University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy

The oak grove sits at the base of California Memorial Stadium and at the time of the controversy consisted of about 90 trees: 65 oaks, including 38 coast live oaks, 25 pittosporum, 8 redwoods, 5 pines and 1 or 2 cypress, cedar, pepper and yew trees. Anywhere from two to five of the oaks predated the 83-year-old stadium. According to Lech Naumovich, a conservation analyst for the California Native Plant Society, "This is one of the most outstanding examples of oak woodland in an urban interface, and the last remnant of coast live oak woodland ecology in the Berkeley lowlands." However, the University claims an exception as its property belongs to the state and is not within the city's jurisdiction. The university further stated that of the 44 trees slated to be cut down "only two or three predate memorial stadium." ==Training facility==

The proposed Student Athlete High Performance Center (SAHPC) will be four stories tall, with of space. The University says the SAHPC is needed to provide safer facilities for the 350 people who work and train at California Memorial Stadium. The City of Berkeley claims that the facility will be unsafe because of its proximity to the Hayward Fault Zone, and supporters of the grove pointed out that if the University believes the stadium is currently unsafe, it should move all staff to another location immediately, and cease holding football games until the stadium is repaired. The University claims the SAHPC will cost over $125 million, Grove supporters asked the university to consider other locations on campus that would not require removing trees, which University administrators considered but rejected as being too far from the stadium. ==Tree-sit==

The tree-sit was initiated and led by Zachary RunningWolf, a community activist and former Berkeley mayoral candidate. RunningWolf said that construction of the athletic center would be "a hate crime; we call it Guantánamo Berkeley". In September 2007 the university reported that there had been 155 violations and 98 arrests or citations in connection with the protest. By April 5, 2008, the protest had also generated more than 200 police reports, most of which were filed against the protesters. As of April 5, 2008, the cost to UCPD had reached $300,000. Burial grounds On February 16, 2007, RunningWolf produced an archaeological survey document stating that the proposed location of the athletic center was "an area producing burials". RunningWolf stated that University administrators did not make this fact clear in the environmental impact report filed for the project. Although the participants were told by UCPD that they would be arrested for public indecency, no arrests were made. The police suspected the tree-sitters of causing the damage during the construction of their sleeping platform. RunningWolf said the redwood, which had its top removed by the protesters, was already dead and that the other branches removed were also dead. Initially the police did not allow food and water to be passed over the fence to the tree sitters, but started to allow the deliveries by the evening. Eviction judgment On September 12, 2007, the University announced that it would seek a restraining order to remove the protesters. The university claimed that the camp was a fire hazard because of two propane burners used to heat food. Protesters who attended the hearing vowed to continue their protest regardless of the five days of jail time and $1000 fine that could be imposed upon them. The UCPD stated that even with the ruling they did not yet intend to remove the protesters. According to the University, the second fence was erected to protect and separate the tree sitters from the fans attending the Golden Bears' last home football game of the season, against the University of Southern California. The away fans numbered more than at the Tennessee game that prompted the construction of the first fence, with 20,000 fans showing up from Los Angeles. In a letter to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller the University stated that the new fence was the first step in removing the tree-sitters "without unnecessary risk" to either the protesters or UCPD. Although the new fence was constructed to allow the UCPD to control entry into and out of the grove, protesters were still able to access their platforms by climbing a nearby telephone pole on city property. The completed fence cost the university $80,000; the University administrators claim the project did not come from funds allocated for research or education. The UCPD described it as an effort to clean up the area while there were only four or five protesters present—far fewer than normal. She was charged with assault, battery, resisting arrest, providing false information, trespassing and refusing to leave. The university claimed in a letter to the Berkeley City Council that to the best of their knowledge the protesters had sufficient food and water and that the university would take action to maintain the health and safety of the protesters should they not come down. In response to the cutting off of supplies the City Council voted to send two city officials to the grove to check on the welfare of the protesters on June 24, 2008. Later that same day Mayor Tom Bates and City Manager Phil Kamlarz met with university officials to discuss the health of the tree-sitters. Judge Keller ruled on June 30, 2008, that while his previous restraining order against the tree-sitters remained in force, the university would need to take precautions to prevent endangering the protesters. The university provided of water in twenty-four bottles. Some protesters come down, another arrives On June 25, 2008, two protesters voluntarily descended from the trees. At 11:00 pm three of the tree-sitters were seen on the ground, at which point the UCPD arrested one of them for trespassing and violating a court order, causing the other two to take refuge in a nearby tree. Jeff Muskrat climbed the fence after a message was posted on indybay.org that called for "'Ninja's' with climbing experience to break the lines and sneak into the grove". The new protester said that he had not previously been a member of the tree-sit, but supported their goals and so drove down from Oregon to join them. He was subsequently arrested for violating a court order, trespassing, vandalism, and possession of marijuana. They then dug a hole two feet in diameter on the chancellor's lawn and planted a six-inch oak seedling. They removed twenty-two branches from the redwood tree that the protesters were living in, and four branches from two live oaks nearby. and to free up some UCPD officers ahead of the beginning of the fall semester. On September 5 and 6 the majority of the grove was cut down by the University, with the exception of one tree that contained the remaining protesters. Tree-sitters descend Starting at 8:00 a.m. on September 9, 2008, contractors hired by the university began constructing a scaffolding around the tree occupied by the tree-sitters. At the same time the UCPD began to move cherry picker vehicles into position around the tree. The cherry pickers were topped with fabric panels to shield the contractors against anything thrown by the tree-sitters as the scaffolding was constructed. While the scaffolding was under construction, UCPD Chief Victoria Harrison and Assistant Chief Mitch Celaya negotiated with the tree-sitters from a large metal basket suspended from a crane. At noon the scaffolding reached the level of the tree-sitters platform, at which time the tree-sitters platform was dismantled and thrown to the ground to allow the scaffolding to continue. At 12:42 p.m. the scaffolding was completed, with a railing around the highest platform. The UCPD then mounted the scaffolding and began to remove the protesters' supplies. The tree-sitters agreed to come down at 1:01 p.m. after the university agreed to involve the community in addressing future land use issues. The four tree-sitters were arrested once they came down, although the university said they did not expect to file felony charges. Five protesters were also arrested on the ground and charged with offenses including battery and resisting arrest. After the tree-sitters were removed, the university denied that it had made any concessions. The tree that the protesters had occupied was cut down around 5 p.m. ==Court cases==

In addition to the tree sit-ins, the University has been sued by three parties to prevent construction of the facility: The California Oak Foundation, which wants to save the trees, the City of Berkeley, which is concerned with site safety, and the Panoramic Hill Association, which worries about increased traffic loads. She handed down an initial ruling on June 18, 2008, The settlement also offered to replace each removed tree with two newly planted trees and one large nursery oak, but did not state where these new trees would be planted. The University also offered a promise to schedule no more than eight football games and seven other events drawing more than 10,000 people a year at the stadium and promised to not plan events that require additional sound amplification other than the built-in stadium system. The university also offered to construct the new athletic center and retrofit the current stadium concurrently to make the stadium earthquake safe more quickly. Judge Miller was escorted by three police officers as well as attorneys for both sides and a group of journalists. Judge Miller found that the proposed center did not "as a whole" violate the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act because it would not be built on a fault line. However, Judge Miller also ruled that some parts of the proposed project are alterations to California Memorial Stadium. arguing that the university had satisfied all safety issues and was bearing severe economic hardship due to the delays. Judge Miller ruled that the University's amended proposal satisfied environmental and seismic safety requirements. The plaintiffs also asked for a writ of supersedeas and an immediate stay from the Court of Appeals. The Council required five votes to approve the appeal, but fell short of this number. On August 13, 2008, the appellate court dismissed the appeal because they considered the trial with Judge Miller to still be ongoing, ruling that because there had been no "final determination of the rights of the parties" and that the 30-day window Judge Miller had granted for the university to alter their plans had not ended that the case was not ready for appeal. The university agreed not to begin construction until an appellate court ruled on whether to continue the injunction. As with the previous appeal the California Oak Foundation and the Panoramic Hill Association filed notices to appeal, while the Berkeley City Council declined to join. On September 4, 2008, the state appeals court agreed to hear the appeals, but declined to extend the injunction, which allowed the university to begin cutting down the grove. ==Reactions==

Many Berkeley students and residents have expressed disapproval of the protest, while others approved. 43% of respondents sided with the University while 41% sided with the protesters, with a margin of error of 4.6%. An editorial in the UC Berkeley student newspaper, The Daily Californian, found fault with all sides in the conflict. They blamed the university for not communicating with the city and citizens, the California Oak Foundation for ignoring the larger issues of deforestation while focusing on just a few trees, the Panoramic Hill Association for reverting too quickly to lawsuits, and the tree-sitters for needlessly prolonging the protest once a court-ordered injunction was delivered. ==References==