Petitioners argued at a hearing on Thursday, February 8th, that because Cal's EIR was being contested in court and had not yet been approved, Cal should not be allowed to make any changes (whatsoever) to the physical environment of the project site, and should also not be allowed to enter into any contacts in furtherance of the project, even- for example- for schedule planning that would involve no physical changes at the site.

The judge ruled against both requests. Marie Felde of Cal's Media Relations called this " ... an important victory for the university."

"The judge did not accept the petitioners' proposed language that sought to limit the university's entry into contracts and rejected their language that sought to restrict the campus from securing the site by installing temporary fencing or other temporary means," announced the University.

We have not seen the actual language of the order yet, but expect to do so shortly.

At the hearings last Thursday, attorneys for UC maintained that the state constitution established The Regents' responsibility and authority to manage university land, and that to do so, the campus needed to retain the right to enforce its police powers on campus. UC's lawyers argued that the injunction should not tie the hands of police in ensuring public safety.

Debate in court centered on fencing as documented in our article "To Fence, or Not to Fence." Petitioners argued that a fence of any kind, of any duration, would constitute a change in the physical environment at the project site, and should be excluded under CEQA law. UC in turn agreed to not erect any permanent fencing, but argued that campus police might need to erect temporary fencing as part of taking action against the tree-sitters and their support encampment.

The judge was unwilling, apparently, to interfere with legitimate police action, and ruled in favor of Cal.

In their announcement, the University did not address the possibility of police action or fencing, instead saying only, "It is the intention of the campus to now go forward with the bidding and contracting process."

©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.