A rendering of Matthew Bernard and his domestic partner Lynn Warner’s home photographed in Oakland, Calif. on Friday, December 19, 2025. Bernard is accused of cutting down trees on his property just north of the Claremont Hotel. The couple, who are owners of a parcel on Claremont Avenue, could face a $915,000 penalty for illegal removal of 38 protected trees.
Yalonda M. James/S.F. Chronicle
What began as a City Council hearing on a nearly $1 million fine for a man who city arborists said cut down protected trees on his Claremont Avenue property escalated into a heated debate about whether Oakland’s leaders would enforce their own laws.
It ended without a decision — and the council will take it up again next month.
The Tuesday hearing centered around Matthew Bernard and Lynn Warner, who city arborists say chopped down 38 mature trees without permits in 2021 and 2022 across their land, an adjacent city property and on neighbors’ lots. One arborist called it “the most egregious illegal tree removal case” in decades.
Article continues below this ad
Bernard, who was born in Nigeria and immigrated to the United States in 2001, said he and Warner wanted to build a future home for their family on the Oakland hills lot, and did “everything in their willpower” to respect the city’s laws. He said that he had acted on advice of an arborist to remove trees at risk of falling, or igniting during a wildfire. Bernard’s neighbors have also sued him over the trees that he cut on their property.
The Oakland City Council was split — with some aligning with environmental advocates who felt the city needed to show it would not allow city trees to be removed without consequences, and other council members expressing sympathy for a couple trying to navigate city permitting.
San Francisco Chronicle Logo
Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.
Add Preferred Source
Councilmember Janani Ramachandran, whose district includes the Oakland hills, said she had spent hours meeting with Bernard, Warner, city arborists and other concerned neighbors. She urged colleagues to uphold the full fine, arguing that anything less would undermine enforcement.
“It is offensive that wildfire prevention is being used as an excuse to cut down trees … healthy oaks are fire resistant,” Ramachandran said. “I understand that this is a challenging environment and place to be a newcomer to this city and this country and be able to develop property on your own, but that is no excuse for cutting down 38 trees in a blatant violation and disrespect for our laws.”
Article continues below this ad
Other members, however, emphasized the challenges of development and the need for a more flexible approach.
Rowena Brown, the at-large councilmember, said she sympathized with homeowners having to figure out the complex permitting process.
“Now that there is a developmental permit that’s been submitted … what does it look like to replant some of those trees and move forward in a more equitable and just manner?” she asked.
Council Member Ken Houston said he was worried that if the city levied too heavy of a penalty, Bernard and Warner might not have enough money to build their new home.
“He shouldn’t have cut those trees down, and he knew better too,” Houston said. “But then we got a vacant property that he has to develop … so I don’t want to bury him and drown him.”
Article continues below this ad
Council Member Carroll Fife said that she also wanted to make sure that the property is developed, now that “there’s no oak trees to prevent against fire hazards.”
Matthew Bernard and his domestic partner Lynn Warner pose for a portrait on their property on Claremont Ave. in Oakland, Calif. on Friday, December 19, 2025. Bernard is accused of cutting down trees on his property just north of the Claremont Hotel. The couple, who are owners of a parcel on Claremont Avenue, could be fined $915,000 penalty for illegal removal of 38 protected trees.
Yalonda M. James/S.F. Chronicle
An initial vote over whether to levy a fine ended in a tie, with Ramachandran, Kevin Jenkins, Charlene Wang and Zac Unger voting in favor, and Fife, Brown and Houston voting against. Noel Gallo, who was absent, counted as a no vote. In Oakland, the mayor is usually brought in to break a tied vote, but a representative for Mayor Barbara Lee told the council that she was declining to do so.
In a final appeal, Ramachandran urged colleagues to reconsider.
“Think about the precedent this will continue to set for people who continue to treat our land like trash,” she said. “We need to make it clear to anyone who wants to cut a tree down without a permit, to cut an oak tree down in this land … is absurd.”
Article continues below this ad
But Fife pushed back, raising concerns about fairness.
“I have to express my confusion about how a Black man should be the first to receive consequences for things that white people have been doing for centuries,” Fife said. “The hills were built up for white Oaklanders, that nobody else had access to — not Asians, not Mexicans, not Black people.”
The council weighed whether to impose a smaller fine of $411,000. The vote came down along the same lines — with those who had voted for the full fine refusing to approve the smaller amount.
With no consensus, the council agreed to continue the matter at the May 5 council meeting, marking the second time the council has deferred the decision since the matter was first brought before council in December.
Article continues below this ad