Tree Supporters Prevail in Berkeley Oak Grove decision

Berkeley, CA-After two tense days of a highly dramatic standoff between University of California (UCB) police and supporters of the oak grove occupied by tree-sitters for 18 months that UCB wants to cut down to make way for a sports facility, the plaintiffs for the oaks prevailed in a complicated and long-litigated court case. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller issued her ruling shortly after 6 pm Wednesday, June 18, nine months after the trial and a year and a half after the lawsuits were filed. The large crowd of oaks supporters, holding vigil continuously since dawn Tuesday, awaiting the court’s decision, received the news jubilantly. About ten tree-sitters remain in their perches despite UCB police’s attempts to extract them with heavy equipment and contract climbers.

At issue in the lawsuit—three separate lawsuits ultimately joined—is whether the proposed project, a sports training facility, is an adjunct structure to the existing football stadium, which remains far out of compliance with earthquake safety standards while straddling the Hayward fault, and whether the planning documents written for the proposed construction complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lawsuits challenging the University’s planned construction were filed in December, 2006. A preliminary injunction granted by Judge Miller in February, 2007, constraining UCB from making any physical alterations on the project site (the oak grove)including cutting of trees, remains in place. Petitioners include the City of Berkeley, Panoramic Hills Association, the California Oaks Foundation, Save the Oaks, and a number of individuals. This ruling sends the University back to the drawing board on their project, or into appeals, but unable to proceed forward immediately, which is clearly what they intended to do.

The Alquist-Priolo Act of 1972 forbids alterations on an existing project if the value of those alterations exceeds 50% of the existing project (the UCB stadium) The sports training facility was found to constitute an alteration of the existing stadium project . The stadium, in the words of plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Volker “is decrepit.” UCB claimed Alquist-Priolo did not apply to them, and the court rejected that.

Volker declared, “This is a great day for the environment. The University’s petty provocations are no match for the force of law. But for the tree-sitters and the judge’s courageous [injunction] ruling months ago, these oaks would not be standing.”

While the outcome was a mixed bag in that both sides won or lost on various causes of action, a plaintiff prevailing on any decisive issue is named as the prevailing party. But the “acid test”, explains Volker, is the appointment of attorneys to craft a writ of mandate, and that job was placed in the petitioner’s hands, which they must submit by June 24. Moreover, it is “a day of reckoning” for the University, says Volker, because the ruling means UCB is not above the law.

As tree-sit supporters and oaks supporters waited for the judge’s decision, UCB police brought in cherry-picker trucks, a crew of contract arborist tree-climbers, and a giant construction crane estimated to be 140 feet tall, suspending a 4-person basket from a long cable. Armed with this machinery, as dozens of UC police lined the grove standing guard at the double chain-link fence topped with barbed wire put in place to prevent food and water deliveries to the tree-sitters, the contract climbers attempted numerous times throughout Tuesday and Wednesday to approach tree-sitters high in the branches. On Tuesday, nearly all the food, water, platforms and gear were cut by UCB contractors and dropped to the ground. Oak supporters implored the arborists through bullhorns to not engage in the reckless and patently life-threatening removal of the tree-sitters. They succeeded in only bringing one female tree-sitter down to waiting handcuffs on Tuesday. Several others in the crowd were arrested on Wednesday.

Crews also revved up chainsaws at least five times on Wednesday, sending large branches crashing to the ground, “absolutely in violation of the court’s injunction,” say attorneys. The tree-sitters remain in the trees as all sides analyze the court’s ruling.
###