Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

I have looked at the Palo Alto tree-preservation ordinance, and I'd conclude that the director has substantial discretion to develop plans, determine requirements, etc. that could vary substantially in complexity from site to site. Note that the ordinance contains a definition of "dripline area" which may be what you mean by "tree protection zone" and that its size is determined by trunk diameter at 54" height. In order to establish actionable unequal enforcement of the ordinance, you'd have to collect a lot of evidence, then follow the prescribed administrative procedures for review of the director's actions or inaction, with an unknown result. Do you have any idea why the City might have singled you out for unfairly slow or expensive treatment?