Stadium Injunction Terms Debated

HAYWARD—Attorneys for the university and three plaintiffs who have filed suit against plans for construction near Memorial Stadium debated the terms of an injunction in court yesterday.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Miller, who will make the final decision on the restrictions as early as today, initially imposed the injunction Jan. 29. The three plaintiffs—the city of Berkeley, Panoramic Hill Association and the California Oak Foundation—had successfully argued that they would suffer irreparable damage if the university was allowed to begin construction before the three suits were resolved.

Current plans call for the construction of a student athletic center adjacent to Memorial Stadium, but the plaintiffs allege the project would destroy a valuable grove of oak trees and could be be seismically unsafe.

The two major points of disagreement yesterday were whether the university could enter into construction contracts before a final ruling is made, and whether the university should be allowed to erect fences around the proposed construction site.

Plaintiffs said if the university entered into contracts, they would have an unfair advantage in the future decision of whether the preliminary injunction should be made permanent.

California Oak Foundation attorney Stephan Volker said the more resources the university invested in the project, the less likely it is that a judge would halt the work.

“There is a tendency not to write off money already spent, and to continue along the course set originally,” Volker said.

UC Berkeley officials have said it is important to be able to move ahead with the contracting process to keep as close as possible to their timetable. While UC attorney Charles Olson said the university would not use any new contracts as leverage in future hearings, the plaintiffs said new contracts should be approved by the court in advance.

UC attorneys argued for the right to secure the proposed construction site, where a protest has been in place since early December. Those protesters, several of whom have climbed and lodged in trees for long stretches of time, say the university should not cut down 26 oaks threatened by the project.

Olson said the land belongs to the UC Board of Regents and the inability to erect a fence limits the capacities of the UCPD.

“The regents have full control over the management of their property,” he said. “We have people that are trespassing and breaking the law. The university needs to retain its police right.”

But Volker said the police had different methods of enforcing the law including filing a federal suit or citing the protesters.

Harriet Steiner, the city’s attorney, said she acknowledged the university’s right to police its property but argued that putting up a fence would be tantamount to implementing the project.

Tags: