Protesters living in an oak grove in front of Cal’s Memorial Stadium secured a small victory Wednesday as an Alameda County Superior Court judge refused to order them down immediately from their growing perch.
Saying he saw no immediate emergency, Judge Richard Keller denied a University of California-Berkeley request to order an immediate end to the 10-month protest.
Instead, Keller said he wanted to wait for a full hearing next month before making a decision on whether the tree-sitters have a First Amendment right to live in the grove.
“I am going to maintain the status quo,” Keller said. “There is no reason to believe that the situation is going to continue to grow.”
University officials sued the tree-sitters Monday, asking a judge to order the removal of the group because they posed a danger to themselves and the surrounding neighborhood.
With that suit, the university asked for a temporary restraining order demanding the tree-sitters leave the area until a hearing is held.
The university claimed the protesters are posing fire, health and safety risks by creating a tree-top village using a series of wooden platforms connected by a complex system of ropes and pulleys.
Protesters set up camp in the trees in December in hopes of preventing the university from moving ahead with plans to build an athletic training complex at the site. The university wants to build a $125 million facility at the steps of Memorial Stadium, in part to attract student athletes.
Since December, however, the protest has grown.
Tree-sitters have brought propane tanks to the site and have cooked with open-flame camping stoves, the university said.
Urine and feces has fallen from the trees and, at least once, a protester threw a firecracker at a police officer. The pyrotechnic ignited the ground at the base of the trees, the university said.
“The university has been forced to maintain approximately a dozen fire extinguishers near the oak grove to respond to any fires set by defendants,” the lawsuit states. “The oak grove contains not only oak trees but also cedars, whose leaves contain highly volatile and combustible oils.”
The university said it needed the temporary restraining order because the tree-sitter’s village was growing by the day.
“This is a health issue that is getting worse,” said Michael Goldstein, an attorney representing the university. “Just last night on the south side of the site . . . a new platform was constructed.”
Dennis Cunningham, an attorney representing the tree sitters, admitted that the group had propane tanks in the trees but said it was an isolated event that has since been stopped.
Cunningham also said the university could be blamed for creating a hazard because it put up a fence around the grove that is preventing the protesters from safely disposing of their waste.
Keller questioned the university’s legal strategy and enforcement of campus rules.
“I don’t understand why the university can’t control its own property,” Keller said. “What prevents the university from securing the area and not letting people in?”
Goldstein responded that the university does not want to cordon off the area because of safety concerns.
“We don’t believe we can do that safely,” he said.
But Keller said a court order granting an immediate removal of the tree-sitters would result in the same situation.
“Do you honestly think you need that?” Keller asked.
Despite his ruling in favor of the tree-sitters, Keller said the issue of whether the group was conducting a legal protest remained open.
The judge said that question needs to be vetted properly during a hearing he scheduled for Oct. 1.
Contact Paul Rosynsky at prosynsky@bayareanews group.com or (510) 208-6455.
