The hearings will almost certainly extend through Friday this week. A decision is not expected, even by the optimists, before 2 weeks. California Environmental Act (CEQA) issues will surface Thursday.
In the University's plans, the SAHPC and CMS abut one another. That abutment was the key issue in many of the issues at trial Wednesday.
If the two buildings are deemed by the court to be parts of the same structure, UC will be found to be in error on several fronts. If the two are deemed to be separate, COB issues will remain but will not be so complex or so obviously dispositive.
(We have used the term "COB" here as a shorthand notation for the several attorneys and plaintiffs that are suing UC).
The COB argued Wednesday that a grade beam of concrete to be installed under and around the footing of the west wall of CMS - as part of the SAHPC project - constitutes an alteration to the CMS, and is in fact a first step in the seismic retrofit of the stadium.
If that argument is accepted by the court, then UC will probably be deemed to have embarked on alterations to a structure that a) is known to sit on an active fault, and b) alterations to which are required to be reported re the calculations of the stadium's value and the extent of changes allowed by A-P law.
COB attorneys asserted Wednesday that UC's failure to comply with A-P law – based on their assumption that only one structure exists – should result in an immediate judicial "remand" that instructs UC to go back to the drawing board.
UC's drawings do in fact show the grade beam around the entire west perimeter of CMS as being integrated with the west wall foundations, a procedure that will include partial removal and modification of the existing footing, as well as drilling holes through the new grade beam - and the old foundation - to allow the installation of steel reinforcing rods.
The COB argues that these are changes are "alterations" to the CMS that are governed by A-P law. They assert that the SAHPC is just phase one of the CMS seismic retrofit.
UC argues that the grade beam is not part of a seismic retrofit per se (even if it will help a future "real" seismic retrofit), but instead is a reinforcement to the CMS foundation required only by standard engineering practice when earth downhill from a foundation that is to be excavated for a new building.
UC attorneys cited a common practice where the owner of an excavation on his property that might endanger a neighbor's buildings is required to reinforce the neighbor's foundations before excavation begins – at no cost (or property tax assessment) to the neighbor.
In response, the COB countered that whatever the reason for the changes, they are still modifications to an earthquake vulnerable structure that attract A-P regulation.
Adding another tack, the COB argued that the proposed plaza on the roof of the new SAHPC fundamentally alters the stadium and its periphery, saying that the plaza is an alteration of the stadium itself. They displayed drawings on a courtroom screen showing UC's plans for the plaza surface to be attached to, and extend up to ten feet into, the CMS.
UC offered photographs of the asphalt pathways surrounding the west side of the stadium, saying that the new plaza was no different in basic function than those pathways, even if they were "improved" pathways, further arguing that whatever supplemental pathways there may be to a structure, they are not parts of the structure itself.
Much of the debate Wednesday centered on the meaning of words like "alteration" and "addition", because counselors for both sides labored to argue that the SAHPC either was, or was not, an addition or alteration to the CMS.
The COB argued that the common sense meaning of those words should obtain, that if, for example, the plaza "added" somehow to the functionality of the stadium, it was in fact an "addition" that was governed by A-P law.
UC argued, in contrast, that in the real world these decisions are made by local building code inspectors, that they are the relevant professionals in their field, and that they ordinarily make the call as to whether a project is an addition to, an alteration of, or separate from, an existing structure.
They argued that, therefore, the standards to be applied in evaluating whether the CMS and SAHPC are separate buildings should be the ordinary and usual standards applied by everyday building inspectors, not merely a "common sense" meaning of the words - as the COB contends.
The Oxford-American English Dictionary got rave reviews Wednesday.
These contentions brought forth almost the only area where the judge closely questioned counsel Wednesday.
She explained that her superior, the court of appeals, had on numerous occasions instructed her (and others) to use the following sequence in evaluating the meaning of a statute: a) (first) the common sense meaning of the words, b) (then) the legislative intent documented when the law was passed, and (finally) c) the ways "experts" in the field understood the meaning of a statute.
In saying this she might have been indicating her agreement with the COB's position, but she might also have been probing for information useful to an opposing opinion.
UC's counsel responded saying that there is simply no other way these questions arise – and are answered – than by the building permit process. They argued that it is always the building code inspectors who make these decisions – and that in doing so they rely upon the documents prepared by licensed architects and engineers, not by a dictionary.
The two sides also hotly debated the "standard of review" that is appropriate to these issues, the standards that the judge should use when arriving at her decision.
To illustrate, the COB argued that UC had failed to prove – at the time they approved the EIR – that the footprint of the SAHPC was active-fault free. Thus they suggested to the judge that she should strictly apply the A-P law to decide that UC had failed to comply with its requirements.
They pointed out that the A-P law presumes that active faults exist within 50 feet of any known fault, that the SAHPC extends into that area, that UC's seismic consultants had long suspected the existence of an inferred fault under the SAHPC footprint (documents presented Wednesday show this), and that UC had not adequately (i.e. completely) ruled out the possibility of an active fault before approving the EIR.
They thus applied a "negative" standard of review, saying that UC had the obligation to prove that NO active fault traces existed under the footprint.
UC's attorneys disagreed, asserting that a different standard of review was appropriate. They cited another judge's ruling in another case (called "Better Alternatives" one that involved the Regents in another Berkeley-based seismic case) that said the "lead agency" (the Regents) was entitled to approve a project on the basis of "substantial evidence", and that perfection of proof was not required.
To buttress the point, UC's counsel Wednesday displayed reports from licensed engineers, and a peer review of those engineers' report, and offered those as examples of the kinds of "substantial evidence" that is conventionally relied upon by decision-making authorities.
The judge will decide.
===
The parties agreed Wednesday that the hearing might well extend into Friday; the judge joked that if it were to extend to Monday or even Tuesday that she would allow everyone a weekend off. (Hear the groans of relief).
Apparently a site visit is on the calendar; visualize the judge and troops circulating around the asphalt paving outside the stadium, and viewing the tree-supported campsites many feet above.
Sandy Barbour was present Wednesday, as were Jim Bartko and Dan Mogulof, all of them simply present as observers of a hearing where decision will have significant impact on the future of Cal Athletics.
The hearings convene again Thursday morning at 9 a.m. in Hayward.
©Copyright 2007, BearInsider.com and Scout.com. All rights reserved.
If you haven't done so already, subscribe
to The Bear Insider so you can participate in this active online Cal community and get access
to the members-only content from the nation-wide Scout.com network.
Bear Insider staff writers visit the
Insider discussion board regularly,
and are available to discuss questions you may have about this article and Cal Athletics.