Treesavers,
City Reject Each Others’ Requests |
By Jorge Casuso
March 13 -- Treesavers on Tuesday rejected a request by
the City to begin removing 23 Downtown ficus trees it deems dangerous,
countering with a settlement City officials in turn dismissed.
The first volley in the latest skirmish over the City’s plans
to remove 54 ficus trees on 2nd and 4th streets came in a letter
Tuesday to Treesavers attorney Tom Nitti from Assistant City Attorney
Joe Lawrence.
The letter quotes a March 7 decision by an Appeals Court, see "Appeals
Court Orders Stay in Ficus Tree Case,"
March _07,_2008 to grant the Treesavers’ request for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) directing the City “not
to remove or cause to be removed any ficus trees (except those that
may be a danger to the public).”
“As you are aware,” Lawrence wrote, “the City
has identified 23 ficus trees. . . as posing a danger to the public.
In the opinion of the City’s professional arborist, these
trees should be removed without further prolonged delay.
“The City interprets the Court’s order as allowing
the City to proceed to protect the public by causing the removal
of these 23 ficus trees as soon as the City determines that it is
possible to do so.”
Treesavers quickly rejected the request.
“My clients do not agree with your interpretation of the
Court of Appeal,” Nitti wrote back. “The exception was
suggested by Treesavers on the City’s representation that
any dangerous tree would be evaluated individually, and only then
individually be considered for removal.
“Since the date of the TRO (and for years before) the City
has not determined any tree is so dangerous as to require immediate
removal. . . Why have they become dangerous in the last two days?”
Nitti noted that the City’s consulting arborist “identified
only three trees as having a high failure potential.”
“It is my clients’ position that the removal of 23
trees as a so-called danger to the public would be a violation of
the Court order,” Nitti concluded.
Nitti then followed up with a letter proposing a settlement that
would allow the City to move forward with an $8.2 million streetscape
project for 2nd and 4th streets, which includes installing 139 new
Ginkgo trees, adding decorative up-lighting to the remaining 111
ficus trees and repairing sidewalks or curbs damaged by the trees.
“In return for the City agreeing to protect the trees (i.e.
Modify the streetscape so as to leave the existing trees in place)
Jerry Rubin and Treesavers will terminate the litigation,”
Nitti wrote.
“My clients believe the City can both proceed with the streetscape
and simultaneously preserve the trees, with some modifications to
the streetscape,” Nitti wrote. “My clients would like
to direct their talent and energy toward helping the City do so.”
Despite the urging of two dozen members of Treesavers at Tuesday
night's City Council meeting to save the trees, the City rejected
the settlement offer Wednesday.
“Our intention is to wait for the Court of Appeals to hear
all the facts and then make its decision,” said Deputy City
Manager Mona Miyasato.
|
