Features

Proposed El Cerrito Ordinance Pits Tree-Lovers vs. View-Seekers

By PETER LOUBAL
Tuesday April 27, 2004

El Cerrito’s City Council is putting the finishing touches on a new view ordinance. Will view-deprived property owners get to preserve and restore views via an ordinance “with teeth,” as in Tiburon? Or, will tree lovers achieve an ordinance geared to compromise, as in Berkeley? El Cerrito’s past ordinance implied a right to views. This worked when downhill neighbors read it the same way. But when tree owners dug in their heels, and disputes went for resolution to a “Tree Commission,” it showed the rules weren’t suited for a clear-cut court decision, pun intended. 

This dispute has a long history. More recently, three years ago, the neighborhood above Canyon Trail Park saw a chance to have the city remove some 50 Monterey Pines, which had over the years obscured views for uphill house owners. But park users rallied to have red crosses painted on the condemned trees, and insisted the city come up with a staged plan to preserve habitat and park ambiance. It became apparent that City Hall is capable of chopping trees, but is not ready to spend the money to seriously apply “Urban Forest Plan” principles. Staff turned the City Council’s call for a “phased plan” into a “tree inventory” with no follow-up, and stopped calls for further action. Presumably by pointing out that “If one park gets clear-cut, why not others?” and “Money (to not just cut but to re-plant) does not grow on trees.” 

Frustrated above-park residents have since then allied themselves with residents deprived of views by privately owned trees “to correct mistakes of the past.” Joined by real estate interests and new hillside property owners seeking valuable view rights, even in “little and placid” El Cerrito, it makes for hundreds of vocal view-seekers demanding action from the council. With a council election looming in November and many voters probably agreeing there needs to be “some right to a view”, the council asked the Tree Commission and the city attorney to craft a new ordinance. Just as predictably, City Hall protected itself by excluding “public trees,” leaving some view-seekers in limbo. 

The Tree Commission’s proposal was deemed too Berkeley-like by the view-seekers, whereupon Mayor Letitia Moore, proposed a Tiburon-like ordinance: “No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree that unreasonably obstructs views.” The mayor is up for re-election and shows blatant favor to “hillside votes and money.” Predictably, the tree-lovers have mounted a counteroffensive, and the excesses are being whittled away, mainly by environment-friendly Councilmember Mark Friedman. 

The final ordinance outcome is unclear. If it is unacceptable to tree promoters, they may try for a referendum to defeat it. If unacceptable to view rights people, they may go for an initiative, or even seek a new council. At this stage it seems that El Cerrito is heading towards political and legal battles when it should be confronting crucial economic issues. 

This is not an intractable problem. Most voters would agree that view and tree rights should be fairly balanced. But the devil is in the detail. A council, needing to raise taxes while preserving political control, is unlikely to come up with well-crafted ordinance. It may be ready “to ditch” one or the other extreme position. Balancing property rights and quality-of-life interests, rights to maximum profits for uphill homeowners versus the economic interests of the overall community, taking into account soil stabilization and other environment concerns, are complex issues. This is not the proper time to risk alienating one or another of two large voter groups, possibly both. It may be better to have this issue be resolved, not by council fiat, but by voters directly choosing either a Berkeley or a Tiburon-like ordinance. Another possibility is for the two outgoing Councilmembers on either side of the tree vs. view debate, Mark Friedman and Gina Brusatori, to invite the leaders of the two “citizen groups,” Glenn Davis and Ann Thrupp, to hammer out as much of a compromise as possible, geared to the specifics of El Cerrito. 

Council and staff are tempted to exploit this issue to forge new alliances and divert attention from pressing problems. On the other hand, heated-up politics may be what El Cerrito needs. Pruning can benefit politics as much as it does the greenery. It is time for citizens to look beyond trees and views and notice politicians seeking reelection, staff protecting their jobs, attorneys spending hours to craft an ordinance. Once voters start clearing away deadwood they may go beyond what’s on the ground and start looking to the city’s true issues and interests, good neighbor relations between all residents. Most tree/view disputes are settled amicably, it is silly for the council to even consider an ordinance which provokes so much discord. Leave it to the voters!