaces will be maintained in their present condition.” The Project

will violate one or more of these adopted mitigation measures by involving spectators, scheduling

noisy activities and not maintaining the outdoor space at the softball field in the condition that was

present as of 1979. Because mitigations are required to be applied to the Project, no exemption can

be applied. The University has abused its discretion and proceeded in a manner inconsistent with law

by approving a project that violates adopted mitigation measures for the Clark Kerr Campus.

4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Alternatively, assuming the Project qualifies for the Class 3 Exemption, the

University abused its discretion in determining that no unusual circumstances existed with the

Project for the Class 3 Exemption and failed to acknowledge the additional risk of significant noise,

light and traffic impacts on nearby residents posed by the Project. The circumstances of the Project

are unusual for the Category 3 Exemption because the general circumstances of the “New

Construction or Small Structures” exemption facilities do not include intercollegiate athletic

facilities, sporting events including spectators, cheering crowds, a public address system and

powerful field lights. Nor do projects exempt under Class 3 involve the demolition of structures. Nor

do the general circumstances of exempt facilities under Class 3 include projects that violate

mitigation measures adopted pursuant to CEQA. Each of these unusual components for the Project

within the Category 3 Exemption risk significant noise, visual and traffic impacts that do not exist

for the general class of projects subject to Category 3.

5. By failing to perform any CEQA review of the Project and issuing a categorical

exemption for the Project, Respondents failed to proceed in a manner required by law.

PARTIES

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

6. Petitioner and Plaintiff SAVE BERKELEY’S NEIGHBORHOODS (“SBN”) is a

California nonprofit public benefit corporation formed to provide education and advocacy to

improve quality of life, protect the environment and implement best planning practices. SBN’s

founders, members, and directors live in the vicinity of the Clark Kerr campus and in the area

affected by the Project. SBN and its members will suffer injury from adverse environmental impacts

caused by the construction and operation of the Beach Volleyball Complex if the legal violations

alleged in this Petition and Complaint are not remedied. SBN was formed and brings this action to

represent and advocate the beneficial interests of its founders, members, and directors in obtaining

relief from these legal violations and to improve quality of life, protect the environment and ensure

that the University adheres to the requirements of CEQA in evaluating projects on the Clark Kerr

campus, including the Project. SBN has expressed its concerns to the University and urged the

University to conduct review of the impacts of the Project by preparing an appropriate CEQA

5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

document.

7. Petitioner and Plaintiff the CLAREMONT-ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD

ASSOCIATION (“CENA”) is a California non-profit corporation. CENA was formed by Berkeley

residents as a neighborhood association in 1969, and incorporated as a non-profit corporation in

1975. With over 800 members, CENA is the largest neighborhood association in Berkeley. The

primary goal of CENA is to make the neighborhood a safe and desirable place to live, and to keep

residents informed about important issues in the City and the neighborhood. CENA monitors traffic

and transportation, crime and public safety, emergency preparedness, open space, the local business

environment, city planning and the University of California’s impact on the community. CENA

interfaces with other neighborhood associations. CENA has led the fight for balanced development,

for getting City Hall to address traffic problems on residential streets, for preserving parkland and

open space, and protecting local neighborhood merchants. CENA and its constituents are concerned

about the Project at issue here and its impacts on the environment and residents of Berkeley. CENA

has expressed its concerns in writing to the University and urged the University to conduct review of

the impacts of the Project by preparing an appropriate CEQA document.

8. Petitioner and Plaintiff PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION (“PHA”) is a non-

profit public benefit corporation established to preserve the character and represent residents of the

Panoramic Hill neighborhood in Berkeley, California. The Panoramic Hill neighborhood is located

in the Berkeley hills, overlooking the Clark Kerr campus and in close proximity to the Project. The

neighborhood includes numerous historic homes by renowned architects. On October 21, 2005,

based on the historic quality of the homes as well as the neighborhood’s unique location and scenic

vistas, the State Office of Historic Preservation added the Panoramic Hill neighborhood to the

National Register of Historic Places as an historic district. PHA has expressed its concerns in

writing to the University and urged the University to conduct review of the impacts of the Project by

preparing an appropriate CEQA document.

9. Petitioner and Plaintiff DWIGHT-HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

(“DHNA”) is an unincorporated association that was started about 45 years ago. The group’s

mission is to work to preserve and enhance the livability of the neighborhood encompassed by

6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dwight Way, on the south, Hillside Ave. and Hillside Court on the east, Channing Street on the

north and Prospect Street on the west. Several members residing on Dwight Way and Hillside Ave.

are immediately adjacent to the softball field where the University proposed to build and operate the

Project. DHNA has expressed its concerns in writing to the University and urged the University to

conduct review of the impacts of the Project by preparing an appropriate CEQA document.

10. Petitioner and Plaintiff PHILIP BOKOVOY is a concerned citizen who resides in

Berkeley, in the vicinity of the Project. Mr. Bokovoy is deeply concerned about the impacts of the

Project, and will be directly and adversely affected if the Project is implemented in its present form.

Mr. Bokovoy has expressed his concerns to the University and urged the University to conduct

review of the impacts of the Project by preparing an appropriate CEQA document.

Respondents and Defendants

11. Respondent and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA (hereinafter “Regents”) is a public trust corporation and state agency established

pursuant to the California Constitution vested with administering the University of California

including the management and disposition of facilities at the Clark Kerr Campus, subject to certain

covenants contained in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated April 23, 1982 and the

1979 Site Plan and FEIR.

12. Respondent and Defendant CAROL T. CHRIST is the Chancellor of the University

of California, Berkeley, and named herein solely in this capacity. Respondent Christ has day-to-day

management authority over University of California’s Berkeley and Clark Kerr campuses, including

authority over the staff implementing the Project.

13. Respondent and Defendant VINI BHARGAVA is the Director of Physical and

Environmental Planning of the University of California, Berkeley, and named herein solely in this

capacity. Ms. Bhargava is the individual at the University who approved and signed the NOE.

14. Respondent and Defendant JANET NAPOLITANO is the President of the University

of California and is named herein solely in this capacity.

15. Respondents and Defendants Regents, Carol T. Christ, Vini Bhargava, and Janet

Napolitano are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Respondents” or “University.”

7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16. Petitioners and Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of Respondents

and Defendants fictitiously named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Petitioners are informed

and believe, and thereon allege, that such fictitiously named Respondents and Defendants are

responsible in some manner for the acts or omissions complained of or pending herein. Plaintiffs will

amend this Petition to allege the fictitiously named Respondents’ and Defendants’ true names and

capacities when ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CCP §§ 526 (injunctive relief),

1060 (declaratory relief), 1085 (traditional mandate), 1094.5 (administrative mandate); and PRC §§

21168 and 21168.5 (judicial review under CEQA). The Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory

relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 and injunctive relief pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure § 525 et seq.

18. Venue is proper pursuant to CCP §§ 393(b) (actions against public officers) and 395

(actions generally) because the Respondents include an agency of the State of California, and public

officers of an agency of the State of California. Venue is proper in this Court because the causes of

action alleged in this Petition arose in the County of Alameda and the Project will occur within the

County of Alameda and the environmental impacts of the Project will be acutely felt within the

County.

19. This petition is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitations. This action is

timely under CEQA because it is filed within 35 days of the Notice of Exemption filed by the

University. (PRC § 21167(d); 14 CCR § 15112(c)(2).)

20. Petitioners performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying with

the requirements of PRC § 21167.5 by serving prior notice of the complaint in this action. A copy of

the written notice and proof of service is attached as Exhibit A to the Petition in this action.

21. Pursuant to PRC § 21167.6(b), Petitioners have elected to prepare the record of

proceedings in this matter, and are simultaneously filing their notice of intent to prepare said record

of proceedings with this complaint. A true and correct copy of Petitioners’ Notice of Intent to

Prepare Record is attached to this complaint as Exhibit B.

8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Petitioners will provide notice of this action to the Attorney General of the State of

California, by serving a copy of this Petition along with a notice of its filing, as required by PRC §

21167.7 and CCP § 388.

CEQA LEGAL BACKGROUND

23. CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the

guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. PRC § 21001(d).

24. CEQA is intended to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment.

CEQA requires that a lead agency prepare and certify an EIR for any discretionary project that may

have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (PRC §§21002.1(a), 21100(a), 21151(a); 14

CCR §§15064(a)(1), (f)(1), 15367 (“lead agency” is the “public agency which has the principal

responsibility for carrying out or approving a project”).) “[CEQA] requires the preparation of an

EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a

significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; see

Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002; PRC §21080(c)-(d). )

The “fair argument” standard establishes a low threshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR.

(No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 75; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 310.)

25. “The purpose of an [EIR] is to provide public agencies and the public in general with

detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment;

to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate

alternatives to such a project.” (PRC § 21061; see also §21002.1.) An EIR “serves not only to

protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.” (14 CCR

§15003(b).) “The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-

government.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988)

47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) “The EIR process will enable the public to determine the environmental and

economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come

election day should a majority of voters disagree.” (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d

830, 842.)

9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized

by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a

reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (PRC § 21065; 14 CCR §

15378(a).) For this reason, CEQA is concerned with an action’s ultimate “impact on the

environment.” (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283.) CEQA requires environmental

factors be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible

momentum,” (Id. at 277), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.”

(Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.)

27. CEQA identifies certain classes of projects, called categorical exemptions, which are

exempt from the provisions of CEQA. (PRC §21084(a);14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) Categorical

exemptions are certain classes of activities that generally do not have a significant effect on the

environment. (Id.)

28. Exemptions to CEQA, are narrowly construed and “[e]xemption categories are not to

be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.” (Mountain Lion Foundation

v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) A reviewing court must “scrupulously enforce

all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors

(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.)

29. In addition to the limitation that categorical exemptions be narrowly construed,

CEQA also provides an “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions. CEQA

Guidelines section 15300.2(c) provides, “[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity

where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the

environment due to unusual circumstances.”

30. The test for whether a project presents unusual circumstances is whether “the

circumstances of a particular project (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered

by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that

does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San

Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1207.)

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. In determining the existence of an unusual circumstance, courts look to whether

additional environmental risks are presented by the proposed project. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co.,

52 Cal.App.4th at 1207.) Additionally, the scope and size of a project can be a potential unusual

circumstance. (Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096,

1108-14.)

32. “A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without

evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes

it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception

applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that

unusual circumstance.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086,

1105.)

33. “[A] party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will

have a significant environmental effect. That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes “a

reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to

unusual circumstances.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, 60 Cal.4th at 1105 (citing CEQA

Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).)

34. “[A]n agency may not apply a categorical exemption without considering evidence in

its files of potentially significant effects, regardless of whether that evidence comes from its own

investigation, the proponent’s submissions, a project opponent, or some other source.” (Berkeley

Hillside Preservation, 60 Cal.4th at 1103.)

35. An agency’s determination as to whether there are “unusual circumstances” is

reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, 60 Cal.4th at

1114.) “However, an agency’s finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to “a

reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” is reviewed

to determine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, ‘proceeded in [the] manner

required by law.’” (Id. (citations omitted).)

11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a

substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” (CEQA Guidelines, §

15300.2.)

37. Under CEQA, abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a

manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

(PRC §§ 21168.5.) Erroneous reliance by the City on a categorical exemption constitutes a

prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San

Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1192.) Substantial evidence is defined as

“enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument

can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (14

CCR § 15384(a).) Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts,

and expert opinion supported by facts; however, it does not include argument, speculation, or

unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. (PRC §§ 21080(e), 21082.2(c).)

38. “Mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval become part of the project

and are legally binding.” (UC CEQA Handbook: Chapter 5.2 (https://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-

handbook/chapter_05/5.2.html).) As the University explains:

CEQA imposes an obligation to implement mitigation measures or project alternatives to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, if these measures or alternatives are feasible. Thus, CEQA establishes both a procedural obligation to analyze and make public adverse physical environmental effects, and a substantive obligation to mitigate significant impacts.

(Id., Chapter 1.1 (https://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-handbook/chapter_01/pdf/1.pdf).) “[U]ntil mitigation

measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation

of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.” (14 Cal.Admin.Code §

15097(a).) “Once incorporated, mitigation measures cannot be defeated by ignoring them or by

‘attempting to render them meaningless by moving ahead with the project in spite of them.’” Sierra

Club v. Cnty. of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167. See also Katzeff v. Dep't of Forestry

& Fire Prot. (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 601, 614. An agency’s refusal to implement a mitigation

measure is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. A court must “determine de novo

whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, ‘scrupulously enforc[ing] all legislatively

https://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-handbook/chapter_05/5.2.html)

https://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-handbook/chapter_05/5.2.html)

https://www.ucop.edu/ceqa-handbook/chapter_01/pdf/1.pdf)

12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mandated CEQA requirements.’” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of

Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435).)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

39. The Project proposes to replace an existing intramural and practice softball field

located adjacent to Dwight Way at the northern edge of the Clark Kerr Campus with an

intercollegiate beach volleyball complex consisting of four beach volleyball courts, a 3,000 square

feet building to house player locker rooms, rest rooms and storage. Based on their information and

belief, Petitioners allege that the softball field currently is used intermittently as a practice field and

location for intramural softball and baseball games. It also is used as the location for some archery

activity involving about four archery targets. The current playing field is level and bordered by

mature trees. The ground slopes sharply up at the edge of the field on the east side where the existing

trees begin. There is an opening from the field onto Dwight Way to the north. There are a number of

residences across the street from the field on Dwight Way. The closest residence is about 100 feet

northwest from the edge of the existing field. Numerous residents live within 1,000 feet of the

proposed Project.

40. The NOE provides the following description of the Project:

The UC Berkeley campus would convert the existing Clark Kerr Campus softball field from a recreational softball field into a recreational and Intercollegiate Athletic beach volleyball facility with four beach volleyball courts, a support building with team rooms, locker rooms, restrooms, coach office and storage, new lighting and scoreboard, and a lawn area.

Drawings depicting the proposed Project were circulated to the public beginning in August of 2018.

A rendering of the Project was prepared on or about August 16, 2018 On December 17, 2018, the

University publicly circulated updated project design boards for the Project. The design boards

depict a rectangular court area containing four beach volleyball courts. Petitioners are informed and

believe, and thereupon allege that the sand-covered court area covers approximately a 14,000 square

feet area. The design boards depict a lawn spectator berm located along the length of the east side of

the courts. Also depicted is a level lawn area along the north side of the courts. The proposed field

house containing rest rooms, locker rooms and storage rooms is located along the south edge of the

existing field. The building would be about 3,000 square feet in size. Concrete paving would

13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

surround the volleyball courts and continue out to an entry plaza and paved walkway leading onto

Sports Lane and an adjacent roadway at the southeast corner of the facility.

41. The new facility would be surrounded by an 8 foot tall chain link fence. The facility

would be accessed through three gated entrances. One gated entrance would be located adjacent to

the entry plaza at the southeast corner A second gate is located at the southwest corner of the facility.

And a third gate is located near the northwest corner of the facility and exits onto Dwight Way.

42. The facility would include four tall light poles located at each of the four corners of

the court area. Based on the December 2018 rendering, the light poles appear to be about 40 feet

high. The purpose of the lights is to facilitate evening and intercollegiate matches at the facility. The

lights also are intended to increase the use of the Project by students. “By providing better lighting,

the site can provide more access throughout the year, particularly during the school year in late fall

or early spring.” UC Berkeley Beach Volleyball Facility, Summary of Submitted Questions and

University Responses (Sept. 5, 2018). The rendering also depicts a large, possibly video, display

board on the south side of the courts.

43. The Project includes installation and operation of a public address system. The

information made available to the public by the University includes very little detail on this aspect of

the Project. The December 2018 design boards show a public address speaker located at the southern

edge of the courts and pointing in the direction of Dwight Way.

44. The project will involve the removal of an unknown number of trees at the site. In

describing the Project, the University has indicated that several existing redwood trees located at the

southeast corner of the project site adjacent to Sports Lane would be preserved. Although an arborist

and Campus architect apparently reviewed the site for specimen trees, that information has not been

disclosed to the public.

45. The Project includes the demolition of at least one other building on the Clark Kerr

campus. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding by and between the University and the City

of Berkeley dated April 23, 1982 (the “MOU”), no new buildings except for a designated elderly

housing project are allowed to be constructed on the Clark Kerr campus except to replace existing

buildings that are “destroyed by fire, earthquake or other disasters or removed due to hazards or

14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

infeasibility of rehabilitation.” The new, replacement building must be of a “similar size and scope”

as the removed building. Pursuant to that provision of the MOU, the University’s outside counsel

has indicated that “[t]he University has identified at least two buildings on the Clark Kerr Campus

that pose serious seismic risks and are slated for demolition” and that the Project’s proposed 3,000

square foot building will replace some of that demolished space. The NOE does not acknowledge

this component of the Project.

46. The Project will be available for use by the women’s beach volleyball team, the

archery club, several sports camps hosted by the University, and by the neighboring community. The

women’s volleyball team will practice at the facility. The University indicates that the operating

hours of the facility will be from 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Initially, volleyball matches would be held

from six to seven times each year. Matches typically will occur on Friday, Saturday or Sunday

afternoons. Championship meets would likely be hosted at the facility in the future. Pac-12

championship beach volleyball events currently occur over a three day period and can involve up to

six teams. The facility also anticipated hosting tournaments in the future. Tournaments often include

simultaneous matches.

47. The August 16, 2018 rendering of the facility indicates that the spectator berm along

the east side of the courts would be able to accommodate about 400 spectators in that area alone.

48. Currently, the women’s beach volleyball team practices and plays on two sand courts

located about 900 feet from the proposed Project in the southeast portion of the Clark Kerr campus.

Originally built in 1990, the two courts were originally used solely by local volleyball enthusiasts.

The Women’s intercollegiate beach volleyball team began using the two courts in 2014 when the

beach volleyball program began. In addition to the women’s volleyball team, the two courts are the

location of a number of weekend volleyball camps. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereon

allege, that there are no lights or public address system installed at the two existing sand courts.

Currently, according to the University, volleyball matches at the existing sand courts attract about 50

spectators per match. The University has indicated that while the new facility may increase the

interest in the sport, the University does not expect regular attendance for volleyball matches to

change dramatically.

15


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. The proposed location of the Project is currently occupied by the Golden Bear

Softball Field. The field is used for sport club practices, recreational softball, and summer camp

activities. The field includes a fenced backstop. Several metal storage containers are located along

the fenceline along each base path. Four light poles are located on the edge of the infield area.

Another two light poles are located on the edge of the left and right outfields and are partly obscured

by adjacent trees. The University instructs users of the softball field who may be driving to the field

that street parking is available along Dwight Way as well as at “metered spaces across from the

Golden Bear building.”

50. The Class 3 Exemption relied upon by the University, on its face, is not applicable to

the Project because the Project is not limited to the criteria established for the exemption.

51. The Project does not involve the “construction and location of limited numbers of

new small facilities or structures….” The size of the Project is larger than anticipated by the Class 3

Exemption. The overall Project encompasses a fenced area of approximately 35,000 square feet.

Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the field light fixtures themselves will

be about 40 feet tall and target illuminating an area of greater than 14,000 square feet. In addition,

the Project includes the 3,000 square feet field house as well as another 3,000 square feet or more of

paved area. The NOE only addresses the size of the field house and ignores all other aspects of the

project in its rationale for relying on the Class 3 Exemption.

52. The Project goes well beyond the construction and location of structures because it

also includes the Facility’s new uses and operation. The Project includes large gatherings of 50 or

more people, amplified sound, crowd noises including cheering, and operation of lights. The

University has not established any restrictions on the number of spectators that may attend a beach

volleyball event at the Project. As many as 400 spectators can be accommodated by the Project.

53. The Project includes the demolition of a structure on the Clark Kerr Campus. The

Clark Kerr Campus is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Petitioners are informed and

believe, and thereon allege, that the structure to be demolished as part of the Project will exceed

13,000 square feet in size. The Class 3 Exemption does not extend to any demolition activities.

Given the inclusion of the entire campus on the Register of Historic Places, the demolition of any

16


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

building on the campus associated with the Project “may cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource.” 14 Cal. Admin. Code15300.2(f).

54. The Project involves an unknown level of tree removal from the site. The Class 3

Exemption does not extend to any tree removal activities.

55. The Project is not converting any existing small structures from one use to another

where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. It is instead removing the

existing softball field and its existing backstop and field lights and replacing it with new structures

including the fieldhouse, beach volleyball courts, paved areas, large field lights, and a public address

system. In addition, the use is being changed from a recreational softball use to intercollegiate beach

volleyball use. A pick-up game of softball is not an equivalent use to an intercollegiate beach

volleyball match or tournament. The complete removal of the softball field is not a minor

modification to the exterior of a structure.

56. The Project will violate several mitigation measures adopted in the 1979 FEIR

prepared for the University’s then anticipated acquisition of the Schools for the Deaf and for the

Blind campus and the University’s site plan for the campus. In response to noise concerns, the EIR

adopted Mitigation Measure No. 25(f) providing that “[n]o University activities involving spectators

will be scheduled.” (DEIR, p. 380.) In addition, Mitigation Measure 25(e) provides that “No rock

concerts or other noisy activities will be scheduled in the recreation facilities.” (Id.) Lastly, in order

to address aesthetic impacts, Mitigation Measure 26(d) provides that “[t]he attractive series of

outdoor spaces will be maintained in their present condition.” The Project will violate one or more of

these adopted mitigation measures by involving spectators, scheduling noisy activities and not

maintaining the outdoor space at the softball field in the condition present as of 1979. Because

mitigations are required to be applied to the Project, the Project cannot proceed as proposed and no

categorical exemption can be applied.

57. Assuming the Project qualifies for the Class 3 Exemption, the University abused its

discretion in determining that no unusual circumstances existed with the Project for the Class 3

Exemption and failed to acknowledge the additional risk that the Project creates of significant noise,

light and traffic impacts on nearby residents. The circumstances of the Project are unusual for the

17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Category 3 Exemption because the general circumstances of the “New Construction or Small

Structures” exemption facilities do not include intercollegiate athletic facilities, sporting events

including spectators, cheering crowds, a public address system, powerful field lights, the demolition

of buildings, or violations of adopted CEQA mitigation measures. Each of these unusual components

for the Project within the Category 3 Exemption risk significant noise, visual and traffic impacts that

do not exist for the general class of projects subject to Category 3.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

58. In early August, 2018, the University circulated a flyer inviting interested persons to a

community open house for “a proposed facility would replace existing beach volleyball courts at

Clark Kerr Campus with a modern training and competition facility.”

59. On August 6, 2018, Petitioner CENA sent a letter to the University requesting that the

University address how it would ensure that the proposed beach volleyball facility not be used for

major spectator events, notice of any landscaping or other significant site improvements, CENA’s

concern that intercollegiate athletic use was not addressed in previous site plans for the Clark Kerr

Campus, and that any changes in use be approved by nearby property owners consistent with the

Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated April 23, 1982.

60. On August 13, 2018, the University held a community open house regarding an

earlier version of the Project. Petitioners CENA and DHNA attended the community open house.

During the open house, the University did not respond to the issues raised by CENA in its letter

dated August 6, 2018. The CENA and DHNA representatives were told that the campus counsel

would be responding to the issues identified in CENA’s August 6, 2018 letter.

61. On August 22, 2018, Petitioner CENA sent a document request to the University

pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 6250 et seq. CENA requested “all public

records concerning the conception, planning and possible construction of the proposed Volleyball

Courts at the Clark Kerr Campus, including records concerning the total costs of the project.” CENA

also requested “all public records concerning alternative sites that were studied for the project and

concerning the relocation of current activities on the proposed site.” As of the date of this lawsuit,

18


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CENA has not received any response to the August 22, 2018 document request with the exception of

a confirmation of receipt.

62. On August 23, 2018, Petitioners CENA, DHNA and PHA sent a follow up letter to

the University posing several additional issues relating to the legality of constructing the new

proposed field house; concerns regarding the 400 person capacity of the proposed facility; the

inconsistency of the Project with mitigation measures adopted in the 1979 EIR; the impacts of new

field lights, and concerns regarding spillover parking.

63. On or about September 5, 2108, the University published a “Summary of Submitted

Questions and University Responses” on the University’s website.

64. On September 14, 2018, Charles R. Olson of the law firm Lubin Olson &

Niewiadomski LLP, an outside legal counsel for the University, responded to CENA, DHNA and

PHA’s letter dated August 23, 2018.

65. On January 4, 2019, Respondent Vini Bhargava, on behalf of the University, issued a

Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) determining that the Project was exempt from environmental review

under CEQA. The University provided no opportunity for the public to review or comment on its

decision to apply a Class 3 Categorical Exemption to the Project.

66. On January 22, 2019, Petitioners sent the University a notice of their intent to file an

action under CEQA challenging the exemption determination.

67. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

within the meaning of CCP § 1086, in that Respondents’ approval of the Project and the associated

exemption, and failure to prepare an EIR or mitigated negative declaration for the Project, are not

otherwise reviewable in a manner that provides an adequate remedy. Accordingly, Petitioners seek

this Court’s review of Respondents’ approval of the Project and exemption of the Project from

CEQA, to rectify the violations of CEQA.

68. Unless enjoined, Respondents will implement the Project despite their lack of

compliance with CEQA and violation of mitigation measures applicable to projects on the Clark

Kerr campus. Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm by Respondents’ failure to take the required

steps to comply with CEQA’s procedures and protect the environment.

19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of CEQA – Illegal CEQA Exemption; CCP § 1085, PRC § 21168.5)

69. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

70. Respondents and DOES 1 through 10 abused their discretion and failed to act in the

manner required by law by exempting the Project from CEQA review by issuing a Class 3

categorical exemption for the Project.

71. The Respondents’ decision to approve the Project based on the Class 3 Categorical

Exemption is inconsistent with the terms of the exemption and not supported by substantial

evidence. The Class 3 Exemption does not apply to a Project proposing to entirely remove an

existing intramural and practice softball field and construct a new intercollegiate beach volleyball

complex with courts covering an approximately 14,000 square feet area, a 3,000 square feet building

to house player locker rooms, rest rooms and storage, about 3,000 square feet of concrete paving, a

spectator berm that could accommodate up to 400 spectators, four approximately 40 foot tall field

lights, a public address system, the demolition of a separate building on the historic landmarked

Clark Kerr campus, and the hosting of intercollegiate beach volleyball matches and tournaments,

summer camps, and other special events, including their accompanying crowd noises, cheering, PA

announcements and other loud noises. Nor is the existing softball field being converted to another

use with minor modifications. The type, scope and operation of the Project are inconsistent with the

criteria established for the Class 3 Categorical Exemption.

72. Respondents further abused their discretion and failed to proceed in a manner

required by law because the “unusual circumstances” exception prohibits use of a categorical

exemption for the Project. The circumstances of the Project are unusual for the Category 3

Exemption because the general circumstances of the “New Construction or Small Structures”

exemption facilities do not include intercollegiate athletic facilities, sporting events including

spectators, cheering crowds, a public address system and powerful field lights. Nor do projects

exempt under Class 3 involve the demolition of structures. Nor do the general circumstances of

exempt facilities under Class 3 include projects that violate mitigation measures adopted pursuant to

20


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CEQA. Each of these unusual components for the Project within the Category 3 Exemption risk

significant noise, visual and traffic impacts that do not exist for the general class of projects subject

to Category 3.

73. Respondents further abused their discretion and failed to proceed in a manner

required by law because the Project involves the demolition of a building on the Clark Kerr campus,

a registered historic site. As a result, the Project may cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of that historical resource and cannot be exempted under the Class 3 Exemption.

(CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2.)

74. By exempting the Project from CEQA review, Respondents abused their discretion

and failed to act in a manner required by law.

75. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion

by issuing a categorical exemption for the Project and approving the Project in reliance on that

categorical exemption.

76. Respondents’ adoption of the categorical exemption and approval of the Project must

be set aside.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Comply with Duty to Comply with and Implement Mitigation Measures Adopted

Under CEQA; CCP § 1085, PRC § 21168.5)

77. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

78. Respondents and DOES 1 through 10 abused their discretion, breached mandatory

duties, and failed to act in the manner required by law in violation of CEQA and Code Civ. Proc. §§

1085 or 1094.5 by proceeding with a Project that violates mitigation measures adopted by the

University in the 1979 EIR and by failing to require compliance with the 1979 EIR’s adopted

Mitigation Measures, by concluding that the Project could proceed pursuant to a Class 3 Exemption

and failing to conduct additional environmental review including initial study, EIR and/or negative

declaration of the Project’s potential significant impacts.

79. The Project fails to implement Mitigation Measure No. 25(f) which provides that

“[n]o University activities involving spectators will be scheduled.” (DEIR, p. 380.) The Project fails

21


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to implement Mitigation Measure 25(e) which provides that “No rock concerts or other noisy

activities will be scheduled in the recreation facilities.” Lastly, the Project fails to implement

Mitigation Measure 26(d) which provides that “[t]he attractive series of outdoor spaces will be

maintained in their present condition.”

80. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their discretion

and proceeded in a manner inconsistent with law by adopting an exemption and proceeding with the

Project in violation of the University’s mitigation measures previously adopted in the 1979 FEIR

pursuant to CEQA. Accordingly, Respondents’ approval of the Project and the associated

exemption must be set aside.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Against Respondents and Real Party in Interest)

81. All of the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth again

in full.

82. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined,

Respondents will implement the Project despite their lack of compliance with CEQA. Petitioners

will suffer irreparable harm due to Respondents’ failure to take the required steps to comply with

CEQA’s procedural requirements and protect the environment. Declaratory relief is appropriate

under Code of Civil Procedure § 1060, injunctive relief is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure

§ 525 et seq. and a writ of mandate is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 et seq. and

1094.5 et seq. and under Public Resources Code § 21168.9, to prevent irreparable harm to the

environment.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for the following relief:

1. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondents to:

a. Set aside their approval of the Project;

b. Set aside the Notice of Exemption and Class 3 Categorical Exemption for the

Project;

c. Set aside any and all other actions approving or granting any permits,

entitlements, financing, or other approvals referring or related to the Project

EXHIBIT A

By U.S. Mail and E-mail January 22, 2019 Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents 1111 Franklin St., 12th floor Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] Chancellor Carol T. Christ Chancellor’s Office 200 California Hall # 1500 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1234 [email protected] Vini Bhargava Director, Physical & Environmental Planning UC Berkeley Physical & Environmental Planning 300 A&E Building Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected]

RE: Notice of Intent to File Suit Under the California Environmental Quality Act Regarding the January 4, 2019 Notice of Exemption for the Clark Kerr Campus Beach Volleyball Complex

To The Regents of the University of California, Chancellor Christ, and Ms. Bhargava:

Please take notice, pursuant to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21167.5, that Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association, Panoramic Hill Association, Dwight Hillside Neighborhood Association, and Phillip Bokovoy (collectively “Petitioners”) intend to file a Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), PRC § 21000 et seq., against Respondents and Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Carol T. Christ, Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, Vini Bhargava, Director of

Notice of Intent to File Suit Under CEQA Re: Beach Volleyball Complex January 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Physical and Environmental Planning of the University of California, Berkeley, and Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California, challenging the January 4, 2019 Notice of Exemption executed by Ms. Bhargava for the Clark Kerr Campus Beach Volleyball Complex.

The Notice of Exemption relies upon a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for “New

Construction or Small Structures.” See 14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15303. “Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” Id.

Petitioners will allege, among other things, that the construction and operation of

the facility will include large events that do not qualify for the Class 3 Categorical Exemption. The facility is intended to host intercollegiate beach volleyball events, including playoffs and invitational tournaments. These events will occur during the day and in the evenings. The facility and events will include amplified sound and additional lighting and will accommodate up to 400 fans, which will create crowd and event noises, none of which is contemplated at all by the Class 3 exemption. The facility will attract additional parking that will further overwhelm traffic in the surrounding neighborhood. Accordingly, the exempted project is not merely the construction and location of a new small facility that would qualify for the Class 3 exemption, but the execution of a plan to host major intercollegiate spectator events on the Clark Kerr Campus.

Petitioners will further allege that, assuming the project fits within the Class 3

exemption, the proposed volleyball complex creates an unusual circumstance based on, among other features, its size, the nature of the events that will be held at the facility, its inconsistency with the applicable covenants governing the use of the Clark Kerr Campus, the location within 150 feet of the nearest residences, and a demonstration that it will have a significant effect on the environment. Petitioners will allege that the University’s determination that the unusual circumstances exception to the Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2) does not apply to the project is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners will further allege that substantial evidence of a fair argument demonstrates there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances of the volleyball complex, including but not limited to noise impacts, air quality impacts, traffic impacts, lighting impacts, and inconsistency with applicable land use requirements.

The petition will seek relief requesting (1) a stay of the University’s exemption

decision; (2) a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining the University from initiating construction of the volleyball complex pending trial; (3) a peremptory writ of mandate, permanent injunction and declaratory relief directing the University to vacate the exemption determination and suspend implementation of the project until the University has prepared an environmental review in compliance with

Notice of Intent to File Suit Under CEQA Re: Beach Volleyball Complex January 22, 2019 Page 3 of 4 CEQA; and (4) the costs of suit, award of attorneys’ fees and other equitable or legal relief that the Court considers just and proper.

Petitioners urge the University to rescind their exemption determination for the volleyball complex, conduct the appropriate environmental review, and to prepare the appropriate CEQA document for the complex as required by law. The 35-day statute of limitations for challenging the University’s exemption requires Petitioners to file their case no later than February 8, 2019. Petitioners propose that the University meet with Petitioners as soon as possible to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed volleyball complex and to explore possible resolutions that might obviate the need for Petitioners to proceed with filing the above-described action.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Lozeau Lozeau Drury LLP Attorneys for Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association, Panoramic Hill Association, Dwight Hillside Neighborhood Association, and Phillip Bokovoy

PROOF OF SERVICE I, Toyer Grear, declare as follows:

I am a resident of the State of California, and employed in Oakland, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is 410 12th Street, Suite 250, Oakland, California, 94607. On January 22, 2019, I served a copy of the foregoing document entitled:

Notice of Intent to File Suit Under the California Environmental Quality Act Regarding the January 4, 2019 Notice of Exemption for the Clark Kerr Campus Beach Volleyball Complex

on the following parties: Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents 1111 Franklin St.,12th floor Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] Chancellor Carol T. Christ Chancellor’s Office 200 California Hall # 1500 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1234 [email protected]

Vini Bhargava Director, Physical & Environmental Planning UC Berkeley Physical & Environmental Planning 300 A&E Building Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected]

BY MAIL. By placing the document listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for First Class mail, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed as set forth above.

BY EMAIL. By sending the documents as an electronic mail attachment in PDF format to the e-mail addresses above.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed January 22, 2019 at Oakland, California. ___________________________________

Toyer Grear

EXHIBIT B

1 PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893) RICHARD T. DRURY (Cal. Bar No. 163559) BRIAN B. FLYNN (Cal. Bar No. 314005 LOZEAU | DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510) 836-4200 Fax: (510) 836-4205 E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SAVE BERKELEY’S NEIGHBORHOODS, a non-profit, public benefit corporation; CLAREMONT ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, a non-profit corporation; PANORAMIC HILL ASSOCIATION, a non-profit, public benefit corporation; DWIGHT HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION a non-profit unincorporated association; and PHILLIP BOKOVOY, an individual, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, an agency of the State of California; CAROL T. CHRIST, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley; VINI BHARGAVA, in her official capacity as Director of Physical And Environmental Planning of the University of California, Berkeley; and JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as President of the University of California; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents and Defendants.

Case No.: PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5, 1085) Dept: CEQA Case

Complex Petit… · allege that the Project will consist of four beach volleyball courts covering...

Documents

Transcript of Complex Petit… · allege that the Project will consist of four beach volleyball courts covering...