356 10th Email Response 03.31.2017Mr. Ezelius,
I have reviewed the letter you provided to Kevin and I from your arborist and I do not see where the City can recognize any trees on your property as being in a condition that would
eliminate the requirement for mitigation. A tree must be dead, diseased or pose an imminent threat in order to waive mitigation requirements.
The arborist begins his assessment by saying that the 9 palms he reviewed are “somewhat healthy”. While there is some room for discussion on what was meant, the phrase is still far from
saying that a tree is dead, diseased or poses an imminent threat. This is further evidenced by the arborist’s recommendation to remove all of the trees for “a more comprehensive approach
to a landscape” and “for a more manageable property maintenance”. These phrases suggest removal due to preferences and not because of actual condition.
It should also be noted that almost every comment about the condition of the palms is a result of improper care over the life of the tree. Actions by the owner that ultimately cause
the demise of the tree are not reasons to consider a tree a danger. This would encourage owners to damage their trees so that they could avoid normal permitting processes and mitigation.
I realize that the referenced damage may not have occurred during your ownership, but that does not change the situation.
With all of that being the case, the mitigation calculations will remain as is.