  We need to raise $2,010 to continue operating. All donations go directly to operating costs.  |
 |
|
We need to raise $2,010 to continue operating. All donations go directly to operating costs. |
|
| About | Contact | Subscribe | Calendar | Publish | Donate |
|---|
|
More
 $42.00 donated in past month
|
East Bay | Education & Student Activism | Environment & Forest Defense | Government & ElectionsPDF Of Oaks Ruling
It is not clear if the ruling slows down development plans much or not since the University seems to have won most of its claims. The ruling also does not state anything directly about the oak trees on the site.
§In summary
The Court also finds that the University complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements for the Integrated Projects in nearly all respects. However, as set forth herein, the Court concludes that the record does not support the University's unavoidability findings relating to earthquake risks and additional noise and traffic impacts that will be caused by the additional capacity events at the CMS.
- - - - The Petitioners for Writ of Mandate are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth above, and a Writ of Mandate shall issue. On or before June 24, 2008, Petitioners shall submit a proposed form of writ of mandate and proposed judgment for the Court's approval. No later than June 27, 2008, Respondant's may submit objections, if any, to Petitioners' own proposed form of writ of mandate and proposed judgment. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings, by way of return to the peremptory writ, until it has determined the Respondents (UCB) have complied with CEQA and Alquist-Priolo. B. Miller, Judge, Alameda County Superior Court --- |
