VISALIA – The Visalia City Council has denied a property owner’s request to postpone the decision to appeal the removal of two oak trees during their Sept. 18 public meeting. One of these trees sits on the edge of two properties, and should it be removed, a fence will be built in its place, which goes against the wishes of one of the owners.

The appeal to remove an oak tree made its way back to the Visalia City Council after a 90-day period in which the owners were supposed to reach an agreement on the construction of the fence. As no such agreement was reached, the council moved to deny the postponement.

Parks and maintenance manager Malcolm Diaz outlined the facts of the matter at the Sept. 18 council meeting, stating that both of the tree’s removals were in line with the city’s oak tree requirements due one being below the minimum D.B.H. (diameter at breast height) and the other one being replaced by several saplings during the site’s development.

However, the council’s focus was on the tree that resided in between both properties, where the developers of one of the properties are planning on putting up a fence should they get approval from the city.

“The tree is located right along the fence line, where it requires removal for new construction,” Diaz said. “Because of that, we’re requesting that the appeal (to extend discussion) be denied and that removal be approved.”

Nick Ruiz, the attorney representing one of the property owners, expressed his client’s hopes for an additional 90 day allotment on top of the first allotment in June, which would be used to further discussions with their neighbor about what would happen should the tree be removed; specifically, the construction the fence, which would inhibit Ruiz’s client’s business.

“I request that we have another extension of 90 days,” Ruiz said. “We have met and conferred with the other parties, we’ve sent some language across the issue is that this construction of a fence will cut into an easement that my client has and operates his business out of.”

According to Ruiz, the fence that would go up should the tree removal be approved would interfere with his client’s business, as they need space for their 18-wheelers to pass through. He assured the council that his clients will sue the city should their request for extension be denied.

“If you guys grant this permit, we’re gonna be moving tomorrow, (to bring) the city of Visalia in as a defendant for declaratory relief action,” Ruiz said. “(My client will also) request for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until these issues are resolved.”

This statement was dismissed by the council and other city staff, including Ken Richardson, the city’s attorney, who felt that the threat of litigation took focus away from the topic at hand.

“Litigation is always a possibility; the gentleman has certainly threatened it,” Richardson said. “However, I don’t believe that any of the issues he’s raising this evening are relevant to your decision…to whether the findings can be made or not as it pertains to the issuance of the permit (to remove the tree).”

“Litigation is always a possibility; the gentleman has certainly threatened it,” Richardson said. “However, I don’t believe that any of the issues he’s raising this evening are relevant to your decision…to whether the findings can be made or not as it pertains to the issuance of the permit (to remove the tree).”

Councilmember Nelson echoed Richardson’s thoughts and questioned what an additional 90 days would accomplish, as the initial extension seemed to have yielded no results.

“My philosophy is, if you couldn’t make a decision within 90 days, what’s another 90 days gonna do except extend this out,” he said. “I don’t do well with threats, and that’s what you (Ruiz) brought me here tonight, therefore, I’ll support the deny (to extend discussion).”

From the opposing side of the fence debate, San Joaquin Valley Homes vice president Jim Robinson echoed Nelson’s statements at the council meeting. He explained how he and his team had already compromised with their neighboring property to move their development’s recycling center, and felt that no such compromise was to be had with the construction of the fence by this point.

“I’m not supportive of extending this any further,” he said. “What was described is something that should have happened in about a three day period, and we (went) weeks and weeks without any response back or phone calls back on trying to get this resolved. I think the only way to do it is to just finish it and move on.”

Once the discussion period on the item was closed, the council unanimously voted to deny the appeal for an additional 90 day extension and to move forward with the tree removal.