HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a. REVIEW A TREE REMOVAL APPEAL OF THE CITY ARBORIST'S DECISION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF ONE (1) COAST REDWOOD AT 355 NORTH CHORRO STREET
TREE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY ARBORIST’S DECISION
APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF ONE (1) COAST REDWOOD AT 355 NORTH CHORO
STREET (APPLICATION NO. TREE-0389-2026)
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0486-2026 PROJECT ADDRESS: 355 N. Chorro St
FROM: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist
Phone Number: (805) 781-7578
Email: wgault@slocity.org
APPELLANT: Rebecca Brogdon
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the City Arborist’s decision approving the removal of the tree
based on the application’s consistency with the Tree Regulations.
1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
On July 20, 2026, Rebecca Brogdon
(Appellant) appealed the City
Arborist’s approval to allow the
removal of one (1) Sequoia
sempervirens (coast redwood)
located at 355 North Chorro Street
(Attachment C, Tree Removal
Appeal). This appeal occurred within
10 business days from the City
Arborist’s decision, and it is
appealable to the Tree Committee.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Background
On January 25, 2010, the Tree
Committee denied a removal request
related to root damage of one (1)
coast redwood at 355 North Chorro
Street (Attachment D, Tree
Committee Decision 1-28-10).
Meeting Date: 9/28/2026
Item Number: 6a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: Location of tree.
Page 55 of 93
Item 6a
On March 29, 2021, a Tree Health
and Hazard Mitigation application
requesting the removal of the same
coast redwood at 355 N. Chorro St.
was received by the City due to
repeated private sidewalk damage
(Attachment E, Tree Removal
Application 2021). On July 26, 2021,
the Tree Committee voted to deny
the tree removal request due to
insufficient findings to support the
removal.
On May 11, 2026, the same redwood
at 355 N. Chorro St. was requested
for removal due to repeated damage
of a private sidewalk and root
intrusion into the neighboring
building at 305 North Chorro Street.
On June 22, 2026, a Tree Health and
Hazard Mitigation tree removal
application requesting the removal of
one (1) Sequoia sempervirens (coast
redwood) was deemed complete by
the City (Attachment A, Tree
Removal Application). On July 8, 2026, the City
Arborist approved the request because the tree
conformed to circumstances outlined in Municipal
Code Section 12.24.090.E(1)(a-g) (Attachment B,
City Arborist Approval Letter).
2.2 Reason for the Tree Removal Request
This is the third time this tree has been requested
for removal. The tree has caused damage to a
private sidewalk at 355 N. Chorro St. twice, now
requiring repair a second time. The staircase to a
residence at 355 N. Chorro St has also been
damaged by the roots. This pattern of damage
began over sixteen (16) years ago. Now most
recently, the damage has spread to a neighboring
building at 305 N. Chorro St, where roots were
observed to have entered the building through the
slab and the wall and around the sewer line. The
applicant provided a statement from a Certified
Arborist that root mitigation to alleviate the damage
is not compatible with tree preservation.
Figure 3: Root intrusion into 305 N.
Chorro St. between slab and flooring.
Figure 2: Subject tree in center; 305 N. Chorro on left.
Page 56 of 93
Item 6a
2.3 City Arborist Decision
The City Arborist decision (see Attachment B) to approve the removal request was based
on conformance to Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E(1) which states that “The city
arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application pursuant to
subsection D of this section and issue a tree removal permit upon determination of any
of the following circumstances. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to private
property, and removing the tree is the only feasible1 way to eliminate the damage
(12.24.090.E(1)(c)).”
The arborist assessment, submitted by the applicant, determined that root pruning was
not a feasible alternative due to the proximity of cuts to the trunk of the tree2 (Attachment
G, Arborist Statement). Furthermore, neighboring property owners and tenants have
declined to provide access to their private property for root pruning, and the City cannot
compel them to do so. Therefore, there is no feasible way to prune the tree in a manner
that eliminates the damage to private
property and that preserves the integrity
and health of the tree. A summary of the
request’s conformance to Municipal Code
Section 12.24.090.E is provided below:
Private sidewalk has been damaged by
tree’s roots multiple times, a demonstrated
and on-going maintenance burden
(Attachment G)
Tree has a co-dominant stem, a
structural defect that will limit lifespan
Tree’s roots have entered a structure of
a neighboring property at 305 N Chorro St.
through slab and flooring and around a
sewer line. Property owner provided
damage estimate of $6,000 to repair
intrusion (Attachment G).
1 Feasible, as defined by Cambridge Dictionary, is an adjective that means something is possible to do,
make or achieve under current conditions. Merriam -Webster further defines the use of feasible when an
element of abstraction, distance and technical specificity is needed. In other words, is tree removal the only
possible and practical way to eliminate the damage.
2 The diameter at breast height (DBH) of the tree is six (6) feet. American Society of Consulting Arborist
(ASCA) guidelines state that standard structural preservation (to prevent structural instability, complete tree
failure and liability for the tree’s demise) requires a root pruning radius of at least five (5) times the trunk
diameter. Pruning roots thirty (30) feet away from the trunk is inside the building footprints of both 305 and
355 N. Chorro St.
Figure 4: Repaired sidewalk has been damaged
again.
Page 57 of 93
Item 6a
2.4 Appellant
The appellant disagrees with the City Arborist findings that 12.24.090.E(1)(c) was met
(Attachment C). The Appeal Submittal can be distilled into three (3) areas: documented
damage does not establish that removal is the only feasible solution; additional
consideration should be given to preserving the tree given its size, age, visibility and
neighborhood significance; and the mature Redwood has substantially greater
environmental, aesthetic and community value than the proposed replacement
represents.
Appellant Argument #1: Documented damage does not establish that removal is
only feasible solution.
The appellant argues the tree removal application indicates damage to sewer line and
structure at 305 N. Chorro St. has been corrected at the cost of $6,000 and removal of
the tree only acts as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of re-intrusion. The appellant
asserts that tree removal does not eliminate the risk of root intrusion due to the presence
of dense mature vegetation like English Ivy and other coast redwoods. Furthermore, the
appellant notes that methods of property maintenance like chemical herbicide treatment,
trenchless pipe-line treatment and total pipe replacement have not been explored as
feasible alternatives.
The appellant further argues that sidewalk damage is insignificant and causes little to no
lift or offset, and there is no damage to the building at 355 N Chorro St. The appellant
notes that previous tree removal applications for root damage to the sidewalk have been
denied due to insufficient findings and no significant changes to the property have been
observed since 2021, when the tree was last reviewed by the Tree Committee.
Staff Response
The coast redwood tree requested for removal is the closest and the largest
redwood on-site to the neighboring unit at 305 N. Chorro St. where significant root
intrusion into private real property has occurred. The roots pictured in the
application materials are redwood roots. The cost of damage incurred and
provided to date does not indicate that the damage has been eliminated. Large
buttress roots can be observed under the sidewalk at 355 N Chorro St towards a
private yard at 305 N Chorro street and the laundry room. The City has no ability
to compel the adjacent property owners at 305 N Chorro to allow access to their
private property and accept damage to their real property to facilitate the
neighboring owner’s root pruning of the tree to prevent damage from reoccurring.
Moreover, root pruning off-site on a neighboring property (to prevent the damage
from reoccurring) is not a feasible alternative due to the potential of damage to and
restricted use of real and personal property, and root pruning on-site is not feasible
due to the proximity of cuts to the trunk and the resulting risk of structural instability,
complete tree failure and liability for the tree’s demise.
Page 58 of 93
Item 6a
The sidewalk damage is significant and severe, and tree root impacts are also
affecting the residence at 355 N. Chorro St. The damage was first reported to the
City in 2010. Severe sidewalk lifting can be observed in Google Street View from
March 2009. By April 2015, the sidewalk was repaired. Now the damage has
reoccurred. This tree removal request not only meets criteria of Municipal Code
section12.24.090E(1)(c), it also meets the criteria of 12.24.090.E(1)(g): the tree
removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance
burden.
Appellant Argument #2: The tree’s size, age, visibility, community and
environmental value should prevent removal.
The appellant references the criteria in 12.24.090.G because the section provides that
larger and more visually prominent trees may be considered to have a higher preservation
priority.
Staff Response
These criteria are used to evaluate tree removal when the request is related to
Construction or Convenience. These criteria are not available to be used when
reviewing a Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation (12.24.090.E) tree removal request.
Both the City Arborist and the Tree Committee are required to only use the criteria
in 12.24.090.E in evaluating this tree removal request.
Appellant Argument #3: The Chinese pistache replacement does not adequately
compensate for the redwood.
The appellant references Municipal Code section 12.24.090.J and the Community Forest
Plan Implementation Matrix and contends that a single Chinese pistache tree is an
inadequate replacement.
Staff Response
Municipal Code section 12.24.090.J requires that every tree authorized for removal
be compensated at a minimum rate of 1:1 on-site or 2:1 off-site. Chinese pistache
is an approved City tree from Engineering Standard 8010 and meets the code
requirement. The redwood tree is too large for the available space. New tree
species selections should be compatible with the available space.
The Community Forest Plan is a guiding document, and the implementation matrix
summarizes proposed urban forest goals, objectives, and actions to be carried by
the City and its external partners. The matrix is not a table of “requirements.”
3.0 COMMITTEE PURVIEW
The Tree Committee’s role is to review the City Arborist’s decision and its consistency
with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) Chapter 12.24, specifically Section
12.24.090(E)(1)(a-g), and to provide a final decision to the appellant that either denies
the appeal and reaffirms the City Arborist’s approval with a compensatory replanting plan;
or the Committee may uphold the appeal and issue a denial for removal.
Page 59 of 93
Item 6a
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 p olicies, regulations, and specifications
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 Appeal of Non-Construction Related Tree Removal Recommendations.
SLOMC §12.24.180 subsection B requires review by the Tree Committee for approved
tree removal requests that have been appealed related to Tree Health and Hazard
Mitigation and that the Tree Committee make a final decision based on circumstances
set forth in SLOMC §12.24.090.E. Applicable criteria are provided below.
(E)(1)(c). The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property,
and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage.
(E)(1)(d). The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit
lifespan.
(E)(1)(g). The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and
ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree
maintenance.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the removal of the tree. The Tree
Committee can deny the tree removal, based on findings of inconsistency with
Tree Regulations.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Tree Removal Application (355 N Chorro St.)
B - TREE-0389-2026 Approval Letter (355 N Chorro St.)
C - Tree Removal Appeal (355 N Chorro St.)
D - Tree Removal Application 2009
E - Tree Committee Decision 1-28-10
F - Tree Removal Application 2021
G - Arborist Statement
Page 60 of 93
Page 61 of 93
Page 62 of 93
Page 63 of 93
Page 64 of 93
Page 65 of 93
Page 66 of 93
Page 67 of 93
Page 68 of 93
Page 69 of 93
Page 70 of 93
Page 71 of 93
Page 72 of 93
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
July 8, 2026 sent via email
Mario Sharvini
Farrell Smyth Inc.
21 Santa Rosa St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
msharvini@farrellsmyth.com
Subject: Review of proposed removal of one (1) Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood)
at 355 North Chorro St. requested in TREE-0389-2026.
Dear Mario Sharvini,
On June 22, 2026, the City received your submittal for the removal of one (1) Sequoia sempervirens
(Coast Redwood) at 355 North Chorro St. The proposed tree removal request is related to Tree Health
and Hazard Mitigation and is therefore subject to Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E. In accordance
with Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E, the proposed tree removal request is subject to City
Arborist review. On July 8, 2026, I reviewed your request and consistency of the tree removal
application with city policies and standards applicable to the site. After careful consideration, I have
approved the tree removal based on the following findings and conditions of approval.
Findings:
1. The proposed tree removal request is consistent with Municipal Code Section
12.24.090.E(1)(c) because the tree’s roots are causing severe damage to a structure on the
neighboring property at 305 N Chorro. The roots have entered the building from the toilet
flange as well as between the slab and walls. Removing the tree is the only feasible way to
eliminate the damage because root pruning to prevent the damage from reoccurring would
compromise structural stability, risk complete tree failure and exceed proximity thresholds for
root pruning established by the American Society of Consulting Arborists.
Conditions:
1. The tree removal is approved with a required replanting of one (1) new 24-inch box Pistacia
chinensis (Chinese pistache) or other tree from the Approved City Tree List (Engineering
Standard 8010), on-site and within 10 feet of back of sidewalk. Tree species, size and locations
adjustments are subject to City Arborist approval.
2. The new compensatory tree(s) shall be sourced in accordance with the Guideline
Specifications for Nursery Tree Quality and planted per the City’s Engineering Standards for
Tree Planting within 60 days of removal. Provide photographic evidence to the City Arborist
(wgault@slocity.org) that tree(s) have been planted. All trees planted as part of a
compensatory plan shall survive and any trees that do not survive or establish in good health,
to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, shall be replanted.
Page 73 of 93
3. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972
prevents the removal of trees with active nests. To account for most nesting birds, removal of
trees should be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1st and January
31st) and after the young have fledged. If removing trees during the nesting season (February
1st to August 31st), a qualified biologist shall inspect any trees marked for removal that
contain nests to determine if the nests are active. If there are active nests, trees shall not be
removed and may only be removed once a qualified biologist provides a confirmation memo
that breeding / nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the
tree to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or City Biologist.
4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including, but not limited to, environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days from the date of the decision. Anyone may
appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department within the time
specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal documentation. Per Municipal Code
Section 12.24.180, appeals to tree removals reviewed in accordance with the process set forth in
Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(2) are appealed to the Tree Committee.
If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, contact me by phone at (805) 781-
7578 or by email at wgault@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
Walter Gault
City Arborist
Community Development
CC
Greenvale Tree Company
P.O. Box 13234
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
info@greenvaletree.com
Page 74 of 93
Page 75 of 93
Page 76 of 93
Page 77 of 93
Page 78 of 93
Page 79 of 93
Page 80 of 93
January 28, 2010
Ivan Cliff
21 Santa Rosa #100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Your application for removal of a tree at 355 N. Chorro, was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo
Tree Committee on January 25, 2010. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an
on-site inspection of the tree, the Committee members have voted, in compliance with Municipal Code
Section 12.24.180.C.6, to deny your request based on the following findings:
a. The tree is not causing undue hardship.
b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice.
c. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code Section
1.20.020 - 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the Committee's decision.
An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee.
You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance (#1392 - 2001 Series), Section 12.24.130, Protection of Trees,
reads in part:
C. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure, or intentionally destroy by any means any tree
growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance, except
with permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
G. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as
described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted, by
resolution by the City Council, or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established
by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the City
Arborist.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Ron Combs at (805)781-7023, Monday
through Friday, 7:00 – 4:30 PM.
Respectfully,
Ron Combs
Urban Forester
commdenial
Page 81 of 93
Page 82 of 93
Page 83 of 93
Page 84 of 93
Page 85 of 93
Page 86 of 93
Page 87 of 93
Page 88 of 93
Page 89 of 93
Page 90 of 93
Page 91 of 93
Page 92 of 93
Page 93 of 93