Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2000, 2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 400 FOOTHILL council 'ZRE 6, 2000 j acEnaa RepoRt 1�Nb� 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared By: Todd Martin, City Arborist elp,- SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request at 400 Foothill CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal request at 400 Foothill. DISCUSSION: On April 10, 2000, City Staff received a tree removal application from Naoma Wright of 400 Foothill Blvd. in San Luis Obispo. The request was for the removal of a Chinese evergreen elm located in the front yard of 400 Foothill Blvd. The request was based on claims that the tree poses a hazard to both traffic and pedestrians on Foothill by dropping debris on both the street and sidewalk. The request also noted damage to the public sidewalk caused by the roots of the elm tree. City staff inspected the tree and determined it did not meet the criteria for tree removal as described in Section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The applicant was notified of this by letter on April 17, 2000, and that the removal request would be placed on the April 24th Tree Committee agenda for consideration. Mrs. Wright was present at the April 24`h meeting. Mrs. Wright noted damage to the public sidewalk and expressed concern over hazards that might exist as a result of tree limbs growing out over the street. She also stated that ongoing maintenance costs for this tree were a burden and that the tree appeared to be diseased. As a replacement tree,the appellant is proposing to install one 15-gallon magnolia. Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 C-6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal requests. One of the following criteria must be met before a removal request can be approved. A. Does the existence of the tree cause undue hardship to the property owner? B. Does the removal of the tree promote good arboricultural practice? C. Will removal of the tree not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood? 2-1 Council Agenda Report—400 Foothill Tree Removal Appeal Page 2 The Tree Committee felt the Chinese evergreen elm is the "theme tree" for this neighborhood and that proper pruning would improve the condition of the tree. The Tree Committee members also believed that routine watering of the tree would improve the tree's health and appearance. The committee members did not feel the tree was diseased. Staff noted that other elms in that neighborhood exhibited similar symptoms but recovered fully when placed on a watering schedule by the property owner. The Tree Committee members present at this meeting included Chairperson Steve Caminiti, Ron Regan, Jane Worthy, Jennifer Metz and Barbara Murphy. After taking into consideration the concerns of the applicant and their own observation regarding the tree, the members voted unanimously to deny the removal permit. The decision was based on the following facts: 1) The tree is not causing undue hardship. 2) Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice. 3) Removal would'harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. On May 3, 2000, Mrs. Wright filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office appealing the Tree Committee's decision per the Municipal Code, Chapter 12.24.180 H. She stated that she was appealing the decision because the tree was"old and overgrown". FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City for either denial or approval of the appeal. The cost of the tree removal if the appeal is upheld,is borne by the appellant. ALTERNATIVES: Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. Attachments: 1. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee 2. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee 3. Appeal to the City Council received May 3,2000 4. April 24th Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Tree Removal Application dated April 7, 2000 6. Arborist's letters to applicant 1:Migenda ReporW400 Foothill Tree Appeal 2-2 A Frac h mer,+ l' RESOLUTION N0. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 400 FOOTHILL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,makes the following finding: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner. b. Removal of the tree will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The appeal of the Tree Committee denial of the tree removal request at 400 Foothill is hereby denied. Upon motion of , seconded by. and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 22000. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: M- J rgef Cor Attorney 2-3 Pr 44rcc.Gvnen�- Z RESOLUTION N0. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE DENIAL OF TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 400 FOOTHILL NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,makes the following Ending: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. b. Removal of the tree will promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee denial of the tree removal request at 400 FOOTHILL is hereby approved, and the tree removal request is approved. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,2000. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney 2-4 FINkI An %I *'A0.4*01ty ,or S ' ' 4ul's 0, A' Ispo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AWachrnen-l- 3 In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of -m5 TQa eOm M i'rTi rendered on 706L A�� e94-"— which 94- --which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: Name/Department on V (Dote) � Appellant:Nfb'm Ar bVje(G#f'T 440'a l+� &U4' Name/Trtte �Mailir�y Ad es4& Zip Code) GP Home Phone Work Phone Representative: ' �7_� (�1i21�N T M Name/Tide Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: . Calendared for \, Llr1 C? (o, a E n a Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney p P. M City Administrative Officer ' Copy to the following department(s): _ t like M�GluskeY RECEIVED Todd mv-r-+i n MAY 3 - 2000 Original in City Clerk's office SLO CITY CLERK N�kcknrnen4 4-1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Caminiti, Jane Worthy, Ron Regan, Barbara Murphy and Jennifer Metz STAFF PRESENT: Todd Martin, Lisa Woske 1. MINUTES The minutes of the March 27, 2000 regular meeting were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVALS - 400 FOOTHILL (Chinese elm) The applicant discussed sidewalk lifting, felt the tree was diseased and stated that the tree was too difficult and expensive to maintain properly. She noted that the property was already heavily planted. W. Martin felt the tree needed a thorough pruning and noted that the City was responsible for fixing the sidewalk. He did not think the tree was diseased. Mr. Regan noted the dieback in the tree and that there was not much new growth and felt this tree may be declining. Ms. Worthy, Ms. Metz, Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Murphy felt the tree needed a complete pruning. Ms. Murphy moved to deny the removal request, as none of the necessary findings could be made. 2-6 Agaclimen{- -L TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2000 Page Two Ms. Metz seconded.the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 3486 SYCAMORE (Monterey cypress) The applicant discussed problems with the tree: the poor shape due to utility pruning, the fact that the tree was too large for the location, it posed a liability if it fell, and roots were lifting the sidewalk. She noted the property did not drain well because of the needles and that the garage had flooded previously due to accumulated littering and drainage problems. Mr. Martin did not feel the tree was likely to fall and said it was in good health and needed to be trimmed, which would alleviate the rubbing against the roofline. Ms. Murphy was concerned with removing a significant skyline tree, although from several angles, it was misshapen. Ms. Worthy felt tree was too large for the location and was poorly shaped due to the utility pruning. Mr. Regan and Mr. Caminiti agreed with Ms. Worthy. Mr. Regan moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and due to undue hardship, and required replacement plantings of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the issuance of removal permit. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Metz and Ms. Murphy voting against. 2-7 H-ct.ck rne,14- S ��� ���»�fl�lll�►�I�fllll '►��nuu IIIA cit of san vuis oBispc y 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mail or fox completed form to: PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for City Arborist removal and posted, please call the office at the end 25 Prado Rd. of your posting period to arrange to pick up your San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 permit Phone 781-7220 Fax 542-9868 (� TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Applicant: /" w/2l Cif % -._Telephone: S�3 �SZ3 Z Address: 4Zcp 4 l ff!LL 6LVD • Zip: OS Location of tree(s): AT S I DE W8 1,K O N L V Please indicated nearest cross street: TOSS fl a Pr 2 a 6qn Fe7T t} Important: A tree removal application will only be considered if accompanied by a sketch showing the street,structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form. Tree Species:. . a '7fEC4 MEAL E_/Ai/ jfL.OSE-.b Botanical Name Common name Reasons for removing: L I FTIr4G 5►D E WhL- K . L l R ►L I y' Tn T�13 FFI C ON Ff6-[' HILL R'S IT HSA n(GS at)E Foo T H iUL A ,"emcF�F` SLOW 0 To fC7ZT14ILL IJ,#0j Alit= 7_4c PREF /.S Q74E OF GoXVfVoL AND a PEA62 S o MLISE)IS E-1- . Compensatory replacement proposed: / G 00 L 1 19 69 bh A T L UEo 1 E- C Comments: !TS L EM/t7 S W ?Vk A T?t12f21 A Lt= a ES S SPEC 14L L)/ 0111 5m7-H/.LL RL V u ftyi') Pr&t::17 5L& �-oa2 �I>21 UE.� 4 T 2F�t5 R�eyT" �S ail T�E�csy�72 SU ���� Applicant/Owner: `'O !C �i�%` Date: T— (Sketch attached) P groups/tree/tree rcmoval application 2 ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs an activities Telecommunications Davits for the Deal(805) 761-7410. fk#acH mens- �-� ��I��I11�16111�BII��������I,I�@IIIIIIIIII �� city of sAn tuis omspo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 26,2000 Naoma Wright 400 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 4410 Foothill Rlvd__ was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on April 24,2000. 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 The committee members were unable to make any of the findings necessary to authorize removal of your tree(s). 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(#1153 - 1989 Series), Section 12.24.131, 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 ordinance shall be liable for damages to the city in an amount equal to the value of the tree plus costs incurred to assess damages. Tree values shall be established according to evaluation standards of the International Society of Arboriculture. If you have any questions regarding this matter,you may contact Todd Martin at(805)781-7220, Monday through Friday, 8:00-5:00. Respectfully, Todd Martin City Arborist commdenial © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. W 11 city �All sAn tuts oBispo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 17, 2000 Naoma Wright 400 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Your application for tree removal at 400 Foothill Blvd. has been reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Arborist. Since the existing conditions did not allow the City Arborist to make a favorable finding regarding removal of the tree(s), the matter has been forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee,pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1153,Section 12.24.180. The Tree Committee, which is comprised of five members,will review your application and inspect the tree(s) in question. The members will then take up the issue at the next Tree Committee meeting scheduled for April 24,2000 at 5:00pm , in Conference Room A at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road. A copy of the agenda will be sent prior to the meeting. You are encouraged to attend the meeting. At the meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the circumstances surrounding your proposed removal of the trees, after which you will be given an opportunity to explain your reasons for requesting the removal. The Committee members will then address your concerns and deliberate the facts to determine whether they should, in fact, grant or deny your request or provide you with other options. Any decision rendered by the Tree Committee can be appealed to the City Council if you are not satisfied with the Tree Committee's decision. If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Todd Martin at (805) 781-7023, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Todd Martin City Arborist ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.�7 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. W cOumcn. !MFMMAO DIR EF MEL..AG AGENDA ��WCAo HEY w DIA I DATE b�--ITEM #LUNG!E .(IORIG OLICE CHF❑�;.:.fi TEA EC DIRA� TIL DIR( � ERS DIR ✓"(. MGtr4ln - May 28, 2000 Dear Mayor Settle, (Allen) I am annealing to the Mayor and the City Council on June 61 2000 in order to have an old, diseased, out of control, messy Chinese Elm Tree re- moved from my property. This tree grew from a weed. On April 24, 2000 I appeared before Tod Martin and the S.L.O. Tree Committee to request removal of the diseased tree. They looked at the tree samples that I brought to them and a small discussion about Dutch Elm Disea followed, but they could not decide what was wrong with the tree and I :eras denied removal of my diseased tree. On May 2, 2000 I received a letter from Tod Martin stating that they did an "on-site" inspection of my tree and that I did not meet the qualific ations to remove my tree. (coot' Enclosed) Neither Tod Martin or any of the Tree Committee members came onto my property to inspect my tree as my property is enclosed by a 6' high fence and my gates are always locked! They could not have seen the tree trunk covered with unsightly scale or the dead and dying back side of the tree because this was not visible from the street where neonle may have viewed the tree, if indead they looked at it at all. I find it strange that 6peopl supposedly did ;n "on-site" inspection of my tree and I never saw anyone nor did anyone ever contact me to come onto my property. On May 9, 2000 Tod Martin phoned me requesting me to unlock my gate so that he could inspect my tree. He looked at it and proclaimed it to be a "street tree" and said he would send the city tree trimmers out to "oven-up the tree. Now the tree is a very ugly opened up diseased tree: (picture qnc Before discovering that my tree was a "street tree" and in anticipatio of having the tree remioved I obtained estimates from California licienced and certified aborist tree trimmers from the yellow pages who said my tree was diseased and should be removed. (please see copies enclosed) I also took samples of my tree to the Master Gardeners of the Cooper- ative Extension University of California and received verbal and the enclos information about the disease. Since these people are Master Gardeners and experts.in their field, I have no reason to doubt their diagnoses. I believe I meet 12.24.180 part b. of the S.L.O. Tree Ordinance: Re- moving the tree promotes good arborcultural practices. appreciate it if th Since it is now designated a "street tree" I would app City would remove it promptly so that I can get on with my life and rid my yard of constantly falling dead and dying leaves and debris from this dis= eased, messy tree. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely,_` Paoae 543-5232 400 Foothill blvd. San Luis Obispo CA. 93405 RECEIVED MAY I 12000 SLO CITY CLERK l II City Of SAn tuis OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 26,2000 Naoma Wright 400 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at Ono FonthoilRlvd__was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on April 24,2000. 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. The committee members were unable to make any of the findings necessary to authorize removal of your tree(s). 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(#1153 - 1989 Series), Section 12.24.131,Protection of Trees, reads in part: C. No person shall willplly 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 ordinance shall be liable for damages to the city in an amount equal to the value of the tree plus costs incurred to assess damages. Tree values shall be established according to evaluation standards of the International Society of Arboriculture. If you have any questions regarding this matter,you may contact Todd Martin at(805)781-7220, Monday through Friday, 8:00-5:00. Respectfully, Todd Martin City Arborist commdenial v� The Gty of San Luis Obspo Is committed to include the disabled in all of Its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Dievce for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �a �t.�t 1 t �,r,. icy :•J ai. ol 45 IULTA�th� . N �r •x '�L'•.a� 5 r. c '�•+ Z�. f0. � :�i' • ���1`�"-'�'•- • T� .. ..1-tai •.•�/�� � �. '1 �I •, - � •.•.. Y ��•} , "•1•L\`.�lf� "L�,r ` �^�!ti,R• r [J� ��f�, ,�\a, 1` 'r T .•��/1►•••t :•�. - 3 �`f•♦Sh�_'_ i� ��rl�t_' 1,AR� I'�� -\+'''. \T., "'111..., .. '+; r�•�\��ii'�I'/� . ��1r 'C�c`i CA lA f "iIt • } T• .. r.. �I�'• x'11 ��� �� t �_ : '��'�-���_ � � ' TLr AAK 1 � Dangerous Remwats Thinning auling Topping • Pruning Free Estimates DE SOTO'S FAMILY TREE SERVICE The Family Tree Service PROPOSAL P.O.Bax 492 Ab=dc%CA 930.02 PROPOSALNO. / I Wego out on a limb so you don't bave to I SHEET N0. Bob DeSoto (805)466-1360 j DATE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED O: Arborist #1941 Pager(805)594-6755 �.���–Q N E ADDRESS �1 CITY,STATE CITY,STATE DATE OF PLANS i PHONE NO. !�PyS ^ ARCHITECT We hereby propose to fumish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of *17 10 ZZ All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for a ove work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of: _ Dolle (°; with payments to be as follows, " yr D'h d V ~ nny°erten°^+or my Upom nma,share,and Webec me an .me me° Respectfully submitted Com✓ o W..enema ft upmn vrecon amen and wts cwb en.,ma soupe c aysr end ebaue du ntlmma. All epremrenn artNnpem upon emYm. addends.n delays beyond Wr morNul. Per Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within_�days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as speed. Payments will be made as outlined above. SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE — Adwm 9450 ESTIMATE -.M GREENVALE TREE CO. 805 / 5441124 805 / STEVE FRANZMANN P.O. Box 13234 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Certified Arborin 0941 Isartute PhoneDate S-Y3 - S;.31- Street Job location city&4 Job Name Job Phone JOB SPECIFICATIONS: �, css6G ! 3C S� We propose hereby to furnish material and labor, complete in accordance with above specifications. Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra costs will be made only upon written agreement Tree removals do not include stump grinding unless specified. All completed work includes full insurance coverage. This proposal may be withdrawn by us at any time before acceptance. dollars ($ ) GREENVALE TREE CO. Acceptance of Estimate Date: COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA San Luis Obispo County 2156 Siam wry.suite C San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 i (803)781-3949 FAX(805)781-4316 i Enclosed is material: 17 In response to your request C For your information :: l7 Please reply n ❑Please return , v i L Bianchi arm Advisor E-mail:m1hianchi(iucdavis.edu Tbeu asky,fca& oo mwi&go=UcFeamlmdSncLwadUmvaidypok doe aM temmelrm ofeir,odor.7ufiada L ' mom &mbW.W meed . aadmm(tamaedetoQ,awaby,maml moa. .eomY aomuual a moa e Yzou eekaepeeiel dieebledwmeom. I mgmma the tlmemiq s potida my be doomed m Y Amb-nd Am D=W.{ri a ofCah&W'yAV=ub emdN&=dRaamcee.1lll Ftm11mStlat noa. 0.um4 CA91607.3100(310)967-0096. US Depuvtmaa 0f Awe.Umrmhy CA&UdS and Cemry of Sm l.tde Obspo Caopeau* . w 1 i17" 'RA CI ilO3 c 1thracnose is a disease found on ly leaf drop is usually followed by many deciduous and evergreen production of more leaves.Twigs " trees and shrubs;some plants and branches may also be at- such as sycamore,ash,evergreen tacked and killed, resulting in a elms and oak can be noticeably tree with crooked branches. b�ited.Often called leaf,shoot, or twig blight,anthracnose results Cankers.(dead areas that may or from Infection by any of several may not be surrounded by callus different fungi,includingApiogno- tissue)are another symptom of mortfa; Discula, Gloeosporium, anthracnose Infection on some Glomerella,and Gnomonia spe- trees.They develop in twigs, cies, depending on the tree at- branches, and on the trunk,some- tacked.Infections are more severe .times resulting in girdling and die- in areas where prolonged spring back Repeated infections give the rains occur after new growth is tree a gnarled appearance.If defo- Sycamore leaf infected with anthra- produced.The anthracnose patho- Ration, branch dieback,or canker- gen needs water in order to Infect; Ing does not occur every year, chn ose. they are not active under dry con- anthracnose will not seriously ditions. harm plants. tant to the anthracnose fungi. Once symptoms develop or be- IDENTIFICATION AND LIFE CYCLE come severe,anthracnose cannot DAMAGEbe effectively controlled.Available Anthracnose fungi occur primarily -pesticides are effective in prevent- Anthracnose symptoms will vary on the leaves and twigs:These Ing anthracnose infections only on nth the plant host,weather,and fungi overwinter in infected buds Modesto ash. ant growth stage at the time of and twigs.In spring a great num- infection. The fungi affect devel- ber of microscopic spores are pro- Environmental factors also play oping shoots and expanding . duced and spread by splashing important roles in managing an- leaves.Small tan, brown,black,or and windborne rain or by sprin- thracnose Pay close attention to tarlike spots appear on infected kier water to new growth where past and current conditions such leaves of hosts such as elm or oak. they germinate;the fungus enters as rain and irrigation to determine Dead leaf areas may be more irreg- the leaves and twigs.If moist con- if anthracnose development is fa- ular on other hosts such as ash or ditions prevail,a successive gen- vored.Dry spring weather could elm.Sycamore anthracnose le- ' eration of spores is produced in mean that disease management is sioas typically develop along the the infected parts of new leaves. not necessary.A wet spring or an major leaf veins.If leaves are very On evergreen species such as Chi- irrigation system that wets the fo- young when infected,they may be- ' nese elm,the fungus can occur liage could result in disease out- come curled and distorted with year-round on leaves. break that may warrant control. only a poitfon of each leaf dying. Generally,mature leaves are rests-. MANAGEMENT Resistant Varieties _ tant,but.when conditions are fa- With careful management,some _ Avoid planting highly susceptible vorable for infection,they may cultivars of susceptible landscape species,including Modesto ash, become spotted from the paiho- plants can be grown at-a high level American sycamore(Platanus occi- gen.Heavily infected leaves fall of aesthetic quality, despite the dentalis),and the London plane prematurely,in some cases caus- presence of anthracnose.For new tree(P. acerdblia).•California syca- ing complete tree defoliation. Ear- plantings,choose varieties renis more(P. mcemosa),should be EST Number 2-1 r University of California • • ' Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources June 1 995 .