COLUMN ONE : How a Bill Twists in the Wind : Assemblyman Friedman sponsored legislation to preserve native oak trees. Its bumpy ride through the process provides a rare glimpse into the forces that can defeat a measure.

On a warm night in mid-September, as the legislative session drew to a close, a bill that would have protected California’s dwindling supply of native oak trees died on the floor of the state Senate.

After nine months of debate, lobbying, committee hearings and floor votes, the legislation failed--not on its merits, but because one senator traded his vote for a colleague’s vote on an unrelated matter.

This was the last of many odd and unexpected things that happened to the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles), on its long and tortured journey through the Legislature.

When the measure was introduced last December--the 54th among 2,424 bills considered by the Assembly this session--it seemed relatively non-controversial. But, on a bumpy trip through the legislative process, the bill picked up powerful supporters and opponents, became the focus for personal feuds among legislators, and was the subject of interagency squabbling within the Wilson Administration.

The Times went along on this trip, interviewing dozens of legislators, staff members, lobbyists and Administration officials, as well as attending behind-the-scenes strategy meetings that usually are closed to the press. The result was a rare glimpse into the forces that shape legislation or, as in this case, lead to a bill’s defeat.

The life and death of this single measure can be taken in several ways: as a civics lesson, as an example of why the Legislature sometimes is blamed for not accomplishing much, or as part of one of Woody Allen’s quirkier screenplays.

The legislation was born in a Ventura Boulevard delicatessen a year and a half ago as Friedman sat munching a bagel and cream cheese. He got mad as he read a newspaper story about a Woodland Hills developer who had removed three large oak trees to make way for a new gated community.

“There ought to be a law,” the two-term legislator from Sherman Oaks said to himself. A small, balding man whose legislative work is marked less by eloquence than by hard work and careful attention to detail, Friedman, 42, set out to produce such a law.

On its face, the proposal that Friedman came up with--Assembly Bill 54, the California Tree Protection and Planting Program, nicknamed “Cal-Tree”--might seem to be as popular as motherhood, apple pie or Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf.

“Who doesn’t love trees?” asked Richard Lyon, a smooth, dapper lobbyist for the California Building Industry Assn., as debate about the bill began. Later, he was the man whose lobbying efforts did the most to kill it.

The measure would have required cities and counties to develop ordinances by 1994 compelling builders and developers to obtain permits before cutting down any of seven species of California oaks or other “historically, environmentally or culturally significant” trees. They also would have been required to plant at least one tree for every 500 square feet of new residential or commercial construction.

As they began to research the subject, Karin Caves, Friedman’s chief of staff, and Jennifer Galehouse, an intern in his office, became convinced that the time was ripe for a strong statewide tree protection ordinance.

Environmental and homeowner groups were already outraged by the destruction of oaks and other valuable trees. A Nature Conservancy report estimated that 1.2 million acres of oak woodlands had been lost in California since 1943. Although many cities and counties had tree protection ordinances, they were largely ineffective when matched against the demands of builders, developers and planners.

There also was growing evidence that planting trees could improve air quality, reduce noise and save energy.

“Suddenly, all this stuff was becoming mainstream,” Caves said.

But Friedman and his apple pie bill had some problems. As one of the Legislature’s most liberal members, he faced almost automatic conservative opposition to any legislation he might propose. Builders, developers and others who opposed the tree bill would not have to look far to find a sympathetic audience in both houses in the Capitol.

At the same time, Friedman also was the author of one of the session’s most controversial bills--an attempt to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. This measure would require much of Friedman’s attention, leaving him less time to spend on Cal-Tree.

But Friedman started fast. To avoid the end-of-session crush that seals the fate of many bills, he made certain the tree protection measure was ready by Jan. 7, the day the Legislature convened.

As Friedman and his aides began to line up support for Cal-Tree, they encountered some of the complicated politics of the environmental movement.

Small, fledgling groups tend to dislike older, larger organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League. Rural environmentalists often quarrel with those from big cities. Those who work to preserve oak trees are sometimes scorned by admirers of willows and sycamores.

“This is a very complex issue,” said Bob Berka, vice president of the California Native Plant Society, whose members were divided on the bill. “Some of our people think we should be planting more trees but others are afraid we might loosen something (in) the gene pool if we allow oaks to be planted that are not native California species.”

In the end, the plant society supported Cal-Tree. So did the major environmental groups, the ones with clout in the Capitol--Nature Conservancy, Planning and Conservation League and Sierra Club.

But some potential supporters were unwelcome.

The Sod Producers Assn. offered to support the bill if Friedman would amend it to allow sod as an alternative to trees. Similarly, the Landscape Architects Assn. wanted to make bushes an alternative.

“I thanked them and said no,” Caves said. “I was afraid people would start to think this was funny. When they start laughing at your bill, you’re in trouble.”

Meanwhile, powerful opposition was forming.

The California Building Industry Assn. and the California Assn. of Realtors strongly opposed the provision that a tree be planted for every 500 square feet of new construction. They argued that these costs, as well as the proposed fees for tree-cutting permits, would increase housing costs.

The County Supervisors Assn. and the League of California Cities, representing all of the state’s 463 cities, objected to the state mandating local tree protection ordinances, as they routinely object to almost all state mandates. But city councils in the state’s two largest cities--Los Angeles and San Diego--independently supported the bill.

THE COMMITTEE: ‘STILL ALIVE BUT ON LIFE SUPPORT’

On Feb. 25, at a hearing of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, AB 54 took the first step on its precarious journey through the Legislature.

Because this committee includes several Democrats who, like Friedman, are liberals and strong environmentalists, some thought Cal-Tree would be approved easily.

But that did not happen.

Committee Chairman Byron D. Sher, a former member of the Palo Alto City Council, was unhappy about the local government mandate. Democrat Dan Hauser, who represents the heavily forested North Coast, said a tree protection ordinance was not needed there. Sacramento’s Lloyd G. Connelly did not attend the hearing. With the eight votes needed for passage in doubt, Friedman took Sher’s advice to postpone action.

When the committee reconvened the next week, Friedman had moved to weaken the bill, eliminating the requirement that a tree be planted for every 500 feet of new construction. Friedman hoped that this would mollify the League of California Cities and also capture Sher’s vote.

But these changes won no votes from the committee’s Republicans, who argued that it was an unnecessary state intrusion into local government, would force up housing prices and, because of the water that trees need, aggravate drought problems.

More surprising, several of Friedman’s fellow liberal environmentalists, especially Tom Bates from Oakland and Tom Hayden from Santa Monica, were now complaining that the bill had been watered down too much.

“This is as strong as this bill will ever be,” Hayden said. “What gets out of this committee is bound to be diluted as it moves along, so we don’t want to weaken it here.”

Behind the scenes, Cal-Tree was in trouble for reasons that had nothing to do with trees, reasons never stated publicly.

Hauser was irked about a letter Friedman wrote to the Assembly Local Government Committee. It criticized Hauser for trying to help Watt Industries, a Los Angeles developer, build 700 expensive homes in Mandeville Canyon, part of Friedman’s district.

Hayden was annoyed because he thought Friedman lifted much of the tree bill language from the failed “Big Green” ballot initiative that had been Hayden’s pet project.

When the vote was taken, only five Democrats supported the bill. The four Republicans who were present voted no. And--the killer for Friedman--four Democrats, Bates, Hauser, Hayden and Sher--did not vote at all. The measure was defeated, although the committee agreed to reconsider it later.

“The bill is still alive but it’s on life support,” Sher said after the hearing.

“That was the low point,” Friedman later said. “I was not a happy camper.”

But the Los Angeles lawmaker did not give up. He met twice with the liberal Democrats, agreed to restore the tree-planting requirement, and argued that this was the strongest bill possible.

On March 11, on the third try, AB 54 was approved by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee by an 8-4 vote. All Democrats voted for the bill except Connelly, who was absent. Four of the six Republicans were present and voted no.

This bruising battle in a committee that was thought to be sympathetic to the legislation did not bode well for Cal-Tree.

THE ASSEMBLY: ‘KILL A TREE, GO TO JAIL’

On April 9, the bill moved to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, which considers all legislation with fiscal implications. It ran into more trouble.

Committee Chairman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) objected because it meant an individual would need a permit to cut down a back-yard tree.

Others complained that penalties for violating the law--up to a $5,000 fine or six months in jail--were too severe. By now, some opponents were calling the Friedman measure the “kill a tree, go to jail” bill.

Assemblywoman Bev Hansen (R-Santa Rosa) asked, sarcastically, if the measure covered dead trees and, if so, how one determined that a tree was dead.

The committee was having fun but Friedman was not amused.

“There’s been a lot of joking about this bill,” he said, “but trees are a valuable resource of this state, to reduce energy costs and air pollution. It is time for the state to follow the pattern of local tree protection ordinances.”

Friedman’s plea fell largely on deaf ears. The bill needed 12 votes for Ways and Means Committee passage but received only eight, with 12 committee members voting no. Once again, however, the committee agreed to vote on it again later.

Afterward, Friedman admitted that he was surprised by Vasconcellos’ opposition but thought he knew why.

“John is a more cosmic thinker who looks to a much larger set of issues, beyond a particular bill,” Friedman said. “He’s in a mode of thought just now where he thinks there is excessive government intrusion into the lives of individuals. I don’t think he objects to the bill as much as that more general concern.”

But just in case the committee chairman’s objections were not entirely cosmic in nature, Friedman agreed to waive the tree-planting requirement for projects that involved remodeling or rebuilding of a single-family home.

When Ways and Means considered the bill again on April 24, Vasconcellos voted for it, and the measure was approved, 12 to 7.

A month later, May 28, the full Assembly approved the bill, 42 to 30, with little debate. The vote was almost entirely partisan. Only one Republican voted for Cal-Tree--William J. Filante of Greenbrae--while Jim Costa of Fresno was the lone Democrat in opposition.

“That was the only easy step so far,” Friedman said. “Now we move to the Senate, which is going to be much tougher.”

THE SENATE: ‘COME IN AND KISS THEIR RINGS’

Caves noted that Friedman was not well known in the Senate, where “there’s more of a social fabric, more depends on personal relationships” than in the rough-and-tumble Assembly.

There is also, she said, “a certain crankiness” between the two legislative bodies that sometimes makes it difficult for them to reach agreement.

An experienced Senate staff member, asking not to be identified, suggested that Friedman’s liberal reputation and intense personal style would offend some senators.

“These guys like assemblymen to come in and kiss their rings or some other part of their anatomy,” the veteran staffer said. “Friedman tends to be interested in the substance of his bills, not in the rituals of the Senate.”

At first, the bill was assigned to the potentially hostile Local Government Committee. But Friedman’s last-minute appeal got the measure shifted to the Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, chaired by Dan McCorquodale, a San Jose Democrat who was a Cal-Tree sponsor.

Breathing easier, Friedman made plans for a series of one-on-one meetings with committee members.

The most important of these turned out to be a surprisingly congenial session with Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), the one-time Los Angeles police chief who has turned out to be a kindly, grandfatherly figure as a state senator.

Davis talked about the beautiful oak trees on his property in Santa Clarita, and at his suburban Sacramento home; he railed against developers and local officials who “don’t give a damn--they’d fill in from Yosemite to the mountains and just have a big dump if they had their way.” He promised not only to vote for Friedman’s bill but also to be a co-author.

“That was great!” Caves said after the meeting. “Now we’ve got a Republican co-author, and a strong one, too.”

THE COMMITTEE: BUT WHICH TREES CAN YOU CUT DOWN?

On July 9, Natural Resources was ready to vote, and Democratic Sen. Henry J. Mello of Watsonville was not in a receptive mood. “This might be something they need down there in Hollywood but it sure isn’t anything we need in the Monterey Bay area or in the rural parts of the state, let me tell you,” Mello growled. He had some personal reasons to be annoyed.

Mello told the committee that when he tried to remove some “nuisance trees” from his property, trees that were damaged during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, he was stopped by the local fire district.

Gently chiding his fellow Democrat, Sen. Gary K. Hart of Santa Barbara said to Friedman: “Terry, if you could just work it out so Henry can get his trees removed, maybe you’ll get his vote.”

Friedman did not get Mello’s vote but he did not need it--not that day, at least. The bill was approved 5 to 3, and was sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which handles money bills in the upper house.

There was reason to worry about Senate Appropriations. It includes some of the most veteran members of the Senate and it has seldom exhibited much enthusiasm for environmental legislation.

But Friedman’s apprehensions were relieved during a mid-July meeting with Robert Presley, a conservative Democrat from Riverside, who presides over the committee. Recounting the conversation later, chief of staff Caves said Presley told Friedman: “Finally, Terry, you have a bill I can support.”

But Mello was a member of this committee too, and at its Aug. 19 hearing, he took a new tack in his campaign against Cal-Tree. He contended that “trees suck up water, so this might not be such a good idea when we’re having a drought.” Friedman countered that the bill calls for planting drought-tolerant trees where possible.

Sen. Leroy Greene (D-Carmichael) thought an advanced degree in forestry might be needed “to know which trees you can cut down and which you can’t.”

But Davis, delivering the support he had promised, warned: “If you don’t do something to preserve these trees . . . you’re going to have some rapacious developers come in and destroy them all.”

The committee approved the measure 7 to 3 and sent it to the full Senate.

THE LOBBYISTS: ATTACK ON ‘A BILL WITH NINE LIVES’

Now the lobbyists--who were fighting the bill and were surprised that it had survived so long--began to worry.

“The odd thing about this one was that I kept hearing this was a bill that was going nowhere,” said Ernest Silva, lobbyist for the League of California Cities. “But every time I looked up, it had passed another committee.”

“This was a bill with nine lives,” said Richard Lyon, the building industry lobbyist.

It was a frantic time for Friedman, whose gay rights bill had survived strong, sometimes virulent, opposition from the religious right and was also headed for a final vote on the Senate floor.

But Friedman still found time to map a strategy for Cal-Tree. He put off the Senate floor vote for a time, hoping for a signal of approval from the Wilson Administration, which has been friendly to some environmental causes.

Instead, Friedman found himself in the midst of an Administration turf battle. The state Resources Agency had sent out encouraging signals on AB 54, but the Office of Planning and Research, which is preparing a statewide growth management plan, was very much opposed.

Much like what would happen to his gay anti-discrimination bill, Friedman had gotten “encouraging signs” from one part of state government--the state Resources Agency--but the Office of Planning and Research was “unhappy” about a statewide tree mandate, said its director, Richard Sybert, a close adviser to Gov. Wilson.

Sybert won. Both agencies joined forces, recommending that Wilson veto the bill should it pass the Senate.

By Sept. 11, as the Senate prepared to debate the bill, it was apparent that Friedman would have to do without Wilson’s support.

THE END OF AB 54: ‘A CASE OF FOREST OVER TREES’

Without support from the Administration, Friedman knew the Senate vote would be close.

He hoped that Davis, who would be floor manager or “jockey” for the bill, could sway a few Republican votes, and that Hart would be able to persuade some dubious Democrats.

But when the vote came early in the afternoon of Sept. 11, two days before the Legislature was scheduled to adjourn for the year, that did not happen. Only 17 senators voted for Cal-Tree and 21 opposed it. Davis’ was the only favorable Republican vote but eight Democrats and independent Sen. Quentin L. Kopp of San Francisco cast “no” votes.

Davis placed the bill “on call,” giving him an opportunity to bring it up later. He and Friedman began to prowl the Senate aisles and corridors, searching for the four votes needed to put the bill over the top.

“Now there’s an unusual team for you,” a reporter said, watching the conservative, white-haired Davis and his much younger liberal Democratic ally, Friedman, work the Senate floor. “I wonder if they have anything in common besides trees?”

By 3:30 p.m., Friedman and Davis had persuaded Democrats Ruben S. Ayala of Chino and Ralph C. Dills of Gardena, as well as Republican William A. Craven of Oceanside, to change their votes from “no” to “yes.”

At 3:45, Davis “lifted the call” and the Senate voted again, this time with 20 in favor and 18 against. Friedman was one vote short of the 21-vote minimum needed to pass a bill in the 40-member Senate. Had Rose Ann Vuich, a Democrat from Dinuba, been present, she probably would have cast the 21st vote for passage. But Vuich was absent because her brother was seriously ill. The 40th senator, Greene of Los Angeles, also was sick and would miss the rest of the legislative session.

Now the arm-twisting began in earnest. Lobbyists are not allowed inside the ornate Senate chamber, but Lyon, of the California Building Industry Assn., and Silva, of the League of California Cities, paced the corridors outside, button-holing senators, trying to make sure no one else defected to the tree protection camp.

Meanwhile, lobbyists for environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Planning and Conservation League, who had been preoccupied with efforts to shape an acceptable package of timber bills in the final days of the legislative session, raced to the Senate to see if they could find that one missing vote.

Jennifer Jennings, a conservation league lobbyist, tried unsuccessfully to sway Republican Sen. Frank Hill of Whittier. The Sierra Club lobbyist prevailed on his friend, the carpenters union lobbyist, to try to persuade Cecil N. Green to change his vote. Green is a Norwalk Democrat who regularly gets support from the carpenters union. But this time, no luck.

Inexplicably absent was Bill Dempsey, California field representative for the Nature Conservancy, who helped Friedman plan his legislative strategy but was nowhere to be seen in the final days.

By 8 p.m., as the Senate session droned on, Friedman was becoming discouraged.

“Frank Hill is our best chance but I’d say it’s no better than a 30% to 40% shot,” he said.

At 9 p.m., still with only 20 votes, Davis asked that the bill be pulled for reconsideration the next day.

When the Senate met again in the early afternoon of Sept. 12, the last day the tree bill could be considered, Vuich had returned to Sacramento and said she would vote for it. But Friedman’s brief period of elation ended when Sens. Barry Keene (D-Benicia) and Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana), who had voted for Cal-Tree the day before, told Friedman they had changed their minds.

The Robbins switch was not surprising. He is probably the most notorious “21st vote” in the Senate, using that position to gain advantage for his legislation or other favors.

Robbins acknowledged as much in a brief interview.

“I’m not against the bill,” he said. “I had some hesitancy about the bill yesterday and I still have some. I told the proponents if they get 20 votes, to contact me again.”

Given that semi-assurance, it was Keene’s defection that mattered most now, and it proved to be fatal. It also was more surprising than the Robbins flip-flop. Keene is the majority floor leader, a generally respected senator who usually votes for environmental issues.

But Keene has received regular financial contributions from the California Building Industry Assn., including $6,000 over 1990 and 1991.

More important, perhaps, Mello, the senator with little love for tree preservation, threatened not to support the package of timber bills, which Keene was working hard to put together, if the Benicia senator voted for the tree bill.

“We only have a certain amount of political leverage up here,” Keene said at the back of the Senate chamber moments after he voted no on AB 54. “I’ve put mine behind the forest package and I don’t have any left over for the tree bill. We have to get a forest bill out this year or we’re going to face a killer initiative. So I guess you could say this is a case of forests over trees.”

Keene acknowledged the threats to withhold timber bill support but would not identify their source. However, several other sources said Keene told them it was Mello.

As a favor to Friedman, Keene tried to persuade Greene to support the bill but he would not. Hart appealed to Sen. Becky Morgan (R-Los Altos Hills), with whom he works closely on the Senate Education Committee, but she refused.

At 6:45 p.m., with 19 votes in hand but no more in sight, Friedman threw in the towel and asked Davis to withdraw the bill, without a final vote. The nine-month battle to enact tree protection legislation for California was over.

THE HOW AND WHY: ‘WE CAN’T SEEM TO FIX MANY PROBLEMS ANYMORE’

In the post-mortems that have followed, some have blamed the defeat of Cal-Tree on the powerful influence of builders and developers.

To Friedman aide Caves, the defeat showed that a handful of well-heeled lobbying groups--while not always strong enough to pass legislation they want--almost always can defeat bills they oppose. “The lobbyists, some of them, create gridlock and nothing can get done,” she said. “For a whole variety of reasons, and the special interests are the main reason, we can’t seem to fix many problems anymore, and I think that’s the key to why people distrust the Legislature and government in general.”

But her boss, Friedman, is not convinced that lobbyists play such a crucial role.

“Sure, some of them are powerful and it can be frustrating sometimes,” he said, “but I carry a lot of consumer and environmental legislation and ‘protect the weak’ bills and there have been occasions when I’ve prevailed over them.”

Some blamed Friedman for not bringing the bill to the Senate floor soon enough. Others said he was too preoccupied with the gay rights legislation to pay proper attention to the tree protection bill.

Friedman also failed to crack the solid wall of Republican opposition to his measure. Except for Davis, no Republican took a lead role in supporting Cal-Tree.

Others noted that the environmental lobbyists were too busy with the timber bills to devote much time to the tree legislation until the very end.

But Sierra Club lobbyist Darryl Young put his finger on the most obvious problem when he said, referring to the vote swap between Sens. Keene and Mello: “When it came down to a single vote, we got traded.”

The ‘Cal Tree’ Bill

Here is a chronology of the path through the Legislature of the tree preservation bill, known as “Cal-Tree”:

* Dec. 3, 1990--Introduced in Assembly (first day of 1990-91 egislative session).

* Jan. 7, 1991--Legislature reconvenes after Christmas recess.

* Feb. 25--Bill has first committee hearing before Assembly Natural Resources Committee, fails to get a majority committee vote.

* March 11--Approval by Assembly Natural Resources Committee, 8 to 4, on third attempt.

* April 9--At hearing by Assembly Ways and Means Committee, fails to get a majority vote.

* April 24--On second try, passes Assembly Ways and Means, 12-7.

* May 28--Passes Assembly, 42-30.

* July 9--Approval by Senate Natural Resources Committee, 5-3.

* Aug. 19--Approval by Senate Appropriations Committee, 7-3.

* Sept. 11-12--After debate on Senate floor, misses by one vote the 21 needed for approval, and the legislation dies.