Neither side has yet submitted a cost accounting, so the parties agreed to handle the issue in post-judgement motions and rulings. It is clear, nevertheless, that major costs are involved due both to the 18 month length of the case and the huge amount of documentation that both sides have had to prepare. As a practical matter, the Panoramic Hills Association and the City of Berkeley now seem likely to incur a major new cost burden.

Costs borne by losers in CEQA (environmental) cases normally do not include allocating attorney's fees, but office and paralegal costs are included. In one exception, as part of UC's 2020 Long Range Development Plan, the City of Berkeley agreed that if they ever sued UC over the stadium project and lost, they would be subject to bearing attorney fees. It is unclear whether this exception applies in this case.

The substance of today's hearing was the debates over the actions the Judge should take in her final judgment. UC has asked that the injunction preventing project progress be "modified" immediately, i.e. lifted, or if extended at all to be limited to the time needed to render the judgment.

Plaintiffs' argued for a 30 day "stay" (a continuation of the injunction) even after the judgment was rendered to give them time to decide whether or not to appeal, and if so, to prepare and submit the appeal. "We have spent so much time and energy on this case, your Honor, that we should not now be pressed by time limits to make hasty decisions," said Oaks attorney Stephen Volker.

"Why do you need 30 days?" Judge Miller asked each of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Some have speculated that requests by plaintiffs for more time have just served a goal of delay, but it is also possible that the current requests reflect an uncertainty on the part of the plaintiffs as to their future actions given the Judge's view of the case.

Judge Miller asked attorney Harriet Steiner, representing the City if Berkeley, whether public bodies like the city have statutory requirements to be fulfilled before they can file an appeal - such as holding public hearings. Attorney Steiner said that both public and private meetings of the City Council would be required, and that an event involving both has already been scheduled for next Tuesday. Thus it seems likely that Judge Miller will leave the injunction in place at least long enough for the City Council to meet.

Attorney Stephen Volker was not so restrained. In a hallway meeting with the press after the hearing Volker said that if faced by imminent action by UC to remove the oak trees, he would make an emergency appeal to the Court of Appeals - and to the California Supreme Court if necessary. "I have appealed over 100 cases in California in my 34 years of practice and I have won most of them. I am certain that we will win this case on appeal."

Theater aside, some technicalities intrude.

If the Judge were to make her judgment now, yet leave the injunction in place indefinitely, an appeal could remove her jurisdiction over the case and move it to the Court of Appeals - with the injunction still in effect.

If the Judge were instead to allow a short but time-limited stay after the judgment is rendered, then an appeal by the City or the other plaintiffs during that stay would get an automatic additional (also time limited) stay of 20 days while the Court of Appeals considered the request. UC would prefer that there be no stay and that plaintiffs be left to make case to the Court of Appeals without any carry over from the present case. "We like our chances at that level," UC Attorney Charles Olson said.

Olson emphasized the extreme costs being borne by the University and its student athletes, cited today by UC spokesman Dan Mogulof at just under $50,000 a day for security costs, project cost inflation, and others. Olson also strongly emphasized the great risks associated with leaving the oak grove emergency fencing in place with football season rapidly approaching when tens of thousands of fans' access would be hampered and perhaps made more dangerous.

Olson also argued that because each of the reasons cited by plaintiffs in their original request for the injunction was now demonstrably invalid (they had said that the entire case would take only 3 or 4 months and that only the plaintiffs' would suffer harm if the project were allowed to proceed because the oaks would be cut down) - the injunction should now be lifted because UC has resolved the only issues raised by the Judge's June 8 ruling.

(UC agreed to remove seven planned extra events at Memorial Stadium each year and to remove a foundation reinforcement from Memorial stadium in order to resolve the two issues).

Plaintiffs objected to the manner by which UC made those changes, arguing that since the Judge's ruling was specifically against the Regents on the two issues, it was necessary that the Judge first order the Regents to set aside the whole project, leaving it to them to then consider the proposed changes and (perhaps) re approve the project. Plaintiffs' argued that mere "campus staff" - in this case Vice Chancellor Denton - did not have the authority to make the changes in the face of the Judge's ruling.

Olson countered that the Regents customarily approve only the broad outlines of a project, and that Denton is authorized to make any changes to a project up to 25% of its value. "Given the hundreds of projects that occur on campus every year, if the Regents had to approve every little building detail they would be in session 24 hours a day for 365 days a year," said Olson.

As the hearing ended, Judge Miller made clear she understood the urgency of the matter and said to the parties, "You will hear from me quickly."

©Copyright 2008, 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.