When a huge branch fell off his centuries-old oak tree last summer, smashing property in a neighbor’s yard, a Thousand Oaks resident became concerned about the tree’s other large, looming limbs.

For months Louis Shubin has been battling the city over a permit fee to remove the tree, which the city’s tree expert had deemed healthy. The arborist for Shubin’a homeowners insurance had a different opinion: He said the tree was dead.

“If the tree was healthy, I would love to keep it. But it’s dead and dangerous. I don’t want another limb to fall. Someone could be hurt,” Shubin said.

On March 19, the community development department took another look at the issue and decided to allow Shubin to remove the tree without being required to pay for a healthy tree removal permit, according to Geoff Ware, code compliance manager.

“Basically, the new oak tree ordinance allows more latitude with new wording and a new definition for a hazardous tree. There’s an added level of discretion for the department head,” Ware said.

Shubin was glad the department overturned its previous decision. Although he’ll grieve the loss of his tree––along with the $2,000 he must pay to have it removed–– he’s relieved he doesn’t have to pay $360 for the permit.

After the giant limb fell last summer, the city’s oak tree consultant, Richard Campbell, took a look at Shubin’s tree.

In a memo after his visit, Campbell wrote, “Although some rot was observed in the frayed branch stub, it appears that this exceptionally long horizontal fallen branch suffered mainly from summer branch drop.”

He defined summer branch drop as a condition in which a long, horizontal branch takes in extra water during the hot days of summer and falls from the burden of the water’s weight.

At that time Shubin received permission to remove the fallen branch and cut the remaining branch that was torn but still somewhat connected to the tree. The homeowner was also told to take precautions.

“I advised him to relocate the picnic table out from under the oak tree and to discourage his children from playing in and under the oak tree,” Campbell wrote.

When Shubin asked permission to remove the oak tree for the safety of his children, Campbell responded in the memo, “At this moment, the oak tree is not considered to be in a ‘hazardous’ condition as it does not exhibit imminent signs of partially or completely failing.”

Shubin was encouraged by Campbell to contact a professional oak tree consultant for a prognosis on the health and longevity of the tree, after which the city would reevaluate.

In October, Mercury Insurance sent registered consulting arborist Greg Applegate.

He evaluated the tree. “This tree is dying and falling apart while doing so. . . . This tree could fail at any time. It may collapse entirely,” Applegate’s report said.

He recommended prompt removal of the tree.

A photo he took showed the trunk of the tree was hollow.

“My calculations show that the remaining strength of the trunk is well past the critical limit of one third and cannot be considered safe by any standard,” Applegate said.

After Shubin provided the report with the arborist’s calculations and photographs, the city responded in January, saying the tree wasn’t an “imminent hazard” once the limb that fell was removed and the picnic table was moved to “eliminate the target.”

“If this tree is not a hazard, what could ever justify a no-fee permit?” Shubin asked.

After the new oak tree ordinance was passed earlier in March, even before it was officially in effect, the community development department told Shubin he qualifies for a no-fee permit to remove the tree.

Let the chain saws begin.