The City of Deerfield Beach lists the publication "Assessing damage and restoring trees after a hurricane" by Edward F. Gilman of the University of Florida as an authority for tree removal and replanting.
Let us accept the City of Deerfield's use of that publication, as a recommendation for the following "Wind Resistant Species":
- Gumbo limbo, Bursera simaruba
- Live oak, Quercus virginiana
- Mahogany, Swietenia mahagoni
- Geiger tree, Cordia sebestena
Of the cited "Wind Resistant Trees" on the recommended list, Deerfield Beach wants to cut down 71% of the live oaks, 59% of the mahoganies, and 100% of the geiger trees. Of the 121 trees the City of Deerfield Beach wants to remove, at least 56 or 46% are recommended "Wind Resistant Trees" according to the very publication the City cites. And all of the "Wind Resistant Trees" that the City wants to remove are also native
Yet of the 126 trees the City wants to use as replacements, only 52% are on the "Wind Resistant Tree" list, only if you consider Royal Palms as trees.
In summary, the City is planning to cut down 121 trees, and replace them with 126 trees (including palms), for a 6% net increase in Wind Resistant Trees.
The trees to be removed did survive the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, and remain standing upright years later in good health, which is proof that the Gilman publication is correct, and these low wind resistant should be kept.
The question of sight distance is not relevant because virtually all of the trees have canopies 5 feet or more above the sight line datum, which is consistent with DOT standards.
Repeatedly, the criteria that Deerfield Beach cites for removing trees, when examined, are arguments for not removing the trees.
Since the City indicated that they applied specific criteria to determine which trees to cut and which trees not to cut, you should ask them for the spreadsheet in which they listed the reason(s) on which they intended to cut each tree.