HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5a. Tree Removal Application (TREE-0751-2024, 1288 Morro Street)
TREE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST (TREE-0751-2024) TO REMOVE
ONE PINUS PINEA (ITALIAN STONE PINE) TREE LOCATED AT 1288 MORRO
STREET
FROM: Walter Gault, City Arborist
Phone Number: (805) 783-7883
Email: wgault@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed tree removal request for consistency with the Municipal Code
Section 12.24.090(E) and provide a recommendation to the Community Development
Director.
Meeting Date: 1/27/2025
Item Number: 5a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: View of the tree from Pacific St.
Page 9 of 28
Item 5a
TREE-0751-2024
Tree Committee Report – January 27, 2025
1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Mission Medical Partners LLC has requested the removal of one (1) Pinus pinea (Italian
Stone Pine) at 1288 Morro St. per Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E(3) related to
property owner convenience. The applicant would like to remove the tree and replace it
with four (4) 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
2.0 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). 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).
3.0 TREE REGULATIONS
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) establishes policies,
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 w ind
protection; to add environmental and economic value; and to preserve trees with historic
or unusual value.
Criteria for Convenience Tree Removal Applications.
Figure 2: Site of the proposed tree removal
Page 10 of 28
Item 5a
TREE-0751-2024
Tree Committee Report – January 27, 2025
SLOMC §12.24.090 subsection (E)(3) requires review by the Tree Committee using the
criteria set for 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.
The tree proposed for removal is large and visually prominent in the front of the
property (Corner of Morro and Pacific).
(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 tree proposed for removal is located at the front of the building and is highly
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 tree proposed for removal is 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 of
native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred.
The removal and replanting would increase the biodiversity of the urban forest and
tree age distribution.
(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 replant four (4) 24-inch box trees onsite in place of
one tree removal. A replanting plan has not been provided. If the Tree Committee
recommends removal, the Tree Committee should provide direction on where the
replacement trees be planted.
(G)(7). Heritage Trees. Heritage trees have the highest preservation priority.
Tree is not a heritage tree.
Page 11 of 28
Item 5a
TREE-0751-2024
Tree Committee Report – January 27, 2025
4.0 ACTIONS
4.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the Tree Regulations. An action
recommending approval of the application 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.
4.2 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Tree Regulations. An action
recommending denial of the application should include findings that cite the basis
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Tree
Regulations, or other policy documents.
4.3 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action
continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on
pertinent issues.
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Tree Removal Application for 1288 Morro St. (TREE -0751-2024)
Page 12 of 28
Docusign Envelope lD: 6E372CE4-AAE5-45CE-93D2-FC0CC0045598
er:nrmuni gy Devel*pm*nt
TREE REnf,OVAL APPLICANOil
For all Non-Construction and Construclion rclated lree rsmsvals
r.: ,,,r r,:t
orner Name:fl i SSio * H.e/tr*J f*h*d5 t-Lt Ap$lcant Name: gpg6g FIRST
Addrees:5i6j 6"rlt Fh""o*Acldro*s: 7g5 pUINTANA RD.#178
cltYtS***"- Sozba't*ap: {3 {o cw,nnoRRo gny fiF:gg442
Phone:s.6s) sq+3s-.l,-{Phste:805.458"0265
Hmail eJ i a"ldlL O rr.i+t €mail:LOBAL.NET
Acldrass tr Tr*{$}: 1 28S MORRO STRE8T
Number cf trpcs apdytng to rennove: 1
Tree Specieel lTAl-lAN STONE PINE {Finu$ pinea}
Reason for Removal:
TREE LEAN HAS INCREASEO OVER 1CI' IN THE LA$T 6 YEARS. RECEI'IT LIMB FAILI.IRES HAVE OCCURREtr. INCREASING
9ESTRUCTI(}N OF l-iAfrDSeAFE CAU$E$ SUBSTAI\IT|AL TRIP i.iAzAfl{t$ FOR MEOrcAL PATIENTS"
ls this rsnoval a City freefl X DON'T KHOW Dog ln YES X
ls this associated with a Building Permit or Devdopnpnr phn? ll VES fX I ruo
lf YE$, pleas€ provlde approprlate refmence numbsns:
!s this proFerty governgd by a Homanr*ners AsEociati,on tHoAld-[ Y€$]LLNO $ yE$, ptease povide
HOA Board AB'proved fiIeeting minutes authorizing tree remova(elwtth yourtroe rernovetappiiceltion"
ALL ffENilS BELOW frIU$T BE IIICTUOED TO PROCE$S TRSE REIHOVAL APFLICATIOT'IS[! Treds] bnnded with rhbon or ducttape for identifcetion
Q! siie plan drawing or photo of tree eile vdlh rree lD {Trea#1, Tree #p, etc"}
Cl $upportlng doffmentathr (rapair, r€cei$s, Gtc.)A Phuto log sfrowing damagB or neasonc for removallE Replanthg phn2
El Artmirt Reports
I}'ICOIJIPLETE APPLICATION$ TI'ILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
FAILURE TO KEFP TREF$ BAilNED ilAY RE$ULT I}T A REJECTEN APPLIGATIOII,
* 1. lngtudg q Photg log that cleafly Stow-s lhs trea$ rcque$t€d hr removal. Ail trea(s) must be
fAf ;n$X"gffiH#f,1f"g;ffr
and a rlbbon, or an idantirierrarrapp*d arosnd ffreirucr h fte
ff) 2. lnclude.a replanting plan in eccordance with $ection f Z.?{,$Q*{C} sf the Crty,s Municipal
-{
Code. A minimum 1:1 rep}antlng rata is raquired for plantings onsite, and a ininlmurn ht..r rephnling rale is requirad for plantings ofisilE or w'ttlrin the public righl-of-rrnay.
S, An applicatbn for tree removal on a sils where a diecrstlonary or ministerhl developmnt
pennlt is requested shall include an arbori$ rcport and a slte plan thet includee accunnie drip
line delinedion and ffos6 sectione of consfirudion work lmpacting hoth lrees proposad f*
ramovaland treec planned to remain.
Page 13 of 28
Docusign Envelope tD: 6E372CE4-MES45CE-93D2_FC6CCO04SS9B
Tree Removal lloclslons a$ ou$ined ln $ection {2,?4,090 of the c}ty's llunlclpal code
$ubmlttal lnstruc,Uane
Proporty Orrrnsr Authorlza{on :ApplicanU Repre*entailve Car{fi callon:
to ae it deierminee is
Medical Parbrers, LLC for Itre
$ubmfi Tres Removal applications to the sity d $,an Luis ob,!ff. $ornmunity Devetopnent Dopartment fltthe follonting Eddress: 8t9 Pglm $tre€rr. $an Luis ooispo. Ci g3iof ry nviniiilto trgssj*sJ*cnv.+s,
Paymant of the'Tree Refioval Permif bc shall bE submitted along with this application. Referto th$ city'$cunsnt Comprehenaive Fgt $ctrcdule forthecunent fee.
J. Pananides, Manager t0/25/2024 | 4:2t
Date
Permlsslon to Acceee Propertyl
Thic soction is t0 be cornploted by the propedy olvn€r
end/or occupant who conlrals access toth€property. To
adequately avsluate th€ submitt€d propo*al,
Commr"rnity CIovelopment Depafirnont Staff,
Commie*icneru and City Councit Membere will harp togainaccess to the extsrior of the real property ln orderto adequately reviow and roport on lhe propoead
rgqqast.Yotrsignature cerlilies that you sgres tobelorit
give fia Clty permisslon to a€e$$ ths proj€ct site trom
B a.m. to 5 p.rn," Monetay th'lough Frfday, aa
lndernnlficufion Agmament
The Ourn€flApplicant shall dofend, inelemnify and holdharmlass lhe Cig or its sgenls or officere andernphyees fom any claim, action orprocaeding againeiths City or lts agents, oflicerB or erdpbyoeo, to dnsck,
sat asids, void, s annu! in wilole ai ln-part ths Ciry{aqnrorylof this Rn{ect tn rhe ayent that itra City naiffdpnomptly notify ilrcOwner/Applicant ofany su*t dnim,
l*iq or proceeding, or that the Cig faits io cooperare
ll.rlly ln the defense of eaid claim, ihis condition shall
trrereeftar be of no turthsr folre ;i efdc*
-- '-
Date
uvMission Medical Partners, LLC
J. Pananides, Manager l0l25l2A24l4:2t p)
sf this application
-'/,.-\--Mtssion Medical Partners, LLC
part of the
t0/2st20241
SELECT TYFE OF TREE REMOVAL APFLICATION BEIT,ICi SUBITJIITTEO DECISIOH IIJ|AKER
ffilnant Hazed to Ufe or Proprrty
t"t4 City Arborist
ffi Hprlth and Huard Illiilgation
12,?4 *gs{E)0ityArborist
Dirc+torto
Rsmoval
Community
Development Diredor
u iltl nlstsrlsl Dovelopment parmlt
1? ?4 09SfF!{1}
turre$,'&nfdforaccessory Gon#ttualian on an R-l ar R-Z tot
GityArborist
Permlta Construcfon Tms Removel Community
Dovelopment Dlrcdsr
TantatlveIDevelopment Tnacil Ccndltlonal Uce nPennilleil
1?.24.S9S{Frd4i Planning Commission
Date OatePage 14 of 28
11119124, 10:30 AM
Gou'gle Maps
900 Pacific St - Google Maps
900 Pacitic St
San Luis Obispo, California
Google Str€et View
Jun 2023 See more dates
l.nage capture: Jun 2023 O ?02,1 Gooql€
r)oGl @
lln Y_....'
"-t"t6tr Al h tnurt
https:/Aruwwgoogle.com/maps l@35.2791219,-120.6603658,3a,74.7y,23.98h,96.91t/data=13m7!'le1!3m5!'lssgc4mQxlQNlCZQCPYFgsow!2e0l6shttps:... 111
Page 15 of 28
Replanting Plan
For
1288 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo
C ompe nsato ry T ree Pl anti ng.
Upon approval, the removed tree will be compensated by planting one or more new trees for each tree
authorized to be removed in a size consistent with city engineering standards.
Container Size Trunk l)iameter (inches)Tree Species
l5-gallon 0.75" to 1.5"Marina Madrone
[Arbutus-marinaJ
Page 16 of 28
Certified Arborist Report
Prepared for:
Mission Medical Partners, LLC
503 Bath Street
SantaBarbara, CA 93101
Prepared By:
ISA Certified Arborist
Robert Schreiber
170 Tena St
Morro Bay, CA 93442
8As-7725400
Re",r( s"P*,,il-a
ISA Certified Arborist
#FI-0314A
Page 17 of 28
{ee & Environmental Spe cialrst1
li I a -ASCg,t
a
,t
-ltlt tll t\ !rll.lt | \ ,,'
r i\1r lIi\rr {sx{rBltr \
ft#
October 25,2A24
Mission Medical Partners, LLC
503 Bath Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PROJECT LOCATION:
1288 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PREPARED BY:
Robert Schreiber
170Terra Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442
Telephone - 805.7 7 2.5400
E-mail - arborfirst@sbcglobal. net
Web Site - www.arborfirst.com
/
Page 18 of 28
lntroduction:
The property is located at 1288 Morro Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. lt is
in the cities R-1 zoning district. The intent of this report is to asses an ltalian
Stone Pine tree (Pinus pinea) located on the subject property. The purpose of
this report is to analyze the current condition, possible risks and mitigation
procedures regarding the subject tree.
Tree Conditions Ratinqs:
We evaluated the tree's conditions using a rating system. The ratings ranged
from Excellent to Dead, based on various factors such as branch structure,
decay, structural defects, crown fullness, leaf color and size, and twig dieback.
Excellent: Has a well-balanced branch structure, free of decay or significant
structural flaws, and a full crown with healthy leaf color and minimal twig
dieback.
Good: Exhibits a balanced branch structure with minor decay and few structural
issues, along with a full crown displaying good leaf color and size, with minimal
to moderate twig dieback.
Fair: Shows a balanced to somewhat asymmetric branch structure with minor
decay and manageable structural flaws, requiring pruning, and a crown ranging
from full to moderately full, with average leaf color and size, and moderate twig
dieback.
Poor: Displays an asymmetric branch structure with significant decay and
structural flaws, possibly including prior large branch failures that pruning may
not fully address. The crown is thinning, with moderate to severe twig dieback.
Very Poor: Demonstrates an asymmetric branch structure with substantial
decay and significant structural flaws, including prior large branch failures that
pruning cannot sufftciently address. The crown is thinning significantly, with
severe twig dieback.
Dead: Shows no visible signs of life
Tree #Species DSH Height Condition
1 Itatian Stone Pine
{Pinus pinea}
63.1"51'Poor
Page 19 of 28
The ltalian Stone Pine tree is located adjacent to the entrance to Mission Medical
Building. lt has two (2) co-dominant leaders at approximately ten (10) feet above
grade. The tree has been monitored for lean over the past 8 years. During this
period, the trunk has experienced an increased lean toward the parking lot by
roughly 10" from baseline. Multiple limb failures over the past 8 years have
resulted in reduction pruning to repair break sites. Because of this necessary
pruning, the growth of the tree has further increased pressure on the root plate.
Hardscape at or near the entrance to the building continues to be uptifted
causing an unsafe walkway for patients entering the building. The tree is directly
above the parking lot for patients utilizing the medical facility. Over the course of
the last four (4) years, two (2) other trees in the parking lot have failed
completely.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The subject tree is leaning over a parking lot as well as pedestrian walkways.
The tree continues to slough off branches. The root plate exhibits signs of
heaving consistent with the increased lean as noted above. As noted in the
attached article from Western Arborist, "Heavy end weight, dense crown, and
multi-stem structure were key factors contributing to branch failures." The article
continues "...trunk and branch failures occurred almost as frequently during
either dry or wet conditions."
Based on the location, size and continuing issues with structure {as noted above}
as well as root health, there is an extreme possibility of failure from natural
causes. Therefore, the safest recommendation is to remove the tree. This
recommendation is being made as a matter of safety to persons and property.
Attachments: Photographs, Western Arborist article {Structural failure profile
Italian stone pine)
Page 20 of 28
Mission Medicat Buitding
12BB Morro Street, San Luis Obispo
Page 21 of 28
l-g
\
Page 22 of 28
Page 23 of 28
Page 24 of 28
wESTE$\flrgorir1
Structural fellure proftle ltalten gtone
plne (Ptnasptnnl
L. R. Costello, J. Tso, and K. S. Jones
ffooryEAR, TlrE srRUcruRAL FATL'RE oF
t treesinurbanandforestedrccreationareasresulte
-
in personal injuries and property damage. A key
o$ective of a tree management plogram is to reduce the
potential for failtrre to the extent possible. One important
elernerrt of failurereduction strategies is to prevent ormiti-
gate conditions that may lead to failure, such as pruning
branches weakened by wood decay, cabling or bracing,
and avoiding root damage.
All bee species do not fail in similff ways, however.
Soure areprone to failasaresultof weak ardritecture, such
as codorninant sterns. Others have a greater properuity to
fail because they develop largp end-weights on brandres
-- exceeding the load tolerance of thewood. Knowing the
particular failure patterns of species can help bee nranagers
identify key defects that may lead to failure.
By collecting detailed inforsration following the failue
of a tree, data can be compiled and then used to develop
struchrral failwe profiles for speciee. Such a profile has
Figure t. ltalian stone plna ls a relatively common land-
scrpe tree in Callfornia. 1}plcally, it has a rounded crown
and muftistem rtructur€. Photo: K. Jones.
tsy c o ffectirlg fet aife{ informatinn fo ffm,v ing t he faifine
of a tree, {ala c_6wl 5e coiryeite{anfthenus{{to -{evefoy
structur at faift w e yr oflfe s for sy e cies.
been developed here for Italian stone pine (Pinus pbua) us-
ing data from the C-alifomia Tree Failure Database (CIFD).
Arborists and forestens canuse thie information to develop
structural managenent sbategies for Italian stone pine.
The dwelopment of this profile was comsrissionedby the
Britton Fund of the Western Chapter of the International
Society of Arboriculture.
Italian stone pine distribution
Italian stone pine is native to southern Europe and Tur-
key, but has become naturalieed in many regioru with a
Meditenanean climate. It is a relatively common landrape
tree inC-alifornia, beingfound inboth public and private
landscapes (Fig. t).
General statistics
There are a total of 170 reports in the CTFD for Italian
stone pine, the majority of whidrare forrpotfailures (41%).
Trur* faihues comprise 30% od reports, and branch failures
make up ihe rtunin'ing29%.
Reports came from 22 counties, but the majority (75
reports) are from Conka C-osta, San Francisco, and Santa
Clara Counties. ltalianstone pine failures are slightlymore
common in wints than summer, with 52% of failures re-
ported fnrm December to February. General statistics for
all failwe types can be found in Table 1.
Varlable ltean
Age 43 yean
Height 47 feet
DBH 32 inches
Crown spread 44 feet
Table 1. General statistics for all failure
types.
fiafln76 44
Page 25 of 28
wEs rnn\fl,go161
Flgure 2. lilany ltalian stone plne branch fallures ocsur
at the attachment, nther than along the branch. Heavy
letaral limbs (end welghts), dense crown, and multl-stem
structure w€re reported to be assoslatad wlth branch fall-
ures. Fhoto: C, Rlppy
Most failed trees were found in a gtoup (57%), inhigh
use areas (59%), and in reeidential areas (36%). The most
common defectforall failureswas dense crown, obaerved
in21% of reports, follorvedbymultiple/codonrirunttruriks
(20%) and leaningtrunks (15%).
A. BRANCH FAILURE
Branch failure was reported in 50 cases, or 29% of. all
rcports.
Branch failure location
The majority of branches failed at tlre attadrment (60%)
(Fig. 2). Failures along the brarrh occrrred largely within
3 of the trunk (40%), with diameter of the break higheet in
the F12 irxJr range (60%). Tlrc majority of tres wittr branch
failures were between 26 and 50 years old (59%).
lhe main gtructural defects observed in trees with
failed branches ale heavy lateral limbs (observed in43%
of casee), dense crowns (21%), and multi-stern structure
(15%) fiable 2).
Decay and branch failures
Decay was reported in only one brandr failure case, less
than 25% of the cross-s€ctional area was decayed" and a
sporophore was not found. All other reports,
98% of total cases, reported no decay.
Wind and branch failures
Althoughmore failures occuned inlow wind cpnditions
where wind spe+d did not exceed 5 miles an hour (35%),
failures were distribubd quite errenly across low, moder-
ate, andhighwind speeds fiable 3).
Precipltation and branch failures
Themajority of brandrfailure occur duringdry conditions
(62%), while the rwrainder occurred during a plecipita-
tion event.
Pruning and branch failures
Pntning had not been done in 63% of brandr failure cases/
while 28% of cases indicated that thetreehad bemthinned.
The rerninder of rcporb did not indicatewhetherpruning
had been done or not.
B. TRUNK FAILURE
Trunkfailures accounted for 30% of Italian stone pine fail-
uree. Most oceurred above ground level (55%), while the
rmninda (a5%) occurred at ground level. Trunk diameter
at the point of failure ranged from 7 to 54 indree, but the
rlr'$otrrty (M%) werebetrareen13 and 24 irrctres indiametetr.
The primary defect associated withtrunk failue is multiple
truriks/codominant stema, oboewed in 44% of caees, fol-
lowed by dense crown (28%) fiable 4 and Fig. 3).
Decay and trunk failure
Decay was not present in 76% of trurik failure cases (Fig. 4).
In 90% of cases where decay was foun4 less than 50% of ttre
ooes.sstional areawas decayed. 9porophoreswere obeerved
at the point of faikue in only two bees, or 4% of cases.
ffnd rpcsd Frequency of
occurtncB
Low wind (<5 mph)35%
lrloderate wind (5-25 mph)32.5X
High wind (>25 mph)32.5%
Table 3. Wind speed and branch failure.
Defoct Frequcncy
Heavy [aterat limbs 43?6
Dense crown 21r,
Multi-stem 15%
Table 2. Defects reported associated with
branch failures.
Def€ct Frequency
Muttipte trunk/codominant stems 44%
Dense crowns 2896
Leaning trunk 8%
Tabte 4. Defects reported associated with
trunk failures.
45 $aflnfi
Page 26 of 28
wnsrnx\flrg*ir1
ItlndWecd Frcquenryof
occtlransE
Low wind (<5 mph)M
filoderate wind (5.25 mph)28x
High wind (>25 mph)32%
Table 5. Wind speed and trunk failure.
Flgure 3. (Above) Codomlnant stams.nd multiple trunkr
were the mort commnly reported defect causlng trunk
failure ln ltrlian stone plne. Here, a lrne comdomlnmt
stem falled at the point of attachment. Embadded bark ls
not cunmonly found ln such fallurec ln P. pinea.
Fijure 4. (Below) Diecay was not preFent ln 7E9{ of trunk
fallures, but denra crown was r€portod to be a key factor.
Here, an ltrlirn $ons pine wlth a dense crown falled at r
polm hlgh on tha trunk. No decay was evident.
Precipitation and trunk failures
Slightly more than half (54%) of trunk failures occurred
during wet conditions, while the rernainder of cases oc-
curred during dry conditions.
Wind and trunk failures
Trunkfailures mmt comrnonly occurred during low wind
conditions betrueen F25 mph (40%), but dishibution was
fairly wen across low, moderate, ad high wind condi-
tioru (hble 5).
C. ROOT FAILURE
Rootfailure is the most cornmonfailure type, with 69 re-
ports, or 4L% of tlle total (fig. 5). Trees experiencing rcot
Flgure 5. (Above) The most conmon typa of fallure in ltaF
lan stone plne ls uprootlng. Although densc croun ls fre-
quently |ssocirtcd wlth root fallures, decay is nut. Photo:
C. Llata,
Flgure 6. (Below) Glrdllng root3 are reportad to contrlbutG
to a number of fallures ln ltallan stone plne. Here, a glr-
dling root occurrlng at ground llnc was linked to the frllure
of thls ltallan stone plne. Photo: C. Rtppsy,
Defsc:Frc6turcy
Leaning trunk 29il
Kinked/$rdting root 18r
Dense crown 15%
Tabte 6. Defects reported associated with
root failures.
fian2A75 46
Page 27 of 28
wEs "rnn\fffisr61
WndSpsed Frequcncyof
oocun€nGg
Low wind (<5 mph)30x
lloderate wlnd (5-25 mph)23%
High wind (>25 mph)47%
Table 7. Wind speed and root failure
failure ranged from 7 to 100 years old with the majority
(76%) aged,11-50.
Defects and root fallures
The most conunon defects were lean (29%), kinked or
girdling roots (18%) and dense crown (16%) (Iable 6 and
Flg.6).
I),ecay and root fallures
Decaywas not present in67% of nrotfailure cases. Fruiting
bodies werc observed near t*re failure location in only 16%
of trees with decay.
Wind and root failures
The majonty $7%) oI root failures occunred during high
wind conditions, while 30% and 23% of failures occqred un-
der low and moderate wind speedo respectively fiable 7),
Precipitation and root failures
hecipitation was reported in 67% of root failure cases.
Saturated soil conditions were reported in 32% of cases.
L. R. Costello
Oracle Oak, LLC
J. Tso
filS, UC Davis
K. S. Jones
CTFRP Databas€ i{ana3er
Summary of Key Findings
> Root faiture is the moet commofl type of failure
in ltatian stone pine (41%).
) The majority of branch failures (60%) occur at
the point of attachment.
> Heavy end weight, dense crown, and mutti.
stem structure were key factors contrlbuting to
branch faitures.
) Muttipte trunks/codominant stems, dense
cro}wl, and tean were key factors contributing
to trunk faitures.
) Lean, grdting/kinked roots, and dense crown
were key factors contributing to root failures
(Fig 7.).
) Decay was not present in the majority of
branch, trunk, and root failures.
) Where decay was present, sporophores (fruiting
bodies) were nrety found.
) Embedded bark was reported ln onty 41[ of trunk
and branch failures.
> Root failures were associated with precipitation
and saturated soils, while trunk and branch fait-
ures occurred atmost as frequently during either
dry or wet conditions.
) Wind ptayed a role in the majority of root fait.
ures (47%1, while branch and trunk failures were
distributed fairly uniformty during low, moder.
ate, and high wind conditions.
Flg. 7. Lcan has bcen reported as a key factor contrlb-
utlngto rootfallure ofltallan stone plne. Here, large
props have been lnstalled to roduce the failure poten-
tlal of this leaning specfmen. Photo: T. Kipptng.
rt
.r -Ti
47 laVn75
Page 28 of 28