This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Smart Voter
Alameda County, CA November 2, 2004 Election
Measure S
Tree Board
City of Berkeley
Citizen Initiative - Majority Approval Required

13,343 / 27.6% Yes votes ...... 35,061 / 72.4% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures
Results as of Dec 15 1:28pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (88/88)
Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text

Shall an ordinance be adopted: 1) creating a 13-18 member Tree Board with up to two full-time staff, which is empowered to oversee the ordinance's prohibition on alteration, topping or removal of established nonhazardous public trees (except in limited circumstances) establish City tree contractors licensing requirements, approve tree plantings; and 2) creating related regulations? Financial Implications: Annual costs up to $250,000, additional annual $100,000 consultant costs in early years; possible increased liability.

Impartial Analysis from Berkeley City Attorney
This ordinance would have several material effects described below.
1. It would regulate public trees which are ten years old or have a trunk diameter of six inches by prohibiting the topping or removal of such non-hazardous public trees or the cutting of a leader or major branch, except in the course of fighting fires, to prevent fire danger in the Berkeley Hills pursuant to a plan authorized by a new Berkeley Tree Board, or if the Council adopts an ordinance finding that the tree action was in the public interest and the Tree Board approves. This prohibition conflicts with the Fire Department's Fire Code enforcement authority as to public trees, PG & E's obligation to trim street trees with power lines running through them and may also violate the City Charter by delegating the City Council's legislative and administrative powers to a Tree Board without standards, and is likely unenforceable to that extent.
2. It would prohibit, subject to limited exceptions, additional coverage of open space in parks, squares or landscaping around City buildings with impervious material. This provision would prohibit new projects, such as most current park pathways, play structures, basketball and tennis courts and the Skate Park.
3. It would require the City to plant at least the same number of trees annually as were planted in 2003, through the year 2020 and require a tree census of every public tree.
4. It's provisions would be implemented by a Tree Board, of up to 18 members+nine city council appointees, four appointees of boards and commissions and five School District appointees, if the School District consents to be bound by the ordinance provisions. Since, under the Charter, only the Council has power to appoint members of advisory quasi-legislative bodies, it appears that granting appointment power to advisory commissions may conflict with the Council's charter powers and these appointments may be invalid.
5. The Tree Board is entitled to obtain up to two full-time staff, and other necessary resources from the City and may raise private funds for acquiring open space and planting trees. This provision is likely invalid to the extent it con- flicts with the Council's budgetary charter powers.
6. The Tree Board has broad and unfettered power to establish licensing requirements for all persons engaged in work on public trees, adopt tree management rules, approve plantings, conduct inspections and create plans for public trees. Some of these powers may conflict with the Charter-reserved powers of the City Manager, who is entrusted with day-to-day operation of the City, and the City Council, which has the power to establish policy.
7. A "tree impact report" would be required for developments affecting public trees and the Tree Board could require an environmental impact report under state law when any public trees are affected, imposing additional costs on projects affecting public trees.

Financial Implications Initial annual costs up to $350,000 funded by corresponding reduction in park maintenance services. Possible increased liability from deferred maintenance or removal of trees.

s/MANUELA ALBUQUERQUE, Berkeley City Attorney

  
Suggest a link related to Measure S
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure S Arguments Against Measure S
Berkeley wastes enormous amounts of tax money removing mature, healthy public trees. Plans to clear-cut 98 trees from the Berkeley Marina have already been approved.
  • Measure S will prevent the removal of mature, healthy public trees.

Planting and protecting public trees is an effective step local government can take to address global warming. Even if the U.S. signs treaties, reducing emissions will take years. Why wait? We can improve the environment today, simply by planting trees. Trees absorb CO2, the gas that causes global warming.

  • BERKELEY CAN PROVIDE LEADERSHIP, ACTING LOCALLY TO REDUCE WARMING GLOBALLY.
  • Trees produce life sustaining oxygen and cooling shade.
  • TREES FILTER POLLUTANTS, IMPROVING LOCAL AIR OUALITY.

Measure S will create a Tree Board to insure government doesn't ignore dangerous trees. Measure S allows removal of dangerous or diseased trees, expands fire safety programs, adds a requirement to make the area under a hazardous tree safe until the danger is addressed. Measure S will prohibit future planting of invasive exotics, trees that lift sidewalks or cause other hazards like brittle branches likely to fall.

MEASURE S WILL BEAUTIFY BERKELEY WITHOUT TAX INCREASES BY RAISING PRIVATE FUNDS TO CREATE PARKS & PLANT TREES DESPITE THE BUDGET CRISIS.

Measure S ENCOURAGES PLANTING NATIVE SPECIES, gives neighborhoods more control over the types of trees planted, and will address excessive pruning.

Measure S is reasonable:

  • it applies only to public trees
  • it allows tree removal to accomplish a public service
  • permits homeowners to request tree trimming
  • requires a plan to remove fire prone trees in the Hills, requiring restoration with native, more fire resistant trees.

For years our elected officials promised a tree ordinance, but accomplished nothing. Now it's our chance.

Join School Board President John Selawsky, the Green Party, and the many others who support Measure S.

Call 510-594-4088 or http://WWW.BERKELEYISSUES.ORG

s/JANET SANTOS COBB, President, California Oak Foundation
s/KARL LINN, President, Berkeley Eco-House and Fellow, Society of Landscape Architects
s/LISA STEPHENS, Former Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission
s/ZASA SWANSON, Board Member, Alliance Leadership Group/Alameda County of Education; Board Chair, Berkeley Partners for Parks; PTA President, Berkeley Arts Magnet School
s/G. S. ORAM, JR., Elmwood Realty Investments (ERI Realty)

Rebuttal to Arguments For
Berkeley is ALEADY VERY tree friendly WITHIN THE CURRENT BUDGET.
Measure S will cost TAXPAYERS $350,000 to duplicate existing City tree protection efforts AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE IN A BUDGET SHORTFALL.

Measure S will plant the SAME NUMBER of trees as the City is currently planting!

BERKELEY HAS over 40,000 public trees, with thousands more on private land. OUR trees are working 24 hours a day; generating life sustaining oxygen, removing carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), filtering pollutants, and providing cooling shade. Everyone loves trees in Berkeley.

Berkeley has existing strong protections for its public trees.

  • Berkeley's Department of Forestry typically plants 800 new trees a year, more than twice the number removed.
  • The City's Forester, a licensed arborist, ALREADY REVIEWS AND APPROVES ALL requests to remove dead, diseased, and damaged trees on city property, AND SOME ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
  • BERKELEY'S Parks Commission, with nine CITIZEN members appointed by the City Council, has a standing Tree Subcommittee, which regularly reviews City tree policy as well as controversies and disputes over the planting or removal of public trees.
  • The City's Parks Department aggressively pursues tree-planting grants and has been awarded a number of grants to plant NEW trees.

Berkeley does not need a massive new, expensive Tree Bureaucracy, to duplicate what the City is already doing!

Vote against spending $350,000 + to plant the same number of trees!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE S.

s/SHERRY SMITH, individually and on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany & Emeryville
s/SYLVIA McLAUGHLIN, Co-Founder, Save the Bay
s/CARL FRIBERG, Multiple-Use Forester
s/MARGARET BRELAND, Councilmember
s/BETTY OLDS, Councilmember

Vote No on the Massive New Tree Bureaucracy. Vote No on Measure S.

We all love trees and want to protect them, but Measure S is not just about protecting trees. It is about creating a new Berkeley tree bureaucracy with enormous powers over the City Council, City Manager, Fire Department, and others.

Read the fine print about Measure S. According to the City Attorney's non-partisan analysis:

  • Measure S would have "initial annual costs up to $350,000."
  • Measure S would create a Tree Board with "broad and unfettered power to establish licensing requirements for all persons engaged in work on public trees."
  • Measure S's Tree Board would be "entitled to up to two full-time staff, and other necessary resources from the City."
  • Measure S "conflicts with the Fire Department's Fire Code enforcement authority."
  • Measure S conflicts with "PG&E's obligation to trim street trees with power lines running through them."
  • Measure S may "violate the City Charter by delegating the City Council's legislative and administrative powers to a Tree Board without standards."
  • Measure S would require a "tree impact report" for any project affecting public trees, subject to review and approval by the new Tree Board.

There's more. Look closely at Section 12.43.060 of Measure S and you'll find a provision that allows the Tree Board to appoint its own members. Or Section 12.43.110 which calls for the "forfeiture of vehicles" of people involved in unauthorized "alteration, cutting, destruction, mutilation, topping, or removal" of two or more protected trees.

Is this the kind of tree protection you had in mind?

VOTE NO ON MEASURE S - Join Mayor Tom Bates, Vice-Mayor Maudelle Shirek, and Councilmembers Margaret Breland, Miriam Hawley, Linda Maio, Betty Olds and Gordon Wozniak.

s/TOM BATES, Mayor, City of Berkeley
s/MAUDELLE SHIREK, Vice Mayor, City of Berkeley
s/MICHAEL VENEZIANO, Arborist and Former Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission
s/BETTY OLDS, Councilmember
s/GORDON WOZNIAK, Councilmember

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
Ironic! Councilmembers supporting four tax increases want you to fear Measure S, which doesn't even raise taxes! The $350,000 figure is designed to scare you into opposing a measure that prevents wasteful spending on pork barrel tree removal projects. The estimates cite no basis, fail to consider reduced expenditures, and assume maximum spending on personnel.

On 7/13/04 COUNCIL APPROVED $290,000 IN TREE REMOVAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!!

Measure S:

- requires tree related contracts be reviewed to prevent wasteful spending

- will save many times it's cost by preventing unnecessary tree removal

- does not raise taxes, and specifically limits itself to existing resources.

- the tree board will increase accountability and cost nothing.

Implying Measure S affects fire safety is misleading. Measure S can not interfere with the Fire Code or PGE's tree trimming, which are mandated by state law.

MEASURE S IMPROVES FIRE SAFETY.

The biggest danger to Berkeley is a Hills firestorm. Global warming increases danger every summer. For over a decade the City has done nothing.

- Measure S seeks to replace fire prone species in the Hills with native, fire resistant trees.

- MEASURE S ONLY REQUIRES LICENSING OF COMPANIES THAT WANT CITY CONTRACTS
- a revocable license creates accountability for shoddy work or overcharges. That makes better sense then raising taxes.
- Forfeiture only applies to those illegally destroying multiple public trees.

DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES, READ OUR REPLIES - http://www.berkeleyissues.org

Join Kirk Lumpkin, Farmer's Market (Ecology Center) and others supporting Measure S.

s/DEAN METZGER, President, Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association; Commissioner, Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)
s/ZASA SWANSON, Berkeley Partners for Parks; President, Parents Teachers Association (Berkeley Arts Magnet School); Board Member, Alliance Leadership Group/Alameda County Board of Education
s/ELLIOT COHEN, Author, Berkeley Public Tree Act; Commissioner, Peace and Justice
s/CHARLES BETCHER, Former Chair, Commission on Aging, Former Vice Chair of both the Disability and Transportation Commissions
s/REVEREND SARAH W.B. ISAKSON, Pastor, Lutheran Church of the Cross

Full Text of Measure S
See PDF file on City of Berkeley Web Page http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/elections/measures/2004/nov/sTree.htm

Alameda Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: December 15, 2004 13:28 PST
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://ca.lwv.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.