Page One

After the 10-odd months of controversy, acrimony and delays, the Memorial Stadium permanent lighting debate all boils down to one incontrovertible fact: University officials don’t think nine light towers would look crappy and the stadium’s neighbors do. Period.  

After numerous postponements, the University’s initial study of any possible environmental risks the light towers would pose was finally made available to the public on Friday. Under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such an initial study must be made in order to determine if a further Environmental Impact Report is necessary. And, as the local group Neighbors of Memorial Stadium predicted all along, the University doesn’t think it is. 

“The project is exempt from CEQA because it will not cause a significant effect on the environment,” reads the study. “The project will facilitate the continued use of the stadium for its historic purpose; the project will not significantly alter a viewshed currently marked by existing flagpoles and other vertical elements; the installations are positioned outside the perimeter of the historic Stadium structure and would not touch the historic fabric. None of the exceptions to the general exemption would therefore apply.” 

The University argued that an EIR would be additionally unwarranted because the addition of nine light towers each standing 60-to-75 feet over the stadium’s rim would be “only a minor alteration to Memorial Stadium” which would not add any square footage, would replace temporary lighting and could be categorized as “small facilities” or “minor structures accessory to existing institutional facilities.” 

The Neighbors of Memorial Stadium, however, are not buying it. 

“I’m not surprised, but I’m very disappointed by their choice of procedure,” said Robert Breuer, president of the NOMS, a group formed last summer in opposition to the University’s initial attempt at implementing the towers. “They’ve had a long time to do something, and really all they’re doing is coming back to Square One of not seriously looking at this, nor have they had any contact with us in the intervening almost year. They’ve essentially frozen us out. 

“There’s no doubt it will cause a significant effect, and they come right out and say ‘it doesn’t,’” continues Breuer. “Comparing (the light towers) to flagpoles is perfectly ludicrous. And the idea that somehow the stadium lights are not part of the stadium is patently absurd. To say the lights that light the stadium aren’t part of the stadium is perfectly Orwellian talk. Logic like this isn’t going to fly.” 

In addition to declaring exemption from CEQA because permanent lights would replace the temporaries rolled into Memorial Stadium several times a year, the University claims that better directed permanent lighting could cut down on glare in the neighboring community by up to 95 percent. The NOMS, however, says glare is a red herring.  

“Glare is not the point. They want to talk about glare because they know it’s something they can fix,” said NOMS member Michael Kelly. “The real issue is you’ve got these big structures up there 365 days a year for a teeny use, three games a year. It’s the impact of the structure we’re concerned about, not the glare. I feel the Cal planning department is selling out the beauty of the campus in order to benefit a television station.” 

Fox, which owns the broadcast rights to the Pac-10, offered to install $1 million lighting systems in all of the conference stadiums 10 months ago. 

In addition to claims of verbally understating the towers’ impact, NOMS members say the computer-generated photographs the University included in the study and posted on the Internet visually understate the potential impact. 

Both Kelly and Breuer claim the photographs portray light towers shorter and thinner than what they believe the University is planning to install. Correlating the height of one tower with a nearby flagpole he personally measured to reach 30 feet over the stadium’s rim, Kelly calculated the image of the tower as extending no more than 57 feet over the rim. Within the report the University states the towers will stretch 65 to 70 feet above the rim.  

“The width (of the tower) looks to me to be very impractical,” added Kelly. “It clearly looks too thin to support so many lights.” 

The University hopes to address its differences with the neighborhood in a June 29 community meeting. Breuer, however, claims such a meeting would dissolve into a “Dog and Pony Show,” and hopes instead for a public hearing. At the City Council’s behest, City Manager James Keene wrote a letter to the University on June 6 requesting such a public hearing. 

“They want to have a meeting so they can check off a box saying they had a meeting with us,” said Breuer. “Unfortunately, we’re going to have to go through this again. We will take them to court and we will prevail.”