Poisoning of city street trees at 652 4th Street

Argued the evidence is circumstantial and it would be unfair to make the homeowner financially responsible without photo or video confirmation of who did the work.

The appellant's neighbor described seeing work being performed between the two trees on March 10 that prompted her husband to have her call the city, and urged a thorough investigation and protection of remaining mature trees.

The appellant denied poisoning the trees he's lived beside for 40 years, said he only used Ortho weed killer on his new lawn, suggested a pushy out-of-town tree scam artist may have targeted the trees, and pointed to falling branches endangering his daycare and neighbors.

The Woodland Tree Foundation co-founder praised the investigation and urged the council to uphold the violation, calling the poisoning cowardly and urging immediate replanting if the trees must come down.

The Tree Foundation board secretary framed the trees as legacies of hope planted by earlier generations and urged the council to enforce the strengthened ordinance tonight.

A tenant and ten-year friend of the appellant vouched for Ledesma's integrity and argued the case is circumstantial with room for reasonable doubt — anyone could have done it.

In a second comment, she compared the tree ordinance to the city's successful illegal-fireworks fines, arguing monetary consequences are what make people change behavior.