Ill-Advised Move by Land Owner at Slatter’s Court Leads to Potential Problems for City on Fence Issue with Union Pacific –
For a time on Friday morning, many thought that Union Pacific had blatantly trespassed onto private property, cutting down a tree along a fenceline. Instead, it was the owners of Slatter’s Court that cut down the tree, unbeknownst to anyone.
Nerves were already shot after the railroad fenced off a gate at the same location a couple of weeks ago, angering the city and residents as the city was trying to gain assurances that the railroad would not act without at least notifying the city.
In an equally pointed statement from Mayor Joe Krovoza, the mayor told the Vanguard, “The fences that now block access at Slatter’s Court and Davis Mobile Estates are counter to the City’s concerted and good faith efforts since January to work with UP to find an overall solution to Depot access by Olive Drive residents.”
“This unilateral action by UP flies in the face of what the city believed was progress, and only makes more difficult a permanent, safety-enhancing solution,” the mayor continued.
“If the new fences are ignored, the only product of this action will be bad will. That’s unfortunate and unproductive,” Mayor Krovoza concluded.
Making the situation more volatile has been a dispute between the city and Union Pacific over who owns what land.
In the release from the city, they accuse Union Pacific Railroad of refusing to “allow the city surveyor on the UPRR property to prepare the topographic plans for the CPUC application. Despite UPRR indicating that it would like the city to expedite the CPUC application process, Union Pacific has refused to expedite the city’s request for access to the railroad right of way to conduct surveys needed to complete the at-grade crossing application.”
They add, “UPRR recently conducted a survey on its right of way at the Davis Train Depot. UPRR has allegedly discovered that portions of the buildings on Olive Drive and the existing fences and gates encroach on the UPRR right of way.”
The City, according to their release, believe that this determination is in error. They have had surveyors and civil engineers review the new map. According to the city, “These surveyors and engineers have indicated that the encroachment determination appears to be erroneous and that a closer review of deeds should be made. “
The City communicated this information to Union Pacific Railroad and the private property owners.
“UPRR has, however, elected to proceed, notwithstanding the disputed property lines and the lack of an alternative approved at-grade crossing,” the release charges.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, the public was informed that the Union Pacific Police, which is apparently a licensed agency with powers similar to that of the FBI and other federal agencies, has issued a number of citations for trespassing, but the local courts have thrown out all of them.
The city lacks any clear power here except to make the issue of a fence less relevant by creating an at-grade crossing. In their official statement in the press release, the city maintains it will continue to pursue an at-grade crossing, “regardless of the obstacles created by UPRR.”
The Vanguard understands that the city is filing their application with the Public Utilities commission.
However, the railroad continues to insist that they are simply seeking to protect themselves from liability, despite statistics to the contrary, and they maintain that it is their land and their decision.
They are spending dollars on a non-problem, but ignoring other areas where safety concerns should be real.
Unfortunately, just when the city thought they had caught Union Pacific in a situation of trespass, with the tree issue, it was the owners of Slatter’s Court that have undermined the city’s case by cutting down what could be considered an historic tree without consulting with the city first.
That puts this whole effort in huge doubt regarding the determinations for the city, their residents and even the property owners.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”Unfortunately, just when the city thought they had caught Union Pacific in a situation of trespass, with the tree issue, it was the owners of Slatter’s Court that have undermined the city’s case by cutting down what could be considered an historic tree without consulting with the city first.”[/i]
If it was an illegal removal of a landmark tree, that is truly unfortunate. But I don’t understand how or why that prompts a story about Union Pacific? Is the only connection that someone on city staff had hoped to use the tree-cutting as a weapon against the rail company?
For those who don’t know, the City of Davis maintains a small catalog of “landmark trees.” You can see the full list here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/pgs/trees/landmark.cfm[/url]). The tree which was destroyed on Olive Drive, I presume, was one of the 9 historic cork oaks [i](Quercus suber)[/i] on the list, all at Slatter’s Court.
You might notice that the city’s Landmark inventory still includes the orange trees which were demolished when the new (and might nice, I might add) Mishka’s Cafe was constructed on the Dresbach Hunt Boyer property. John Hunt planted those trees more than 100 years ago. Back when Dresbach built his Victorian mansion on what is now 2nd Street, he had an orchard on the back of his property (what is now Mansion Square) which included a wide variety of fruit trees.
While Davis still is very fortunate to have a great urban forest, it seems to me that we have a civic duty to protect our trees. They are a community asset. Often people who call for greater densification don’t realize that the practical reality of that can be the destruction of many of our nicest, oldest trees.
If nerves are so easily “shot”, I wish I had the Xanax concession in Davis >
Judging from the picture, that wasn’t a cork oak. I could be wrong, but even at this photo resolution I don’t see the characteristic bark.
It either is, or isn’t, an historic tree. Better to know for sure than to say “could be considered” such.
[i]”Judging from the picture, that wasn’t a cork oak.”[/i]
I trust your knowledge on this far better than my own, Don. However, if it’s not a cork oak–and looking at that picture of that bark-stripped long log, it doesn’t look anything like the cork oaks at the UC Davis arboretum–then it was not a Davis Landmark tree.
A fun bit of trivia about oaks: With very few exceptions, almost all trees in the oak family are in the quercus genus. Our most common native oak, for example, is the [i]quercus lobata[/i], with lobata describing the lobed shape of the leaves. (Growing up, I mistakenly thought that leaf shape was common to all oak trees. To me, the lobed leaf was the oak leaf.)
[img]http://tlc.ousd.k12.ca.us/~acody/Images/oakleaf.jpeg[/img]
The Latin term quercus, not surprisingly, means cork. It came into the Latin languages through Spanish-Arabic, back when the Moors ruled Spain. The Arabic term for cork is [i]qurq.[/i] Here is the interesting part: the capital city in New Mexico, Albuquerque, has its origins in this name. There is an ancient Spanish city called Albuquerque, which was a misspelling of the Arabic term for the region, Abu al-Qurq’, which means “father of the cork oak”. That is, of course, where the cork oak is native.
One thing I recently learned, walking through the Shields Oak Grove on campus is that there is a genus of oak trees native to So. California and Mexico with the name Encino. I suspect that some of them grow naturally in the San Fernando Valley region of Encino. However, encino is not the common term for an oak tree in Spanish. The term I know is [i]roble[/i] for any old oak. I imagine, though, that some Spanish speakers likely refer to oaks as encinos. If any one knows, please enlighten me.
… On something barely related: Did you know that Fresno is just the Spanish word for an Ash tree? (That is the common tree used to make most baseball bats.)
If I were making an educated guess, I’d say it was a Modesto ash or a Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus). Neither is a desirable species. From the picture, there was a structural problem resulting from a bad branch angle, meaning that the tree could likely have split apart and even become a liability or injured someone. There are often good reasons for removing trees, and not all tree species are equally desirable.
[quote]If I were making an educated guess, I’d say it was a Modesto ash or a Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus). Neither is a desirable species. From the picture, there was a structural problem resulting from a bad branch angle, meaning that the tree could likely have split apart and even become a liability or injured someone. There are often good reasons for removing trees, and not all tree species are equally desirable.[/quote]
That was my thought. The tree was probably in a place that would pose some risk or other; and perhaps was diseased or compromised in some way. Even if it was good and healthy, perhaps the branches were going to destroy a fence, or any number of other possible downsides. I assume someone would not have gone to the expense of removing the tree unless they had good reason…
Don wrote:
Better to know for sure than to say “could be considered” such.
Good advice.
How about
“virtually a historic tree” or
“what some would consider historic” or
“historic-like elements” or
“leaning towards historic” or
“future historic tree”
Some would consider this tree historic. It is a Cork oak, [i]Quercus suber[/i]. The gentleman in front of it is well-known to Davis students, and certainly could be considered historic.
[img]http://redwoodbarn.com/images/OakHildebrandsm.jpg[/img]