The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/06/1993, 1 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 206 MARLENE DRIVE 4��NH�y Ivtl'alIMEET-GATE_�3 nlll�ll��1 city of sant tins oBi spo (F COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �°" NUMBER: / FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Direct"-V PREPARED BY: Todd Martin, City Arborist "' . SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request at 206 Marlene Drive CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution upholding the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal request DISCUSSION: On March 22, 1993, staff received an application for tree removal from Laurie Ann Kriet of 206 Marlene Drive in San Luis Obispo. (The applicant incorrectly dated the application April 22, 1993.) Upon inspection of the tree, the City Arborist was unable to find any compelling reasons to remove it. It appeared that the retaining wall the Kriets were proposing to build could be constructed without removing the tree. The request was forwarded to the Tree Committee for review at the April 8, 1993 meeting. On April 8, 1993, the Tree Committee reviewed the application. Mr. and Mrs. Kriet were not present at this meeting which was held two hours earlier than normal so that the members could spend the afternoon judging the Arbor Day Art and Prose entries submitted by local elementary schools. (Mr. and Mrs. Kriet had been informed of this change by telephone.) At the meeting, the Committee members voted unanimously (3-0 vote) to retain the tree, stating that the tree in question was in good health and contributed favorably to the neighborhood. A letter dated April 9, 1993 was mailed to Mr. and Mrs. Kriet informing them of the Tree Committee decision and instructing them to contact the Arborist, Todd Martin, if they had any questions. However, the letter did not detail the applicant's appeal process. On April 16, 1993, the Arborist received a letter from Laurie Kriet asking assistance of the City and stating the desire to retain.the tree. On April 20, 1993, Todd Martin spoke with Mrs. Kriet and suggested she work with a private arborist for advice on designing the retaining wall around the tree. On April 29, 1993, Mr. Kreit phoned and expressed his frustration with the tree removal process. The Kriets were not informed of the appeal process in the letter dated April 9, 1993 and, as a result, had missed the appeal period. In discussions with the City Clerk, the Kriets were informed of the appeal process and that, in order to be heard by the City Council, that they would need to reapply to the Tree Committee. The Kriets reapplied for removal and the item was put on the.May 20, 1993 Tree Committee agenda. The Committee again voted unanimously (4-0) to deny the request. Mrs. Kriet was present at the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Kriet were informed of the decision in writing on May 21, 1993, with a new standard letter including added language regarding appeals procedures, and immediately appealed this decision. Fiscal Impact: None Attachments: resolution, Tree Committee agendas for 6/16/93, 5/20/93, letter to applicant Attachments dated 5/21/93, Tree Committee agenda for kaietZagd/tmB2 4/8/93, letter to app. dated 4/9/93, letter to Todd Martin, Arborist, dated 4/14/93. I ' RESOLUTION (1993 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 206 MARLENE DRIVE WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee has denied Laurie Ann Kriet's request to remove the tree at 206 Marlene Drive in San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee has reviewed Mr. and Mrs. Kriet's request for the tree removal located at 206 Marlene Drive and found the tree in question was in good health and contributed favorably to the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee has heard the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Kriet's request and propose that the retaining wall the Kriet's propose to build be constructed without removing the tree. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo deny the tree removal request at 206 Marlene Drive and directs applicant to resolve the problem in an architectural manner. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1993 Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk Resolution No. (1993 Series) APPROV -, - :, ;)--- City A 'nis r ive Officer tt me TREE COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 16, 1993, 12: 00 noon Corporation Yard Meeting Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo 1. Review minutes from May 20, 1993 meeting 2. Tree removal requests: 212 Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo (Apple Annie's Restaurant) 190 Henderson Avenue, San Luis Obispo (resubmittal) 1122 Laurel Lane, San Luis Obispo (resubmittal) 3. Old business 4. New business S. Adjourn WW1G ..ga/smrx City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee Meeting Minutes May 20, 1993 Page 2 proper raying and he stated he would so like to see them try to manage em for another year. Dr. Brown sta d that the mandat from the City Council is that wherever possib save the tr e. If there is a question of beauty versus sa ty, the a Committee is called in to make a decision. Dr. Brown felt that trees at the entrance should be retained and that proper p ing d spraying should help with the fruit problem. He tho t.the t es near the laundry room could be removed and re aced. Woody Comb nk moved to deny the equest to remove any of the trees. n Regan seconded the mot n to approve the denial. All membe were in favor of retaining t trees. 206 Marlene Drive This tree removal application was being resubmitted to the Tree Committee for a second time. The applicant, Laurie Kriet, had contacted several arborists who stated they could put in a retaining wall that wouldn't hurt the tree but felt that removing the tree was the best option. one arborist stated that the tree had bark beetle. Laurie Kriet also stated that the tree is undermining their foundation. During the rainy season, it caused problems with drainage under the house and they had to sump pump out the water. She also stated that there were no objections from neighbors regarding the removal. Ron Regan stated that the first time around, the Tree Committee had not been presented with any information on the foundation problem. He felt that it was a beautiful tree that adds to the neighborhood and to the city. He stated that he would need to look at the tree again (in light of the new information) and felt that putting in a retaining wall could disturb the tree. Woody Combrink felt that he would need something in writing from a structural engineer stating. that the tree was causing foundation problems.. He thought the tree should be retained. Eve Vigil stated that the tree was well cared for, it had an aesthetic impact and that it was a skyline tree. She didn't feel . it was affecting the retaining wall - the wall was already old and rotting. She also felt that removal would not help the drainage problem. She stated that the tree was too significant City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee Meeting Minutes May 20, 1993 Page 3 to be removed and other solutions could be found to deal with the retaining wall and foundation problems. Dr. Brown stated that the tree is a nice species and adds to the skyline. Woody Combiink moved to deny the request for removal. The motion was seconded by Eve Vigil. The Tree Committee's decision was unanimous to retain the tree. Applicant was informed of their right to appeal the decision. 33 south Higuera Street, 152, San Luis Obispo The r ident, Mr. James Smith, is worried about the sq, ety of the tree. of only do they live in a wind tunnel but t cks park under th tree and hit branches causing the whole ee to shake. The cones all and are damaging the roof of thei mobile home. They were a o concerned that their insurance ompany was concerned. wanted assurance from the Tre Committee that the tree would be ay. Dr. Brown stated at the Tree Commit a could not give that type of guarantee. Todd Martin also state that th ity will not accept that responsibility. Althou the esident has lived there for three years, the tree is at lea t years old. Mr. Smith also stated th re was a problem with roots under the foundation which w cause g a problem with the tilts supporting the mobil home. He equested that they at least be able to trim the b no es of the rees. Todd Martin st ed that no Monterey ine trees fell in the last storm and th they do not take well severe pruning. Woody Co ink suggested the possibility f trimming the tree and voted t deny the request for removal. Ron gan stated .that he had never seen a bul Monterey Pine fa down. Eve Vigil stated that Monterey Pines just don't to to fall down. Appropriate trimming or thinning should be ac eptable. She felt the tree was a nice specimen and that they would miss TREE COMMITTEE Thursday, May 20, 1993, 12:00 noon Corporation Yard Meeting Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo 1. Review minutes from April 8, 1993 and March 23, 1993 meetings 2. Tree removal requests: 3057 S. Higuera St. , San Luis Obispo. (Chumash Village) 206 Marlene Drive, San Luis Obispo 3395 S. Higuera St. , #52, San Luis Obispo 1846 Pinecove Drive, San Luis Obispo 1122 Laurel Lane, San Luis Obispo 1642 Fairview Street, San Luis Obispo 3 . Old business 4. New business 5. Adjourn uoszo93�a/nn�z Tree Committee Meeting Minutes April 8, 1993 Page 2 The motion passed unanimo The tree was to be posted for ten (10) days before issuance the tree removal permit and a replacement tree was t e re mmended. 206 Marlene Drive (Monterey Pine) Dr. Brown stated that the tree contributed to the skyline, and although it had poor crotch formation, it was in good health. Todd Martin agreed with Dr. Brown; the tree was in good health and was not causing any property damage. Ron Regan considered the tree a specimen tree and felt it was an asset to the neighborhood. Barbara Murphy thought it was a beautiful tree and it was not causing any problem to the retaining wall. Ron Regan moved to vote to deny the request. Barbara Murphy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously to retain the tree. 3. Old Business Arbor Day was discus d briefly. The ce ony was to take place at Laguna Lake Park on aturday, Apri 71 1993 at 10:00 a.m. Ron Regan, Tree Committ Member, a eed to make a presentation at the ceremonies. 4. New Business No new business was di ssed. The meeting ad' rned for judging of he elementary schools art and prose co est entries. The next r lar meeting was scheduled r May 20, 1993 at 12:00 noon tW40893=in/em82 qj'-Y of sWis. OBISPO 4 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tree Removal Application Fora Applicant: K+oIvuA Ie„ .;V- /lam__-e. Telephone: S'fl-Y7!`7 Address: 10 (, Mar” I)r . SG„ "'s o5,94 -Clg. 5SY4S�' Location of tree: /Vor &A. C.Cpre " Tree Species: dbh MOA Botanical name Common ame Reasons. for removing: _ -k'r� i S IC�ocK c•ae1- a,, 2Kit � r.� arm. �A -� �111L 411L I_QI n1-1-A rejc. b., _V-nAck Nkiiin 1 a.11 wnUle + Wi, Compensatory replacement proposed: Consents: T See. 2ndo \e.�ks' wh�rJ� 4s�s o�.rrgtti� 'Applicant/Owner: 1/%"` v / 14c k,_P� rfit-i— Date ��i�o�IaIIIflIIIIiII�III�I�� I LUIS oBispo Cly O S y 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 21, 1993 Richard & Laurie Kriet 206 Marlene Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 The San Luis Obispo Tree Committee has reviewed your application for a tree removal permit. Based on the new information you have provided, the Committee members have again voted unanimously to deny your request. The members felt the tree is in good condition and contributes favorably to the character. of the neighborhood. They also feel the proposed retaining wall can be constructed without causing any "significant" damage to the root system of this tree. As for the roots extending out under your home, these can be pruned without affecting the structural integrity of the tree. The members suggest you explore alternative design options which will allow for retention of this large Monterey pine. This decision is appealable to the City Council should you decide to pursue the matter further. Appeals must be filed within ten days of receiving the Tree Committee's decision. Respectfully, Todd Martin Arborist 206maz1eneJtr/tm2 _l I D PLEASE NOTE EARLY STARTING TIME FOR JUDGING ART 8 PROSE WORK TREE COMMITTEE Thursday, April 81 1993, 10:30 a.m. Corporation Yard Meeting Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo 1. Introduce new Tree Committee member, Ron Regan 2. Judge school Arbor Day art & prose contest submittals 3 . Tree removal requests (begin approximately 12 noon) : 206 Marlene Drive 547 Stanford Drive 4. Old business 5. New business . 6. Adjourn n040e93ngd/tan*2 �I�II " DI Cityo san l�u�s omspo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tree Removal Application Form Applicant: kuyie k161 :E Telephone: c) Address: 2()b hla rl-eye TAr. 5aia- Las 6142 csi7 0 Location of trees: -Bac q oj14. ovt Pafvz`cc`a��u/e Tree Species: dbh �iV1 Botanical name Common name Reasons for removing: IYIST0.L�CCfIf�"VI D-F � �u(h (`'t0 +0 reyrrffi� 'c31(br1 a.Qe i tl 6O d k W Compensatory replacement proposed: Comments: Applicant/Owner•' Date 'T az ��i►�ulli�IIIIIINIiIIIIIIIII�� IUB►VIII I�� 4 SA1 tuts oBispo city 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 9, 1993 Laurie Ann Kriet 206 Marlene. Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear Mrs. Kriet: The San Luis Obispo Tree Committee has reviewed your request for a tree removal permit. upon inspection of the tree in question at 206 Marlene Drive, the members have voted unanimously to deny your request. The Committee members felt the tree was healthy and should be retained. They also believe that a retaining wall could be constructed without removing or harming the large pine if done correctly. If you have any questions regarding the Tree Committee's decision, you may call me at (805")781-7220. Sincerely, Todd Martin City Arborist hiet.1tr �- l3 o(Ite (�3 P April 14th, 1993 Todd Martin City Arborist City of San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Martin: We are in receipt of your letter of April 9th, 1993 regarding the denial of our request to remove a pine tree from our backyard at 206 Marlene Dr. in San-Luis Obispo. To restate the reason for this request, the existing retaining wall is collapsing and needs to be replaced to insure the integrity of the sidewalk and street above it. It is the opinion of the masons that we have discussed the project with that the size of the footings necessary for the wall would damage enough of the root system of the tree that it would likely not survive. In yourletter to us you note that members of the tree committee, " . . . believe that a retaining wall could be constructed without removing or harming the large pine if done correctly". We would appreciate any_ instruction possible from you as to how we can best accomplish this. We; wou'- -prefe-to"`keep ,the .tree: iii place if possible but are concerned that-should it' be damaged by replacement of the wall, and then subsequently fall, that significant injury and/or property damage could result. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. S' cerely; Laurie Kriet 206 Marlene San Luis Obispo,Ca MEETING ITEM # w°E_r TO: CZ ---i El CL-D DIR. El FEN.D1.1 �O Monday July 5th, 1993 A ZCTEY Mi rCL;CE a 1. Mayor Peg Pinard`7 i 1:1 mcm--=- rul FJ n FA D.- E] 990 Palm St. 1P, San Luis Obispo, CA Subject: Appeal of Tree committee decision to deny treei-�EGEIVEL removal request at 206 Marlene Dr. JUL 6 1%3 Dear Ms. Pinard; CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Our appeal of a denial for a tree removal at our residence is to come before the council on Tuesday evening July 6th. We will attend the meeting to discuss this matter with you, however I would like to take the opportunity to familiarize you with the situation prior to the meeting. HISTORY over the past several years a retaining wall in our backyard has leaned progressively further backwards, and as a result there has been slippage of soil and damage to the sidewalk above it. This spring we sought bids from several masons all of whom told us that the work could not be done without injuring the large Monterey Pine which stands above the wall. Given this unanimity of opinion we applied to the City for a tree removal permit. We . received notice that the meeting would take place at noon on April 8th 1993 . We received a call at 10 AM informing us that the meeting time had been changed to 10: 30. We were unable to attend, and on April 13th received notice that our application had been denied. The letter concludes, "If you have any questions regarding the Tree Committee's decision, you may call me. . . " . We promptly wrote a letter, mailed April 14th, restating our concerns and requesting the City Arborist to give us instruction in how the wall could be constructed without harming the tree. When we had not received a reply by April 20th we phoned the City Arborist. He said he could not provide us with this information but would provide us with three names of private arborists. We retained the first of these to return our calls, and the tree was inspected by David Ragan on April 29th. He recommended removal of the tree (see attached letter dated July 1, 1993) . We phoned Mr. Martin and left a message. After an hour without a return call we phoned again and reached him at his desk. When informed of the arborist's reasons for removing the tree he replied, they "don't really matter at this point" as the 10 day appeal period had passed. He informed us that we would have to reapply to the Tree Committee which would turn the request down, and we would then need to appeal to the City Council. He also stated we were "just supposed to know" about the appeal process. We did reapply and also forwarded a letter on May 4th, 1993 outlining the problems encountered to date and suggesting improvements in the process. Interestingly this letter is not included in the Staff Report package we received. In the interim we had consulted with an architect and another mason regarding a drainage problem. They felt the lawn area at the base of the tree should be regraded to direct water away from the house. They also advised that the patio which now slopes towards the house should be removed and regraded. It was also felt that the roots might pose a danger to the foundation of the house. Laurie Kriet attended the meeting and the request was again denied. An appeal to the City Council was then filed. STAFF REPORT PACKAGE We received a package of material apparently compiled by the City Arborist and the Tree Committee. As we feel it is at best inaccurate, and at worst intentionally misleading, we would like to offer the following clarifications and corrections. 1) Council Agenda Report a) Paragraph 2: " (Mr. and Mrs. Kriet had been informed of this change by telephone) " . This is true, but this notification occurred only 30 minutes prior to the new meeting time. b) Paragraph 3: "On April 20, 1993 Todd Martin spoke with Mrs. Kriet. " This occurred only due to our initiation of the conversation. Mr. Martin had not replied to our inquiry. c) Paragraph 3: "On April 29th, 1993 Mr. Kriet phoned and expressed his frustration with the tree removal process" . This is a misrepresentation of the conver- sation. We fully support the .process and ordinance. Our frustration was with the lack of concern and response evidenced by the City staff. We have enclosed a copy of our letter dated May 4th, 1993 which outlines these con- cerns and offers suggested remedies. Your staff apparently neglected to include this with your packet. d) Paragraph 3 : "In discussions with the City Clerk. . ." . This discussion occurred with Todd Martin on April 29th only after we placed a second phone call since he failed to return the first. 2) Letter from Todd Martin dated April 9th, 1993 . a) "They (the Tree Committee) also believe that a retaining wall could be constructed with- out removing or harming the large pine if done correctly. " None of the Masons we have talked with, or the independent Arborist recommended by Mr. Martin concur with this conclusion. Neither Mr. Martin or any Committee member has offered in- struction in how this could be done despite our request that they do so. 3) Tree Committee Meeting Minutes April 8, 1993 . a) The tree is repeatedly referred to as being in "good health" . This assessment conflicts with the private ar- borist's report. Apparently the Committee members and Mr. Martin failed to examine the tree closely enough to note the obvious beetle infestation at its base. 4) Tree Committee Meeting Minutes May .20th, 1993. a) "The applicant, Laurie Kriet, had contacted several arborists who stated they could put in a retaining wall that wouldn't hurt the tree but felt that removing the tree was the best option. " This is inaccurate. We consulted with only one arborist after he was recommended by the City Arborist. His recommendation was to remove the tree due to structural problems, beetle infestation, and damage to nearby structures. (See letter from Dave Ragan. ) ENCLOSURES Please find the following enclosures which we feel con- vincingly argue for the tree's removal. 1) Letter from Dave Ragan, ISA Certified Arborist #345. Mr. Ragan recommends the tree's removal and replacement for the following reasons. a) The yard needs to be regraded due to a drain- age problem. "The placement of a retaining wall and slab to direct runoff will impact a large portion of the root zone" . b) "The yard is not large enough to accommodate a large Monterey Pine" . c) There are multiple problems with the struc- ture of the tree resulting in weak spots. d) The roots are tilting the patio towards the foundation. e) The roots are damaging the sidewalk and street on Patricia Drive. f) The roots are damaging a neighbor's retaining wall. g) The tree is infested by Red Turpentine Beetle's. h) Should a portion of the tree fall there are 112 structures, power lines, and the traffic on Patricia Dr. which are potential targets. " 2) An article titled, "Red Turpentine Beetle, A Pest of Pines", which outlines the problems caused by the insect. Please note that it recommends that damage to the tree's roots be avoided as this lessens the tree's chance of survival. 3) our letter to the City Tree Committee dated May 4th 1993 outlining what we feel were the problems with the application to that date. 4) A petition signed by all our immediate neighbors who all strongly support the tree's removal. SUMMATION Given the material presented we feel it is clear this tree should be removed. Although it is indeed beautiful it is causing significant damage to our property, our neighbor's retaining wall, and the City street and sidewalk. The structure of the tree also argues for its removal as does its infestation with Red Turpentine Beetles. We have contacted all of our immediate neighbors and all strongly supported its removal. If the tree in question were a 200 year old Redwood or Sycamore, or if it was the only representative of the species in the area, I think it could be argued that $10,000- $15,000 in repairs every decade might be justified. In this case however we .are discussing a beetle infested, poorly formed tree, approximately 30 years old. Its loss will certainly change the view from Patricia Dr. but as there are at least 25 other Pines visible from the foot of the tree, and we have 12 other trees on our property, it would be hard to argue seriously that its removal will cause serious, or even noticeable, change to the "urban forest" . Lastly, should your decision force us to retain this tree we would appreciate a letter from the city acknowledging responsibility for any injury or property damage which it may cause in the future. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Luri Ann 4Kret Richard N. Kriet Dave's Tree Service 625 Jameson Ct. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 481-1038 July 1 , 1993 Arborist Report on Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata Kriet Residence 206 Marlene San Luis Obispo This tree removal request originated because a retaining wall was needed to prevent soil erosion in the northwest corner of the backyard. Several of the contractors who looked at the job were concerned about the potential damage to the roots of a large Monterey Pine growing in the northwest corner of the back yard. There is also a drainage problem. The current grade drains the runoff toward the house. There was over 1 ' of water under the house after one of the storms this past winter. There were several electrical lines submerged and it took 8 hours to pump the water out. This tree is approximately 60'-70' with a dbh (diameter at breast height, 4.5' ) of 36.5". This tree is about 40 years old. Monterey Pines will typically grow for around 80 years to a height between 80'-100' . This backyard is not large enough to accommodate a mature Monterey Pine. A close examination of this tree revealed many problems. Three codominant leaders (trunks of similar size) arise at 15' with included bark in the crotches. The included bark prevents proper branch attachment which results in a weak crotch. There is also 1 lower limb which is taking the role of a main leader. This branch is rubbing against one of the main trunks. Monterey Pines are normally an excurrent tree ( 1 central leader) until they reach maturity. The 4 leaders on this tree are not typical of this species. A rope was placed around these 4 trunks many years ago to hold them together. It is girdling about 25% of the circumference on 3 of these trunks. This girdling stops the flow of food and creates a weak spot. The roots are also causing several problems. The slab adjacent to the house has been lifted 1" and is tilted toward the house. An exploratory trench revealed a 4" diameter root growing under the slab toward the foundation 25' from the base of the tree. There may be other roots present. The sidewalk along Patricia Dr. is cracked in 3 places within the dripline. One crack and a seam in the sidewalk have been lifted 1/2". The curb adjacent to *hese cracks is also broken and the gutter has been lifted above the asphalt by 3/4". The roots are damaging the retaining wall at the neighbors, 205 Westmont. There are 2 cracks visible at the base of the block wall. One crack is spreading apart and out. There may be other cracks present but are hidden by the Creeping Fig covering most of the wall. The top of the wall is also being pushed out. There are 5 active Ped Turpentine Beetle sites at the base of the tree. These beetles are usually attracted to stressed trees. They burrow under the bark and lay their eggs. The larvae then tunnel out feeding in the tissue between the bark and the wood (cambium and phloem) . The placement of a retaining wall and slab to redirect the runoff will impact a large portion of the root zone. There are 2 structures, power lines, and the traffic on Patricia Dr. which are potential targets should this tree or a portion of it fail. Due to all the problems associated with this tree I would recommend its removal and replacement with a more desirable species. /5 G .Q At`l3o f-I S�t 3Ys— Red Turpentine Beetle ®A Pest of Pines The red turpentine beetle (Dendrocto- Signs of an Infestation The lump of pitch (called a pitch tube) rlus ualens)bores into the basal part of Three signs that a thas been at- exudes from the tree where a pair of the trunk of pine trees,where it tunnels tacked by red tree e beetles are: beetles have bored in.It is a mixture of tace and breeds beneath the bark,destroy- Y turpentine rewhite- to yellow-colored tree pitch ing portions of the tree.Although this ❑ lumps of pitch (resin), pinkish- and reddish-brown sawdust (called insect,which occurs throughout Cali- brown to whitish in color, on the boring dust,or frass)produced by the fomia, is usually not a serious pest it lower part of the trunk beetles as they bore. At first the pitch- sometimes kills weakened trees, es- ❑ accumulations of reddish-brown boring dust mixture is sticky,but later pecially Monterey pines. "sawdust"at the base of the tree it hardens around the entrance hole and in nearby bark crevices (the hole may not always be visible in ❑ accumulations of cream-to the pitch, however). Borings that don't pinkish-colored crumbly-looking stick to the pitch lodge in bark crevices granules in the same places below the attack site or accumulate on the ground. The crumbly-looking ,• � ,: id�;�S•;; granules, which also accumulate below f the attack site, are hardened bits of pitch. :.• „�; On some trees little or no pitch oozes p ' rr�" out and the most noticeable sign of beetle activity is boring dust or pitch granules. On other trees the mass of .4r' pitch may be up to 2 inches across. o _4 q"�. 'si•ry , Pitch tubes at base of pine tree. Each indicates a site where red turpentine beetles have bored in. Close-up of pitch tube showing beetle entrance hole. •' �_ Division of Agricultural Sciences LEAFLET UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 21055 PRINTED DECEMBER 1978 Description and Life CyclL Kinds of Trees Infested Damage to Trees Red turpentine beetles are reddish- fines, especially Monterey, ponder- When only a lew pairs of lxvilesaunrk brown and approximately 1/4 inch long, osa, and sugar, are the usual host of a tree (the typical situ16011), the feed- making them the largest bark beetles red turpentine beetles; although ing activities of each pair and their in California. Once through the bark, spruce and certain other conifers oc- larval offspring kill a limited an t a female and male mate and together casionally are attacked. Stumps of re- of living tissue, and the tree sei_-.n excavate a tunnel (called a gallery) Gently-cut forest pine trees commonly dies. If, however, enough beetles are between the bark and the wood, leav- become infested because the beetles able to attack a weakened tree so that ingg borings in it as they proceed. The are attracted to them by resin odors. the feeding areas of the larvae overlap gallery,which may groove the surface When red turpentine beetles become around the tree, it will die because it of the wood but which does not ex- numerous in stumps the emerging has been girdled. Because the amount tend into it, is 1/2 to over an inch wide adults may threaten nearby standing of damage the beetles are able to do and is usually linear, extending down- trees, particularly if no new stumps depends on the health of the tree, the ward from the entry hole and ranging are available for them to attack. exact number of attacks required to in length from a few inches to several cause tree death cannot be predicted. feet. However, it may extend upward, or branch, or be an irregular-shaped Characteristics of Infested Trees cavity. The female lays up to 100 or Red turpentine beetles (and other pine Other Bark Beetles Are Important more white eggs in groups along the bark beetles) typically infest stressed Although trees infested only with red sides of the gallery. or dying trees. A pine may be stressed turpentine beetle usually survive, The larvae, which hatch in from 1 to 3 because it is (a) growing on a poor beetle-caused damage further stresses weeks, are legless, white with brown site, (b) has been injured (by fire, the tree.If the upper parts of the trunk ads, and have a small brown area lightning,construction work,etc.), (c) and the large branches then become heads, the rear. The larval offspring of a is infested with other bark beetles, (d) infested with other kinds of bark bee- or pair of beetles tunnel side by side away is nearing the end of its life span, (e)is tles the tree is unlikely to recover. From the place where they hatched, growing too close to other trees,water is suffering from insufficient water or These more damaging bark beetles feeding and growing larger as they from too little or too much of some produce reddish-brown boring dust progress. When fully grown (this takes 2 months or more) they are about s other agent. Vigorous, healthy pines (Ips species)or small pitch tubes(Dol- 2 resist beetles by producing droctomis species)when they attack the inch long and have killed a patch ranging from a few square inches to a abundant amounts of pitch when they upper parts of the tree.A tree infe-'•-d try to bore in. The pitch hampers the with red turpentine beetle doe t square foot or more under the bark. insects' invasion and impedes their The larvae now transform into white development beneath the bark. f pupae. After about a week the pupae Y become adult beetles which stay under Trees next to piles of freshly cut, un seasoned logs frequently are attacked the bark for a week or more, then bore = �. out (leaving small round exit holes) after the beetles have been attracted and fly to other trees to begin a new by resin odors from the logs. If the cycle. If cold weather is approaching, trees are healthy, the beetles usually ;; the adults stay under the bark untgil are unable to become established,and large amounts of pitch may collect at spring. There are one or two cycles the unsuccessful attack sites. Repeated (generations)per year, depending on attacks by red turpentine beetles on the temperature. At high elevations �t beetle development is slower because such a tree may either weaken it to the S y •}�of the cool temperatures, and growth point that eventually an attack becomes E from egg to adult may take 2 years. succesful or leave the tree susceptible to attacks by other kinds of bark beetles. . Adult red to entine beetles attack �¢ trees throughout the warm season. ►' They spend the winter under the bark � ff in the adult or larval stage. .. . �• `t lay , Bark removed to show }} r + . . ,. red turpentine beetle larvae. (` , tt S ,o. 4 "g�� s� Fully grown larvae are about 3/a inch long. Preventwa and Control essarily become infested with other Little can be done to control red tur- spray deposit remains on the bark for k beetips.More commonly, the red pentine beetles once the),are beneath many months, killing beetles that try rte-' ')eetle attacks trees,except the'bark. Insecticides do not penetrate to bore into or out of the tree. Lindane nt pine, already infested with the bark well enough to kill many of applied to an already-infested tree will er bark beetles. For further infor- them and trying to dig them out is prevent additional infestation. tion about these other bark beetles likely to destroy a greater area of the forest stands see U.C. Division of tree than the beetles would if left alone, Use the dilution rate given for pine ricultural Sciences Leaflet 21034, especially if they have been under the bark beetles on the lindane label. Di- irk Beetles in California Forest bark for a while. Anything.that can be lute the concentrate with water rather -es." done to improve the vigor of the tree, than with fuel oil (which some labels such as watering it, may give some list as a possible diluent) because oil e trees may look unhealthy for rea- control by hindering beetle develop- may damage pine needless or nearby .s that have nothing to do with bark mentAmproving the health of the tree vegetation. Knock off any pitch tubes 'ties or other harmful biological will also decrease the likelihood of at- before spraying. Spray the lower 6 to -nts. Sometimes large numbers of tack by other bark beetles. All stresses 8 feet of the trunk only; this will cover idles may become brown and drop. on the tree should be remedied, if pos- the area where beetles try to bore in. .s is a natural process of shedding, sible; however, even if nothing is done Spray thoroughly so that all bark sur- casting, the old needles; it should the tree may survive a red turpentine faces and crevices are covered, apply- cause concern unless new needles beetle infestation. ing enough so that spray runs down he branch tips are turning yellow the bark—this will amount to about 1 Drown. As trees grow taller, or are Good health and vigor in a tree are the gallon of spray per 50 square feet of wing too close together, entire best protection against infestation. bark surface. Make sure that the very ,er branches may die because they Avoid injuring tree roots and trunks. base of the tree and any exposed roots shaded from the sun. This, too, is Do not pile freshly cut unseasoned are covered. atural process. pine,logs, including firewood, near trees. Dispose of branches from pine- Lindane is a long-residual insecticide, tree trimming because their odors so only one application per year is might also attract beetles. Prune weak needed.This can be made at any time, or dying branches. Thin trees that are but early March, before.overwintering growing too close together-it is better beetles begin activity, is particularly lrn f"Jules of pitch at base of young to have a few vigorous trees than many good. nteieyline tree infested with red turpentine beetles. weak, susceptible ones. Do not spray needlessly.A tree with a M.-ar Red turpentine beetle damage to pines few attacks on just one side, or with in forest stands can be minimized by only one attack per foot of tree cir good forest-management practices, 'cumference, is not likely to be cerioush which include selective logging to damaged by red turpentine beetles. remove. trees most likely to become Spraying with lindane should be con- infested (those that are overmature, sidered only a temporary measure; injured,or dying). Freshly cut stumps good management of forest stands and that have become infested can be de- proper maintenance of individual land barked to kill the red turpentine beetles scape trees are preferred methods. in them. .� 4 Injection of trunks of pines with a sys- Trees (and stumps) can be protected temic insecticide for bark beetle con- from attack by red turpentine beetles trot is not recommended. by spraying lindane on the trunk.The NF1 , WARNING ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS y � �� •� . ',...•RS A,, 7 � Pesticides are poisonous. Always read and cartlully follow all precautions and safety recommendations Cr• A♦) t is 1w i• n given on the container label.store all chemicals In their original labeled containers in a locked whine,or ut � ' (�y ' ♦s R., _; 3�—j shed.may from.food or feeds,and out of the reach of children.unauthorlred persons.nis pen,Intl nvnmck. �Sl 9R9� Confine chemicals to the property being treated..Avoid drift onto neighboring properties,especially gardens s•-... L' f containing fruits and/or vegetables ready to be picked. • r A Thinly spread all leftover spray material On the toll whete it cannot mntaminatt crops or standing or .^ : v\ �1•• ° 4. underground water supplies.(Do notpour dorm sink or toilet.)Wrap empiy containers in newspaper and 10 put In the garbage can.Nevar burn pesticide containers. n PHVTOTOXICITY: Certain chemicals'may cause plant 1nlvrY If used et the wrong stage o1 piens development or ;Ella_ JJJ fl A when temperatures are too high..Injury.may also result from eacnslve amounts or the wrong formulaflon or from mixing Incompatible ce Foran. tionnert ingredients.such as wailers,sprctu eden,emuhilkn,dit ents.plant andinjury ytrulysolvents,un i (s ar��((11 oust.plant Inju ry..SinR formulations am often chapped by manufacturers.It Is Possible That plant inyury may occur. )rp even though no Injury was noted in previous seasons, Monterey Pines in the San Francisco Bay Area Monterey pines are native to certain cool, moist coastal areas of San Mateo, Monterey,and northern i San Luis Obispo counties,and are believed to be healthiest there. Monterey pines in other areas, such as inland sections of the San Francisco Bay Area,are at best somewhat stressed because the hot summer temperatures and the soil types found there are not optimal for them. Because bark beetles prefer to attack weakened trees, Monterey pines in such areas are susceptible to the red turpentine beetle and other bark beetles. Monterey pines outside their native area were additionally stressed by the dry weather of the early and mid 1970's,and many became infested with bark beetles and died: t 1 Another factor contributing to the susceptibility of many of these Monterey pines is their age.Trees have a predictable life span and become increasingly unable to resist insects, diseases and other maladies as they age, regardless of the amount of care given them.Trees grown where conditions are not optimal for them show signs of old age earlier than they would otherwise.In the San Francisco Bay{ Area, 20-to 35-year-old Monterey pines which have not received any particular care often have i somewhat flattened tops,a characteristic of slowed growth associated with aging.These trees are more commonly killed than are rapidly growing trees which have a conical Christmas-tree-like appearance at the top. The principal killers of stressed Monterey pines have been Ips bark beetles which begin their attack in the upper parts of the tree.Most commonly,red turpentine beetles do not kill the tree,but contribute to its weakened state. If the tree then becomes infested with Ips, it is unlikely to recover. For information about Ips in Monterey pines see U.C. Division of Agricultural Sciences Leaflet 2617, "Monterey Pine Deaths in the San Francisco Bay Area." Controlling Beetles on Monterey Pine A red turpentine beetle attack on Monterey pine indicates the tree has some other problem, and this problem usually is reduced vigor.Therefore, the concern of the Monterey pine owner should be to return stressed trees toa state of vigorand to maintain them in that condition.Good water management is important,foreven in years of normal rainfall these trees need watering in the summer.Two to three deep waterings during the summer-fall dry season should provide enough moisture to the roots.Apply wateraway from the trunk,near an imaginary line extending down from the outer ends of the branches (the drip line).This is where most of the roots that take up water are located.Too much water around the immediate base of the tree may cause a fungal rot. Removal of nearby moisture-competing plants will make more water available to a tree. One-half to one pound of nitrogen per 400 square feet broadcast around the tree and irrigated into the soil may aid in returning a stressed tree to a more vigorous condition. In addition, follow the other suggestions in this leaflet for maintaining healthy trees.Remember,however, that it may be impossible to provide excellent growing conditions for Monterey pines outside their native area,and that they will become more susceptible to bark beettes as they age. A preventive spray of lindane can be applied to protect a tree from additional attacks until it can be brought into a better state of vigor. Unfortunately, a weak tree which has had many attacks may be beyond saving. If the tree begins to die, it should be removed to prevent additional beetles from breeding in it. Monterey pine owners in particular should be aware that injection of trees with a systemic insecticide for bark beetle control may not be effective and is not recommended. The authors are B.A. Barr, Staff Research Associate, Berkeley;D.L. Hanson, Farm Advisor, San Mateo County; and C.S.Koehler, Urban Pest Management Specialist, Berkeley. To simalify info•mation,wade manes of woducls have been used.No endorsement of named products ' is intended.nor is vilgism implied of s,mdar products which we not menlmned. The University of California Cooperative Extension in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and tshe Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, national origin, sexier mental or physical handicap in any of its programs or activities. Inquiries regarding this policy may be directed to: Affirmative Action Officer, Cooperative Extension, 317 University Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, (415) 642.0903. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, James B. Kendrick, Jr., Director, Cooperative Extension, University of California. 5m-12/78—V L/SL May 4th, 1993 San Luis Obispo Tree Committee 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Committee Members: We would like to take this opportunity to object to the handling of our request to remove the Monterey Pine tree located in the. _back of our lot at 206 Marlene Dr. The following is a brief recap of the events dealing with this request to date. We received notice of your meeting in which this matter was to be discussed with the time listed as approximately twelve noon. At approximately 10 A.M. we were phoned and told that discussion would begin at about 10: 30. We were unable to attend. On April 13th we received a letter from Todd Martin notifying us that our request had been denied. The letter concluded, "If you have any questions regarding the Tree Committee's decision, you may call me. . . " . We promptly wrote a letter restating our concerns and requesting instruction in how to avoid injuring the tree when the needed work was done. When no reply was received by April 20th we phoned Mr. Martin. He recommended that we contact an arborist and provided us with three names. We contacted one of them who inspected the tree on April 29th. His opinion concurred with the masons in that he felt that the work could not be performed without severe injury or death resulting to the tree. He also noted several problems with the tree and its location which he felt also argued for its removal. We phoned Mr. Martin that morning and a message was left. After an hour without a return call we phoned again and reached him at his desk. He informed me that the arborists reasons didn't really matter at this point as we had passed that 10 day appeal limit. Please note that this was the first time that the appeal process had been mentioned to us, and that we had followed all recommendations that had been made. He then told me that, "I know it sounds ridiculous" but that we would have to apply to your committee again, who would then turn the request down, and it would then have to be appealed to the City Council. I then called him later in the day to question the necessity of this process given our letter to him .of April 14th and the lack of notification of our appeal rights. He responded that we had not used the correct form for appeal and that, "you are just supposed to know" about the process. In our last conversation I told Mr. Martin that I had several suggestions for improvement in this process. They are as follows: 1) When the committee sets a specific time for discussion they should stick with it so that applicants can attend. 2) If a request is denied the appeal process should be noted in the letter of denial. If suggestions are made in the denial letter appeal rights should not be lost if they are followed. 3) Mr. Martin should be encouraged to return his mail and phone messages. I appreciate your review of our request. Please notify us of the date of the meeting at your earliest convenience so that we may attend. Given the arborists findings regarding the health and location of the tree we would appreciate a letter from the city assuming responsibility for any damage it might cause if our request is denied. Thank you, / (U G/ RiLchard Kriet 206 Marlene Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 541-4717 We, the undersigned, are neighbors in the immediate proximity of 206 Marlene Drive, San Luis Obispo,CA. We do not object to the proposed removal of the large Monterey Pine tree located in the northeast corner of the backyard. This petition is to be presented to the San Luis Obispo City Council on Tuesday, July 6, 1993 . Name I [ Address V • � 3a 63Z- � Pte _ scU � O a 2K e. r S l, 0 w �� -22oc �