BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley, SBN 075907
Paige J. Swartley, SBN 215340
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707.938.3908, fax 707.576.0175

Attorneys for Petitioner

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SAVE TIGHTWAD HILL!, an
unincorporated association;
Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY, and REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA;

Case No.
PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
California Environmental Quality Act
[CEQA]

Petitioner alleges:

1. Save Tightwad Hill! brings this mandamus action in the public interest to enforce the
California Environmental Quality Act vis-à-vis proposed alterations to the California Memorial Stadium at the University of California at Berkeley. Substantial new seating approved on the east side of the stadium would restrict views and thereby substantially alter the use of the unique cultural landscape known as Tightwad Hill. The hill is located 100 feet above the stadium and provides panoramic views of the football field. Generations of football fans since the mid- 1920’s have congregated on Tightwad Hill to watch California Golden Bear football games.

In an article entitled “Fighting to Save the Really Cheap Seats,” the New York Times
reported on December 4, 2006, that at a recent football game “more than 500 Cal fans crammed the hillside … with coolers of beer, school flags and binoculars. Fans perched on logs, sat in the dirt and on the few patches of grass not torn up by generations of feet … the sun was out, the bands were loud, and [the] beloved University of California Bears beat their archrival Stanford for the fifth straight year.” The Times quoted a principal planner for the Berkeley campus who predicted that the Tightwad Hill fans might have only “one more season up here” due to the planned new two-story seating structure.

The UC Regents’ approval of the east seating structure as part of the alteration of the
stadium in connection with its Southeast Campus Integrated Projects was based on
environmental review that failed to meet mandatory CEQA requirements. The certified
Environmental Impact Report does not adequately describe the environmental setting, does not adequately analyze project impacts, and does not identify feasible mitigation measures that can avoid significant effects on the views from Tightwad Hill while still fulfilling project objectives.

A peremptory writ should issue to require that the Regents comply with the mandates of
CEQA via adequate study and mitigation of the stadium project’s impacts to Tightwad Hill.

2. This Court has jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 21168.5 and Code of
Civil Procedure section 1085. The parties and the affected Tightwad Hill property are located in Berkeley in Alameda County.

3. Save Tightwad Hill! is an unincorporated association formed in 2006 to advocate for
the preservation of the historic use of the cultural resource known as Tightwad Hill. Members of Save Tightwad Hill! include many hundreds of community residents and concerned citizens who enjoy and appreciate the cultural and historical use of Tightwad Hill. The group exhausted administrative remedies via objections to approval of the stadium project’s east seating structure in light of impacts to Tightwad Hill. The group brings this petition on behalf of others similarly situated who are too numerous to be named and brought before this Court as petitioners.

4. Respondent lead agency University of California, Berkeley, through the Regents of the
University, certified the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects EIR and approved the first phase of the stadium project.

5. The paragraphs below rely on information in documents that will be filed with this
Court as part of the record of proceedings and are here incorporated by reference.

6. The California Memorial Stadium was built in Berkeley for the University of
California Golden Bears football program in 1923. Construction of the stadium involved
excavation into a hillside. A portion of the excavated hillside, known officially as Charter Hill
but commonly called Tightwad Hill, provided panoramic views of the stadium field. The hillside
quickly began serving as a vantage point used by scores of Berkeley residents and others to
congregate and view football games without paying for admission to the stadium. The use of
Tightwad Hill by spectators has now continued for over eight decades during the Cal football
season.
7. The Southeast Campus Integrated Projects at issue in this action propose new office
and academic space, parking garages, and Cal athletic program facilities. As part of the
Integrated Projects, the stadium is to be renovated and seismically strengthened. The first
stadium project phase involves construction of the Student Athlete High Performance Center. The second phase includes construction of a new and expanded press box above the western rim of the stadium, seismic upgrades to the stadium, and additional field lighting. The third phase includes further seismic upgrades and a seating structure expanding above the east side rim.

8. The University circulated a Draft EIR for the Integrated Projects in 2006, tiering from
the program EIR that it had prepared for its 2020 Long Range Development Plan.

9. Among the commentors on the Integrated Projects Draft EIR was Daniel Sicular,
Ph.D., who a few months later became one of the organizing members of Petitioner Save
Tightwad Hill!. Dr. Sicular expressed no objections to the first two phases of the stadium
improvements, but urged against the phase three construction of the east seating structure that would obstruct and diminish views from Tightwad Hill. He explained that the Draft EIR was inadequate in its failure to analyze project impacts to the historic use of the hill:

Tightwad Hill is so-named because it affords a free view of the game. On any given game day, from dozens to hundreds of people climb the steep slopes to the informally designated seating areas, some of which provide good views of the entire field. The relaxed atmosphere on ‘the Hill’ as it is often affectionately referred to, along with the great view of the field, the Campus, downtown Berkeley, and the whole central Bay Area, combined with the unbeatable price, combine to make watching games from Tightwad Hill a cherished experience for many. The Draft EIR fails to mention this longstanding use of Tightwad Hill, which probably dates back to the construction of the Stadium, nor are the existing views from Tightwad Hill even mentioned in the Aesthetics section of the document, let alone shown through photographs.

The Draft EIR is deficient in failing to characterize the visual resources, including publicly-accessible scenic views, from Tightwad Hill. The Draft EIR is also deficient in that it does not analyze the effects on these views of the proposed modifications to Memorial Stadium, particularly the effects of the eastside seating structure. This structure would rise ‘approximately 1 story’ above the level of the existing promenade above the Cal Rooting Section. While it is unclear from the visual simulations provided, it appears from Figure 4.1-19B that the proposed east seating structure would be high enough to block some or all of the views of the field from the prime seating locations on Tightwad Hill. The Draft EIR should analyze this effect of the proposed project. If views of the field are blocked, this would ‘have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista’ and would also ‘substantially degrade the existing character or quality of the site and its surroundings’ and should therefore be identified as a significant impact. Feasible ways to mitigate this impact would be to lower the height of the seating structure or to position it so that it does not block views from Tightwad Hill. The Draft EIR is also deficient in that it fails to recognize the historical and cultural significance of Tightwad Hill. Watching football games from Tightwad Hill is a cherished tradition on the Berkeley Campus and for the Berkeley Community. Yet the Draft EIR in the Cultural Resources section completely fails to recognize the importance of this tradition, and of the central role of the Hill itself in creating and maintaining it. The EIR is deficient in that it fails to identify Tightwad Hill as an historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). The Draft EIR is further deficient in that it fails to analyze the potential impact of the proposed project on this historical resource; if views of the field from Tightwad Hill are blocked, or if Tightwad Hill is made inaccessible, it will essentially destroy this important Berkeley tradition.

10. The Final EIR cursorily responded to comments regarding Tightwad Hill. The FEIR
acknowledged that the hill “may indeed be a historically significant landscape resource” and admitted that “to varying degrees” the east side stadium improvements “may obscure portions of the view of the stadium playing field from some places on Tightwad Hill.” The FEIR included no substantive analysis or proposed mitigation of project impacts relating to blocked views of the stadium, simply pronouncing that the field would remain within view “to a large degree.” Since the new construction would not physically “alter” Tightwad Hill, the FEIR found no significant environmental impacts.

11. In response to the Final EIR, Dr. Sicular explained on behalf of Save Tightwad Hill!
how and why the EIR’s treatment of Tightwad Hill remained unlawfully inadequate. Among
other things, Dr. Sicular noted the EIR’s failure to adequately respond to comments, its failure to assess the historic significance and status of Tightwad Hill, its failure to note project inconsistency with its goals and objectives, its failure to assess available mitigation measures for impacts to Tightwad Hill, the inadequacy of conclusions regarding impacts to Tightwad Hill, and its failure to provide information to the public to enable informed comment on the project.

12. The EIR was certified on December 6, 2007, by the University Regents’ Committee
on Grounds and Buildings, and phase one of the stadium project was approved on the same date.

13. A Notice of Determination for the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects was filed
with the State Clearinghouse on December 7, 2007. This action is timely pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 and 13 subdivision (a), because the 30-day statute of limitations ran on a Saturday, January 6, 2007. This action is being filed on Monday, January 8th, which is the next court day.

14. Petitioner Save Tightwad Hill! has given written notice of the commencement of this
action to the University and its Regents as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.5 and has provided a copy of this Petition to the California Attorney General as required by Public Resources Code section 21167.7.

15. Petitioner Save Tightwad Hill! has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Issuance of a writ is needed to avoid irreparable harm through
significant impacts to a cultural resource and a failure to comply with CEQA. The University has the capacity to correct its violations of law but refuses to do so.

16. Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.

17. The University, through its Regents, has abused its discretion and has failed to act in
the manner required by law in certifying the Southeast Campus Integrated Project EIR and
approving the first phase of the stadium project because, among other things:

a) The EIR’s description of the environmental setting was inadequate because it failed to describe and analyze the cultural and historic significance of the Tightwad Hill uses and cultural landscape;

b) The EIR failed to identify or analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of the expanded stadium seating or other aspects of the stadium construction on the historic views from and ongoing use of Tightwad Hill.

c) The EIR inadequately responded to public comments regarding stadium project impacts to the use of Tightwad Hill;

d) The EIR failed to adequately analyze the stadium project’s inconsistencies with the delineated project goals and objectives;

e) The EIR requires recirculation;

f) The Regents approved a project with significant environmental impacts and failed to adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would diminish or avoid significant environmental impacts;

g) The conclusions of the EIR and the findings of the Regents in certifying the EIR are inadequate, incomplete, and unsupported.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays:
1. That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the Regents to set aside
and void the certification of the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects EIR and to refrain from consideration of approval of the east stadium seating structure or other project components that may impact views of the California Memorial Stadium field from Tightwad Hill until full compliance with CEQA is achieved, including revision, recirculation, and certification of an adequate EIR and adoption of feasible stadium project mitigations and alternatives based on substantive findings supported by substantial evidence;

2. That the Court issue a stay order enjoining the University and its agents and employees
from engaging in any physical construction activities in furtherance of the east stadium seating structure or other project components that may impact views from Tightwad Hill pending determination of the merits of this Petition, and to permanently stay said construction after granting the writ;

3. For Petitioner’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1021.5; and

4. For other and further relief as the Court finds proper.

Date: January 8, 2007 BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
by
Susan Brandt-Hawley
Attorney for Petitioner

I, Susan Brandt-Hawley, am the attorney for Petitioner who is located outside of Sonoma
County where I have my law offices, and so I verify this petition on its behalf. I have read the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true and correct based on my knowledge, except as to the matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed this 8th day
of January, 2007, at Glen Ellen, California.

Susan Brandt-Hawley