Jun 19, 2008 12:19 am US/Pacific
Judge's Ruling Preserves Cal Oak Grove For Now
BERKELEY (CBS 5 / KCBS / AP / BCN) ―
An Alameda County Superior court judge ruled late Wednesday that an oak grove, at the heart of a rancorous 18-month tree-sitting protest, on the University of California, Berkeley campus is not to be touched just yet to make room for a new athletic facility.
Judge Barbara Miller's complex, 129-page ruling kept a temporary injunction in place to preserve the trees and delay construction of a controversial $125 million sports training center next to Memorial Stadium.
Her ruling said UC Berkeley failed in some very limited aspects to follow laws and procedures with regard to developing the land for the sports center.
The court order granted in part and denied in part certain requests made in a lawsuit filed over the project, leading to some conflicting interpretations.
Campus officials stressed that the judge ruled for them on all but a few technical issues, which they expected would be resolved soon. Charles Olson, an attorney representing UC Berkeley, called the ruling a "99.9 percent victory" and questioned whether the injunction would remain in place.
The 44 oak trees on the land in question have been home to protesters for a year and a half, and the ruling came as tensions heightened between the tree occupiers and campus officials. The university, which has a separate court ruling allowing them to evict the sitters, has sent in teams to cut supply lines carrying food and water to the protesters and removed their platforms.
In response, angry protesters have flung human waste, hitting a few targets. Three protesters around the disputed project were arrested Wednesday for vandalism and other alleged infractions, said UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof.
The city of Berkeley, a nonprofit tree group and the Panoramic Hill Association - which represents stadium neighbors - filed suit against the university to stop the sports center project. They cited concerns about traffic, earthquake safety -- the Hayward Fault runs through the stadium -- as well as the trees that would be cut down.
Campus officials said studies showed the proposed center is seismically safe. They noted it's sorely needed to replace cramped and aging facilities at Memorial Stadium, which would get an upgrade as a second part of the project. The campus promised three new trees for every one cut, but that hadn't mollified protesters.
Stephen Volker, the attorney for the California Oak Foundation, one of the three plaintiff groups, said he was "very pleased" with Miller's ruling and proclaimed, "We won."
Volker said Miller concluded that the university's environmental review of the project "is deficient in several respects."
A spokeswoman for the city of Berkeley said while Miller's ruling was a mixed one, it appeared to preclude the university from going forward with the project for the time being.
In her ruling, Miller found that the proposed sports center "as a whole" does not violate the state's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act because it would not be constructed on an active fault. She also found that the sports center is not an addition or alteration to Memorial Stadium.
State law forbids renovations to a structure on a fault if the work amounts to more than 50 percent of the value of the original building.
However, Miller found "certain elements" of the plan do constitute alterations to the football stadium, which means campus officials do have to determine the value of the changes and that of the existing stadium.
Miller said the university complied with environmental procedural and substantive requirements "in nearly all respects" but the record "does not support the university's unavoidability findings relating to earthquake related risks and additional noise and traffic impacts" from the university's plans to have add more high-capacity events at the stadium, which already hosts about six football games a year.
A UC Board of Regents committee approved the project in December of 2006, but Miller issued a preliminary injunction against the plan on Jan. 29, 2007, which temporarily halted it.
Volker said his interpretation of Miller's Wednesday evening ruling was that the university could not go forward with its plans in their current form.
In her ruling, Miller said the plaintiffs must submit a proposed writ of mandate and judgment by June 24 and the university must respond by June 27.
Miller said she would retain jurisdiction over the case until it has been determined that the university has complied with environmental laws and the Alquist-Priolo Act.
(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Associated Press and Bay City News contributed to this report.)
