SB Nation User Blog: oaktownmario

DBD 10.24.08: I'm still pissed about Arizona

oaktownmario — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:12:54 -0000

Look, Twist has done an admirable job of trying to make us forget about the fiasco that was our Bears' horrible 42 - 27 beatdown by U of A, through his discussion of UCLA cannibals and campaign finance reform. Even Hydro pitched in with a linkless DBD about black cat stew or something like that. But the bottom line is that I'm still totally pissed about losing to U of A, in a game that was just too winnable to be lost. I just can't get that pissed feeling out of my system . . . kind of like losing to the fucking Furd last year! So I want you to be pissed with me. SCREAM, YELL, AND USE ALL CAPS TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS! USE LOTS OF EXTRA EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!! IT'S OK TO BE MAD! Maybe we can get that loss out of our system. But no, I think the only thing that can do that is to pull a BYU on those damn baby bruins. But let's try our best shall we? BE MAD AND BE PROUD OF IT!

Now to some links (pardon if they're recycled):

Article on defensive lineman Trevor Guyton, and some other tidbits. Of interest is Best's health:

Cal tailback Jahvid Best, who still leads the country in all-purpose yards (200.4 ypg), expects to play again Saturday against UCLA. Best returned from a one-game absence because of a dislocated left elbow at Arizona last week and rushed for 107 yards and a touchdown. But he sat out the fourth quarter after experiencing muscle soreness in his elbow.

Best will continue to wear a brace on his elbow, a brace he said doesn't affect his play.

"If anything, it just looks bad," Best said. "But as far as from a physical standpoint, it doesn't limit me."

Another one on Cal's newest kicker Tavecchio. He's trying to teach his teammates how to say "Go Bears" in Italian.

If you haven't already, check out the Cal Basketball Promotions Page. Lots of good stuff there including the fact that ESPN's College Gameday will be there for the Feb. 28 game vs. Fucla.

Fucla has lots of injuries. Let's hope their 5th string back doesn't drop 300 yards on our D.

And Rusty Simmons wins the "pointing out the obvious award" for telling us Cal needs a "go to" receiver. Thanks Rusty. Thanks.

Something for you to think about: is it me or has Tedford recently (the past few years) been outplayed in second halves. At first it seemed like JT was great at making 2nd half adjustments. And now he seems to be losing that battle. I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers for the past few years, but this year Cal has been outscored by MSU 24 to 21, by U of A 28 to 3, and tied ASU at 7. Cal only outscored a schizophrenic Maryland team, as well as WSU, and CSU. Too much of a small sample to draw any conclusions, but my perception that he is being outcoached in the second half is starting to concern me. Your thoughts?

Dump away. And remember BE PISSED ABOUT IT!

OT Question for Gamers: XBox 360 or PS3?

oaktownmario — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:46:10 -0000

So I've been an owner of the PS and PS2. When the PS3 came out I refused to spend so much $$ for a gaming system and have been sucking it up and using my PS2. Problem is I'm ready for a next gen console and it appears that the PS3, while getting a bit cheaper, probably won't drop in price anytime soon. In the meantime, Microsoft has come out with an XBox 360 arcade version that sells for only $200. So I have a few questions for those of you in the know, so that you may help me decide which system to get: in other words, spend the $200 on the XBox, splurge on the PS3, or wait it out some more.

My gaming interests are as follows: I like the multiplatform sports games (Baseball, College Football, Soccer, Hockey) and like role playing stuff, most notably the Grand Theft Auto series (GTA IV did not come out for the PS2). All I will use the system for is gaming. So even though I know the PS3 has won the DVD battle with XBox by virtue of Blu Ray, I'm not going to switch to buying Blu Ray discs and wouldn't want to burn out my PS3 with Blu Ray playing anyway. I also am not a big fan of an online gaming and do not plan on using this feature for either system. I've heard that most multiplatform games play better on XBox than on the PS3 b/c developers develop for the XBox first and make adjustments for the PS3. I've also heard that as of now XBox graphics are better but that eventually some game developer will exploit all the PS3 potential. Are either of these claims true?

So I would greatly appreciate any feedback from those of you who know. Thanks in advance.

P.S. Not a big fan of the Wii so that's not an option for me.

Why did Tedford choose Riley?

oaktownmario — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:05:10 -0000

It's seems so long ago that Tedford shocked the Nate Longshore loving world that is CGB by naming Riley as the # 1 QB. Most of us who were tired of Longshore's 4th quarter meltdowns last years welcomed the move, while you Longshore lovers were despondent.

Publicly Tedford came out and said that Riley was performing better in practices and earned the job. Having not seen the practices, most of us do not know if this is true or not. But could there have been other factors motivating Tedford's decision? If so what other factors?

While Riley has had a couple decent games and one bad one, his overall numbers seem pedestrian to me.

In his first game against MSU Riley threw for 202 yards, on 17 - 24 passes with 2 TDs and no INTs. We all know how Longshore did . . .

In his second game, Riley was flat out bad. Riley was just 6 - 14 for a measley 51 yards and 1 TD. His longest pass was a 14 yard gain as he consistently missed receivers who were more than 10 yards away from him.

In his third game Riley amassed a HUGE amount of yards: 423 on 33 of 58, with 3TDs and 1 INT. Although Riley began to play better in the second half, his pass completion rate was an uninspiring 56%, and his 423 yards were on 58 pass attempts and against a prevent defense..

So this post isn't an attempt to bash Riley. Instead, I wonder whether there were other factors involved in Tedford's decision. Riley's three performances don't strike me as great or even that good. I'd have to say so far Riley has been average and is still going through a lot of growing pains. Obviously we don't know the playbook, we don't know if our inexperienced receivers ran the proper routes, and at least vs. Maryland we know the O-Line did not do a very good job of protecting Riley and at least some of his 5 sacks were coverage sacks. We also don't know how Longshore would have performed, but I feel he is better at throwing the long ball than Riley is [notwithstanding his ugly line vs. MSU]. I have no insider knowledge and unlike our own Hydro, I haven't served as waterboy for the team. So this is based on pure speculation. However, I think Tedofrd chose Riley over Longford for one or two reasons other than "performance."

1. Riley was chosen so this team could compete next year.

It's no secret that with a [largely] new crop of receivers, a new defensive scheme, and new off. coordinator, this Bear team was going to be in an ongoing state of learning. No one expected our Bears to compete for a conf. championship and at best, everyone's most optimistic projection was to have Cal play in the Holiday Bowl. So even though this last year of Longshore' eligibility would help his pro hopes, why not just get Riley in there this year so that he, the receivers and the off. coordinator have a year of experience under their belts. This would make it easier to compete for loftier prizes next year and while this hurts Nate, in the long run it helps the team develop under Riley.

2. Riley was chosen because the team needed new leadership and Tedford feared an "ASU Rudy Carpenter" rebellion.

The team's lack of leadership last year has been well chronicled by the players, coaches, and by CGB. While this lack of leadership cannot be the fault of any one player, no one on the field epitomizes leadership like the QB. I believe Tedford saw what we all did when Riley played against OSU and AirForce. He saw Riley give the team a spark and referred to Riley's "playmaking ability" when discussing naming him the starter. Naming Longshore the QB could have caused dissension in the ranks and a lack of confidence in the team. Perhaps Tedford felt that to turn things around he had to start with a new QB.

Personally I feel the first factor was the main factor in Tedford's decision. If the team was not going to compete for a Rose Bowl or BCS Champ. this year, then why not prepare the team and Riley for one next year? Your thoughts.

Poll

Why do you think Riley was tabbed the # 1 QB?

He was simply showing more in practice.

18 votes

He's just better than Nate, please!

17 votes

So Tedford can develop this team for loftier goals next year.

12 votes

So the team would not rebel against Longshore and Tedford.

1 votes

Both for development reasons and to avoid rebellion.

10 votes

OTHER (write in comments).

2 votes

60 votes | Poll has closed

Is it time for an Oski makeover?

oaktownmario — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:23:02 -0000

I'm sure I will get a lot of crap over this post, but here goes anyway.

Oski's History

Oski. He cavorts along Memorial Stadium sidelines. He hugs kids on Cal Day. He drinks through a straw in his eyehole, a gross but mesmerizing trick. This fall [2006], Berkeley's lovable bear mascot turns 65, with no signs of stopping. Which means, for over six decades, a parade of undergraduates have sweated it out under a stuffy bear head, wool sweater and size-15 tennis shoes. Moreover, they're under a super-duper, heavy-duty, triple-strength oath to keep it a secret from everyone forever and ever. It's enough to make you wonder, as your attention drifts between plays at a Cal football game, what is Oski all about? How did the goofy grin, high-stepping gait, clasped hands and rumors of permanent intoxication become a Cal institution?

Oski came to life in 1941. Prior to his birth, Berkeley students used to use live bears at sporting events. But after a referee was mauled in 1940, campus administration sought a new mascot. [That's a lie. But administration officials were genuinely worried about the unpredictability of live bears].

In the autumn of 1941, a student named William Rockwell donned a homemadebear head fashioned around a football helmet.

He dressed in baggy pants, a large letter sweater, oversized shoes and white gloves. In front of thousands of Cal fans at Memorial Stadium, he led cheers, waved to children and flirted with girls. In later games, he walked on the crossbar between goalposts and tried to grab the football from referees. The bear never revealed his true identity to others.

Oski's creator, William Rockwell

via www.coe.berkeley.edu

Oski is named after old Berkeley cheer:

Oski Wow-Wow!
Whiskey Wee-Wee!
Olee! Muckie-eye!
Olee! Berkeley-eye!
California! Wow!

Oski became so popular that Rockwell's studies suffered.

After flunking a midterm in ME 102, he enlisted in the Navy, served as a decorated fighter pilot in WWII, and after the war, returned to finish school. With his impending graduation, the engineer anticipated the need for a system to manage and guard Oski's identity year after year. Like so many academic institutions, Oski required a committee.

The Oski Committee thrives today. Its members are undergraduates who decide who will play Oski and who induct fellow committee members. Since the group is also pledged to secrecy and anonymity forever and ever, its workings are mysterious.

Oski is now selected by the Oski Committee, a governing body that oversees all aspects of caring for the lovable, 5-foot-7-inch, size 15 tennis shoe wearing Bear. Oski's identity is unknown to everyone, with the exception of the committee.

In recent years, Oski's acvtivities have changed quite a bit. He still drinks beer, often times through his eyes. However, he no longer flirts with girls or flips up their skirts [boo!] due to sexual harassment policies. He no longer shimmies up the goal posts for threat of liability [boo]. He no longer climbs, defoliates, brawls with, or otherwise harasses the Stanford Tree per an agreement between the two universities [double boo!]. He no longer throws cake into the crowd at a basketball game or pie at an opposing chancellor.

In 1999, Oski was shrouded in controversy. The ASUC Senate introduced a bill to update Oski's tubby, old-fashioned look. It was eventually vetoed, but not before the public came to his defense. Oski himself appeared at an ASUC meeting and scribbled on a blackboard: "For over 50 years, I have worked very hard to represent everything that is great about Cal. Please respect that."

Arguably one of Oski's greatest moments came when he beat the living crap out of the Furd tree. Link. Link. [Note: The second link has some annoying "play by play". Also, if you can find better videos of this, please post].

In fact, the Stanfurd Tree's first appearance was marked by - you guessed it - an ass kicking by Oski.

The first tree recalls the incident: "And I got tackled by the Berkeley Bear."

"Yeah, the Berkeley Bear ran over and knocked me down, and the Band broke formation to come and save me," Hutson says.

It was not the kind of debut one would associate with an enduring symbol [uh, yeah it was]. Link.

Some pics of Oski in action

An early ass kicking for the tree:

via www.stanfordalumni.org

Oski says: "Pimpin' ain't easy!"

via www.oski.com

Oski crip-walking:

via www.oski.com

Oski isn't afraid of shattering traditions: "Walking is so out of style!"

via www.oski.com

Time for a Jenny Jones Makeover?

First off, I love Oski. He represents character and creativity that many other "modern mascots" lack. His sweater, pants, and shoes are all great parts of his wardrobe, and I've never seen him tuck a jersey into basketball shorts. Yet, there's something about his face that bothers me. It looks like it comes from an era before modern technology and he looks slightly related to Goofy. Part of me would like to see an Oski facelift - something that will keep his character but bring his face into "pimpmode" instead of "dorkmode." It would also be nice if he could resume kicking the tree's ass. What do you all think?

Please vote, make comments, add photos and videos as well. Let's celebrate our mascot.

[Note: Much of this material came from sources at oski.com]

Poll

Does Oski need a makeover?

Yes, definitely! His face is out of style.

14 votes

Hell, no! Oski is perfect the way he is.

25 votes

Maybe some minor changes, but nothing major.

15 votes

Are you on crack! You should be banned for suggesting a change.

11 votes

65 votes | Poll has closed

7/25 DBD: Taking Back The Bear Dump For The Proletariat

oaktownmario — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:55:43 -0000

As our own Bertolt Brecht explained recently, the history of the CGB is th history of class struggle. This is clearly evident in the last 499 DBDs which have been horded, monopolized, and controlled by that greedy, painfully self-absorbed, capitalist pig named Twist. But the proletariat will not stand by idly while Twist and the ruling class covers the eyes of masses and profits from all the glory of the working class. So today begins the revolution that our sons and daughters will mark down in their history books as the day that Twist was overthrown and his DBD streak was no more!

[And now back to reality]

I'm not sure I have any interesting links, but I didn't feel like waking up at the butt crack of dawn to beat Twist to the punch, so to speak, so here goes.

In yesterday's news on the stadium front, the Berkeley City Council yesterday announced it would not be appealing the Judge's decision anytime soon. [Apparently there were not enough votes supporting an appeal and the council can't/won't consider it again for another 58 days, effectively meaning that COB will most likely not be involved in any appeal. Normally the time to appeal is 60 days, so technically there is time to get involved in the appeal but in terms of seeking to preserve the injunction, COB will not be involved.]

Twist attended the meeting and provided us this picture of himself while there.

via eyjan.is

It seems like his sign did the trick in persuading the council members. Good job Twist!

Earlier in the day, it was noted that the PHA and California Oak Found., filed their Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court. They paid about $655 filing fee plus $5,200 for the Court Reporter to prepare the record that will be used on appeal. This is not the actual appeal but is a procedural step necessary to ultimately file the appeal (Petition for Review) in the appropriate appellate court. Even if there is an "automatic 20 day stay" continuing the injunction (which I have not been able to verify and have doubts about), I think the actual Petition for Review (appeal) needs to be filed in the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction over Alameda County for anything automatic to kick in. But remember folks, to get a Court of Appeals to maintain an injunction, one of the elements needed to be shown is the "probability of success on the merits." That is pretty damn impossible to show when you already got your ass kicked on the merits, but that's just my opinion and as I've stated before, my opinion means squat.

Speaking of opinions, someone picked Cal to finish first in the Pac-10! That's right, over USCheat. So at least one reporter that covers the Pac-10 knows something about football. In response to that one vote, our great center Alex Mack said:

"We have a believer." and "I believe we can win the national championship."

In that same articled are a few interesting JT quotes:

Tedford said Jahvid Best, the presumed starter at running back who missed spring ball with a hip injury, is "100 percent healthy."

Tedford is not absolutely sure the legal battle to begin construction of the athletic training center is over, even though a judge ruled this week that the injunction will be lifted Tuesday, barring any further appeals. "I think we're as close as we've been to having some movement," he said, "but it's not over until they say, 'Go.' Over the last month, it's been a big distraction."

In other football news, our friend Phillip Fulmer was served with a subpoena regarding his possible involvement in ratting out an illegal Alabama booster.

And just because I feel like saying it: Brett Favre is an idiot! Brett Favre is an idiot! Brett Favre is an idiot!! Ok so there are conflicting reports about his possible idiocy, but I'll say it again: Brett Favre is an idiot!

Dump away!

Is Fremont the opiate of the AN masses?

oaktownmario — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:14:55 -0000

Mostly in response to the recent trades of Harden, Gaudin and Blanton, there has been a lot of talk around here lately of how the A’s are now “primed” to consistently win in the future or in Fremont. Many have said or suggested it is only a matter of time (Fremont) until the A’s become perennial AL West winners, the Angels become perennial losers, and the A’s even win one or more championships. Putting aside the real question of when Fremont will arrive (2012?), the recent trades leave me with more unanswered questions than answers and these questions leave me doubting the claims of those who see the future as A’s bliss. (For the sake of effect I will be referring to “Fremont” and “the future” interchangeably, realizing they are not identical).

Below are a number of questions that concern me greatly:

1. Who is going to hit and drive in runs in Fremont?

With all the talk of how the A’s now have the envy of young pitching in the majors and minors, people seem to forget that to win you still have to score more runs than the other team. As it stands, the A’s currently field 3 legitimate “hitters” that should play and contribute in Fremont: CarGon, Swooney, and Susuki. Cust does not make the list b/c of his record pace for strikeouts, his apparent inability to hit anything other than fastballs, and his age. Crosby doesn’t make the list b/c he’s not a hitter. Barton seems like he’ll never learn to hit. Chavez is too much of a question mark for now and likely will be gone by then. That leaves holes at one OF spot, 1B, 2B, SS, and 3B (yes the entire infield). What about the minors? [I am admittedly not as knowledgeable as many here about the A’s minor league hitting prospects]. Do any of the A’s second basemen become good hitters and fielders? Do we ever get another shortstop that can hit? Will we be able to field a first baseman that makes us forget about Giambi? Who takes over for Chavez? I know many of you might throw out the names Cunningham (OF), Carter (DH?), and Doolittle (1B) but these are just “prospects” no? I’m tired of prospects (see DJ, Barton) and want some actual hitters. I remember that Barton was lauded as the best hitting prospect in the Cardinals and then A’s organizations . . . but look at him now. And until these “prospects” prove they can hit major league pitching, I’m not ready to celebrate 9 AL West titles in a row. [Like many of you, I think it would have been nice if one of Billy’s trades netted an actual guy that hits ML pitching now].

2. How good will our young pitchers be?

I’ll admit most of the time I am really really really excited about the future of A’s pitching. But how good will these young guns be? To date both Eveland and Smith have shown flashes of good pitching, but is their youth to blame for their struggles or is what we see what we get? Are they still on the learning curve? Will they even be around by Fremont? And how good will everyone else be? Cahill, Gonzalez, Inoa, Anderson, and Simmons are all great prospects, but right now just that. Remember that Dan Meyer was once a great “prospect” also and he’s been all frustration and no performance. Braden was also touted as a good, if not great prospect and he is not much more than AAAA quality.

3. Will the A’s even spend money in Fremont?

Everyone assumes they will, but why? Because Billy has said that? Someone even recently wrote that one of the A’s first big signings in Fremont will be Justin Upton. Who knows if Billy will even be around then, he may get picked up by the English Premier League to run a team, and that may now be his dream. What if the owners simply want to run the team like a traditional business – let’s make some money and turn a profit? I continue to worry that with the declining value of the dollar in the present economy, Fremont may not mean spending more money. Why spend it when it means more profit for the owners? Will the A's stop being a farm system for the wealthy teams of the MLB? I hope the A's spend money in Fremont, but I have doubts about whether that will ever happen.

4. Why are so many assuming the Angels will be a non-factor during the Fremont era?

While the Angels farm system isn’t what it once was, it still is very solid and more importantly it is one of the few franchises that achieves 3 million in attendance every year and has an owner that spends (and overspends) on free agents. The Angels have shown they are more than willing to follow the Yankee model of success by buying runs and paying top dollar for them. Why should we assume that they will not buy their way into competing with the A’s? I for one am not making that assumption. [And I am also not assuming that Seattle will be a non-factor because even though Bavasi pretty much ruined that team for a few years, it will come back].

Because of all these questions, I am not willing to see Fremont as automatic A’s bliss. And all the talk of it as such evokes sentiments of a “better world, at a better tomorrow.” I’m not taking that drug and before I feel confident in celebrating the demise of the Evil Empire (Latin edition) I would like to see some concrete answers to these questions.

Poll

How do you feel about the future of the A's?

I'm taking that opium and we're going to dominate the AL West for years!

11 votes

I'm cautiously optimistic about the future and think the A's will win most of the AL West titles once they're in Fremont (I take opium only once a week).

32 votes

I'm cautiously pessimistic and have only dabbled with opium but I think the A's will win more AL West titles than the hated Angels.

19 votes

I say no to all drugs and won't believe in the A's dominance until I see it.

16 votes

Couldn't Billy have gotten at least one guy that can hit MLB ptiching with one of his recent trades?

34 votes

112 votes | Poll has closed

Summary of UC's Filing on Friday: Take That Hippies!

oaktownmario — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:55:10 -0000

(Ed Note: OakTown works his magick again. I don't think we have to drown him in a lake to know he's a magician here. But it couldn't hurt to double check, I guess. Quick! To Lake Merritt!

If you want to read the UC filings yourself, here's a link with more information. And if you want to read the discussion of the plaintiff's proposed order, here is the link.

Of course, besides Oaktown's analysis, we welcome any and all analyses of anything relating to the court case. Ragnarok and danzig were already disussing it and we look forward to further discussion.

Also, Ragnarok attended the non-event yesterday at the Courtroom. It was non-eventful. So, lot's of stuff going down on a lovely Friday. Czech it out.)

So, the UC filed its papers on Friday June 27 and I have to say, the filing kicks ass. It is very long and very in depth and requires a good chunk of time to sift through, but here is a summary.

UC did not just file a Proposed Order but filed the following:

1. Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction (to be heard July 22, 2008, with a motion for a short briefing schedule on this to be heard on July 1, 2008).

This Motion to Modify essentially argues that the reasons for the existence of the Prelim Injunction have disappeared and that now UC is suffering hardship from any continued ban on building the SAHPC. UC argues three reasons for dissolution of the Injunction: (1) material changes in the facts of the case; (2) major shift in the hardships being suffered by the parties; and (3) justice requires it.

Material changes: UC argues that Petitioner’s initially alleged all kinds of violations of law, but now that the Judge has heard the case and found those allegations to be without merit, there is no reason for the Injunction. SAHPC is in compliance with CEQA and with AP, and there is no reason for enjoining the building of SAHPC at this time. Also, the 3 alterations (grade beam, staircase, floor slabs) have been eliminated and will not be performed (in separate signed letters and declarations, the architects and engineers say they are not necessary to comply with law or safety issues and the Chancellor has approved these changes). Here’s a cool sentence from the Motion: “This Court has now ruled that neither CEQA nor any other law prohibits the University from removing trees to make room for the SAHPC.” In addition, the plan for increased events has been eliminated, so there is no need for further compliance with CEQA on this issue.

Shift in Hardships: Delay has cost UC $11 million in increased construction costs and $770,000 per month going forward. Security and police for the hippies = $729,000 to date and $22,000 per day. 350 students and 75 full time staff continue in unsafe buildings, plus 250 children in summer camps, all at risk in unsafe CMS buildings. Violent conduct of protesters is a public safety issue. Cal’s reputation built up over 125 years is at stake and ability to recruit top notch student athletes is at stake. “The trees on the SAHPC are not protected – and cannot be “saved” – by any law.” GREAT STUFF. The trees are “on the SAHPC.”

Ends of Justice: Petitioners argued for their day in court when asking for the injunction and they got it. Now they lost, so there’s no reason to keep the injunction.

2. Response to June 18 Order . . .

The University basically says: “OK we don’t agree with your June 18 order, but we’re going to comply with it. We have decided to eliminate the three “alterations” to the CMS (grade beam, staircase, floor slab) because these aren’t necessary to the project or to comply with any law. We’re also going to eliminate the increased events at CMS. These are the only two issues we lost on and now those two issues are moot.” There are a lot of docs related to this including declarations from the structural engineers, the lead architect, the CEQA compliance officer and the Chancellor, but they all explain the whys and hows related to eliminating these parts of the project to fully comply with the Judge’s order.

3. UC’s Proposed Judgment

This is really great lawyering here as the UC attorneys give the Judge 3 alternatives. To simplify/summarize these alternatives, they are (1) what the Plaintiff’s are asking for is denied except insofar as it relates to the increased events and related EIR analysis, and the 3 alterations discussed above (in which case SAHPC proceeds); (2) Alternative A: the UC’s Response and plans to eliminate the increased events and 3 alterations are in full compliance with the Judge’s decision, so there is no need to issue a “Writ of Mandate” directing that the University do anything (SAHPC proceeds) and the because UC won on 90% of its claims, it should be awarded 90% of its attorneys fees from all 3 Plaintiffs; (3) Alternative B: Court issues Writ of Mandate (Order) directing that UC comply with law relating to the 3 alterations (AP) and the increased events (CEQA) AND based on UC’s response of eliminating 3 alterations and the increased events, the Court finds there has been compliance with her order and the case is closed and Court orders Plaintiffs to pay attorney fees (and SAHPC proceeds).

4. Objections to Petitioners’ Proposed Order

Basically explains why the Petitioners Proposed order is lame and does not take into account that they lost on virtually all the issues.

In conclusion, UC is trying to get as quick a resolution as possible and is making an extremely strong case in favor of breaking ground on the SAHPC soon. It wishes to leave no doubt as to what the Judge is ordering and is essentially forcing the Judge (in a very persuasive way) to decide once and for all that the SAHPC must proceed. In comparing the Petitioner's Proposed Order to UC's, the difference in credibility and strength of argument is astounding. With that, I say "Good Night."

Poll

After reading reviews of both parties' filings, how do you feel about the project moving forward?

HAND ME THAT CHAINSAW, I'M COMING FOR YOU TREES!

83 votes

The process is moving forward quickly enough, so let's just all calm down and go prepare our chainsaws

40 votes

This judge is going to dilly, then dally, then dilly some more, and then Tedford will leave us! Then, I'm definitely going to use my chainsaw, but not on trees

13 votes

HAND ME THAT CHAINSAW, I'M COMING FOR YOU PEOPLE!

29 votes

165 votes | Poll has closed

Summary of Judge's Ruling: or "The Myth of the Hippie Victory"

oaktownmario — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:08:04 -0000

[Ed's Note: First, Danzig provided great analysis, here here here here here here here here here here here here here and here. Now, OakTownMario, who has previously done some great analysis on this case for us weighs in.]

[Ed's Note 2: I also added a poll to gauge the feeling of the people.]

So after uploading 129 images and printing them individually (take that trees!), I read through the entire decision, which at times was very boooooring. (It was only after my arduous print job, that I much later discovered that someone put the whole decision into a PDF file. Oh well).

So the following is a summary and my impressions of the Judge’s decision. As you can tell by the title, I have no flippin’ idea how the media claims this was a defeat for the school. Alternate title: VICTORY!!!

A couple of notes: I refer to “Petitioners” as any of the Plaintiffs in the case, even though sometimes the Judge distinguishes who is making the claim involved. I use mostly the term “UC” when discussing the Regents of UC, who are the true Respondents/Defendants. I sometimes note numbers in the text. This refers to the page numbers of the Judge’s decision.

Introduction (3-4)

In this intro the Judge basically gives a brief summary of her major rulings. The Judge makes the following rulings: (1) UC’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certification complies with the Alquist Priolo Fault and Zoning Act (AP) and Cal. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) UC is subject to the AP. [AP is designed to prohibit the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults; (3) SAHPC does not violate the AP as (a) there is no construction on active fault; (b) overall the SHAPC is not an addition or alteration to Cal. Memorial Stadium (CMS). (4) However, certain elements of the SHAPC are alterations to CMS so UC must determine the value of these alterations and of the existing CMS structure; (5) UC complied with CEQA procedural and substantive requirements for the Integrated Projects (IP) (term used for all the proposed construction); (6) However, record does not support UC findings related to earthquake related risks and the noise and traffic impacts that will be caused by the additions at CMS. [More discussion of all of these rulings follows].

Summary of Projects (4-7)

The Integrated Projects or IP consist of CMS Seismic Improvements which include the SAHPC and improvements to the CMS, Law and Business School improvements, and parking facilities, improvements to some houses, and other relatively minor improvements. The Stadium Project is divided into 3 phases and for our purposes can be defined as (1) the SAHPC; (2) press box and west side stadium improvements, including lighting; (3) seating expansion on east side of CMS.

Procedural History of the Case (7 – 9)

The Judge simply discusses all the prior proceedings in the case and how we get to where we are. Of note is that the Administrative Record (AR) in the case was 40,055 pages long! The AR are all the docs that UC relied on in saying “We want to build this now!”

The AP (9)

The Judge finds that the AP applies to UC. 9 – 17. This was no surprise given that she already made this ruling in her December Order. [I also previously posted a discussion on this previous decision on the former CalBlogs.] The Judge goes into a detailed and boring analysis for several pages of why AP applies to UC. Basically the court rejects UC argument that AP only applies to State Mining Board and to “cities and counties” as nonsensical, employing common rules of determining what a statute means and considering the legislative history of the AC. Of import is the Judge’s finding that UC in “most respects,” properly determined the SAHPC complied with AP. The Judge also rejects Plaintiffs claims that UC violated AP by failing to undertake public hearing process on geological reports. She found this was unnecessary under the AP.

Compliance With AP (17)

Judge rules that in most respects UC properly determined that the SAHPC complies with AP. “The proposed SAHPC is not on an active fault or branch of a fault, and is not an addition or overall alteration to CMS.” However, certain elements of SAHPC are alterations to existing CMS within meaning of AP. She then goes into a discussion of what the AP is: it prohibits building on active faults when humans will occupy the building. The AP does not apply to any structure in existence prior to May 4, 1975, except when altering or adding to that structure AND the value of the alteration or addition exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structure. (19). The Judge therefore reads the AP to limit the UC in three ways: (1) it can’t build across an active fault; (2) UC may not build within 50 feet of active fault unless no building is placed over an active branch of fault; (3) UC may not construct addition or alteration if cost of the alteration/addition exceeds 50% of the value of existing structure.

So how does the Judge evaluate whether there has been compliance with the AP. She uses a common legal term called the “substantial evidence” standard. Basically the question is whether there is substantial evidence in the 40,000 page record which supports UC decision. In deciding, the Judge must look at the record in the light most favorable to UC and must essentially resolve all doubts in favor of UC.

Her findings: (1) substantial evidence supports UC finding that SAHPC will not lie across an active fault or branch; (2) substantial evidence supports that the SAHPC is not an addition to the CMS. She notes the UC project engineer always envisioned SAHPC as separate structure and plans have proceeded accordingly. 29. She rejects Petitioners claims that the SAHPC is an addition based on Petitioner’s claims that it would be adjacent to the CMS, it would perform complementary functions, and would appear to the lay observer as one structure. 30 She says such an interpretation of addition makes no sense and would extend AP’s reach beyond original intent. She also notes that UC architect testified it would be a separate building. 31 (3) SAHPC is not an alteration but a distinct structure BUT some parts of the proposed project are an alteration. She says the following are alterations subject to AP: (a) a grade beam to be installed along the CMS west wall; (2) alterations to staircases; (3) “floor slab penetrations” for purpose of installing SAHPC telecommunication system. 34. The Judge says that in order for UC to comply with AP, UC must value alterations and value of CMS. So the question becomes: is a beam, a stairwell , and floor slab more than 50% of value of CMS? [Me: No. CMS is priceless! What is half of priceless?]. Judge notes that at the time of decision to approve SAHPC, UC had not valued CMS or decided on methodology for value. Court instructs UC not to use “replacement cost” methodology, but says UC can use any other methodology to value the CMS. [Replacement cost methodology is basically saying, “well it would cost 500 million to build a new stadium, so CMS is worth $500 million”]. 35. [This is one of the only “losses” for UC in the whole decision].

The Judge also rejects Petitioners’ argument that UC must calculate the cost of all 3 phases of Stadium Project now. Judge says UC can do this before construction begins, but does not have to do this before approval of all phases.

CEQA 36

The Judge reviews compliance with CEQA based on a “prejudicial abuse of discretion” meaning that UC violates CEQA if it did not proceed in manner required by law, or its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Basically a fair argument cannot be made to support UC’s decision.

Delegation 37

The Petitioners claim UC violated CEQA by delegating to the Committee on Grounds and Building (CGB) the responsibility to review and certify the final EIR, instead of the full board of regents doing this. Judge says delegation is fine because the regents are empowered to delegate their work to any special committee or subcommittee 38 [Lots of boring delegation arguments that I’ll spare you from at pages 38 – 49].

Premature Approval, (not to be confused with premature ejaculation)

Petitioners contend UC violated CEQA by approving budget for SAHPC before the final certification of the EIR. 49 The Court finds this is not against law and UC has right to determine when it wants to comply with CEQA compliance. The Judge also notes that pursuant to UC guidelines, approving a budget does not commit UC to spend the $ because final approval of expenditure requires CEQA compliance

Failing To Recirculate EIR 51

Petitioners claim UC needed to recirculate the EIR to the public when additional info was obtained on environmental impacts. Judge says UC decision not to recirculate is supported by substantial evidence and does not violate CEQA (recirculation necessary when totally new information added to EIR). The Judge found there was essentially further clarifications of EIR info and no “new” info and that there was no intent in the law to promote endless rounds of recirculation. Subsequent info considered by the regents was clarification. Blah, blah, blah . . .

Omitted Impacts 59

Petitioner claims UC omitted discussion of impacts resulting from removal of trees. 59 Court finds UC adequately analyzed impacts in 37 pages of analysis of impacts. Court also finds that UC adopted feasible mitigation measures to lessen impact of removal of trees ; in the 3 – 1 replacement ratio. 61 The Court further found that there was no sensitive biological resources requiring further analysis of impacts.

Archaeology 65

Petitioners argue that the EIR inadequately addressed IP impacts on archaeological resources and specifically failed to address the 1923 discovery of Native American burial site in vicinity of CMS. Court finds no error in the UC’s EIR discussion. 65 The draft EIR found that there was a likelihood of prehistoric sites in the area. The EIR also noted that if a burial site is found, UC would stop work and preserve archaeology, and bring in archaeologist before proceeding with the project. UC considered all this and have established mitigation measures. No violation of CEQA in failing to discuss a particular burial site or specific archaeological resources in the EIR.

Project Description Is Legally Inadequate 68

Petitioners claim the description of the IP is inadequate. The Court says it’s ok to treat all seven projects as one Integrated Project and there is no need to make separate project descriptions. EIR description of project is sufficiently detailed and includes the necessary items such as location, boundaries, objectives, characteristics, intended uses. Court rejects all of Petitioner’s arguments that EIR is not sufficiently detailed in this respect.

Project Description Is Stable 75

Petitioners essentially claim IP description is not stable or consistent. Court finds project description has remained constant throughout environmental review process and that the EIR adequately describes the geographic setting. Further, the Judge finds that there is no need to provide geological study at this stage of the planning process.76

Impact Analysis (Earthquakes) 79

Petitioners claim UC performed an inadequate analysis of geology and seismic impacts. Court says Petitioners are wrong and points out that there is 25 page chapter discussing this, including the mitigation of delaying scheduling of additional events at CMS until CMS seismic improvements are completed. The Judge also finds that the EIR provides full disclosure of geological and seismic impacts including risk of death in case of earthquake. 83 Court rejects different claims of doom day earthquake scenarios suggested by Petitioners (CMS falling into the SAHPC or into the parking structure in the event of an earthquake). Court says UC considered all the earthquake scenarios and address the risks.

Emergency Access 86

Petitioners argue UC has ignored emergency access impacts (access for emergency vehicles and people during emergencies such as earthquakes). Courts says EIR did consider and analyze this: that draft EIR contains 17 page analysis, plus 7 additional pages in the final EIR. Substantial evidence supports UC analysis and determinations regard emergency access.

Objectives And Alternatives

Petitioners say project objectives violate CEQA because they combine 7 projects into one and that EIR alternatives analysis is inadequate because the alternatives selected are flawed and analysis of the alternatives is flawed. Court says EIR contains adequate project objectives and that EIR identifies alternatives and appropriately analyzes these alternatives. 5 alternatives considered by UC (1) no new projects; (2) projects with no new parking; (3) reduced size; (4) dispersed facilities throughout Berkeley; (5) dispersed facilities throughout Albany. Because the UC considered alternatives, there was no need to analyze more or different alternatives. [More long boring discussion on this . . . ]

Findings By UC 113

Petitioner’s claim UC did not adopt findings in the EIR that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. They raise the issue of findings related to removal of trees, impacts to cultural resources (removal of 2 houses), effects of CMS permanent lighting, effects of renovations on the history of CMS and the wooded area. The Court rejects these claims and rules that UC did make adequate findings on these issues.

In its findings UC states that doubling the # of capacity events at CMS will cause significant environmental effects that are unavoidable. The Judge rules that this finding is not supported by the record because UC has not explained why maintaining the existing # of events is not feasible (as opposed to doubling them once the project is complete). Because UC hasn’t done this it can’t say why increased traffic, noise and earthquake risk are unavoidable.

My Conclusions:

The Judge ruled in favor of UC in all material respects except the following: the three alterations subject to AP: (a) a grade beam to be installed along the CMS west wall; (2) alterations to staircases; (3) “floor slab penetrations” for purpose of installing SAHPC telecommunication system. 34. The Judge says that in order for UC to comply with AP, UC must value alterations and value of CMS. Judge also tells UC that it must explain why it has to double the events at the new CMS once the project is complete. This seems relatively easy and would seem to require some language in revised EIR to the effect that with the improved Seismic CMS, UC will be able to double events and these events can’t take place anywhere else. Accordingly, there will be increased traffic, noise, and earthquake risk.

The Judge has retained jurisdiction for purpose of monitoring compliance with the order so to me this means that once UC does what the Judge ordered, everything will be clear for chainsaws and bulldozers. One frustrating part of her order is that she says nothing about the Injunction. However, this should be sorted out in that she ordered Petitioners to prepare an order that complies with her ruling. Petitioners will prepare an order that will be biased. UC will object and insert language about the injunction being lifted. Once the Judge approves the Order taking into account both sides, that should clear it up. But it is a bit uncertain as of now. Also, doesn’t this make you really hate American law. It’s like that dude in Amistad who was so upset because no order was final and just kept getting appealed (no doubt a more important legal victory).

[Note: Please forgive for any typos or grammar as it is now 2:00 a.m. and I am tired. I hope this helps and feel free to ask any questions as I’ll be checking in from time to time.].

Poll

Now that the Judge has handed down her Order, how do you feel about the project moving forward?

Nothing can stop us! We're coming for you, trees!

41 votes

This all looks pretty good, but I'm kinda nervous about a few of these technicalities

52 votes

Well, I like what she did there and I think Cal can take care of these loose ends without too much fuss

27 votes

I'm still too angry at the irresponsible media reporting to really think about it

15 votes

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

15 votes

150 votes | Poll has closed

6/17 DBD: Good luck Ryan!

oaktownmario — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:08:04 -0000

Well, as all of you know by now, Ryan Anderson elected to remain in the draft instead of returning at Cal to get two Nat'l Championships. Bummer. As disappointed as I am, I really do hope he gets picked in the top 20, but every draft tracker has him in the late 1st or early 2nd. We'll have to wait to see where he gets picked to decide if his move paid off or not.

Interesting note in the article is this quote:

Anderson remains optimistic about the Bears and said he's heard rumors Cal might get 6-10 transfer Alex Stepheson, who left North Carolina earlier this spring after his sophomore season.

Anybody know anything about this guy?

In other Pac-10 news, Chase Budinger will return for his junior year , and Luc Richard is staying in the draft.

In more bad press for the NFL, Raiders receiver Walker was robbed in Vegas and knocked out .

And finally, Tyson Ross signed with the A's a few days ago. Some people are concerned about his mechanics and think they are too similar to Mark Prior's. Hopefully the A's can fix them and get him to use his legs. If he does use his legs, I think he could throw like 125 mph.

Dump away!

6/6 DBD: Marshawn the "Prime Suspect"

oaktownmario — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:22:13 -0000

Unfortunately this isn't a movie deal for Marshawn. He's been named the prime suspect in the hit and run accident we've all been discussing. The ESPN bottom line confirmed that the DA has named Lynch the prime suspect (the linked story does not mention the DA). Also of note, other Bills' players may have been with him. Oh no . . .

In better news, Tyson Ross discusses his excitement about being drafted by the A's - the team he grew up watching "too many times" to count. He'll be at the A's game Friday night against the hated "Angels Angels." I say let him start instead of "Cupcakes", who's been having a rough time lately.

Dump away!