I say no

the cost to the environment is too great. You can not replace the vegitation it will destroy.

I say no

While no active fault has been found under the site, it is sufficiently close to the fault that I can't believe we really know where the next surface faulting will occur to that level of accuracy.

The oak trees, on the other hand, are not "old growth" and deserve no special consideration.

I say no

The question is phrased inappropriately,
a more sincere question would be
--Should the university build a Student Athlete High Performance Center on top of a an indian burial ground and 80 year old oak grove planted as a memorial to fallen soldiers, with 2 250yr old oak trees?

or better yet
--Should the university consider alternative sites to the oak grove, like ones that are not on an earth quake fault line?

or even better?
-- Should the university consider rebuilding the stadium at the orginal sit it was designed for, edwards feild?
-this location is not on a faultline and a creek, and is therefor not a death trap.
-is directly next to the existing modern athletic training facilities.The RSF//recreational Sports Facility
-is adjecent to BART station and Bus many bus lines.. Great for public Transit
-could share parking with downtown berkeley merchants and customers,on the 340 days a year that there are no event at the stadium...
Business needs parking
-You must know that the stadium was built on berkeleys only natural swimminghole and largest waterfall. Its assessed Value is zero to $1000. period, the earth quake retrofitting cost as much as rebuilding. It would be cheaper to knock the beautiful beast down and rebuild a safe stadium on the edwards feild location.

Kitchen Democracy is being misused and questions are being frammed in an insincere manner, This is a request for help understanding how to improve the quality of the kitchen democracy qustions and process, it is currently biased

--Asa

I say no

The stadium and the sports arena should not be placed directly on top of an active fault. It is playing Russian roulet with too many lives.

I say no

I feel strongly about keeping the grove of Oak trees, particulary since we (Berkeley folk and Californians) may loose so many oaks from the sudden oak death disease. We need to keep as many great trees as possible. I'm also very concerned about the proximity to the Hayward fault.

I say no

As a nearby resident I am appalled at the effects of UCB athletic/sporting events on the surrounding neighborhoods: parking becomes worse than it already is, traffic clogs all the local nearby arteries (especially at the close of games), increased pedestrian noise, intoxication and rowdiness (occasionally resulting in vandaliism); in short a lot of very negative environmental impacts become consolidated in consequence to these routine sporting events.

The prospect of giving greater credibility to UCB athletic events and thereby increasing these negative environmental impacts is not something I can support. I am therefore very against any new sports venues and events.

Adding more

I say no

The proposed SAHPC, whether on or near the fault, should not be built. I beleive UCB should look to more practical and safer sites for a new stadium and the center. The current stadium is not in an accessible/convenient location-if UCB and private funders want a stadium and sports training center-terrific! BUT lets take this opportunity to locate it all in a better spot!!! When the stadium was built in 1923 Berkeley looked much different than it does now. It is now surrounded by a bigger UCB and a large residential area with no major arterial streets to access the stadium.

I say no

The constant creation of 'outstanding' is a false distinction, rising out of several alienating standards and factors, the predominant one being individual material assets - money, etc.
Along with this goes the separation required in a competitive society - competitive for financial gain. Standards are raised that have little and now less to do with satisfactory living.
Ignored are the many merits people do have that are not raised to heroic positions - outside the norm.
Most people experience lack of support from their earliest ages, thus inhibiting their abilities and intentions to do one or many things as well as to do them well.
Outstanding does not belong in a just society. Competition for monetary gain does not, too.
Enjoyment as the aim counters these separating goals.
Needless to mention is the constant covering of Earth with concrete, in this case, removing old trees, for the glory the school expects.

I say no

Please, No building, Haven't we learned from the man-made disaster of levee failures in New Orleans? To rebuild in Strawberry Canyon--on filled land is not good common sense--it is faulty. We do know the Canyon is riddled with fault traces, splays, springs of geologic water, and designated faults that are slightly active (cf. USGS) yet are in danger of faulting again. We don't know when or what harms future earth quakes will do to manmade built projects which will likely kill or hurt people in our community.

It would be prudent to work towards a fuller discourse on the site, worst disaster scenarios, least worst scenarios, and a thorough evaluation of alternative sites be vetted before a decision is made to push on with the present plan. The potential risks to human life and safety of student athletes and neighbors requires a far deeper analysis than the preliminary trenching, boring and fault trace studies to date. Earthquake science is historically quite new-barely 100 years since Lawson followed sags, creeks and ponds to map out what was called the San Andreas Fault.

The historical presence of Strawberry Creek with its odd looking offset in the watershed area planned for construction suggests a cautionary strategy--in short, we should opt for more careful detailed studies and have those studies debated publicly by scientists who do not support the plan and those that do support the plan.

The no then yes politics on this issue has illustrated that we cannot rely on the USGS or the California Geologic Survey to be neutral--independent of their colleagues' influences and shared friendship networks, thus studies must be done by others out of the country who are truly independent. The California Environmental Quality Act is out of date and needs to be expanded given the seismic threats and OTHER threats to our health and safety that we know to expect. It is not often said publically, but we do know that Strawberry Canyon and environs is designated by Homeland Security as a highly vulnerable zone in the current defense strategy of the nation. Has Homeland Security been asked to submit their thinking to this discourse? Please, Mr. Wozniack, ask them for a report.

For the safety of my grandchildren attending Cal Bears games, and a granddaughter who plays in the band, I want a stadium/ athletic center for them much farther away from Strawberry Canyon. Thank you.

I say no

ANOTHER THOUSAND TIMES NO, NO AND NO - for many of the same reasons I argued for another location for the Haas Business School. Where are those people parking? Every day I see them driving! Filling and more filling of that glorious, green open eastern end of my alma mater breaks my heart. More buildings, cars, people and congestion continue to obliterate the most beautiful and last natural edge of the Campus. Put our beloved athletes nearer our sick and neglected downtown! Put the suppport staff, the cars and the traffic near BART and the buses, the restaurants, the clubs, the library, the theatres and the shops. There is absolutely no argument for building this multi-purpose "jewel" on an earthquake fault in the trees in our foothills and residential neighborhoods. For shame!

I say no

Sports is a distraction from college life. Big football should be subsidized by professional football and doesn't belong on campus.

I say no

to close to earthquake fault

I say no

Sports should be for ALL students. I have never liked the university's acting as a farm system for major league sports.

I say no

As a neighbor I am opposed to additional large events being held on campus unless parking and traffic issues are resolved. The campus is too remote to major transportation arteries to accommodate even current usage. Additionally the seismic concerns should rule out additional structures as well as current use of the stadium.

I say no

I don't understand why UCB puts the SAHP and the stadium retrofit together. It seems like a weak argument. Why not build the SAHP in a different location? What is the big deal? USC and UCLA don't even own stadiums and they seem to do well with their training facility at a different location from the stadiums in which they play. The stadium should be retrofitted, but UCB can put the SAHP somewhere else.

I say no

The University should choose another location that is further from the fault and preserves the beautiful historic oak grove. The athletic programs should immediately be moved out of the stadium into temporary facilities until the stadium is retrofitted.

I say no

Why not retrofit the stadium without expanding past its current boundaries? There is no compelling reason as to why this center should be here, and not on the site of the abandoned buildings in Clark Kerr, for example. This is a power grab by Tedford.

I say no

The oak trees that would be cut down are over eighty years old, and offering to replant trees is no consolation.
Find another spot for the new training center!

I say no

In speaking with members of the Berkeley mayoral staff, it's clear the University has no plan to currently update the stadium - and not only is there no plan, there are CA laws that prohibit spending large amts of money to change a building on a fault line without first retrofitting it - something that the University has also not addressed, not has it raised money to do so (the money raised to date is all for the athletic facility). I would be the first one to jump on board and donate to truly support a new stadium build, as I am a big Cal athletic supporter, but I am appalled at the University's use of the stadium update as a proxy to push through its athletic facility, without actually having any concrete plans, intent to build, or money raised to actually do anything about the stadium itself.

I say no

I question why a major expenditure is being made on a sports facility when students are suffering from unprecedented tuition increases and teaching assistants are arguably underpaid by the University. I have been told that the sports facilities are funded by "private" donations, but that simply highlights the fact that money from donors is available for sports-related improvements -- but apparently not for basic educational needs or for student assistance and scholarships. I find this shamefully shortsighted.

Furthermore, I am appalled that the University is planning an additional major facility adjacent to the Hayward Fault. The highest priority for any expenditures on the stadium complex should be to work toward full and permanent solutions, including relocation -- not the investment of additional millions into such a historically and fatally flawed situation. The responsibility of the University is clear -- to prevent the occurrence of inevitable earthquake damages and the truly tragic loss of life due to unaddressed earthquake hazards in either present or planned facilities.

I am not convinced that vitally important issues such as these have been given proper and adequate consideration.

Rick Mitchell