Stadium Saga Awaits Judge's Decision

Early in the morning before the Big Game in December 2006, local activist and perennial mayoral candidate Zachary RunningWolf and two other local residents decided to take the effort to stop the campus from removing a grove of trees near Memorial Stadium into their own hands.

While they didn't know it at the time, they would be starting the longest urban tree-sit in history-set to reach its 500th day Monday.

The tree-sitters, who police say currently number somewhere between three and seven, want to prevent the campus from constructing the Student Athlete High Performance Center, a 132,500-square-foot, multi-million dollar training facility intended to serve 12 Cal athletic teams, including the football team.

But the tree-sitters are not the only group that is seeking to prevent the campus from constructing the center. Three organizations-including the city of Berkeley-filed suits to stop construction last December.

The three groups claim the UC Board of Regents did not adequately consider the effects of the proposed construction on traffic and other issues, when they approved the plan in December 2006.

In February 2007, the judge in the case issued an injunction preventing the campus from beginning construction on the center. The injunction will be lifted if the judge rules in the university's favor.

But the tree-sitters have vowed to hold their positions until the campus promises to not remove the trees.

Protesters say more than 500 people have spent time in the trees near the stadium and around 300 have spent at least one night in the many tarpaulin and wood shelters that have been constructed in the trees.

"It's been an amazing, epic journey," said a protester who goes by Ayr and is the unofficial voice of the tree-sit.

But for UCPD, it has been a slightly different story.

"Personally, it is a little frustrating and it is a pain in our existence," said UCPD Assistant Chief Mitch Celaya.

Since the beginning of the tree-sit there have been 98 arrests-most of which have been people who are not affiliated with the campus, Celaya said.

In an effort to have greater control over the area near the tree-sitters, the campus constructed a second, barbed-wire-topped perimeter fence in November that prevented supporters from entering the area under the trees. The first fence was constructed in August to prevent football fans from walking under the trees on their way to the stadium, according to campus officials.

Both fences cost the campus $117,000, said Dan Mogulof, the campus' executive director of public affairs.

Many protesters said the second fence was an effort to cut off the supply of food and water to the tree-sit, but Mogulof has said the campus has no plans to stop allowing the transport of supplies into the trees.

Because of the tree-sit's location far from classrooms and student housing, it is not usually within students' view. But that changed in late February when Michael Schuck, a former student, climbed into a tree near Sather Gate.

Schuck, who identified himself as "Fresh" while he was in the tree, claimed he was not affiliated with the tree-sit near Memorial Stadium. However, Schuck was a former protester at the oak grove and his tree quickly attracted a similar ground-crew, including Ayr and RunningWolf.

But, saying his presence was attracting more attention to himself than the issues he was protesting, Schuck came down March 14. He was cited for trespassing.

The university says it has no plans to remove the tree-sitters near the stadium until the judge in the three lawsuits issues her ruling. Then, they say, the tree-sitters will have had their day in court.

But that ruling, which was expected by some to be issued in early January, now could be issued by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller in mid-June.

Last fall, Miller heard seven days of debate on the issue and, in an what attorneys involved in the case said was an unusual move, visited the Memorial Stadium area to see the site of the proposed construction.

Plaintiffs allege that the planning for the center was incomplete and campus planners did not adequately consider the fact that the center will be built near an area that is seismically unsafe, among other issues. The university disagrees.

If Miller rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the injunction issued on construction at the site in February will likely persist until the campus meets the demands of the court. Such a ruling could require redrafting the project's environmental impact report.

But if she rules in favor of the university, campus officials say they plan to begin construction as soon as possible.

Until then, everyone is waiting for Miller to make her decision.

Tags: