‘Inaccurate’ images fuel stadium lights fight
UC Berkeley officials took a step back in a meeting Thursday evening with Memorial Stadium neighbors, conceding that the university’s initial rendering of the proposed permanent lights was not a faithful depiction.
Neighbors have been outraged at the university’s proposal for FOX-TV to install permanent lights at the stadium. The lights and their poles will destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood and lead to increased use of the venue, they argue.
In an interview Friday, University Director of Community Relations Irene Hegarty underscored that although the rendering was inaccurate, she could not say if the dimensions as stated in a report on the lights were inaccurate.
“The neighbors felt the figures were inconsistent,” she said.
Planners will check the numbers, then call a second meeting with stadium neighbors, she said. Although there is no date yet for the meeting, Hegarty said it will be in about two weeks.
“We will bring back corrections to the initial study,” she said.
That study concludes that the university does not have to conduct an Environmental Impact Report on the light structures, because they are only a minor addition to an existing structure.
Neighbors disagreed strongly, saying the light structures would impede the flow of people at the stadium and pose an even greater seismic hazard in an already hazardous area. They said the lights illustrate yet again the ways in which they feel the university is encroaching upon their neighborhoods.
FOX, which plans to broadcast four to six football games at the stadium this season, has offered to pay the $1 million cost for the light installation. University spokespeople argued that temporary lights presently brought in for televised games are difficult to manipulate and take time to adjust.
They argued that the temporary lights cause greater disruption to the neighbors than the permanent structures would. University officials said that the televised games would make the hundreds of thousands of alumni scattered throughout the country feel a closer connection to their alma mater, and help support athletic programs at the university.
Michael Kelly lives near the stadium and spoke in opposition to the lights, calling the inaccuracies in the study “huge deficiencies.”
“You need to update the photographs (published) on the (university) web site and publish a statement saying that the previous visual simulations were wrong,” Kelly said.
The residents, organized as Neighbors of Memorial Stadium, brought an enormous tarp that stretched almost the entire length of the conference room. They had painted 36 lights on it, illustrating the actual size of the light cages, which house the lights.
“We now know that this is one of the medium-sized ones,” Kelly said. The largest cages will contain 45 lights.
NOMS offered a variety of creative solutions, including holding televised games at the Oakland Coliseum, or allowing the Raiders to play a game or two at Memorial Stadium annually to increase the revenue needed to pay for temporary lights. The Raiders’ games had been restricted by the university in the past, in an effort to preserve the stadium for university athletic use only.
Councilmember Polly Armstrong, who represents the immediately affected area, reminded the university representatives that the city had asked for an Environmental Impact Report.
“It just simply does not make sense to subject the neighbors to this environmental degradation 365 days a year for four to six televised football games a year,” Armstrong said.
Armstrong said that she felt that the neighbors who came to the meeting were “well-informed, articulate, and passionate” about the project and praised them for offering solutions.
“I felt the university had some serious holes in its initial study,” Armstrong said.
Hegarty moderated the discussion that became emotionally charged at points.
“I did expect there would be strong feelings,” she said. “I thought the meeting was well attended. Clearly there is information that needs to be gathered together for the next meeting, such as how the visual simulations were done.
Hegarty said she would take the comments from the meeting to university administrators. She added that she was looking into extending the time the public can comment on the report by another 30 days. If it were not extended, the period for formal comment on the lights would end July 17.
Bill Manning, senior associate athletic director for the university, stated that in the past the university has complied with wishes that the stadium only be used for university athletic events.
“The use of the stadium has been extremely limited because we have severely restricted ourselves,” Manning said. “When we first brought this to you, we wanted to use the lights more, for evening practices. But we restricted ourselves.”
Manning called on the neighbors for cooperation. “Try to respect us as we restrict ourselves in an effort to respect you.”
Neighbors expressed concern that the university had gone against their wishes and had broken promises in the past. They said that they wanted the university’s word that they would be informed every step of the way in this process. Examples of past intrusions included a concert at the stadium which shook the neighbors’ windows, and increased use of the Greek Theatre to include pop concerts.
Mayor Shirley Dean, the last to voice her opinion on the lights, expressed disappointment and anger with the university for its mismanagement of the project.
“That this item has come under this amount of controversy just shows that it’s a bad project,” Dean said.
“No amount of meeting and discussion is going to cure that fact. The university needs to own up to it, and cut their losses.”