Public Comment

Do we need fewer oaks and more jocks? UC Berkeley seems to believe that we do. There is a plan to tear down a woodland grove of coast live oaks and several redwoods only to build a new sports training facility. Although these oaks are protected under the City of Berkeley’s Live Oak Protection Ordinance, the university claims that because it is a state institution they are “not obliged to obey local environmental laws.” A grassroots citizens’ campaign has sprung made up of various leaders, students, and community members to pressure the university to reconsider, look for other sites to build the facility, and save the oaks!  

However, there are those who believe that since Berkeley has some of the worse facilities in collegiate athletics, this is a necessary project. But I ask myself, what makes them so sure that with this new facility the football program will become more successful? What are the guarantees? And if they are in such a dire need for a new facility, why wait two years—the amount of time it would take to build—for this space when they can build it somewhere else?  

There are already four lawsuits filed in Alameda Superior Court challenging the environmental impact report for the university’s Southeast Campus Integrated Projects. The lawsuits are based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The university is ignoring the fact that the location of the stadium is dangerous. It is placed directly above the Hayward Fault, an active earthquake fault in a hazardous fire area. This area has been listed by federal and state officials as a “high-risk target served by a limited and convoluted road networks makes no sense.”  

Thus, the university is not only ignoring the environmental impacts but also transportation. As the officials note, the road networks in that area are limited and extremely congested. The roads follow the periphery of the university buildings thus there is always a lot of traffic, especially during rush hours. In case of an emergency, the area would be difficult to reach. John M. Levy, a renowned city planner, states, “The automobile exacts a variety of hidden costs that are not so covered—air pollution; death and injury from accidents; and a more scattered pattern of land use.” Thus, not only is this going to create more congestion but it can also lead to greater health risks for the citizens and visitors of Berkeley. 

Recently it was made public that Native American remains were discovered in the Memorial Oak Grove in 1923. It is a sacred site for the Native American people. Therefore, not only is the environmental incident report not being reviewed properly for all environmental impacts, but it also did not address the archeological significance of the site. The native people are not remaining silent and hosted a press conference at Memorial Oak Grove. One of the speakers Morning Star addressed the problem. “Why is it that recreation is being chosen over the desecration of our homelands and of our burial sites, our ancestors aren’t able to rest. And so we are here today to say that UC Berkeley and the City Council of Berkeley does not support native peoples in their struggle to practice their culture and to continue on our traditions… and so we’re here today…to say that we are not going to allow this expansion of this parking to here over these burial sites of these…another desecration that has been dug up.” 

The university’s proposed renovation of Memorial Stadium and construction of the $125 million sports training center is creating much controversy among students and citizens. Sadly, UC only cares about the money and supposed success it will bring to the football program and is ignoring the cry of the people to Save the Oaks and save the sacred burial land. It is ridiculous that they are trying to evade the law protecting these live oaks under the conception that they belong to the state government. Back when congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) they recognized that “in cooperation with state and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations…[they would] promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” This project does not respect this harmony and should not move forward. The people are speaking, Save the Ooaks!  

Gabriela Urena is a Berkeley resident.