I can take no credit for the following post; it is pretty much copy-pasted directly from an email sent to me, with very minimal editing.  I present it here because it is a fabulous summary of the current Memorial Stadium situation, with some new information as well, and the more Cal fans who read it, the better.  I cannot conceive that there are many bigger Cal fans than Erin Proudfoot, who is the person actually responsible for this post, and to her, all credit is due.  The below information is her personal take on Monday night’s meeting:

John and Linda Gage, close friends of Sandy’s, called their second meeting of Berkeley residents to support UC Berkeley’s cause of retrofitting Memorial Stadium.  I saw the event listed in the "Cal Football" group in the @calcafe, so I attended even though I live in Oakland.  They will be holding another meeting, so please let me know if you are interested, especially if you live in Berkeley.

What was the meeting?  A group of 30-40 most Berkeley residents and mostly Cal alums came to hear the latest about the Memorial Stadium project and to get the real facts of the case from Sandy.  It was VERY interesting and VERY informative.  We really need public support surrounding this issue.  Make your voice heard, forward this to your friends, write to your local papers, and demand that we build a safe facility for our student athletes.

Highlights of the talk:

 * From the beginning, there were 3 goals from Cal Athletics in this project: 1. To keep the west side of the stadium in tact and prominent; 2. To play all Cal football games inside the stadium without temporarily going anywhere else; and 3. To provide a safe facility for training, locker rooms, and staff offices.
 * There are 3 plaintiffs in this case: 1. City of Berkeley (deep pocket); 2. Panoramic Hill Association (PHA); and 3. Save the Oaks foundation.  More info on PHA below.  The lawyer for Save the Oaks is working pro-bono.
 * Sept. 19th is the trial date and if it goes to trial, the trial will last 2 days and then a decision should be handed down in 7-10 days.  The judge set the early date to move this along, as well as denying several tactics by the plaintiffs to stall the case.
 * There is a comprehensive website with all the facts and current plans for the 3 Phases, notably a fantastic picture which shows how most of the Student Athlete is actually underground – it blocks very few sight lines and leaves the lower grove of trees in tact.

What are the compromises the Athletic Department has made in order to address the concerns of the above plaintiffs?

 * There will be no lighting towers on the west bowl, instead the lights will be in the "brow" of the new Press Box.  This was a major concern of the PHA – the physical light poles.
 * The University’s policy on planting new trees is 3 saplings for every adult tree taken down.  They have compromised of planting 1 adult tree of the same kind plus 2 saplings.
 * Instead of 900 parking spots, they will only build 500 spots, which simply replaces the spots lost due to the new center and other construction.

What can we do?  If you reside in the City of Berkeley:

 * Attend the Sept. 11th council meeting in support of dropping/settling the lawsuit so that your taxes can best be spent elsewhere.
 * Write letters to the Berkeley council members and the Mayor (Tom Bates: mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us)
 * Offer to host a Berkeley neighborhood meeting where Sandy will talk to more constituents.

What if you don’t reside in Berkeley?

 * Keep talking about the project to friends and family to spread knowledge.
 * Write "Letters to the Editor" based on the facts.

News release regarding Sept. 19th Trial date:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/06/21_sahpc.shtml

The issues PHA are concerned about:

 * Traffic to and from the new parking lot, especially on game day.  To this end, Cal agreed to reduce the number of parking spaces in the new parking lot under Maxwell Field from ~900 to ~500.  These 500 spots replace the spots lost in the nearby parking lots that will no longer be available.
 * Viable exit routes from their homes in case of an emergency (not directly related to the stadium project, but something they may hope to get as part of any deal).  It is hard to get out (and in) to the hills and the roads are in bad condition.
 * Bright lights and lightpoles around the stadium.  Cal instead is building lights under the brow of the west press box and has agreed to limit the number of non-football events in the stadium to 7 per year, with no rock concert events that would require additional sound amplification.

I had a private conversation with a board member of the Panoramic Hill Association, who confirmed my thoughts that most of PHA (himself not included) wants to stop the project at all costs.  Most of the board is not open to negotiating the points of the lawsuit.

If Cal can reach a settlement with only the City of Berkeley, then PHA and Save the Oaks would have to put up a bond in order for the lawsuit to continue.  This would be pretty tough for them.  If the case goes to trial and Cal wins, it can (almost) immediately start on construction, even if/when an appeal is filed.

Here are the official facts about the Stadium Project.  Please copy and paste and send to your friends:

Building Champions: The Plan for Cal’s Student-Athletes

UC Berkeley’s master plan for California Memorial Stadium begins with construction of the new Student-Athlete High Performance Center.

There has been a great deal of inaccurate, if not misleading information in the press about this project. The following Q&A is an effort to set the record straight, and insure that our community’s conversation is
 based on fact, not fiction.

Q: What is the connection between the new student-athlete center and plans to modernize Memorial Stadium?
A: Before beginning work to upgrade and seismically strengthen the stadium, Cal must first build a facility to house the 450 student-athletes, coaches and support staff who currently train and work under the stadium’s stands. This need creates an opportunity for Cal to provide its student-athletes with safe facilities that are on par with those of its peers. In the Pac-10, Cal now ranks dead last in space available to its athletics program for training and sports medicine. The student-athlete center will bring Cal up near the conference average in these areas.

Q: Will taxpayer money be used to construct the student-athlete center?
A: No public money will be used. The project is being funded by donors and ticket surcharges.

Q: Is the proposed location of the student-athlete center safe? Isn’t it right on top of the Hayward Fault?
A: Adjacent to Memorial Stadium, the site is near but not on the Hayward Fault. Extensive geologic testing has shown that there are no active faults under the building’s footprint. The campus hired an independent geological firm to conduct two rounds of testing, followed by a peer review of the findings by another firm and UC Berkeley’s own seismic experts. They all reached the same conclusion: student-athletes using the facility will be safe in the event of an earthquake Engineers say there is a vast difference between "on" and "near" when building in the area of a fault. In the event of an earthquake along the Hayward Fault, they say, the new student-athlete center will be as safe as if it were built miles from the fault - in fact, safer than most buildings in downtown Berkeley.

Q: Besides the football team, which Cal athletes will benefit from the center?
A: More than 400 student-athletes from 13 different teams - 7 women’s and 6 men’s - will use the new facility. While media coverage focuses on football, little has been said about the difference the new center will make for other teams, like women’s field hockey, lacrosse, and soccer that train and play on fields adjacent to the stadium. Without locker rooms of their own, many of the women on these teams must change clothes in their cars to prepare for games and practice. The student-athlete center will support gender equity and ensure that all Cal teams have safe, adequate facilities.

Q: Couldn’t the university find another site for the student-athlete center, one without trees that need to be removed?
A: Many locations were studied as possible sites; only one fully met the need to provide student-athletes with convenient access to academic and athletic facilities. It would be wrong, for example, to ask members of the women’s softball or men’s gymnastic teams  to practice in Strawberry Canyon, travel to a distant location for medical and locker room facilities, and get back to campus on time for class.

Almost all of the trees on the student-athlete center site were planted by the campus - the result of a 1923 landscaping project - and are not part of an ancient, historic grove. Cal will preserve nearly all of the trees adjacent to Piedmont Avenue, and will be planting three new trees for every one it removes. Each of the oak trees removed will be replaced by two saplings and one large, nursery-grown specimen tree.

Q: How has Cal responded to the concerns of its neighbors and the City of Berkeley?
A: Several changes have been made in plans for the area in response to community concerns. The university has:

 * enhanced landscaping on the new plaza along the stadium’s western edge to include lawn and additional trees.
 * conducted additional geologic testing to confirm there are no active faults beneath the student-athlete center site.  
 * lowered the height of the student-athlete center to maintain the maximum view of the stadium from Piedmont Avenue.
 * offered to significantly reduce the number of spaces in the proposed parking facility just north of the stadium. The original plan called for 911 spaces, which included an addition of 300 net new spaces. The revised plan would replace only those spaces that will be lost as the result of construction; no additional parking is planned.
 * designed new lighting and audio systems to minimize impact outside of the stadium.
 * will limit the number of non-football events held in the stadium to no more than seven per year, and promised that the venue will not be used for events such as rock concerts that would require additional sound amplification.

In addition, the renovated stadium will have thousands fewer seats than the stadium does today. This will improve the space and comfort of fans, and will also reduce game-day traffic and disruption for Berkeley residents.

Cal’s plan to build safe and suitable facilities for its student athletes, coaches and fans is now being held up by a variety of legal challenges. One of the plaintiffs, the City of Berkeley, has allocated a quarter of million dollars from its budget for attendant legal expenses. If you have an opinion about this issue, please let your elected representatives know where you stand.