Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEPB Appeal & Supporting MaterialsCcru 'Di 'OPEN VA_Vw rrir DED1 ;DN IS. LIRE) R/Ar 'rriSIDtvVf crier Sfyf5-'GEw=,L 1: 0 EY PARK - ! A\v" :r&L- prcrrLiC A (arid Grade Pe7rrr irfrew Sidewalk w'odeW,3ik Repair Perk fME'Vrr Approach Fr ., ri • a' i Ni; r u; L i3P EN VALVE i f 'A i.er suppry I �m i I. �3 k'� M I 4 wKotte p, 1 Vperty: RAIN a „ L L A .3�< Appeal to the Historical and Environmental Preservation Board of Denial of Tree Removal Permit 2840 Shipping Avenue, Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Anthony Rubino, Managing Member Serp & Serp Investments 3185 Lamb Court Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 (305) 812-8855 anthonyy(rubinolaw.com Anthony Rubino, Manager Serp & Serp Investments 3185 Larnb Court Coconut Grove, Florida 3313.5 October 11, 2007 Historical and Environmental Preservation Board 444 S.W. 2" Avenue, 3rci Floor Miami, Florida 33130 RE: Appeal of denial of tree removal permit 2840 Shipping Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Attachments included are: 1) Photo # 1 of tree in late 2004; 2) Photo # 2 of tree in late 2004; 3) Photo # 1 of tree in October 2007; 4) Photo # 2 of tree in October 2007; 5) Tree Survey 6) Sketch done by Francis Mitchell on property survey on 9/4 - shows that driveway/garage access would be impossible with tree present; 7) Sketch done by Francis Mitchell on property survey on 9/4 - shows where he wanted mitigation trees to be planted; 8) Initial report of arborist Lisa Hammer 9/17; 9) Second report of arborist Lisa Hammer 10/1 Dear Historical and Environmental Preservation Board Members, I am appealing the denial of our above referenced tree removal permit. The reasons for my appeal are as follows: History My company, Serp & Serp Investments, filed for a tree removal pennit to remove a tree located at 2840 Shipping Avenue. During the 10 day posting period, the Grove Tree -man Trust filed an appeal to our request. We then spoke via email and telephone with Jim McMaster, president of the Trust, about the various issues regarding the tree. He explained that the Trust filed the appeal because the neighbors would expect the Trust to fight for any tree in Coconut Grove. He also requested that we meet with Francis Mitchell in the Public Works Department to assess all possible options regarding the tree. Additionally, he asked us to hire an arborist in order to get an independent opinion of the tree On. September 4; 2007, we met with :Francis Mitchell at his office in the public Works Department. This was a meeting that we invited and encouraged Mr, McMaster to attend. Mr. McMaster, however, stated that he was too busy to attend. At our meeting, we provided a tree survey to Mr. Mitchell, We also showed him photos of the tree. He assessed the situation and took the time to sketch possible scenarios on a blow up of the tree survey that he made in one of the copy machines at the Public Works Department. (Copies attached) No matter how we all tried to avoid the removal of the tree, Mr, Mitchell came to the conclusion that there was no other alternative but to remove it. He explained that a driveway would be impossible, that the garage would be inaccessible to allow access for a car, that a security gate would be unfeasible and that there would be absolutely no way to have a sidewalk at the location. He said that he had no problem issuing a permit to remove the tree as long as we could get Mr. McMaster and Liliana Dones of the Tree Watch Commission to agree. He explained that although he felt that tree must be removed, he could lose his job if he issued a permit when Mr. McMaster and Ms, Dones did not agree. After our meeting with Mr. Mitchell; we contacted Coconut Grove arborist Lisa Hammer. It is well established that Ms. Hammer is one of the most respected arborist in our community. We chose to ask Ms. Hammer for an independent report on the tree because we knew that the Grove Tree -man Trust and Tree Watch were familiar with her work and have used her on numerous occasions, In other words. anyone else we would use might be perceived as a hired gun. The Grove Tree -man Trust and Tree Watch however, are well aware that Ms. Hammer is no hired gun and is highly respected in the Coconut Grove area. We then retained Ms. Hammer to provide us with her observations and opinions regarding the tree. She visited the site on September 12, 2007 and made her initial report dated September 17, 2007. (Attached) We received Ms. Hammer's report in the mail on September 18, 2007. We had also been in contact with Commissioner Marc Sarnoff who requested that we forward the arborist's report to his office and that we set up a meeting with all parties involved as soon as possible. We received an email, on September 19, 2007 at 12:23pm, from Commissioner Sarnoff s aide, Ryan Alexander. which requested that Ron Nelson, a Sarnoff staff member, and Jim McMaster contact us to set up the meeting. The email read: From: Alexander, Ryan[mailto:RAlexander@ci.miarni.fLus] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:23 PM To: Nelson, Ron; jmcmglades@aol.com Cc: anthony@rubinolaw.com; dannydli@bellsouth.net Subject: tree @ 2840 Shipping avenue Ron and Jim, Could you schedule a meeting in D2 office for the contractor to discuss this tree at your earliest possible date? Thank you Ryan Alexander 2 I then responded at 1:31.hm to all parties indicating that we would be available for a meeting at any time that it could be scheduled. On September 20, 2007, at 12:18pm,, Jim McMaster of the Grove Tree -man Trust requested that 1 fax him any arborist reports regarding the tree. I immediately faxed the report and he assured us that he would forward it on to Liliana Dones of the Tree Watch Committee. Later in the afternoon on the 20th at 3:45pm we were forwarded (from Commissioner's aide Ryan Alexander) an email that Ron Nelson sent only to Jim McMaster, Liliana Dones and Ryan Alexander at 10:17am that morning. Please note that this email was NOT sent directly to us, but instead it was forwarded to us from the Commissioners aide, Mr. Nelson's email to Mr. McMaster and Liliana Dones is attached as follows: From: Nelson, Ron Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:17 AM To: 'jmcmglades©aol.com'; 'LILIANA DOMES' Cc: Alexander, Ryan Subject: RE: Tree © 2840 Shipping avenue We have seen the report by Lisa Hammer. This office will not be involved other than if the decision is to remove the tree we would prefer the 8 trees 4" DBH solution. We will support your decision and help make sure mitigation is enforced if mitigation is necessary. Ron Nelson Senior Staff — Community Affairs Commissioner Marc D. Sarnoff City of Miami District 2 (305) 250-5334 This email was very troubling because it naturally invoked the following questions: Why was this email not sent to us as well but rather only to Mr. McMaster and Ms. Dones? Why does Mr. Nelson vow that the Commissioner's Office will support your decision? (The decision of Mr. McMaster and Ms. Dones) Is it because Mr. Nelson was a member of the Grove Tree -man Trust from 1998 through 2005? Is it because Mr. Nelson's wife, Joyce, is a member of the Grove Tree -man Trust since 1995 and is now serving as its Vice President? Did Mr. Nelson actually speak to Commissioner Sarnoff about his decision not to have a meeting on this issue? It is important to remember, we were all asked by Commissioner Sarnoff to set up a meeting, The fact that Mr, Nelson took it upon himself to avoid such a meeting is suspect at the very least. 3 On September 23, 2007, we received an :mail from Jim McMaster indicating that he had spoken to Liliana .Dories about the arborist's report and, despite the recommendations of certified arborist Lisa Hammer they felt the tree should remain. Mr. .Mci aster went on to say that he believed the tree was not a hazard and further9 The residents of the Grove will expect us to fight for this tree which is in the public right of way. If you request a tree removal permit to remove this tree and the City of Miami approves the permit the Grove Tree -Man Trust and or Tree Watch will appeal. It should be noted that the Trust requested that 1 hire an arborist and once Ms. Hammer supplied an unbiased report regarding the tree, the Trust and Tree Watch refused to accept and/or follow it. It was irrelevant to then/ that Ms. Hammer said that, "the health of the tree seems fair at best" or ``[i]f the tree were to somehow remain, it would be highly susceptible to all types of damage and stress related to vehicular movement (root damage/stress, strikes to the trunk, etc.)" or "I recommend that this tree be removed and mitigated by installing replacement trees as required by the City." She also pointed out in her report that the entire crown of the tree is located north of the trunk over the roadway. She explained that this causes the tree to be constantly hit by larger moving and delivery trucks. Additionally, the height of the rootball is such that any attempt at a sidewalk and/or driveway is impossible. Lastly, it seems that Ms. Hammer clearly believes that this tree would have a tough chance of survival over the long term. Why would the Grove Tree -man Trust have asked me to hire an arborist in the first place if this would be their response to the most respected one in Coconut Grove? During this ongoing tree situation, I would like to point out that initially we tried to meet with Mr. McMaster at the site to go over possible options (he was unable to meet), we then tried to have Mr. McMaster meet with us and Francis Mitchell (again he was unable to meet), we then tried to set up a meeting with all parties involved at Commissioner Sarnoff s office and Mr. Nelson independently decided that it was not necessary. After receiving Mr. McMaster's email of September 23, 2007, we again contacted him and suggested that we meet at the site to discuss the matter further. We were finally able to get him to agree to meet at the site. The meeting was set for Friday, September 28, 2007 at 5:00pm. He stated that both he and Liliana Dones would be present. I told him that I would arrange to have Ms. Hammer there as well. That Friday, I met with Mr. McMaster at the site. Also present was Ms. Hammer. He informed us upon his arrival that Ms. Dunes would not be in attendance as she had another matter to take care of. During the meeting Ms, Hammer showed Mr. McMaster the reasons why she believed that the tree should be removed. Upon viewing the tree for a second time, this time in sunnier conditions, Ms, Hammer told Mr. McMaster that the tree was in much worse condition than she first believed. She explained that the tree was clearly on the decline and that she would send us a new report with all of her findings. Mr. McMaster agreed to disseminate the new report to all of the tree activists. 4 On Monday, October I, 2007, I received a telephone call from Stephanie Grindell's aide in the Public Works Department, Regina Hagger. In that phone call she stated that Ms, Grindell had reviewed and denied our appeal to allow us to proceed and remove the tree. The appeal to Ms. Grindell was done because Mr. Mitchell had previously denied our permit. Please note that Francis Mitchell denied our permit even though he told me directly to nay face, in our meeting on September 4, 2007, that the tree had to he removed but that he could not issue a permit unless Mr. McMaster and Ms. Dones agreed for fear of losing his job. When I asked Regina the basis for Ms. Grindell's denial, she stated that it was because I had "ruined the tree during construction" of the tow-nhornes on the site. I explained that she was incorrect and that the tree was in horrible shape when I purchased the property. She responded by telling me that she had photos of the tree in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that showed that it was a beautiful tree with no problems. I immediately told her that this news was shocking to me as I too had photos of the tree from late 2004 when I entered into a contract to purchase the property. (Attached) I then emailed her the pictures which clearly show the tree in a state of decline in late 2004 prior to the demolition of the existing structure, In our conversation, Ms. Hagger also stated that Ms. Grindell's denial was because I had, "chopped up all the roots." I referred her to Lisa Hammer's initial report which stated, "The roots do not appear to have been significantly damaged during construction..." Ms. Hammer further went on to state that, "Some excavation was performed on the east side of the tree when investigating sidewalk construction, but no significant roots were found in that area," At the time of Ms. Grindell's decision, I believe that she was not able to rely on the actual facts in her consideration of my permit requesting removal due both the lack of knowledge as to what had transpired thus far and because she was given incorrect and improper information by her aide. Additionally, she was not able to consider Ms. Hammer's follow-up report dated October I, 2007 which clearly stated, "The stress and decline [to the tree] are not related to construction damage." (emphasis added), I was very surprised to hear from Ms. Hagger on Monday informing me of Ms. Grindell's decision since I believed we had a scheduled meeting with her two days later on Wednesday. October 3, 2007. When my business partner called to confirm the meeting that we had scheduled for Wednesday, he was infonned that Ms. Grindell had already made a decision on the matter and that she did not have time to meet. It should be noted that Ms, Hammer's second report was received by me on Tuesday afternoon, October 2, 2007. (Attached) This was the day after I was infoirned that Ms. Grindell had made her decision but, yet, was the day before we were supposed to meet with her to discuss the matter, The updated report stated that, the oak tree "has some pre-existing stresses as evidenced by chlorosis, sparse crown density, dead limbs (one of which is about 8 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length), twig dieback, and non - vigorous growth." She further explained that, "when [this oak is] compared with neighboring live oak trees, the differences are readily apparent." 5 Conclusion We have tried to work with the trove Tree -man. Trust regarding this situation. At their request, we met with Francis Mitchell at the Public Works department, we hired. independent certified arborist Lisa Hammer and we tried to resolve this issue by meeting in Commissioner Sarnoff's office, All of our efforts were met with little or no effort from the Trust. At this point it appears that the Grove Tree -man Trust's objection to the removal of this tree is frivolous at best. This is based on the fact that they are aware of the observations of both Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Hammer. The Trust is attempting to delay this matter in complete disregard of the facts. Clearly this should have been resolved in the removal of the tree with subsequent mitigation. Their actions in refusing to address the actual facts regarding this situation are willful, malicious and in bad faith, This is especially true as they have been made well aware that their frivolous delay continues to cost us a substantial amount of money each month in interest as the site sits idle while arguing against their decision. It should be noted that their decision to fight removal is not based on any arborist opinion to the contrary or any opinion of any official in the Public Works department. In situations like these, discretion is necessary and it appears that the Grove Tree - man Trust is unable to use such discretion because, as Mr. McMaster has stated, "the residents of the Grove will expect us to fight for this tree which is in the public right of way." The fact that the tree is clearly on the decline and will continue to decline once a tenant takes up residence at the constructed units due to the roots being subjected to a person living/parking everyday at that location coupled with the tree's canopy being hit by trucks on a daily basis, should have been reason enough for the City of Miami Public Works Department and Mr, McMaster to happily accept eight (8) new large native trees of 4" DBH via mitigation. We will certainly not have any mitigation requirement once this tree ultimately dies. Mr. McMaster is president of the Grove Tree -man trust and this should not make him fear standing up to his other members when the facts of a tree's condition warrant it. Additionally, officials in the Public Works Department should not be made to fear their own job security based on an activist group's abuse of their power. In surnmary, arborist Lisa Hammer, "remain[s] convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies." (emphasis added) This observation, by Ms. Hammer. would clearly indicate that the Grove Tree -man Trust, in fighting to avoid removal of this tree, is acting with a conscious disregard of the interests of Coconut Grove and its residents. 6 I would urge the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board to grant this tree removal permit as all previous appeals and denials of our request to remove the tree have not been supported by any environmental or credible evidencce:. in fact, all evidence that has been _provided thus far completely supports removal. The Trust, via Mn McMaster on the other hand, is merely following an arbitrary and capricious policy with no factual support for its position. Anthony Rubino 7 Attachment # 1 & 2 Photos of Tree - Taken in Late 2004 ervaVgir Attachment # 3 & 4 Photos of Tree - Taken in October 2007 Attachin n > SiteSurvey (including tree) Prepared by Land Surveyor Alrto Eon o s SCAL ASPHAL `PAVE%E 14' PARKWAY 50,0 0' R) 50.68 50,00`(R 50.55\# MAPPED STREET LINE DAY A UE LOCATION SKETCH SCALE „. , „,, T,E ND PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR. PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT SET OR FOUND NAIL 84 DISC.- SET OR FOUND 1/2" /RON PPE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION EXISTING ELEVATION CENTER UNE x CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE ZIZZZ= CB WALL (R & M) RECORD & MEASURE CONCRETE BLOCK & STUCCO CONCRETE SLAB CONC. CONCRETE F.R. FOUND REBAR NOTES NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH AN EMBOSSED SURVEYOR'S SEAL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON N.G.V,O. CITY OF MIAMI SM. EL. 11.1 7-0.26---,-10,91 (N.O.V.D.) U.S. 1 6/2 S.W. 27 AVE FLOOD ZONE "X'I 0.P.N. .120650-0189 3 (07-17-95) LEGAL ESCAPTI • THE WEST 50 FEET OF THE EAST 150 FEET OF LOT 1 e BLOCK 8 OF "SUBDIOSIONS OE EDWARD PENT HOMESTEAD" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS REC,ORDEO IN PLAT BOOK "A" AT PAGE 45 OE THE PUB! IC RECORDS OF WAN/II—DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIF'T = To INTERAMERIC-AN BANK, FoS.B. ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS LINCOLN TITLE COMPANY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE FUND ZERP AND ZERP INVESTMENTS, LLC. WE HFRE9Y CERTIPrI: THAT TH/S "BOUNDARY SURVEY" OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED P3PERTY COMPUE WITH THE MNINIUM TECHNICAL, STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS PtAPS/PAINT TO SE0TI0?`,1 472-027 FLORIDA STATUTES. ' ALBEFITQI LiRE4ZOLUACE8 N3B% STATE OF FLOROA 923 S.W. AVENUE, MIAMI, FL, 33184 PHONE: 30„%j20-6397 — FAX 305-226,-8403 JOB No: 04-194 F,B. No.: 281-67 DATE: 10-21 —04 DA7: 05—C17-06 (SPOT SURVEY) L 1POOL s'IL:_ BE PAS r OF A SEPARATE PERMIT C POOL 9y others 2840 POOL gy others 4 1! 1j 111 (IIri 1, 0,11 tiLta }ind tir—N11�i,-R L I• yr DEDIkATiON IS " Water s ip y/ UIRED F /W S1DEWA'. K SI DEWAL 8' PARKA( SHIPPING AVE i A N Scc NOTE: RAINWATER MUST BE RE T A f NED WITHIN P LPER • -`� EiNES OF y ° of work pPr#or,T.' lease rov�u: t40,1 ra and Grade Perm,. law Sidewalk Pere O ° idewaik RePa'tr Perms:.` ,. it t evaway Approach P'I mN For P.W. lnsp F ill. OP N VALVE AT C ter supply ry; rd altg elevations) \ rim papa E I 1 N,;(7, (3\,./ 1 r :A 1.'"\J Fr! RETAINED RPL 0' 1 0' SOD AREA •tsi.T /K, ' • '\-\ / \ - • • ••\ \ \ I VI SB., meet OW recoro elevstions)., ptiva(0 Pittjattlf, 77Pgr.Yrr.,. Ift*tiN.1 un.-M ?ut* INTE LOCK WAVERS INTERLOCKT SET IIN SAND .4'}, SET ON $A A. "N. \\\., /72' \\ // ••••. ..' / / '``. • / / \ / SYMBOL NUA 1. 2. 0 \f,p, Pik.' 3. ALL TYP lor, NNE , Ocit ,„. ,.! "rS Une gt Sec(09(‘ 54- • / / . I / / / / de SEE THRU AUTOMATIC GA1 ( BY OTHERS ) SHIPPING AVE Y TR!ANGLES Scale '.; • 17 0 17, 4 A\PHAL PAVE ENT DE WALK Attachment # 6 Sketch done by Francis Mitchell on 9/4 on a blow-up of the tree survey showing that a driveway and garage access for a car would be impossible, Attachment 4 7 Sketch done by Francis Mitchell on 9/4 on a blow-up of the tree survey showing how and where he wanted the mitigation trees to be planted. O 17.7 Attachment # 8 Initial Report of Arborist Lisa Hammer — 9/17/07 LISA H. HAMMER Horticultural Consultant September 17, 2007 Mr. Anthony Rubino Serp & Serp Investments 3185 Lamb Court Miami, FL 33133 RE: 2840 Shipping Avenue Dear Mr. Rubino: Phone (305) 476-5748 Fax (305) 461-3167 P.O. Box 330203, Miami, FL 33233 lisahhar mer@bellsouthe bet On Wednesday, September 12, we met at the above -referenced property where you requested my evaluation of a live oak (Quercus virginiana) tree. My report follows. BACKGROUND Your firm is constructing a twin home on this lot. There is a pre-existing live oak tree located in the setback area near Shipping Avenue. You intended to retain the tree, but now that construction is nearing completion, the tree is found to be obstructing construction of a sidewalk and access to the garage of the east -side unit. It would also prohibit the installation and operation of a security fence across the front of the property. You requested a tree removal permit from the City of Miami and it has been appealed by the Grove Tree -Man Trust. You requested my professional opinion regarding the tree's condition and recommendations for solutions to the problem. OBSERVATIONS At the time of my visit I noted the live oak tree in question located in the front setback area. I measured its trunk diameter at 19.5 inches. It is approximately 35 feet in overall height, with a crown spread of about 30 feet. The trunk bends such that the entire crown is located to the north of the trunk, over Shipping Avenue. The health of the tree is fair at best. The foliage is slightly chlorotic (yellow) and there is some twig dieback. Crown density is fair and foliage growth is moderately vigorous. Mr, Anthony Rubino 2840 Shipping Avenue Evaluation of Live Oak Tree Page 2 There are several broken branches, most of which are old; one is more recent. One main leader over the road has been struck by vehicles on numerous occasions. The roots do not appear to have been significantly damaged during construction, but some damage or stress most likely occurred due to heavy equipment operation, excavations, etc. Some excavation was perforined on the east side of the tree when investigating sidewalk construction, but no significant roots were found in that area. The top of the rootball is higher than surrounding grade. DISCUSSION There does not appear to be any feasible way to re-route the driveway to accommodate this tree and provide adequate access for a vehicle to enter or exit the garage. It might be possible to route a sidewalk around the tree, but since the rootball is above surrounding grade, there would be problems with excessive slope of the sidewalk (reducing grade by cutting tree roots is not recommended). A security fence and gate would also be problematic due to space, slope, and access. If the tree were to somehow remain, it would be highly susceptible to all types of damage and stress related to vehicular movement (root damage/stress, strikes to the trunk, etc.). Since the tree is in fair condition at best, the best long-term solution would be to remove it and provide replacement trees as required by the City of Miami Tree Protection ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS Since there is no other feasible alternative, I recommend that this tree be removed and mitigated by installing replacement trees as required by the City. For a 19.5 inch - diameter tree, the City requires replacement with 16 hardwood trees 2" DBH and 12' in height OR 8 hardwood trees 4" DBH and 16' in height OR a contribution to the Tree Trust Fund in the amount of $8,000. There is no space in the rear or on the sides of this property for new tree installation. There may be adequate space for two trees in the front swale area, one on either side of the property. Off -site mitigation (if permitted by the City) or a contribution to the Tree Trust Fund would be the other options. Mr, Anthony Rubino 2840 Shipping Avenue Evaluation of Live Oak Tree Page 3 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the live oak tree in question is in fair condition. It is obstructing garage access, sidewalk installation, and security fence/gate installation and operation, There is no feasible way to retain it and it should be removed and mitigated according to City requirements. Thank you and please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, //1-//L Lisa H. Hammer Horticultural Consultant ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #333 ISA Certified Arborist #SO-0758 Attachment # 9 Second Report of Arborist Lisa Hammer ® 10/1/07 USA H. HAMMER Horticultural Consultant October 1, 2007 Mr. Anthony Rubino Serp & Serp Investments 3185 Lamb Court Miami, FL 33133 RE; 2840 Shipping Avenue Dear Mr. Rubino: Phone (305) 476-5748 Fax (305) 461-3167 P.0, Box :330203, Miami, FL 33233 iisahharruner@bellsouth.net On Friday, September 28 we met at the above -referenced site with Mr. Jim McMaster of the Grove Tree -Man Trust, as a follow-up to our first meeting on September 12 and my subsequent report dated September 17, 2007. Ms. Liliana Dones of the Tree Watch Committee did not attend the meeting as originally planned. Several issues were discussed during our meeting and I would like to add the following points to my initial findings and recommendations: 1) As first reported, the live oak tree in question is in "fair condition at best". It has some pre-existing stresses as evidenced by chlorosis, sparse crown density, dead limbs (one of which is about 8 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length), twig dieback, and non - vigorous growth. When compared with neighboring live oak trees, the differences are readily apparent. 2) The stress and decline noted in #1, above, are not related to construction damage. Mr. Rubino has photographs of the tree in 2004, prior to beginning any construction work, which show that it was in more -or -less the same condition at that time. 3) The tree is not in good enough condition to survive relocation. 4) It remains my opinion that if the tree is subjected to additional stresses such as driveway construction, sidewalk construction, security fence/gate construction, continual vehicle passage over the root zone, and possible strikes by vehicles trying to access the garage, additional decline in tree health is likely to occur. As tree health declines and dieback continues there is a risk of branch and limb failure (breakage) into Shipping Avenue. Mr. Anthony Rubino 2840 Shipping Avenue Follow -Up Evaluation of Live Oak Tree Page 2 I remain convinced that tree removal and mitigation by the current owner is in the best interest of the community, as it will prevent the new owners from bearing the cost of imminent tree removal, and provide for mitigation which might otherwise be waived if the tree is removed after it dies. Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa H. Hammer Horticultural. Consultant ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #333 ISA Certified Arborist #SO-0758