HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
For an approximate 14.8-acre Site
On the NW C/O Live Oak and Santa Ana Avenues
In the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, California
Prepared for:
EPD Solutions
Contact: Brooke Blandino, Project Manager
2355 Main Street | Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
Prepared by:
CalPacific Sciences
George J Wirtes, MS, RCA #738
ISA Certified Arborist
Report Date: July 1, 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 ..................................................................................... 3
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment ............................................................................ 4
2.5 - Hazard Risk Assessment ................................................................................................... 4
2.6 - Local Tree Regulation (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28:61-75) ............................... 5
2.6.1 - Tree replacement or relocation (Sec. 28-67) ..................................................... 6
2.7 - Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ....................................................................... 7
Section 3: Subject Trees and Observations ........................................................................................ 8
3.1 - Species Assessment ......................................................................................................... 10
3.2 - Observations.................................................................................................................... 11
Section 4: Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 16
4.1 - Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 - Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 - Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 - Tree Replacement ........................................................................................... 16
4.3.2 - Trees Preserved ............................................................................................... 16
4.3.3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act .............................................................................. 17
4.3.4 - Tree Protection during Construction ............................................................... 17
Section 5: Qualifications Of Arborist ............................................................................................... 18
Section 6: References .......................................................................................................................... 19
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 1
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This arborist survey has been performed at the request of EPD Solutions for a proposed commercial
development in the City of Fontana, California. The field survey associated with this report was
performed on June 30, 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, 25 trees were assessed onsite involving two distinct species. The most prominent species onsite
was tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), comprising 52.0% of the trees within the project site. Due to
inadequate care and maintenance as well as aggressive volunteer sprouting, only six trees are in good to
fair health and condition. The remaining 19 trees show signs of disease, lack of vigor, poor growth form,
extensive crowding, etc. necessitating their removal. In addition, all the trees within the site are
considered invasive by Cal-IPC (see Section 3 below); this may be factored in the final mitigation for the
trees impacted by the proposed project. No trees within the site qualify as Heritage, Significant, or
Specimen trees.
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code (Section 2.6.1 below) 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 2.6.1 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
Page 2
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
2.1 - Project Location and Description
The site is located on the NE corner of Live Oak and Santa Ana Avenues; it is 3.7 miles east of Interstate
15, and 0.5 mile south of Interstate 10 in the City of Fontana in the County of San Bernardino (see Figure
1 below). The proposed project includes the improvement approximately 14.8 acres to a commercial
facility with associated infrastructure, parking, and landscaping.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 3
2.2 - Site and Vicinity Characteristics
The elevation of the site is approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level, and the terrain slopes gently to
the southwest. For the vicinity, the Sunset Zone is 18, and the USDA Hardiness Zone is 9b. USGS
describes the geological units below as Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the Pleistocene to
Holocene period. As indicated in Table 1 below, one distinct soil series occurs within the site boundary.
This soil series is 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
TuB Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Setting
• Landform: Alluvial fans
• Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
• A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
• C1 - 6 to 18 inches: loamy sand
• C2 - 18 to 60 inches: loamy sand
14.8 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 14.8 100.0%
The vegetation community onsite includes non-native ornamental trees and vegetation as well as
bareground. The site contains several structures related to a tractor/trailer truck yard.
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 the different tree species found within the project
boundary, 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 included, but was not limited to; recording total diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy
spread, tree height, apparent disease/decay, other signs of potential hazard, and pest damage. A potential
risk assessment was also conducted keeping public safety in mind. 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
Page 4
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment
Prior to the field survey, the City of Fontana’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. 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
Page 5
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 (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28:61-75)
Chapter 28.61-75 of the FMC (or Code) addresses tree protection, maintenance, and replacement policies.
It outlines special status trees, such as a “Heritage tree”, “Significant tree”, and “Specimen tree” and the
procedures necessary to replacing them within a property. As stated in the City’s Code, “Except as
provided in section 28-65, no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant or
specimen tree unless a tree removal permit is first obtained.”
Heritage tree means any tree which:
1. Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
2. Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
3. Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
4. Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 6
Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted in a closely
spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection of property and/or
agricultural crops.
Significant tree means any tree that is one of the following species:
Genus/species Common name
• Juglans californica Southern California black walnut (one specimen onsite)
• Quercus agrifollia Coast live oak
• Cedrus deodora Deodora cedar
• Platanus racemosa California (western) sycamore
• Platanus acerifolia London plane
Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an excellent
example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation or replacement as
provided in sections 28.66, 28.67 and 28.68. Specimen trees shall not include any tree located on a private
parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use.
2.6.1 - Tree replacement or relocation (Sec. 28-67)
According to the Code, Heritage, Significant or Specimen tree preservation on the site is preferred to
relocation or replacement. Relocation is subject to a written report by a certified arborist on the feasibility
of transplanting the subject tree. In the event that a permit is issued by the City for the removal of any
heritage, significant or specimen tree as provided in sections 28-64 and -68, such trees removed shall be
replaced with a species designated by the staff according to the following guidelines, unless the staff
determines that replacement is inappropriate.
• Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of Eucalyptus, planted in a
closely spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection of
property and/or agricultural crops.
• Where existing eucalyptus windrows are to be removed along the existing or ultimate public
right-of-way (R.O.W.), as shown within the circulation element of the city's general plan, they
shall be replaced with appropriate street trees to be determined by the staff of not less than a 15-
gallon size in a ratio of one tree from the city's approved tree list for every one removed.
Eucalyptus windrow trees not along the existing public right-of-way which cannot be preserved
or relocated shall be replaced according to the guidelines established within the Code.
• All heritage and significant trees shall be replaced with a species designated by the designated
staff according to the species, age, size, structure, and trunk diameter, graded on a scale from ten
percent to 100 percent according to Tables No. I and II (see Appendices A and B for grading and
replacement matrix).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 7
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. It must be noted that the occupant
of the eastern-most parcel denied entrance to the arborist. Therefore, a full assessment of the final five
trees was not performed and a limited assessment was only attainable from a distance via binoculars.
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 can also obscure defects on the stem and in the canopy of a tree. Arborists cannot 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.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 8
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, 25 trees consisting of two distinct species were assessed (see Figure 2 below). The age
of the trees onsite ranged from mature to senescent and the health from rigorous to in-decline.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 9
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 10
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.
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.
12
Tree of Heaven **
Ailanthus altissima
This invasive tree species is native to China and grows rapidly. This
deciduous tree tolerates hot and dry conditions, wind, air pollution, and
difficult soils. However, is weedy and less desirable in most landscape
situations. Can grow taller under some conditions. Cal-IPC (California
Invasive Plant Council) classifies the invasiveness of this plant as
moderate. Has Deciduous foliage.
Height: 40 - 60 feet. Width: 40 - 60 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 or More Inches per Year.
Longevity Less than 50 years.
Sunset Zones 2 - 24. USDA Hardiness Zones 4 - 8.
It tolerates full sun to full shade and wet to dry soil with clay, loam or
sand texture. Its branch strength rated as weak and root damage potential
rated as moderate.
13
* California native tree species
** Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) invasive tree species
Source: UFEI 2020
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 11
3.2 - Observations
As previously indicated, 25 trees were assessed onsite involving two distinct species. During the survey
associated with this report, many observations relating to their health, structure, and local environment
were noted. Many of the noteworthy instances are provided in the plates below.
Plate 1. This is a view of a multi-stem tree with included
bark and a canker at the flare (#258).
Plate 2. This is a view of a tree with an embedded fence
that has been compartmentalized in its tissue (#259).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 12
Plate 3. This is a view of a tree that began as a volunteer
sprouter, growing on either side of a fence (#259).
Plate 4. This is a view of a large longitudinal canker
within the stem of a tree (#265).
Plate 5. This is a view of a dense stand of trees resulting
from aggressive volunteer sprouting.
Plate 6. This is a view of a lower branch that was
improperly pruned leading to decay within the callus
tissue (#272).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 13
Plate 7. This is a view of a tree with an embedded fence
in the stem (#273).
Plate 8. This is a view of psyllid lerps on the surface of
the foliage of a tree (#273).
Plate 9. This is a view of a diseased stem within a tree
(#274).
Plate 10. This is a view of multiple sprouting stems in
close proximity leading to competing canopies (#276).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 14
Plate 11. This is a view of poor crotch formation with
weak attachmet (#275).
Plate 12. This is a view of included bark between two
stems (#281).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 15
Plate 13. This is an eastern aerial view of the northern boundary of the site of trees located within the property.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 16
SECTION 4: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 - Conclusion
Within the project site boundary, 25 trees were assessed composed of two distinct species. The most
prominent species onsite was the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), comprising 52.0% of the trees
within the project site. Due to the inadequate maintenance and aggressive volunteer sprouting, only six
trees are in good to fair health and condition warranting preservation. The remaining 19 trees show signs
of disease, lack adequate vigor, show poor growth form, extensive crowding, etc. necessitating their
removal. No trees are native nor qualify as Heritage or Significant trees. No other trees have any other
special status as defined in the Fontana Municipal Code. If consistent with the site plan, 6 trees (24.0%)
on site are in fair to good health and may be preserved.
4.2 - Discussion
The site is rather monotypic having only two species of trees, both of which are listed as invasive by Cal-
IPC. Because of this, many of the specimens have grown in inappropriate locations, embedding fences
within their tissue or creating dense stands with competing canopies and possessing poor growth form. A
couple of the red river gums are large and have good vigor, but are infested with psyllid lerps and must be
treated if preserved onsite. Also, areas within the site are over run with volunteer sprouters of tree of
heaven.
4.3 - Recommendations
4.3.1 - Tree Replacement
The City’s Municipal Code provides for special status (Heritage, Significant, and Specimen) and non-
status tree replacement, as shown in Appendix B below. Tree viability (health, vigor, growth form, etc.)
directly affects the mitigation requirement within the Code for any tree removal. Appendix A below
includes a rating as well as a special status indication (if any) for each tree located within the project site.
Appendix B below contains Tables I through IV from the City’s Code that can be used by the landscape
architect to determine the size and quantity of the trees needed to be installed for each tree removed.
Recommended mitigation for special status and non-status living tree removal is replanting in accordance
with the Code (see Section 2.6.1 above), or as approved by the City’s Planning department. 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; 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.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 17
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
• 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
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 18
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.
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
Page 19
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 Fontana, 2022. Municipal Code posted on website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances
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
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 20
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)
Height
(feet)
Canopy Width (feet) Gen App Env Risk Rating Conclusion 1st
Trunk
2nd
Trunk
3rd
Trunk
4th
Trunk
5th
Trunk
6th
Trunk Total (North on top)
258 Tree of Heaven 2.5 2 3.5 4 12 23 10 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Codominant stems, decay in crotch, embedded fence in stem 7 7
3
259 Tree of Heaven 6.5 7 5 6 6.5 31 34 15 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Embedded in fence, fair vigor and health, multi-stem, poor crotch formation 8 13
10
260 Tree of Heaven 6.5 6.5 37 7 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Rhyzomous volunteer, embedded in fence, good vigor 9 8
8
261 Tree of Heaven 10 10 40 10 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Rhyzomous volunteer, embedded in fence, good vigor 10 13
6
262 Tree of Heaven 10 10 34 7 2 2 2 70 Prune
Good form and vigor 7 8
5
263 Tree of Heaven 4 4 20 7 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Embedded in fence, good vigor 5 5
2
264 Tree of Heaven 3.5 3 2.5 9 23 8 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Multi-stem fair vigor, poor placement 8 7
6
265 Tree of Heaven 8 8 29 8 3 3 3 45 Remove
Poor location, small canker 9 10
9
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 21
266 Tree of Heaven 5.5 5.5 6 6 2 2 3 55 Remove
Competing canopy, dense population, poor prognosis 4 5
6
267 Tree of Heaven 6.5 6.5 27 6 2 2 2 55 Remove
Competing canopy, dense population, poor prognosis 6 5
6
268 Tree of Heaven 5.5 5.5 30 6 2 2 2-3 55 Remove
Competing canopy, dense population, poor prognosis 7 6
9
269 Tree of Heaven 4.5 4.5 25 6 2 2 2-3 55 Remove
Competing canopy, dense population, poor prognosis 7 6
7
270 Tree of Heaven 5 5 26 6 2 2-3 2-3 55 Remove
Competing canopy, dense population, poor prognosis 6 6
8
271 Red River Gum 34 34 78 21 2 2 2-3 65 Prune
Good health and vigor, nice specimen 27 27
25
272 Red River Gum 28 28 72 16 2-3 2 2-3 60 Prune
Good health and vigor, nice specimen 18 12
32
273 Red River Gum 6.5 3 5 7 5.5 7 34 30 9 3 3 3 45 Remove
Multi-stem, embedded in fence 12 7
10
274 Red River Gum 9 9 16 4 3 3 3 45 Remove
Diseased, competing canopy 2 9
7
275 Red River Gum 5.5 5.5 18 5 3 3 3 45 Remove
Diseased, competing canopy 9 4
8
276 Red River Gum 9 9 5.5 3 26.5 49 6 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Multi-stem, poor prognosis, poor form, good vigor 8 12
12
277 Red River Gum 8.5 8.5 36 11 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 22
Good form and vigor, exuding sap 13 6
9
278 Red River Gum 7 7 28 6 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Fair form and vigor, some lean 12 5
7
279 Red River Gum 8.5 8.5 34 13 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Multi-stem, good vigor, poor form 10 5
8
280 Red River Gum 7.5 3 10.5 33 5 3 3 3 45 Remove
Multi-stem, good vigor, poor form 6 7
12
281 Red River Gum 9 8 17 24 6 2-3 2-3 3 55 Remove
Included bark, lean, poor structure 11 8
9
282 Red River Gum 11 11 37 6 3 2-3 3 55 Remove
Discolored bark, increased risk of failure, poor flare, lean. 11 8
13
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 23
Appendix B - Fontana Municipal Code Replacement Tables
The tables below have been taken directly from chapter 28 Section 61- 75 of the Code. These tables must be used in
conjunction with each tree’s rating (shown in Appendix A above) to determine the mitigation required for each tree
removed.
Heritage and Significant Tree Replacement
Table No. I for Trees Under Seven Inches in Diameter Trunk Diameter (Approximate)/Replace With
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) 0.75″/ 2″/ 3.25″/ 4.5″/ 6″/
Very poor Below 45% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Poor 45%— 55% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Average 60%— 70% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box 1/60″ box
Very good 75%— 85% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 2/36″ box 2/48″ box 2/60″ box
Excellent 90%—100% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 3/36″ box 3/48″ box 3/60″ box
Heritage and Significant Tree Replacement
Table No. II for Trees Seven Inches in Diameter or Greater
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size
Very poor Below 45% 1 1 15 gallons
Poor 45%—55% 1 1 15 gallons
Average 60% 1 4 24″ box
65% 1 4 24″ box
70% 1 4 36″ box
Very good 75% 1 4 36″ box
80% 1 4 48″ box
85% 1 4 48″ box
Excellent 90% 1 4 60″ box
95% 1 4 60″ box
100% 1 4 72″ box
Other Tree Replacement
Table No. III for Trees under Seven Inches in Diameter Trunk Diameter (Approximate)/Replace With
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) 0.75″/ 2″/ 3.25″/ 4.5″/ 6″/
Very poor Below 45% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Poor 45%— 55% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Average 60%— 70% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box
Very good 75%— 85% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box 2/48″ box
Excellent 90%—100% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 2/48″ box 3/48″ box
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 24
Other Tree Replacement
Table No. IV for Trees Seven Inches in Diameter or Greater
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size
Very poor Below 45% 1 1 15 gallons
Poor 45%—55% 1 1 15 gallons
Average 60% 1 4 24″ box
65% 1 4 24″ box
70% 1 4 36″ box
Very good 75% 1 4 36″ box
80% 1 4 48″ box
85% 1 4 48″ box