Judge Halts Memorial Stadium Plan

Citing concerns about seismic safety, an Alameda County judge blocked construction plans yesterday for the athletic center adjacent to Memorial Stadium, thereby protecting an oak grove at the center’s proposed site until at least June.

Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Miller issued the temporary injunction based on a day-long hearing on the issue last Tuesday. In the four-page decision, she said that three plaintiffs lodging suits against the university “have made a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success” in the final hearing.

Representatives of the three plaintiffs—the city of Berkeley, Panoramic Hill Association and California Oak Foundation—each expressed satisfaction with the ruling yesterday.

“We’re gratified that the judge has recognized our points ... that this does in fact pose a serious danger and threat,” said Berkeley City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque.

But UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Administration Nathan Brostrom called the decision “only a temporary setback.”

“We believe strongly that this project meets all state and

earthquake safety requirements and that we will ultimately prevail in court,” he said.

Brostrom said the campus will continue the planning process and hire a construction manager. He also said some work at the site could commence this summer if the suits are resolved, though the bulk of the construction will have to wait until the next football season ends in December.

The suits are expected to be addressed again in court in June or July. Brostrom said the delay will cost the university more than $8 million.

The three plaintiffs filed suit on alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Alquist-Priolo Act, which regulates construction on and near earthquake fault lines.

The plaintiffs argued that planners had not sufficiently proven that the proposed athletic center does not lie on a trace of the Hayward fault, which runs through Memorial Stadium. They also said the university did not address all of the plan’s environmental impacts, including traffic concerns and the removal of 26 coast live oak trees.

Brostrom said campus officials may consider an appeal of the decision, but had not yet discussed it.

California Oak Foundation attorney Stephan Volker said he was “elated” with the decision and said he believed the group had a high chance of success when the issue is heard in June. He added that the foundation would try to gain legislative protection for the oak trees before the hearing this summer.

Save the Oaks at the Stadium spokesperson Doug Buckwald said an almost two-month long protest would continue at the grove, and tree-sitters would make individual decisions about whether to stay.

A court hearing under Miller will be scheduled after campus officials submit its findings in a 40,000 to 45,000- page document, said Charles Olson, the attorney representing UC Berkeley.

The parties are also scheduled to have a negotiation Friday, a step mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act. Both sides said they are open to discussions, but plaintiffs said there are some matters concerning safety that they consider non-negotiable.

“At this moment I cannot see that there are any issues that can be negotiated that could lead us to drop our suit,” said Panoramic Hill Association President Jerry Wachtel.

Claire Mitchell of The Daily Californian contributed to this report.

Tags: