Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Joan TumpsonBRICKELL WOODS TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION 2180 BRICKELL AVENUE NO. 15 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33129 JOAN B. TUMPSON 2180 BRICKELL AVENUE NO. 14 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33129 Director Tersita L. Fernandez City of Miami Hearings Boards Department 7/22/04 1 r5m © p C) U Q w w o U m m =:) :J W U) n VIA Hand DELIVERY July 22, 2009 Motion in Oppostion to Appeal of Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) Resolution No. HEPB 2009 35 Filed by Stearns, Weaver Miller, et. al. on behalf of Floridian Buildiers and on behalf of the Developer And In support of Enforcement and Affirmation of HEPB Resolution No 200935. Dear Director Fernandez: 1. This is a motion opposing the above -captioned Appeal before the Miami City Commission to held on July 23, 2009. As the persons seeking to cut down a huge, healthy tree to make room for construction posted notice of this hearing for only part of one day, on July 12, and it was difficult to get copies of the documents and to confirm that the hearing was to be held delaying this response. However, note that this Motion is timely and is made both by Joan Tumpson, individually, whose home is located at 2180 Brickell Avenue, immediately to the south and abutting 2110 Brickell, the property and the tree in question, and by Tumpson on behalf of the Brickell Woods Townhouse Association, representing o9-00706a.-SAMALJ_ Jour) 7umpsoh the other owners of 14 homes in the development immediately to the South of the Property in question. 2. The issue of the destruction of this tree has been brought before the Department of Code Enforcement twice, and before the HEPB twice in the last three years. 3. Notwithstanding the clear decisions of the HEPB Board and the Department of Code Enforcement, the Developer and his employees and agents have continued to build a structure which they knew to be inconsistent with these decisions, and have intentionally refused to redesign the portion of the development which would threaten Tree No. 1. 4. In fact, while giving the appearance of complying with law and procedure in the City of Miami, the Developer and his agents have continued to build in a manner that intentionally violated orders of the City's Code Enforcement Department and HEPB's decisions and orders for the past three years. 5. The Developer has opted to pursue profit and not to obey law, despite repeated appearances before the HEPB Board and in violation of its orders. In short, the Developer and its agents are scofflaws. Their objective is to build according to original plans although directed by the HEPB Board to change them, if necessary to retain trees 1, 4 and 5 per its original order of April, 2007 and it's subsequent order of June2, 2009. (See, DVD transcripts of both HEPB meetings.). 6. The HEPB Board clearly told the developers to change their design if necessary to save the tree. The Developer never did so, and has, in violation of law, continued to build per its original plan, knowing this was inconsistent with the Board and Department of Code Enforcements decisions. 7. As a result of the Developer's actions, minor damage has been done to the trees which the developer now cites as grounds for their destruction. 8. The Department of Code Enforcement has fined the developer and its agents several times for NOT USING best efforts to protect the Trees. The latest fine was noticed by posting one week ago. The file is attached and contains pictures clearly showing a failure to use best efforts to protect the trees. In fact, the treees' bases have been flayed by bulldozers, dug about, and building materials are stored and resting on these trees. See Attachement 1. 9. The undersigned and her Board have consistently argued for the preservation of the trees and have been before HEPB Board hearings twice, where their argument that the trees are old, beautiful, large and irreplaceable and of great importance in a time when trees must be retained if Brickell Avenue pollution is to be contained and global warming stopped. See Attachment 2, our Appeal of March 7, 2007 to the decision that the trees could be cut down to allow construction. 10. The trees are huge, healthy (see Atachment 3, opinion of Arbolist Lisa Hammer dated April 2, 2007) rare and vibrant Mahogany trees of which few remain on Brickell. They provide much-needed shade, beauty and refuge for nesting birds and as such are of great importance to our enviroment. 11. The persons seeking to cut them down have chosen to ignore the law and the needs of our planet, by slowly filling a small lot with a huge development, and at the same time intentionally taking illegal action with repect to these trees. 12. This is simply a case of greed verses law compliance, money verses the environment and it can no longer be tolerated. The damage done the trees to date can be ameliorated and,despite this damage, the trees stand as huge and beautiful as any on Brickell. 13. Shame on this developer who would denude his lot to build condominium units when there are already too many and two few buyers, with no regard for law or nature. 14. Photos of the base of the trees before construction began (but after the developer tore down prior buildings on the site, doing some damage to the trees at issue and then stating it was done my Hurricane winds. Not true.) are attached as attached as Attachment 3. Note damage done to the tree subsequently when these photos are compared with those attached to the Department of Code Enforcements Fine Notice of last week (Attachment 1) This is NOT BEST EFFORTS. 15. The truth is that these trees are our greatest assets and the developer and his agents simply refused to comply with the lawful order that they use best efforts (or any efforts) to retain them. 16. Fortunately, the trees can be saved if the plans are modified and the developer desists with his efforts to build per plans he was told to modify over two years ago. 17. If this appeal is not denied, it will be a grave loss for our neighborhood and in the long run for our planet and for our children. The time has passed when this Commission can allow construction in violation of law and the uncontested requirement that green trees be saved. 18. Do not allow greed to trump your obligation to the people you represent and ultimately to the planet and the generations who will come. 19. We respectfully ask that the Commission deny this Appeal of Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Resolution HEPB-2009-35 and support your constituents, our city and the environment Respectfully, Joan B.Tumpson, individually and as Board Member of The Brickell Woods Townhouse association, Cc Ellen Uguggioni Elvi Gallastegi Violations r Portal Ill Violations ill Letters iD Initiation Ill AUNMes Ill Images ID Case Information Violations Hearings Ili Lot Clearing Ill Current Pape To Do List Ig! Liens Ill VlolatJonc and Compliance Address x2110 BRICKELL AV Process Code Enforcement Ticket Zone 1135 Case Type Tree Removal Without a Permit Folio 0141390oio040 Status Open Date Compliance Due Sul 27, 2009 Tracking Number Case Number CE2009015235 Status Date Complied Violation Inspector Description I New Violation Save I VlolaBon 1679 - Tree removaUtrimming/root prunning without a permit (non Resident) Status Open Description Inspector ORLANDO DEL VALLE Tree removal/lnmming/root prunning Without pemtil.(non resident) Violation Date Jul 10, 2009 Vlolaticn Tlme 03:06 pM Code Section Fine Amount1000 xF- *F1606 20N ORD SEC Dale issued J7116, 2009 Comments Time issued 03:0.5 PM PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION PRUN THE ROOTS OF A OAK TREE WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE OAK IS PROTECTED BY THE HEP Ticket Number 277619 BOARD TO PROTECT THE TREE. Required Corrections Repeat Offence? Right of Way? Entered by OValle on Jul 16, 2009. Compliance/Extension Dates Process Change I New Compliance) I save I Explanation Date Compliance Due Sul 27, 2009 date format: MMIDDIYYYY MEMOa . Entered by OValle on Jul 16, 2009. Page 1 of 2 C��C�c�rvvt.Vvvp a-. http://ImprodO1/cityviewweb/ceactivity Violations.aspx?_redir=l 7/20/2009 Liens Portal Igl Vlolallons ISI Letters Igo Hearings ISt Current Page Infilation Igi Activities Igl Images Igo Comments ID ' Liens and Fees Case Information Address 2110 BRICKELL AV Process Code Enforcement Tlcket Zone 35 status Open Folio 0141390010840 Tracking Number Case Number CE2009015235 Liens LNPEND_No � New Lien Save � Board Type Ticketing Book Start Page End Page Date Recorded Lien Released Llen � i I date format MM/DDIYYYY Comments Fees Entered by Ovalle on Jul 18, 2009. Modified by Ovalle on Jul 16, 2009. New Fee II Save Type Amount �Quantity --'---Balance Ticket Issued is 1,000.00 11 1,000.00 Lien Costs 1,000.00 Total Due 1,000.00 Entered by OVage on Jul 16, 2009. Modified by Ovalle on Jul 16, 2009. http://ImprodO l /cityviewweb/cehearing_Liens. aspx Page 1 of 2 I 7/20/2009 Pending Lien? ,r Pending Date Sul 16, 2009 Clear Lien I Lien Cleared? Lien Clear Date F Certify Lien I OK To Certify? k Installments F- Certifled? Certified Date Amount Certified I Lien Paid I Lien Paid? Entered by Ovalle on Jul 18, 2009. Modified by Ovalle on Jul 16, 2009. New Fee II Save Type Amount �Quantity --'---Balance Ticket Issued is 1,000.00 11 1,000.00 Lien Costs 1,000.00 Total Due 1,000.00 Entered by OVage on Jul 16, 2009. Modified by Ovalle on Jul 16, 2009. http://ImprodO l /cityviewweb/cehearing_Liens. aspx Page 1 of 2 I 7/20/2009 Portal IcJ Violations IQI Letters Ick HearingslcJ Initiation IcJ Activities IcJ Images Ica I I To Do ListicJ Property Information Address 12110 BRICKELL AV Zone 35 Folio 10141390010840 Registered Lot Registered Case Information Page 1 of 1 Lot Clearing IBJ Comments IcJ Current Page LienslcJ Move Case IBJ Contacts IcJ Case Initiation Owner FwARD INTL TRADING COMPANY III LLC Owner Address 2110 BRICKELL AV Net ID CORAL WAY Case Number Status Where on Property? I New Case I I Save CE2009015235 Open CE2007008994 Closed Add Requestor "' '" """M CE2006000281 Closed PSI TREE REMOVAL Move To Legal Folio Case Address Right of Way? 2110 BRICKELL AV Repeat Offence? Description Submit Query 311 Tracking T. Division Code Enforcement ReceivedIn Compliance Mar 07, 2007 F�� Process •.------- Service Date Closed Date Mar 07, 2007 Source Employee First Inspection Dail Per Diem p Mar 07, 2007 y tl� Request Type Service Request Last Completed Activity ty Mar07,2007 Complaint TypelTree Removal Without a Permit Priority 1 Inspectoi Override the Geo Inspector assignment Violations Search By: Case Street Number Name Type Number Equal to: Street Name Is exactly: Refer To (Submit Query Refer Entered by Ovalle on Mar 07, 2007. Street type (AC, AV, AVRD, BLVD, BLWY, CIR, CSWY, CT, CTRD, DR, HWY, LA, LN, PKWY, PL, PLZ, RD, ST, STRD, TER, TRL, WAY, WY) Is exactly: , 2110 BRICKELL, AV, 2110 BRICKELL AV, , 2110 BRICKELL AVE http://ImprodOl/cityviewweb/ceinitiation_Case_Initiation_alt.aspx 7/20/2009 lo� ,;' ;'.,`� + # t•, - 1 Page 1 of 1 file:/n\lmprod0l\CityVIEW\CE2009015235\CE2009015235-3-OValle.JPG 7/20/2009 •� � a • Y � 1 1 I �I�\ •- I fA Lnn/�y V e P �r ,r �rh f JOAN B. TUMPSON 2180 BRICKELL AVENUE --TOWNHOUSE 14 MIAMI, FL 33129 305 8562114 / 45 March 7, 2007 Kathleen Slesnick Kauffman, Historic Preservation Officer Historic and Environmental Preservation Board 444 S. W. S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Fl 33129 City Ordinance 12636 — Article 8 — TREE PROTECTION APPEAL DecisionlPlan 070004007 by Department Miami Dep't of Code Enforcement Removal of 5 Trees at 2110 Brickell Avenue, Miami Fl 22129 Dear Ms. Kauffman: 1. This is my appeal of Decision/Plan No. 070004007 as noticed by the Miami Department of Code Enforcement for the removal of 5 trees located on 2110 Brickell Avenue, Miami Florida 33129. 2. The Notice of Decision was said to be posted March 2, 2007 and this Appeal is timely. 3. The Decision appealed from is to remove and destroy 5 Mahogany trees from the property at 2110 Brickell Avenue (to more economically make room for the driveway an construction of a five -story, multi -family dwelling.) . I live at 2180 Brickell, immediately to the south and beside the property in question 4. The reasons for this appeal are as follows: (a) The trees are HUGE and healthy and have been here at least as long as I have (27 years). They abut and shade Brickell Avenue. They are rare and vibrant Mahogany Trees and few remain on Brickell Avenue. They provide much needed shade, beauty and refuge for nesting birds. As such, they are very important to our environment. (b) The application (plans submitted by the developer) describes these trees as having a diameter of 36" (two) and 24" (three), a height of 40- 45 feet with spreads of 20 — 30 feet. The trees are considerably lamer in diameter, height and spread than set forth in the developer's application (see attachment A). In addition, no accurate measurement could or was taken by the applicant because there is at least 8-10 feet of debris piled about the trees as a result of the demolition of the buildings on this site over a year ago. The application is inaccurate and misleading. (c) The plans describe the reason for the action as "In conflict with proposed design. Some damage due to hurricane conditions from last year." (See Attachment A). This is not true. The damage to the trees and the debris about them was caused by proximity of the bull dozer that demolished the prior buildings on the property. I saw the damage and have pictures. At the time, no barrier or other protection was set up to protect the trees and numerous branches were knocked off in the haste of the company demolishing the formerly existing dwellings. (d) The trees are being removed to allow for a driveway and to make construction of a very large apartment cheaper. Although the landscape architect, in his letter to the City, said this was a necessity, it is not. Further the landscape architect, in his filing with the city, said that that the developer saved and moved "as many trees as possible, at a very high cost to him," NO TREES WERE REMOVED OR SAVED. (e) I live in Townhouse Unit 14 (Brickell Woods) adjacent to the property and my property is next door to the subject property, although separated by a parking lot owned by the Townhouse Association which I believe will also appeal this decision. (f) Due to Hurricane damage in 2005, rapid development of Brickell Avenue and trimming of the west side of Brickell by FPL to accommodate above -ground power lines, the formerly lush and important trees of this street have been substantially destroyed. The majestic Mahogany trees, which the developer proposes to destroy, are a city treasure and should not be removed to accommodate the building of a driveway and up -to -the lot line multiple unit dwelling. (g). The tree canopy in the city of Miami is the smallest in any city of its size with many trees removed without adequate replacement (how can you replace a 60 foot Mahogany?) (h) My neighbors and I treasure these trees and would be much impoverished by their removal. (i) In a time when global warming is a fact and the role of large, green trees in fighting this man-made phenomenon established, it is irresponsible to remove these trees. (j) The developer's application contains many inaccuracies and for this reason should not be considered in making this decision. I understand I will be given time to document and further present my objections. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Joan B. Tumpson o --..EXISTING TREE LIS'T SPRE MAHOGANY _)R E E 3 MAHOGANY TREE 5 MAHOCANY TREE 36"' 45, 6 MAHOGANY TREE 14- 3 ROYAL PALM - Remain ROYAL PALM 21 45.0' 15.0, 0 ROYAL PALM 21 45.0' 15.0' 3 30 4 ROYAL PALM 21' 450' 15.0' 5 MAHOGANY TREE 12" 30. 0' 20.0' Remain 6 BANANA SHRUB 9.0' B4O' Remain ALEXANDER PALMS 16" 45.0' 15.0' in M.AHOGANY 11REE 14' 45.0' 15.0' Rema ` April 2, 2007 Ms. Joan Tumpson 2180 Brickell Avenue, #14 Miami, FL 33129 Dear Ms. Tumpson: On Tuesday, March 27, we met at your home, which is adjacent to 2110 Brickell Avenue, for which there is a proposal for new development. You are appealing the City of Miami Department of Code Enforcement's approval of tree removal permits for five mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni) trees located on that lot and have requested my assistance in this regard. BACKGROUND CDC Builders are proposing to develop the property in question as `Brickell Townhouse Lofts". You have provided me with a file of related documents, which I have reviewed. Borges & Associates are the architects and Mariano Corral is the landscape architect. Certified Arborist, Ed Peterson, provided a tree evaluation report. The developers are proposing to remove five mahogany trees located on the northeast side of the property, adjacent to Brickell Avenue. They have stated that the trees are in conflict with design plans and power lines, in poor condition, and cannot be relocated due to their size and proximity to power lines. You are appealing the decision (Decision/Plan N-0-070004007) by the City of Miami to permit removal of these trees and requested my assistance in the matter. OBSERVATIONS At the time of my visit I noted the trees in question, numbered as 41 through #5 on the surveys provided. The property was fenced and I did not have permission to enter, therefore, I viewed the trees from the sidewalk by Brickell Avenue. Ms. Joan Tumpson 2110 Brickell Avenue Appeal of Proposed Tree Removal Page 2 Tree #1 Tree 41 is a very large mahogany tree. The tree survey lists its diameter as 36 inches, but it may be larger. In Mr. Corral's letter of to the City of Miami Landscape Reviewer dated February 13, 2007, he states that "...trunk caliper size (over 40" in some cases)..." It is surrounded by piles of rocky soil, which reportedly were placed there during demolition of the previous building. There are some wounds on the trunk and branches, which you reported also occurred during the demolition phase. This tree has incurred some limb breakage due to recent storms, but the trunk and main scaffolding limbs are unaffected. At this time of year the tree has recently defoliated but is beginning to show some signs of potentially vigorous new growth. It is in fair to good condition for a tree of this size and age. Tree #2 Tree 42 is considerably smaller, listed at 24 inches in diameter, yet still a specimen -size tree. It has two dead limbs about 4 to 5 inches in diameter and several old pruning wounds with decay cavities. It is in fair to poor condition. Tree #3 Tree #3 is also listed as a 24 -inch diameter tree, which may be more -or -less correct. It has very few lateral branches and shows signs of storm damage. It is generally in poor condition. Tree #4 Tree #4 has a trunk diameter of at least 24 inches, as listed. It has some pruning damage due to line clearance, but is otherwise in fair to good condition. Tree #5 Tree 45 is a very large tree, probably considerably larger than the 36 inches listed, and in excellent condition for a tree of this age and size. It has healthy vigorous growth and little damage from storms, pruning, or other causes. Trees #6 and #7 Trees #6 and #7 are also mahogany trees which are proposed to remain. I could not see them well enough from the sidewalk to adequately evaluate their condition. Ms. Joan Tumpson 2110 Brickell Avenue Appeal of Proposed Tree Removal Page 3 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS Tree Survey The first tree survey by Miguel Espinosa Land Surveying, Inc. (03/02/1994) misidentifies the trees as black olive, and provides size data in terms of "Gross", "Height", and "Shadow". These are not usable data as required by the City, although the locations shown on the survey appear to be correct. Tree Disposition Plan and Mitigation Calculations The tree survey shown on the "TREE DISPOSITION PLAN" provided by Mariano Corral (TD -1, date illegible), shows the correct tree species and locations. I was not able to confirm the size data, but it is presented in a usable form. The mitigation calculations call for the removal of 144 inches of trunk diameter. Proposed replacement consists of 5 live oaks 6 -inch caliper, 4 fern trees 2 -inch caliper, 3 ligustrum 2.5" caliper, and 5 alexander palms 3 -inch caliper (divided by 2 = 7.5 inches). Total mitigation proposed is 53.5 inches caliper or 13 trees at 4 -inch caliper. Letter from Mariano Corral, Landscape Architect In his letter of February 13, 2007, Mr. Corral states that many trees were removed or transplanted due to design conflict between building and trees. Removals were due to conflict with FPL Overhead Power lines, no room to transplant them, and safety hazards working around power lines. He also states that the developer saved and moved as many trees as possible and paid a high price for replacement value of those trees. Letter from CDC Builders In a letter from Nelson A. Coimbre, Director of Preconstruction Services, to Rafael Marco of Borges & Associates, dated March 15, 2007, he discusses the difficulties of potential relocation of the trees in question. He also mentions that "...it is possible that the tree on the northeast corner of the property could remain and not be affected by the construction." Letter from Ed Peterson, Certified Arborist Mr. Peterson's letter addresses basic botanical information about mahogany trees, then discusses storm damage incurred by these trees and the effects of water sprouts and sucker growth on tree structure. He states that all but one tree "display virtually no lateral growth whatsoever, which leads me to believe they are essentially water sprout trees, and no longer representative of what a true natural specimen trees are." He goes on to recommend against transplantation due to concerns regarding root pruning, size, no central leader, weight loads, breakage, and proximity to power lines. He provides six photographs which supposedly show various structural problems. Ms. Joan Tumpson 2110 Brickell Avenue Appeal of Proposed Tree Removal Page 4 DISCUSSION AND EXPERT OPINION Tree Disposition It is my opinion that mahogany trees #1 and #5 are very large, old, specimen -size trees which significantly contribute to the property, the general environment, and the Brickell Avenue scenic corridor. Tree #1 is in fair to good condition and would likely improve with some remedial treatment, most notably removal of the soil from around its base, pruning to remove storm and construction damage, and possibly some moderate irrigation and fertilization. Tree 45 is in excellent condition and should be retained. Neither tree would meet the criteria of the current Florida Department of Agriculture's Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants and all have some storm damage, but this is to be expected of native trees of these ages and sizes. Tree 44 is in fair to good condition and should also be retained. Trees #2 and #3 are in poor condition and could be removed and mitigated. However, if trees #1, #4, and #5 are retained, consideration might be given to retaining all five trees in a cluster. If so, remedial treatments (pruning, fill removal, irrigation, fertilization) will be necessary. Mitigation Calculations Assuming trunk diameter measurements are accurate (and some measurements may be smaller than actual size, as noted by Mr. Corral), total inches of trunk diameter proposed for removal equals 144. According to the City of Miami code, I calculate that that would require replacement with 48 hardwood trees, 2 inches in diameter and 12 feet in height, OR 24 hardwood trees, 4 inches in diameter and 16 feet in height. Mr. Corral is proposing mitigation with 53.5 inches of caliper; 13 trees at 4 -inch caliper. Of those mitigation trees, 5 are 6 -inch live oaks, 4 are 2 -inch fern trees, 3 are 2.5 -inch ligustrum trees, and 5 are alexander palms. While the live oaks are larger than that required for mitigation, the ligustrums and fern trees are small to medium-size trees which will not provide the same type of canopy, nor will the palms. Discussions Regarding Reasons for Removal or Transplanting/Relocation Mr. Corral states that there is a design conflict between building and trees. While this may be true of trees #1, #2, #3, and possibly #4, tree #5 is in the corner and according to Mr. Coimbre, it might be possible for it to remain. And one could ask, why were the trees not taken into consideration before designing the building? There is no evidence that "The developer saved and moved as many trees as possible and paid a high price for replacement value of those trees." Ms. Joan Tumpson 2110 Brickell Avenue Appeal of Proposed Tree Removal Page 5 As for overhead powerlines, it is true that they are there and some line clearing pruning has been performed over the years, but it is relatively insignificant. The powerlines would make relocation difficult. I would not recommend relocation of these trees, as these large old trees would not likely survive and the smaller ones are not in good enough health. As a species, mahogany does not tolerate relocation stresses very well and even young nursery -grown trees are prone to rapid desiccation. The powerlines would be a significant obstacle and there is not likely any other space on-site for the trees to planted. Arborist's Opinions While Mr. Peterson provides good general background information about mahogany trees, I am not in agreement with many of his opinions, especially regarding these specific trees. Mahogany trees do not necessarily "in their natural state have a central tree trunk with many lateral branches radiating outward". Most of the older mahogany trees found in natural hammocks and old plantings have multiple leaders. Pruning to form a single central leader is a relatively new concept encouraged by the Florida Department of Agriculture's Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants, which is not applicable in this situation. In regard to the discussion about water sprouts: As a wounding response, trees produce epicormic shoots - otherwise known as water sprouts or suckers — to assist in stress recovery. Since they form from adventitious buds just beneath the bark, they are initially more weakly attached than older branches. But over long periods of time, surrounding branch or trunk tissue will grow around them, allowing them to form strongly -attached branches. I do not agree that most of these trees' branches are formed from water sprouts (there are some branches, but not the main scaffolding limbs) and if there are 40 to 50 - foot water sprouts, they are most likely mature enough to have become stronger. As with all old trees in south Florida, these trees have incurred storm damage, however, on trees #1 and #5, it has not affected main trunks, scaffolding limbs, or caused major wounds or decay. Affected branches could be pruned. I agree with the recommendation against transplanting/relocation, as previously discussed. Photo 41 shows tree 42. I agree it is in fair to poor condition. Ms. Joan Tumpson 2110 Brickell Avenue Appeal of Proposed Tree Removal Page 6 Photo #2 shows tree #1. It has naturally -occurring multiple -leaders and some branches (not scaffold limbs) formed by epicormic shoots. There are some storm -damaged limbs, but the tree could be remedially treated. Photo #3 shows tree #1. The base of this tree is not readily visible due to piles of soil and fill placed around it. If the trunk has shifted, it was likely a long time ago, as the crown has compensated by growing upward. Photo 44 is either tree #2 or #3, both of which are in poor condition. Photo #5 is tree #3. Photo 46 is tree #5, which is in very good condition and should be retained in the far corner of the property. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I disagree with the opinions of Certified Arborist Ed Peterson regarding tree condition and recommend that trees #1, 44, and #5 be retained. Mr. Coimbre noted that it might be possible for Tree #5 to remain and not be affected by construction. Trees #2 and #3 are in fair to poor condition and should be removed. However, if all five trees can be retained as a cluster, trees 42 and 43 might be salvageable with remedial treatments. I do not recommend relocation of these trees due to species, size, condition, and space limitations. If any trees are to be removed, the mitigation calculations need to be corrected and large -canopy trees should replace large -canopy trees. All trees to remain should be protected from damage for the duration of the construction project. Thank you for calling on me to assist with this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions about this report or additional needs for assistance. Sincerely, Lisa H. Hammer Horticultural Consultant •+�� •�' � � i� aid !�'• , � �'y= � f ,�, -`�' - n -_ qtr{•` ,�, s --r �+.. h - -:.•-.,.�►�� ��:•� �'•`� r s -moi, � :R, • t If it 4�, ��Yi�( Y4"y� �4 r -" .i ice-": _ � 4 •-A �`f��.;.i����� "�„•I � s' Af OG �- pp�l ter. a •�' _ - - •1 \ '. 4-j. �•' t -ail � '� � '', AILD el .4 ` S .k"