KPIX: JUDGE RULING ALLOWS UC CONSTRUCTION IN SEVEN DAYS

An Alameda County Superior Court judge today issued a ruling that will allow the University of California, Berkeley to begin construction on a new sports training center and the retrofitting of the campus stadium after a one-week period that would allow objectors to appeal.  Judge Barbara Miller's judgment did find in favor of those fighting the facility, the Panoramic Hill Association, the California Oak Foundation and the city of Berkeley, in some matters.  Miller found that an Environmental Impact Report lacks support that doubling the number of capacity events at the California Memorial Stadium will cause significant environmental effects that are unavoidable.

A UC Board of Regents committee approved building the sports training center on Dec. 5, 2006.  Shortly afterward, a group of people began living in a grove of oak trees next to the stadium to protest the project because it calls for tearing down most of the trees. Three protesters remain at the site. UC attorney Charles Olson has said the estimated cost of the project has grown by more than $11 million since Miller issued a preliminary injunction on Jan. 29, 2007. Now, not only will Miller's ruling today allow the construction on campus, it will also require the petitioners to pay a majority of court fees. The Panoramic Hill Association, the California Oak Foundation and the city of Berkeley will each be required to pay an equal part of 85 percent of the court costs, Miller's judgment stated. "We are very pleased with this decision and see it as confirmation that everything the University has done in connection with this project is fully compliant with the law and completely consistent with our desire to provide our student athletes with safe and suitable facilities," UC spokesman Dan Mogulof said in a prepared statement.

"We look forward to the start of a construction process that will begin with the new Student Athlete High Performance Center and culminate with the seismic retrofitting and modernization of California Memorial Stadium," he said. There have been questions as to whether possible changes proposed by university officials to the stadium would pose a threat to safety, especially in the removal of grade beam along the base of the west wall.  But according to Miller's ruling, "The University has submitted competent evidence that the design changes, and in particular the omission of the grade beam, will not result in safety risks."

Doug Buckwald, the spokesman for Save the Oaks, said in a statement that the seven-day period in which attorneys can appeal will make it difficult for the petitioners.  According to Buckwald, two of the three attorneys representing the petitioners are out of town and will not be able to fully participate in the process.

"Irrespective of the unfair time constraints of the judicial process, the university still could choose to do the right thing and spare the trees until the appellate court rules," Buckwald said. "That approach would be cooperative and would ensure that the legitimate interests of the city and community were not shortchanged on a legal technicality."  The university will have to prove that the total costs of removing the grade beam, altering two staircases and penetrating the ground floor slab will cost less than 50 percent of the value of the stadium itself, the ruling stated.