This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information. |
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
| ||||
|
||||
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.
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
|
|
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 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:
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
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.
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
| 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:
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
On 7/13/04 COUNCIL APPROVED $290,000 IN TREE REMOVAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!!
Measure S: 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. 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)
|
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 |