Tree Survey and Arborist Report
For an approximate 17.7-acre Site
On the NE C/O Clinton Keith and Whitewood Roads
In the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, California
Prepared for:
Sancerra
Contact: Adam Smith, Partner
240 Newport Center Dr., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
CalPacific Sciences
George J Wirtes, MS, RCA #738
ISA Certified and ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist
Report Date: October 5, 2022
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Executive Summary ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 Section 2: Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2
2.1 - Project Location and Description ................................ ................................ ....... 2
2.2 - Site and Vicinity Characteristics ................................ ................................ ......... 3
2.3 - Assignment and Scope of Survey ................................ ................................ ...... 5
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment ................................ ............................ 6
2.5 - Hazard Risk Assessment ................................ ................................ ................... 6
2.6 - Local Tree Regulation (City of Murrieta’s Municipal Code 16.42) ....................... 7
2.6.1 - Protected Trees (MMC Section 16.42.050) ................................ ......... 7
2.6.2 - Protected Tree Replacement Standards (MMC Section
16.42.095) ................................ ................................ .......................... 8
2.6.3 - Tree Removal Permit (MMC Section 16.42.070) ................................ . 8
2.7 - Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ................................ ........................ 8 Section 3: Subject Trees and Observations ................................ ................................ .... 10
3.1 - Species Assessment ................................ ................................ ....................... 12
3.2 - Observations ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15 Section 4: Discussion and Recommendations ................................ ............................... 24
4.1 - Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 24
4.2 - Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 24
4.3 - Recommendations ................................ ................................ ........................... 24
4.3.1 - Tree Replacement ................................ ................................ ............. 24
4.3.2 - Trees Preserved ................................ ................................ ................ 25
4.3.3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................ ................................ ... 25
4.3.4 - Tree Protection during Construction ................................ .................. 25 Section 5: Qualifications Of Arborist ................................ ................................ ............... 27 Section 6: References ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 28
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This arborist survey has been performed at the request of Sancerra for a proposed residential development in the City of Murrieta, California. The field survey associated with this report was performed on August 24, 2022.
The subject trees were tagged with an aluminum tag containing a unique number. As part of this survey, details of each tree were recorded, documenting their species, stature, health, local environment as well as the conditions in which they occur.
In all, 116 trees were assessed onsite involving 12 distinct species. The most prominent species onsite were coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), and red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), comprising 73.2% of the trees within the project site. Due to inadequate/improper care and maintenance as well as lack of irrigation, only 74 trees are in good to fair health and condition. The remaining 42 trees show signs of disease, lack of vigor, poor growth form, extensive crowding, etc. necessitating their removal. Of the trees onsite, 111 are considered Protected based on diameter at breast height (DBH), and 70 trees are native (42 coast live oaks*, 1 cottonwood*, 24 Gooding’s willow, and 3 Mexican elderberry), 43 of which (denoted by *) are specifically protected in the City of Murrieta’s Municipal Code (Code) (see Section 2.6.1 below). No other Significant trees occur onsite. Finally, 21 of the trees within the site are considered invasive by Cal-IPC (see Section 3 below).
The City’s Code outlines provisions and guidelines for tree removal, installation, preservation, and maintenance within the City; this is especially important when considering native and special status tree species within the City. Recommended mitigation for living tree removal is replanting in accordance with the Code (see Section 2.6.2 and Appendix B below), or as approved by the City’s Planning Department.
All trees that are intended for removal as part of a project require a removal permit and must be approved by the Planning Director. The Director must approve final mitigation involving replacement tree species and size.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
2.1 - Project Location and Description
The site is located on the NE corner of Whitewood and Clinton Keith Roads; it is 0.9-mile east of Interstate 215, and 2.0-miles west of Highway 79 in the City of Murrieta in the County of Riverside (see Figure 1 below). The proposed project includes the improvement of approximately 17.7 acres to include a residential development with associated infrastructure, streets, and landscaping.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
2.2 - Site and Vicinity Characteristics
The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 1,500 feet above mean sea level (amsl), in the western portion of the site and slopes to the east to 1480 feet amsl. For the vicinity, the Sunset Zone is 18, and the USDA Hardiness Zone is 9b.
USGS describes the geological units belowground as undifferentiated gabbro (mostly hornblende type) from the cretaceous period. As indicated in Table 1 below, four distinct soil series occur within the site boundary. These soil series are described by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as alluvium, derived from granite (see Table 1 below).
Table 1. Soils on Site
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Acres Percent
CaC2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Setting
• Landform: Hills
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
• Down-slope shape: Linear
• Across-slope shape: Linear
• Parent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam
• H2 - 13 to 30 inches: loam
• H3 - 30 to 62 inches: weathered bedrock
1.5 8.5%
CbD2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Setting
• Landform: Hills
• Parent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam
• H2 - 13 to 18 inches: loam
• H3 - 18 to 62 inches: weathered bedrock
10.8 60.8%
CbF2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Setting
• Landform: Hills
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
• Down-slope shape: Concave
• Across-slope shape: Convex
• Parent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam
• H2 - 13 to 18 inches: loam
• H3 - 18 to 62 inches: weathered bedrock
5.1 28.5%
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
LaD2 Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Setting
• Landform: Hills
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
• Down-slope shape: Concave
• Across-slope shape: Convex
• Parent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam
• H2 - 12 to 30 inches: clay loam
• H3 - 30 to 54 inches: weathered bedrock
0.4 2.2%
Totals for Area of Interest 17.7 100.0%
The vegetation communities onsite include chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, mulefat scrub, coast live oak woodland, emergent marsh, and southern willow scrub along with disturbed and ornamental plant communities. The site contains two occupied residential structures and an animal pen.
Plate 1. This is a northern view within the understory of the oak woodland within the northern portion of the property at the ephemeral stream supporting the riparian vegetation
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
2.3 - Assignment and Scope of Survey
CalPacific Sciences (CPS) was assigned to conduct a tree survey and health assessment of all trees within the project area. The survey was performed to identify and enumerate the tree species found within the site, assess their health, and provide insight as to which trees may be retained as part of the planned improvement. A health assessment was performed cataloging the health and stature parameters of each tree onsite. This effort included, but was not limited to; recording total diameter at breast height (DBH) (referred to as DSH in the Code), canopy spread, tree height, apparent disease/decay, other signs of potential hazard, and pest damage. The assessment is not exhaustive, but is a balance between the competing forces of in-depth description and cost effectiveness. The goal was to accumulate enough data to make a judgment as to what role, if any, the existing trees may have in the proposed project.
A potential risk assessment was also conducted keeping public safety in mind. Potential tree failure was heavily considered in the determination to remove or preserve trees onsite, including oak and willow species. These particular species significantly contribute to the functionality of the local riparian system, but safety was the primary concern. Many of the specimens can be preserved if the area is fenced off and inaccessible to people and property once the development has been implemented.
All documentation in this report is in compliance with standards and requirements published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). This report includes recommendations and mitigation measures meant to satisfy all applicable ordinances and permit guidelines.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment
Prior to the field survey, the City of Murrieta’s website was accessed to review specific tree protection guidelines. An aerial photograph was used as a visual guide during the assessment. A handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device and GPS-enabled smartphone with digitized project boundaries were used to identify the location of each subject tree. The crown-width was estimated by pacing, and the height of each subject tree was visually estimated using a tangent height gauge. These data were recorded on field sheets, and associated aluminum numeric tags were affixed to trees on the north side at BH for later reference.
Tree status (relative condition, stature, and health) was conducted by ISA arborist/biologist, George Wirtes from ground level with the aid of binoculars. Canopy spread was assessed by pacing or using a range finder. To estimate wood integrity, a rubber mallet was occasionally used to assess possible decay within the tree stem and flare. As indicated earlier, no invasive procedures were performed. Visual characteristics were recorded on field sheets, and twig/leaf samples as well as digital photographs were taken as needed to assure accurate identification. Overall health and general appearance of each tree was numerically rated (Health/General Appearance Rating - 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poor, 4-Decline/dead) based on the aforementioned conditions. The local environment was also assessed in relation to the tree species and conditions of its location (Local Environment Rating - 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poor, 4-Inappropriate). For this rating, the species was considered in relation to the environment. Other conditions were also considered such as fence lines, utilities, competing canopies, grade cuts/slope, etc.
The position of the subject trees was recorded using a GPS whose data was exported into GIS for periodic illustration over aerial photographs.
2.5 - Hazard Risk Assessment
The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) recommends a Hazard Assessment be included with arborist reports. Such an assessment is an important component of any report and is critical if trees are to be located near public areas such as parks, walkways, residences, and buildings. This tree assessment includes a Level 2 Basic Risk Assessment as defined by ISA Best Management Practices. This type of assessment is limited to evaluating trees and obvious signs of defects such as:
• Dead or broken structures
• Cracks
• Weakly attached branches and co-dominant stems
• Missing or decayed wood
• Unusual tree architecture or distribution
• Obvious loss of root support
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
A risk rating is assigned to each tree based on its defects, aesthetics, apparent health, location and the nearby targets (people or property). As defined by ISA The ratings are defined below:
1. Low - Low-risk category applies when consequences are negligible, and likelihood is unlikely, or consequences are minor, and likelihood is somewhat likely.
2. Moderate - Moderate risk situations are those for which consequences are minor and likelihood is very likely or likely or likelihood is somewhat likely, and the consequences are significant or severe.
3. High - High-risk situations are those for which consequences are significant and likelihood is very likely or likely or Consequences are severe, and likelihood is likely.
4. Extreme - The extreme risk category applies in situations in which failure is imminent and there is a high likelihood of impacting the target and the consequence of the failure is severe. The tree risk assessor should recommend that mitigation measures be taken as soon as possible.
It is impossible to maintain a tree free of risk. A tree is considered hazardous when it has a structural defect that predisposes it to failure, and it is located near a target. • A target is person or property that may sustain potential injury or property damage if a tree or a portion of a tree fails.
• Target areas include sidewalks, walkways, roads, vehicles, structures, playgrounds, or any other area where people are likely to gather.
• Structurally sound and healthy trees may also be hazardous if they interfere with utilities, roadways, walkways, and sidewalks, or if they obstruct motorist vision. • Common hazards include dead and diseased trees, dead branches including bark, stubs from topping cuts, broken branches (hangers), multiple leaders, tight-angled crotches, and an unbalanced crown. Evaluation of risk is as follows: 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poses risk, and 4-Hazardous.
2.6 - Local Tree Regulation (City of Murrieta’s Municipal Code 16.42) The City of Murrieta’s Municipal Code (MMC) 16.42 provides for the preservation of native tree species within the City. Section 16.42.060 reads as follows:
“…no person shall cut down, remove, relocate, or otherwise destroy a Protected Tree without first securing a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Section 16.42.070. Any pruning or trimming of a Protected Tree as authorized under Section 16.42.040.1 shall be conducted in compliance with the guidelines published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).”
2.6.1 - Protected Trees (MMC Section 16.42.050)
The Code outlines the definition of a protected tree as listed below:
• Mature Native Oak Tree / oak (Quercus sp.) species (>4 inches DBH); • Mature Native Tree (>4 inches DBH);
• Mature Tree (>9.5 inches DBH);
• Historically Significant Tree; or,
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
• Any tree required to be planted or preserved as environmental mitigation, or condition of approval for a discretionary permit.
Any preserved trees onsite must follow guidelines as set forth in Section 16.42.090 of the Code.
2.6.2 - Protected Tree Replacement Standards (MMC Section 16.42.095) The Code details guidelines for tree replacement once appropriate permitting has been secured. • A protected tree shall be replaced at a ratio of one-inch DSH of tree replaced for each inch DSH of tree removed.
• Trees planted as replacement trees for native Oak trees or native trees shall be the same species as those removed or a species that is acceptable to the director, with consideration given to species diversity.
• Trees planted as replacement trees for mature trees shall be limited to species that are drought tolerant and ignition-resistant and not deemed to be an invasive species, to the satisfaction of the director.
• The following equivalent sizes shall be used whenever new trees, or combination thereof, are planted (either on-site or off-site) pursuant to a tree replacement plan:
a. A tree in a 15-gallon container equates to a one-inch DSH. b. A tree in a 24-inch box equates to a two-inch DSH.
c. A tree in a 36-inch box or larger equates to a three-inch DSH.
2.6.3 - Tree Removal Permit (MMC Section 16.42.070)
Tree removal permits must include specific parameters and details. With the exception of a discretionary permit by the City, no protected tree shall be removed, cut down, or otherwise destroyed, unless a tree removal permit has been approved by the planning director.
2.7 - Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment
This survey was conducted in a manner that draws upon past education, acquired knowledge, training, experience, and research. It was conducted to the greatest extent feasible, and although the information gathered reduces risk of tree failure/decline, it does not fully remove it. Due to the expanse of the site and nature of the dense willow scrub and coast live oak woodland, there is a potential for tree specimens to have been overlooked or obscured during the field survey associated with this report. However, every effort was made to enumerate every qualifying tree with the site.
No diagnostic testing was performed during this assessment. This survey associated with this Arborist Report included no soil sampling, root excavation, trunk coring/drilling or any other invasive procedure.
The determinations of damage due to pest infestation and decay were made solely on outward appearance and inspection of the tree structures. Not all tree defects may be visible from the ground. Epiphytic growth and debris can also obscure defects on the stem and in the canopy of a tree. Arborists cannot Tree Survey and Arborist Report
detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi and other forces of nature. Many aspects of tree health and environmental conditions are often not detectable (internal decay, poor root anchoring, etc.).
Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time.
The statements made in this report do not take into account the effects of climate/wind extremes, vandalism, or accident (whether physical, chemical, or fire). In addition, this area is known to have periodic, high velocity Santa Ana winds from transient high-pressure ridges CalPacific Sciences cannot, therefore, accept any liability in connection with these factors, or where prescribed work is not carried out in a correct and professional manner in accordance with current ISA good practice. The authority of this report ceases at any stated time limit within it, after one year from the date of the survey (if none stated), when any site conditions change, or after pruning (or other activity) not specified in this report.
The goal of this survey is to recommend measures to limit risk exposure while enhancing the beauty and health of each tree onsite. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations contained within this report, or seek additional advice. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees onsite. Therefore, it is important that a follow up tree assessment be conducted once the project is fully implemented.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 3: SUBJECT TREES AND OBSERVATIONS
During the site survey, specific measurements and parameters of all trees onsite were recorded on tree assessment worksheets; these data have been transferred to the table in Appendix A at the end of this document. In all, 116 trees consisting of 12 distinct species were assessed (see Figure 2 below). The age of the trees onsite ranged from juvenile to senescent and the health from rigorous to in-decline.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
3.1 - Species Assessment
During the survey, tree assessments were conducted according to general ISA and City requirements; GPS waypoints were recorded, as were specific details of each tree. The tree species represented onsite are characterized in detail below (as well as their count/abundance), and a comprehensive table of each specimen’s characteristics is provided in Appendix A of this report. In general, the species onsite were appropriate for the location.
Common Name
Botanical Name Species Profile Qty.
Afghan pine
Pinus eldarica
This species is drought resistant. It is native to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Northern Iran and Northern Iraq and thrives in hot dry climates and poor soils.
Its growth habit is erect or spreading and requires ample growing space. It has a conical Shape with evergreen foliage.
Height: 30 - 80 feet. Width: 15 - 25 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 Inches per Season.
Longevity 50 to 150 years. Exposure Full Sun to Partial Shade.
It tolerates moist to Dry Soil. Its branch Strength Rated as Medium Strong and its root Damage Potential Rated as Moderate. It is susceptible to Aphids. 13 Coast live oak *
Quercus agrifolia
This California native species is a massive but graceful tree. Its habit is spreading or weeping and requires ample growing space. Its form is oval, rounded or umbrella shape with evergreen foliage; it is an important native species.
Height: 20 - 70 feet. Width: 110 feet.
Growth Rate: 24 Inches per Season.
Longevity Greater than 150 years.
It prefers full sun to partial shade and moist to dry loam or sand textured soil. Its branch strength is rated as strong. this species is susceptible to gold spotted oak borer, aphids, beetle borers, beetle grubs, caterpillars, coddling moths, insect galls, scales and white fly, sudden oak death, crown rot, mistletoe, oak root rot, phytophthora, powdery mildew, root rot and sooty mold.
42 Fremont cottonwood *
Populus fremontii
This species is a California native riparian tree from the Salicaceae (willow) family. Its form is Erect or Spreading and requires ample growing space. Its growth form is Oval, Rounded or Umbrella Shape with deciduous foliage.
Height: 40 - 80 feet. Width: 30 - 50 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 Inches per Season.
Longevity 40 to 150 years. Exposure Full Sun.
It prefers wet to dry soil with a loam or sand texture. Its branch strength is rated as weak and root damage potential is rated as high.
1 Goodding's black willow *
Salix gooddingii
This tree is from the Salicaceae (willow) family and is native to the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. It grows in moist and wet habitat in many types of habitats from mountains to the desert. It is a common riparian species.
Native to Southwestern United States. Needs ample water. Trees may be referred to as male or female. Has Deciduous foliage.
Height: 15 - 25 feet. Width: 15 - 25 feet.
Growth Rate: 24 to 36 Inches per Year. Longevity Less than 50 years.
Sunset Zones 7 - 9 and 14 - 17. USDA Hardiness Zones 6 - 10.
Exposure Full Sun to Partial Shade. Wet to Moist Soil.
Clay, Loam or Sand Texture. Branch Strength Rated as Weak.
Root Damage Potential Rated as Moderate. Susceptible to Aphids, Beetle Borers, Caterpillars and Spider Mites, Anthracnose, Willow Blight, Oak Root Rot, Phytophthora, Root Rot, Rust and Sooty Mold.
24 Honey locust
Gleditsia triacanthos
This tree is native to Eastern and Central North America. It is a deciduous tree in the Fabaceae family, native to central North America where it is mostly found in the moist soil of river valleys. These trees may be referred to as male or female.
Has Deciduous foliage.
Height: 35 - 70 feet. Width: 25 - 35 feet.
1 Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Growth Rate: 36 or More Inches per Year.
Longevity 50 to 150 years or more. Sunset Zones 1 - 16 and 18 - 20.
USDA Hardiness Zones 3 - 7.
Exposure Full Sun to Partial Shade.
Wet to Dry Soil. Drought tolerant.
Loam or Sand Texture. Branch Strength Rated as Medium. Root Damage Potential Rated as Moderate.
Kurrajong (bottle tree)
Brachychiton populneus
This tree species is drought tolerant and is from the Malvaceae (mallow) family.
It is a medium size tree native to Australia and found in a variety of semi-arid habitats. The SelecTree water use rating is Medium. The preferred Sunset zones include 12 – 24, and USDA zones are 8 – 11. It tolerates Full-sun exposure and Soil textures from Loam to Sand with a Soil pH of Slightly Acidic to Very Alkaline. This tree can reach a Maximum height of 50 feet with a canopy width of up to 30 feet. Its growth rate is approximately 24 inches per year. Its branch strength is rated as medium weak, and its Root damage potential is rated as Moderate. It is susceptible to Root Rot and Invasive Shot Hole Borer Disease, but is resistant to Armillaria.
1 Lemon-Scented Gum
Corymbia citriodora
This species from the Myrtaceae (myrtle) family is endemic to north-eastern Australia and smog tolerant. Bark can be a litter problem. Its habit is erect or spreading and requires ample growing space. It has evergreen foliage.
Height: 80 - 160 feet. Width: 50 - 100 feet.
Growth rate: 36 or more inches per season.
Longevity 50 to wet to dry soil. 150 years.
This species is susceptible to beetle borers and thrip, oak root rot, phytophthora and root rot. Branch strength rated as medium and root damage potential rated is moderate.
2 Mexican Elderberry *
Sambucus mexicana
This plant from the Adoxaceae (moschatel) family is typically a large shrub or small tree with multiple trunks and dark green leaves. Blue Elderberry is a beautiful shrub, or tree, that produces edible fruit and is loved by wildlife. The leaves are a lighter shade of medium green, having small serrated edges around the tips. Elderberry can adapt to most any climate and soil conditions, though some irrigation is needed to establish. This species is fast growing.
USDA Hardiness Zones 6 - 10
Height 25'-30' Width: 6-24 feet.
The berries can be used for jams and jellies, juices and wines, but be sure to make sure you select nice ripe berries. The leaves, stems and bark of Elderberry are poisonous. Elderberry has also been used extensively in medicinal treatments. 3 Mexican Fan Palm **
Washingtonia robusta
This species tolerates drought conditions. Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) classifies the invasiveness of this plant as moderate. It is from the Arecaceae (palm) family and is native to Northwestern Mexico, Sonora, and Baja California. Erect and requires ample growing space. It has a fan Palm Shape with evergreen foliage.
Height: 80 - 100 feet. Width: 10 - 15 feet. Growth Rate: 36 - 127 inches per Season. This species grows well in Sunset Zones: 8 - 24, H1, H2 and USDA zones: 9 – 11.
Longevity 50 to 150 years.
It tolerates full sun to partial shade with wet to dry loam or sand textured soil. It is susceptible to beetle borers. Its branch strength is rated as medium strong and root damage potential is rated as moderate.
1 Peruvian pepper **
Schinus molle
This large tree species is part of the Anacardiaceae (cashew) family. It tolerates saline soil and smog. Susceptible to Texas root rot, especially in desert. Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) classifies the invasiveness of this plant as limited. It is native to Northern South America and has Evergreen foliage.
Height: 25 - 50 feet. Width: 25 - 40 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 Inches per Season. Longevity 50 to 150 years.
This species tolerates full sun and it prefers partial shade and moist to dry soil. It is drought tolerant and can be planted in clay, loam or sand textured soils.
Susceptible to aphids, psyllid, scales and thrip, phytophthora, root rot, sooty mold and verticillium. Its branch strength is rated as medium weak and root damage potential is rated as high.
1 Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Red River Gum **
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
This species is native to Australia. Its bark and twigs can be a litter problem. Cal- IPC (California invasive plant council) classifies the invasiveness of this plant as limited. Its growth habit is erect or spreading and requires ample growing space.
This species has evergreen foliage.
Height: 45 - 150 feet. Width: 45 - 105 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 or More Inches per Season.
Longevity 50 to 150 years. Exposure Full Sun to Partial Shade.
This species prefers wet to dry soil and is drought tolerant.
It prefers clay, loam or sand textured soil. It is susceptible to beetle borers, oak root rot and root rot. Its branch strength rated as medium and root damage potential rated as moderate.
19 Silver dollar gum
Eucalyptus polyanthemos
This species is native to Southeastern Australia and is from the Myrtaceae (myrtle) family. Its growth habit is erect or spreading and requires ample growing space. It typically has an oval Shape with evergreen foliage.
Height: 30 - 75 feet. Width: 15 - 45 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 or More Inches per Season.
Longevity 50 to 150 years.
It tolerates exposure to full sun to partial shade and wet to dry soil. It is drought tolerant and tolerates clay, loam or sand texture. Susceptible to beetle borers, oak root rot and root rot. Its branch strength rated as medium and its root damage potential rated as moderate.
8 * California native tree species
** Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) invasive tree species Source: UFEI 2022
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
3.2 - Observations
During the tree survey associated with this report, many observations relating to tree health, structure, and local environment were noted. Many of the noteworthy instances are provided in the plates below.
Plate 2. This is a view of internal decay within a failed branch of a tree (#854).
Plate 3. This is a view of a stem intermingled within the understory of the dense willow scrub (#859).
Plate 4. This is a view of foliage with possible
anthracnose (#865).
Plate 5. This is a view of multi-stem tree where one
stem has succumbed to borers as evidenced by the
galleries (#869).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 6. This is a view of epicormic stump sprouting
from a dead stem (#872).
Plate 7. This is a view of a tree supporting a treehouse (#894).
Plate 8. This is a view of herbivory within the foliage of a tree (#873).
Plate 9. This is a view of an epicormic flare sprouter
with bore holes and decay (#875).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 10. This is a view of upper canopy dieback (#875).
Plate 11. This is a view of a multi-stem tree with poor crotch formation (#842).
Plate 12. This is a view of psyllid lerps on the surface of the foliage of a tree (#883).
Plate 13. This is a view of mecahnical damage
stemming from a structure built in a tree (#897).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 14. This is a view of what appears to be an
unclosed branch cut with decayed callus tissue (#899).
Plate 15. This is a view of decay and exudation within a stem (#901).
Plate 16. This is a view of a tree in decline with upper canopy dieback (#898).
Plate 17. This is a view of a tree in decline with poor aesthetics (#822).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 18. This is a view of a large, horizontal branch that has failed due to internal decay (#805).
Plate 19. This is a view of included bark at the crotch of codominant stems (#808).
Plate 20. This is a view of two stems with interlaced
root crowns, likely from rhizomatic sprouting. (#805).
Plate 21. This is a view of significant internal decay
within a primary branch (#805).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 22. This is a view of a failed branch revealing
internal decay within a stem of a tree (#823).
Plate 23. This is a view of a tree with significant lean (#893).
Plate 24. This is a view of a failed central stem (#829).
Plate 25. This is a view of canopy dieback (#830).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 26. This is a view of a deep canker within the stem of a tree (#834).
Plate 27. This is a view of a poorly formed flare and
root crown of a tree (#832).
Plate 28. This is a view of competing canopies with
lower canopy dieback (#851).
Plate 29. This is a view of a failed primary branch
(#852).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 30. This is a northeastern aerial view of oak woodland (from the top-left) transitioning to willow scrub (bottom-right) within the property.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Plate 31. This is a southeastern aerial view of ornamental trees forming windrows within the property.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 4: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 - Conclusion
As indicated, 116 trees were assessed within the project site involving 12 distinct species. The most prominent species onsite were coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), and red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), comprising 73.2% of the trees within the project site. Due to inadequate/improper care and maintenance as well as lack of irrigation, only 74 trees are in good to fair health and condition. The remaining 42 trees show signs of disease, lack of vigor, poor growth form, extensive crowding, etc. necessitating their removal to promote public safety.
Of the trees onsite, 111 are considered Protected (see Section 2.6.1 above) based their DBH (DSH as referred to in the Code), and 70 trees are native to California (42 coast live oaks*, 1 cottonwood*, 24 Gooding’s willow, and 3 Mexican elderberry), 43 of which (denoted by *) are specifically protected in the Code. No other Significant, or Specimen trees occur onsite. Finally, 21 of the trees within the site are considered invasive by Cal-IPC (see Section 3.1 above).
4.2 - Discussion
As indicated early, the scope of this assessment was to determine the number, type, and health, and condition of each tree within the project boundary. As part of this effort, a preliminary risk assessment was performed keeping public safety in mind given the future development planned for the site. The site contains functional, sensitive coast live oak and willow scrub habitat. Many specimens within these plant communities are simply not fit to be part of a residential development with frequent pedestrian traffic, and the decision was made to remove them in light of this potential. However, the trees within these communities significantly contribute to the community despite their condition, even if they are in severe decline or are dead snags.
4.3 - Recommendations
4.3.1 - Tree Replacement
The City’s Municipal Code provides for special status (Protected) and non-status tree replacement as shown in Section 2.6 above. A total of 111 trees qualify as Protected based on the definition within the Code. Tree viability (health, vigor, growth form, etc.) directly affects the mitigation requirement within the Code for any tree removal and replacement (mitigation). Appendix A below includes a letter grade rating as well as a special status indication (if any) for each tree located within the project site.
Recommended mitigation for special status and non-status living tree removal is replanting in accordance with the Code (see Section 2.6.2 above), or as approved by the City’s Planning department (once a permit has been acquired).
If approved by the City’s planning director, the following mitigation measures may be considered as a component of the final mitigation:
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
• Pay an in-lieu fee for each oak removed or at a ratio for oak woodland acreage impacted (fee shall be determined by the planning director), and the funds set aside in a pre-determined trust with the objective to purchase off-site oak woodland and provide maintenance for an existing , local oak woodland.
• Pay a m onetary contribution (amount determined by the planning director) to an oak woodland conservation organization serving the local area or Southern Califo rnia. An example of such an organization is California Oaks (https://californiaoaks.org/), or University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (https://ucanr.edu/).
• Any combination of the measures detailed above
Removal of any trees must be preceded by authorization from the City’s Planning Department.
4.3.2 - Trees Preserved
Removal of living, native and non-native trees may result a biological impact. If it is decided to preserve any trees onsite, an ongoing maintenance and monitoring are recommended as well as a post-development assessment by an ISA-certified arborist; this is to ensure public safety and minimize liability due to potential tree failure. Strategic pruning compliant with ISA standards must be performed to subordinate non-primary, codominant stems, and canopy deadwood should be removed. Bracing is also warranted in many circumstances. Regular care and maintenance are recommended according to ISA standards. As indicated above, many of the red river gums onsite are infested by psyllid lerps and must be treated if preserved.
4.3.3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and CDFG Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions.
4.3.4 - Tree Protection during Construction
Building/grading near trees requires that they are healthy at the start of the project for the stand to recover well. Some older trees have little tolerance for root damage or other stress factors. Younger, more vital trees are more tolerant of changes in their surroundings. However, each change in soil compaction, irrigation, under plantings, and other condition takes some of an older tree’s strength and vigor and further diminishes its health. The main stresses and risks of construction are:
• Soil compaction
• Lack of water or changes in the site hydrology
• Change of grade in the root zone
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
• Physical damage to tree roots and structure
• Dumping of potentially toxic construction wastes
• Lack of pest control and other care
• Dust
• Human error
Mature trees take a long time to heal from, or respond to, injury. It could take 10 years for some trees to make a visible improvement in health after construction impacts occur. On the other hand, it could take 10 years for a tree to visibly start declining after cutting roots, compacting the soil, or raising the grade.
Measures within the City's municipal code supersede any conflicting guidelines below.
1. Dripline fencing must be placed a minimum of 1 foot in radius from the tree per 1 inch of diameter at breast height (for example, 6-inch trunk = 6 feet protection radius/12 feet diameter).
2. Dripline fencing must be erected so that it is visible and structurally sound enough to deter construction equipment, foot traffic, and the storing of equipment under tree canopies.
3. Raising or lowering the grade in the root zone of trees can be fatal or ruin the health of trees for years to come. Grade change and soil compaction force out the oxygen and literally press the life out of the soil. A retaining wall can be used to minimize the amount of the root zone that is affected, but it is essential that the footing is not continuous. Gravel and aeration pipes should be placed inside the retaining wall before the fill is placed. Consult with a qualified civil engineer for proper design calculations.
4. Trenching within the protection zone must be avoided wherever possible. Most of the roots are in the top 1 to 2 feet of soil, and trenching can sever a large percentage of roots.
5. Oil from construction equipment, cement, concrete washout, acid washes, paint, and solvents are toxic to tree roots. Signs should be posted on the fencing around trees notifying contractors of the fines for dumping. Portable latrines that are washed out with strong detergents can damage the fine roots of the trees. Portable latrines should not be placed near trees, nor where frequent and regular foot traffic to them will compact the soil below the trees.
6. Construction creates large amounts of dust, and the oaks and any other trees to be preserved will need to be kept clean. Dust reduces photosynthesis on all trees. Strict dust control measures must be implemented during construction to minimize this impact, and an occasional rinsing with a solution of water and insecticidal soap will help control pests.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 5: QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBORIST
Mr. Wirtes is a Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture (CH-08084) and a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Mr. Wirtes was certified in November of 2005 and has conducted numerous tree assessments for residential properties that involve oak and other tree species. Most notably, Mr. Wirtes has created an oak regeneration plan for a 2.3-acre project site in Ventura County as mitigation within a specific plan development. He has performed numerous tree surveys is Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties on sites with as many as 400 trees. Mr.
Wirtes’ education includes a Bachelor of Science in Biology and a Master of Science in Environmental Science from California State University at Fullerton.
I certify that the details stated herein this report are true and accurate:
________________________________________________________________ George Wirtes, MS
ISA Certified Arborist, CH-08084
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
SECTION 6: REFERENCES
Calflora. 2022. Website at http://www.calflora.org.
Cal-IPC 2022. Website at https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ City of Murrieta, 2022. Municipal Code posted on website:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-27143 Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2022. Website at http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ University of California, 2020. California Tree Failure Report Program website at http://ucanr.edu/sites/treefail/
University of Florida Environmental Horticulture Department 2022. Website at http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/
UFEI, 2022. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute website at https://selectree.calpoly.edu/ Virginia Tech, Dendrology Dept. 2022. Website at
http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/dendrology/main.htm
WRA Environmental Consultants, 2022. Habitat Assessment “Figure 4. Vegetation Communities within Project Area”. August 2022.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Appendix A - Tree Species Observed
Note - This tree survey and the details recorded below are meant to characterize the trees within the property. The assessment is not exhaustive, but is a balance between the competing forces of in-depth description and cost effectiveness. The goal was to accumulate enough data to make a judgment as to what role, if any, the existing trees may have in the proposed project.
Tree Tag # Species1
DBH (inches)
Protected
Gen App
Env
Risk
Conclusion Grade 1st Trunk 2nd Trunk 3rd Trunk 4th Trunk 5th Trunk 6th Trunk Total 801 Gooding's willow 8 6 7 21 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor, Bush form
802 Gooding's willow 8 7 5 20 P 3 3 2-3 Remove D
Dead limbs
803 Coast Live Oak 8 8 P 2-3 3 2 Preserve C-
Sweep lean due to competing canopy, Decreased canopy development
804 Coast Live Oak 20 20 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C- Poor form, some included bark at crotch, Brace and evaluate if preserving
805 Coast Live Oak 18 23 41 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C- Broken Limb, On bank of creek, Decay beneath limb, Co-dominant stems
806 Coast Live Oak 4 4 P 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve C- Sweep lean, Fair vigor
807 Coast Live Oak 7 7 P 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve C- Sweet lean, good vigor
808 Coast Live Oak 10 15 25 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C- Sweep lean, Crowded canopy, Included bark
809 Coast Live Oak 14 14 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C- Included bark, Co-dominant stems, Brace if keeping
810 Gooding's willow 19 19 P 3 3-4 3-4 Remove D Severe decay, Increased liability
811 Gooding's willow 22 22 P 3 2-3 3 Remove D Upper canopy deadwood, Decline
812 Coast Live Oak 7.5 7.5 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Sweep lean, Offset canopy, Crowded canopy
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
813 Coast Live Oak 4.5 4.5 P 2-3 3 2 Preserve C Sweep lean, Crowded canopy, Poor growth form
814 Gooding's willow 15 16 31 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C Co-dominant, Brace if keeping, Prune for safety
815 Coast Live Oak 9 9 P 2 2-3 2 Preserve B
Sweet lean, Crowded canopy
816 Coast Live Oak 11 11 P 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve C Good vigor, Crowded canopy
817 Coast Live Oak 9 9 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Crowded canopy, good form and vigor, Basal branch
818 Coast Live Oak 6 6 P 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve C Offset canopy, good vigor
819 Coast Live Oak 6 6 P 1-2 1-2 1-2 Preserve B+ Good form and vigor
UT1 Coast Live Oak 11 11 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
820 Coast Live Oak 3 1.5 4.5 P 1-2 2 2 Preserve B+ Good vigor, Crowded canopy, juvenile?
821 Mexican Elderberry 11 11 P 3-4 3 3 Remove D- Increased decay, Poor form, Vigor ok
822 Mexican Elderberry 9 5 14 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Decreased vigor, Decline, Broken branches
823 Mexican Elderberry 6 6 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Internal decay
824 Honey Locust 4 5 5 5 4 4 27 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
825 Afghan Pine 11 11 P 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve C- Lean, Poor flare development, Young
826 Afghan Pine 8 8 2 2 2 Preserve B
Crowded canopy, good form and vigor
827 Afghan Pine 17 17 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve B- Crowded canopy, good form and vigor
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
828 Afghan Pine 11 11 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve B- Crowded canopy, good form and vigor
829 Red River Gum 3 2 2 2 2 11 P 3-4 3-4 3 Remove D-
Stump sprouter, Borers, Decline
830 Red River Gum 4 3 7 3-4 3-4 3-4 Remove D- Decline, Many dead limbs
831 Coast Live Oak 6 7 13 P 1-2 2-3 2 Preserve B Included bark
832 Coast Live Oak 4 4 P 2 3 3-4 Remove D
Embedded in bark, Poor root structure, good vigor
833 Coast Live Oak 6 7 13 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
834 Gooding's willow 9 9 P 3 3 3-4 Remove D
Increased decay, good vigor
835 Gooding's willow 7 7 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
836 Gooding's willow 16 16 P 2 3 3 Remove D
Poor form, Lateral stem
837 Gooding's willow 16 16 P 2-3 2-3 3 Remove D+ Increased decay on stem, not totally visible
838 Coast Live Oak 8 8 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
839 Gooding's willow 8 9 11 28 P 2-3 2-3 3 Remove D Many broken limbs, Trim if keeping, Increased liability
840 Gooding's willow 12 9 6 27 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Sprouters, Good form and vigor
841 Gooding's willow 8 8 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Good form and vigor
842 Gooding's willow 9 8 8 6 9 40 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Decline, Upper canopy dead wood/ Dieback
843 Gooding's willow 11 11 P 3 2-3 2-3 Remove D Fair vigor, Upper canopy dead wood, Decline
844 Gooding's willow 4 3 P 3-4 3-4 3-4 Remove D- Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Steep decline, Dead stems
845 Gooding's willow 13 13 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Decay and Borers, Lean
846 Gooding's willow 12 9 21 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Top of stem failed, Severe decline, Rhyzomous sprouters
847 Gooding's willow 14 14 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Poor form, Crowded canopy
848 Silver Dollar Gum 18 18 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve C+ Good form and vigor
849 Gooding's willow 9 8 7 24 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Decline, Multi-stem, Poor form
850 Gooding's willow 6.5 8 14.5 P 3 3 3 Remove D Failed limb, Die back
851 Gooding's willow 6.5 6.5 P 3 3 3 Remove D Poor form, Die back, Decline
852 Cotton Wood 27 27 P 2-3 2 3 Remove C
Failed limb, Borers, Upper canopy dead wood, Increased liability
853 Coast Live Oak 6 6 P 2 2-3 2 Preserve B
Crowded canopy, Poor canopy development, Juvenile,
854 Gooding's willow 14 14 28 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Internal decay, Increased liability, Poor form
855 Coast Live Oak 8 8 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
856 Coast Live Oak 4 4 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Adjacent to another juvenile, good vigor
857 Gooding's willow 16 17 16 49 P 3 3 3 Remove D Failed stem, Poor growth form
858 Coast Live Oak 17 17 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good vigor
859 Coast Live Oak 13 13 P 2-3 3 3 Remove D+
Poor growth form, Lean
UT2 Gooding's willow 10 10 P 2-3 2-3 3 Remove D+ Poor form
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
860 Coast Live Oak 6 6 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Lean
861 Coast Live Oak 12 8 20 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor, Co-dominant
862 Coast Live Oak 4 4 P 2 3 2-3 Preserve B-
At fence, Crowded canopy, Lean
863 Coast Live Oak 9 9 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve B- Sweep lean, Crowded canopy
864 Coast Live Oak 4 4 P 1-2 1-2 1-2 Preserve B+ Good form and vigor, Eroded root foundation
865 Coast Live Oak 10 10 P 1-2 1-2 1-2 Preserve B+ Sweep lean, Crowded canopy
866 Coast Live Oak 7 7 P 1-2 1-2 1-2 Preserve B+ Sweep lean, Crowded canopy
867 Coast Live Oak 11 11 P 1-2 2-3 2 Preserve B+ sweep lean, Crowded canopy
868 Bottle Tree 10 10 P 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve C- Vigor is fair to poor; Upper canopy die back
869 Silver Dollar Gum 11 6 4 21 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Dead secondary stem with borer galleries, Vigor is fair
870 Lemon Scented Gum 17 17 P 2 2 2 Preserve B Good form and vigor
871 Silver Dollar Gum 16 16 P 2-3 3 3-4 Remove C Substantial lean-to East, Increased liability, Lifted foot wall
872 Silver Dollar Gum 2 2 4 3-4 3-4 3 Remove D- Dead primary stem, Volunteer basal sprouters
873 Silver Dollar Gum 6 5.5 11 3-4 3 3 Remove D- Dead primary stem, Herbivory
874 Red River Gum 9 4 13 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Lean, Upper canopy dead wood, Poor prognosis
875 Silver Dollar Gum 5.5 2 7.5 3 3 3 Remove D Co-dominant, Dead secondary stem, Crowded canopy
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
876 Red River Gum 13 13 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor, Herbivory
877 Red River Gum 13.5 13.5 P 2 2 2 Preserve B Good form and vigor, Minor lower canopy dead wood
878 Red River Gum 13.5 13.5 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve B- Good vigor, Lean
879 Afghan Pine 23 23 P 2-3 3 3 Preserve C-
Co-dominant, Brace if keeping, good form and vigor
880 Afghan Pine 19 19 P 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve C- Good vigor, Lean to North
881 Silver Dollar Gum 10 10 8 6 34 P 3 3 3 Remove D Borers, Decreased vigor
882 Silver Dollar Gum 3 3 4 3 2 15 3 3 3 Remove D
Dead primary stem, Basal sprouters
883 Red River Gum 6 4 10 3 3 3 Remove D
Harvested stem, Stump sprouter
884 Red River Gum 15.5 15.5 P 3 2-3 2-3 Remove D Decline, Decreased aesthetics
885 Afghan Pine 15 15 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C- Good form, Fair vigor
886 Afghan Pine 17.5 17.5 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
887 Afghan Pine 17 17 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
888 Coast Live Oak 4 2.5 6.5 P 3 2-3 2 Preserve C- Dead stump sprouter, can save, young tree
889 Red River Gum 18 18 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove D+ Some upper canopy decay
890 Coast Live Oak 4 2 6 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor, Included bark
891 Red River Gum 21 21 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Increased upper canopy dead wood, Decline
892 Afghan Pine 9 12 21 P 3 2-3 3-4 Remove D-
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Lean, Crowded canopy, Dead upper meristem
893 Afghan Pine 11 11 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
894 Red River Gum 26 26 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Tree house
895 Red River Gum 9 10 19 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Tree house, Brace & Subordinate, Co-dominant stem
896 Afghan Pine 13 13 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
Good form and vigor
897 Red River Gum 15 15 P 3 2-3 2-3 Remove D+ Much damage, good vigor despite tree house
898 Red River Gum 12 12 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Steep decline
899 Red River Gum 8.5 8.5 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Good vigor, Crowded canopy
900 Red River Gum 18 18 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C- Good vigor, Crowded canopy
901 Red River Gum 15 15 P 3 3 3 Remove D
Lean, Multiple cankers
902 Lemon Scented Gum 11 11 P 2 2 2 Preserve B Good form and vigor
903 Mexican Fan Palm 13 13 P 2 2 2 Preserve B Good form and vigor
904 Coast Live Oak 8 5 13 P 2 3 2-3 Preserve B- Poor form, Juvenile, Good vigor
905 Coast Live Oak 4 2.5 6.5 P 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve C Good vigor, Co-dominant stems, Some decay at base
906 Red River Gum 13 14 27 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Good form and vigor
907 Red River Gum 13 12 25 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Good form and vigor
908 Peruvian Pepper 9 9 8 26 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Multi-stem, good vigor
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
909 Afghan Pine 15 15 P 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve C Good vigor, Lean due to competing canopy
910 Coast Live Oak 5.5 4 9.5 P 2 2 2 Preserve B In drainage, Bricks at base
911 Coast Live Oak 6.5 6.5 P 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve B- At fence, Lean, Crowded canopy
912 Coast Live Oak 3 3.5 6.5 P 2 2-3 2 Preserve B- Included bark, good vigor
913 Coast Live Oak 9 9 P 2 2 2 Preserve B
914 Coast Live Oak 2.5 1.5 4 P 2 2 1 Preserve B+ Good form and vigor, Co-dominant
Tree Survey and Arborist Report