HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4b. Continuance of a Review of a Tree Removal Application to Remove Eight (8) Liquidambar Styraciflua (American Sweetgum) located at 4325 S. Higuera Street
TREE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF A REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE EIGHT (8)
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (AMERICAN SWEETGUM) LOCATED AT 4325 SOUTH
HIGUERA STREET
FROM: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist
Phone Number: (805) 781-7578
Email: wgault@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER: TREE-0722-2025
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed tree removal application for consistency with the Municipal Code
Section 12.24.090(E) and provide a recommendation to the Community Development
Director.
1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Elite Team Offices, the applicant on behalf
of Pacific Gas & Electric, has requested
the removal of eight (8) Liquidambar
styraciflua (American Sweetgum) at 4325
S. Higuera Street located within the
Service Commercial zone of the Airport
Area Specific Plan (C-S-SP) (Attachment
A – Tree Removal Application). The
applicant has indicated in their application
that the seeds produced by the trees are
tripping hazards.
The applicant would like to replant trees at
the minimum required rate of 1:1 with any
combination of Afrocarpus falcaltus
(African Fern Pine), Brachychiton
populneous (Bottle Tree), Elaeleocarpus
sylvestris (Japanese Blueberry Tree),
Erythrina affra (Cape Coral Tree) or any
tree such as Quercus spp., or Jacaranda
mimosifolia, that do not produce
hazardous seed pods onsite in the same
locations.
Meeting Date: 1/26/2026
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 20 minutes
Figure 1: Map showing the location of the
removals at 4325 S. Higuera. The parcel is
outlined in red, and the location of the trees is
highlighted in green.
Page 21 of 37
Item 4b
1.1 ARBORIST STATEMENT
The Applicant’s representative, Ian Ashby, Board Certified Master Arborist and
Registered Consulting Arborist has provided a statement about why the eight (8)
Liquidambar styraciflua (American SweetGum) are being requested for removal
(Attachment D). Key highlights of the statement are summarized below:
Liquidambar trees produce woody, spherical seed pods that create a slip hazard
Young trees can produce these pods in abundance
As the tree matures, the quantity and breadth of seed dispersal will be greater, and
likelihood of pedestrian interaction will also become greater
Mitigation of seed pods cannot be continuously guaranteed
Removing these trees while they are young is a proactive approach to risk
management
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On September 22, 2025, the Tree Committee was presented with the requested
removals. The Tree Committee requested that the applicant provide more information and
that a representative be present to answer questions.
3.0 COMMITTEE PURVIEW
The Tree Committee’s role is to review the removal request in accordance with the
process set forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) Chapter 12.24, specifically
Section 12.24.090(E)(3) - tree removals related to property owner convenience. This code
section utilizes the process set forth in subsection F(2), the relevant additional application
requirements in subsection (D)(2) and the criteria set forth in subsection (G).
Figure 2: View of 4 of the Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweetgum) as viewed from
S. Higuera (June 2023). The remaining 4 trees are not shown.
Page 22 of 37
Item 4b
4.0 TREE REGULATIONS
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was adopted with the purpose
of establishing a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining, and preserving trees
within the City. This ordinance establishes policies, regulations, and specifica tions
necessary to govern installation, maintenance, removal, and preservation of trees to
beautify the city; to purify the air; to provide shade and wind protection; to add
environmental and economic value; and to preserve trees with historic or unusual value.
Criteria for Convenience Tree Removal Applications.
SLOMC §12.24.090 subsection (E)(3) requires review by the Tree Committee using the
criteria set forth in SLOMC §12.24.090(G). Applicable criteria are provided in italics below
and followed by a description of the proposed tree removals as it relates to that criterion.
(G)(1). Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size
of the tree’s canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees may have a higher
preservation priority than smaller, less visually prominent trees.
Five (5) of trees proposed for removal (#1, 2, 3, 4 and 7) are not large but they do
have visual prominence in the neighborhood.
(G)(2). Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private
property shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard, which are not
highly visible from the public right-of-way, may have a lower preservation priority
than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood.
The trees proposed for removal are visible from the public right of way.
(G)(3). Species of Tree. Native trees shall have a higher preservation priority than
non-native trees.
The trees proposed for removal are non-native.
(G)(4). Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of
land will support shall be considered, and whether removal would enhance the
health or survival of remaining trees. Applications that increase biodiversity o f
native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred.
The removal and replanting would potentially increase the biodiversity of the urban
forest as well as the tree-age distribution in the S. Higuera area.
(G)(6). Compliance with Subsection J of This Section Regarding Compensatory
Plantings. The approving authority may consider an application proposal to provide
compensatory plantings in excess of required minimums in evaluating this
criterion.
The applicant is proposing to meet the minimum required replanting rate of 1:1.
(G)(7). Heritage Trees. Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority.
The trees are not heritage trees.
Page 23 of 37
Item 4b
5.0 ACTIONS
5.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the Tree Regulations. An action
recommending approval of the proposed tree removal(s) based on consistency
will be forwarded to the Community Development Director for final action. This
action may include recommendations regarding the compensatory replanting
plan with size and species of tree(s).
5.2 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Tree Regulations. An action
recommending denial of the proposed tree removal(s) should include findings
that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, Tree Regulations, or other policy documents.
5.3 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action
continuing the review of the proposed tree removal(s) should include directions
to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Tree Removal Application (4325 S. Higuera)
B - Site Plan (4325 S. Higuera)
C - Photo Log (4325 S. Higuera)
D - Arborist Statement
Page 24 of 37
Page 25 of 37
Page 26 of 37
Page 27 of 37
Page 28 of 37
Tree #1
Page 29 of 37
Tree # 2
Page 30 of 37
Tree #3
Page 31 of 37
Tree #4
Page 32 of 37
Tree #5
Page 33 of 37
Tree #6
Page 34 of 37
Tree #7
Page 35 of 37
Tree #8
Page 36 of 37
The Applicant’s representative Ian Ashby, Board Certified Master Arborist and Registered
Consulting Arborist provided the following statement for each of the eight (8) Liquidambars
requested for removal:
This sweet gum produces woody spherical seed pods that create a slip hazard. Though it is
young, it can still produce these in abundance. As this tree matures the quantity and
breadth of the dispersion will become greater, posing a higher likelihood of pedestrian
interaction with the seed pods. In its current form and since it is not 100% cordoned off
from foot traffic, the interaction likelihood with pedestrians or contractors to access nearby
infrastructure/ utilities is still there. Additionally, rodents, birds, heavy rain and wind can
scatter the seed pods beyond the dripline. Mitigation efforts of the seed pods are few and
not a guarantee of continuous mitigation. Manually clearing pods is not realistic as the
pods are dropped when landscapers are not scheduled for routine maintenance.
Application of plant growth regulators to inhibit seed pod growth are not a guarantee,
limited by conditions, costly and spraying in an urban setting has negative optics to the
public. Removal of these trees as young trees is proactive instead of a reactive approach to
risk management.
Replanting Plan Statement
This tree should be removed and replaced with an approved tree from the cities’ ‘Approved
City Tree List’ excluding Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis) that does not produce
hazardous seed pods. These include Oaks, Pines, Jacaranda, Eucalyptus, Brisbane box,
Southern Magnolia, etc. Suggested species are Cape Coral tree (Erythrina affra), Bottle tree
(Brachychiton populneus), African fern pine (Afrocarpus falcatus), Japanese Blueberry tree
(Elaeocarpus sylvestris), etc.
Page 37 of 37