Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist Report Corporate Office – Orange County Telephone: 949.788.4900 16431 Scientific Way Facsimile: 949.788.4901 Irvine, CA 92618-4355 Website: www.ultrasystems.com January 3, 2020 Project No.: 6096 Brett Hamilton Associate Planner City of Fontana Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335-3528 RE: ARBORIST REPORT – FONTANA VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Hamilton: UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. (UltraSystems) has prepared this Arborist Report for the Fontana Victoria Residential Project, City of Fontana, California (project). Existing plants and trees onsite would be removed prior to construction activities. This Arborist Report was prepared following the scope of work presented in the proposal1 dated December, 2018. Regulatory Context Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28 Article III., Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees, establishes regulations for the protection and preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees on public and private property. Any development involving tree removal would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 28 Article III. In particular, Code Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, specifies that no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree Removal Permit is first obtained. The Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Sections 28-63, classifies a “Heritage Tree” as meeting one or more of the following criteria: 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. 1 UltraSystems Environmental Inc. Proposal to the City of Fontana Planning Department to prepare an addendum to the Westgate Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and Technical Memorandums in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Fontana Victoria Residential Project. December, 2018. January 3, 2020 Page 2 “Significant tree” means any tree that is one of the following species: Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Deodora cedar (Cedrus deodara), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), or London plane (Platanus acerifolia). Furthermore, the Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-63, provides the following clarification of what represents a windrow tree: • 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. Methodology The data collected for each tree included the species, diameter at breast height for each trunk, tree height, and diameter of the canopy. Tree height measurements were performed using a rangefinder hypsometer with clinometer feature and/or were visually estimated. The diameter of the tree canopy was measured by using a Trimble Geo 7x unit. Only living tree parts were measured. Dead trunks that were burned or otherwise compromised and no longer producing new growth were not measured. It should be noted that the health of a tree is generally dependent on general climatic and soil conditions, as well as potential physical or mechanical damage of a non-biotic origin, such as fire, and/or infestation of various pests including, but not limited to, ants, termites, wood-boring beetles, cambium-eating beetles, fungus of various types, and parasitic plants (i.e., mistletoe [Phoradendron villous] or Dodder vine [Cuscuta californica]). Climbing plants which may use trees for support, such as Algerian or English ivy (Hedera sp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata), wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) would also be considered as health-threatening infestations. While the aesthetic value of a tree is subjective, a tree is usually considered highly aesthetic if it has generally dense foliage, a relatively uniform or spectacular irregular shape and large size. Assessments of aesthetic and health factors for each tree, as well as an overall vigor rating, were recorded on the Tree Inventory Table contained in Attachment 1. Native trees were evaluated for overall health. Health was rated as excellent, very good, average, poor, very poor or dead, with ratings defined below. Photographs documenting the main habitats on site including the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat in the remnant channel, representative woody shrub “trees” and each individual eucalyptus tree were recorded during the inventory (Attachment 2). The following criteria were used to establish each overall grade: Excellent (90-100% rating): A healthy and vigorous tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, disease or pest infestation. Very good (75-85% rating): A healthy and vigorous tree with less than 25% of the tree affected by visible signs of stress, disease and/or pest infestation. January 3, 2020 Page 3 Average (60-70% rating): Although healthy in overall appearance, 25% - 50% of the tree shows evidence of stress, disease and/or pest infestation. Poor (45-55% rating): Between 50-75% of this tree shows evidence of stress, disease and/or pest infestation and appears to be in a state of moderate decline. The degree of decline may vary greatly. Very poor (10-40%): Greater than 75% of this tree shows evidence of stress, disease and/or pest infestation and appears to be in a state of rapid decline. The degree of decline may vary greatly. Dead (Below 10% rating): Dead trees exhibit no indication of living tissue. The following table from the City of Fontana Ordinance was used to determine replacement ratios for the trees observed onsite. None of the trees onsite were determined to be heritage or significant trees and so the table for other trees is reproduced here, as per Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-67, Table IV (Table 1). Table 1 OTHER TREE REPLACEMENT TABLE FOR TREES SEVEN INCHES IN DIAMETER OR GREATER PER THE CITY OF FONTANA ORDINANCE Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replacement Ratio Replace With Minimum Size Very poor Below 45% 1 1:1 1 15 gallon Poor 45%—55% 1 1:1 1 15 gallon Average 60% 1 4:1 4 24″ box 65% 1 4:1 4 24″ box 70% 1 4:1 4 36″ box Very good 75% 1 4:1 4 36″ box 80% 1 4:1 4 48″ box 85% 1 4:1 4 48″ box Excellent 90% 1 4:1 4 48″ box 95% 1 4:1 4 48″ box 100% 1 4:1 4 48″ box Results An arborist survey within the project site was conducted on December 12. 2019, by ISA Certified Arborists Michelle Tollett and Matthew Sutton, and on December 16, 2019 by Matthew Sutton, assisted by biologist Joyce Mak. The arborist survey found there to be 40 trees or evergreen woody shrubs on site. Based on a personal communication between Brett Hamilton and Michelle Tollett, on January 3, 2020 Page 4 December 12, 2019, “arborescent” woody shrubs exceeding 10 feet in height and that provide avian nesting, foraging and/or cover typical of a tree were documented as “trees” for the purposes of this survey. None of the 40 trees met conditions of “protected trees” as defined by Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-63; however, onsite trees did meet the “other tree” category, which requires tree replacement, as described in the Recommendations section below.2 Six of the trees were eucalyptus trees, which were of varying sizes and health and grouped in one eucalyptus grove and one isolated pair on the eastern edge of the property. Of the two eucalyptus groves identified in the Addendum as occurring within the property boundary, one of the groves occurs on the outside of the property boundary and to the east of the eastern fence line, while the other grove lies within the property boundaries in the southeast corner of the property. The eucalyptus grove occurring in the southeast portion of the property comprises four eucalyptus trees; however, these trees are spaced too far apart to meet the conditions as windrow trees and therefore should not be considered heritage trees as defined by Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-63. The remaining 34 trees were evergreen woody shrubs comprising three species either typical of Riversidean sage scrub habitat or included in the observed plant species in the biological assessment.3 Holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), and Elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana). There were multiple dead individuals of evergreen woody shrubs on the site. None of the dead trees were included in the results but they are represented on the tree map in Exhibit 1 and in photographs in Attachment 2. A map of the trees onsite is provided in Exhibit 1. A tree inventory table is provided in Attachment 1. Photographs of representative trees onsite are provided in Attachment 2. 2 UltraSystems based the tree replacement of the woody shrubs on the personal communication with Brett Hamilton and defers to the City to confirm the replacement requirements provided herein. 3 Source: PCR Services Corporation (PCR). 2015. Westgate Specific Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report (Biological Resources Assessment) for the Fontana Victoria Residential Project, prepared for the City of Fontana. January. January 3, 2020 Page 5 Recommendations The recommendations for tree replacement are as follows: 1) a Tree Removal Permit from the City of Fontana would not be required, as the site lacks “Heritage, Specimen, or Significant trees” as defined by the Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-67; and 2) trees designated for replacement as “Other Trees” in accordance with the ordinance. As previously stated, for this project, the woody shrubs were considered trees that will require replacement for this project. 1. There is no need to obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the City of Fontana, in accordance with the Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-67 because there are no heritage, specimen or significant trees as defined in the Ordinance. Section 28-65 of this ordinance indicates trees categorized as Dead should be removed and not replaced. None of the 6 eucalyptus trees on the site meet the classification for heritage or windrow trees in Section 28-63 of the Ordinance because they are spaced too far apart. 2. All trees designated for removal will be replaced onsite following the tree planting plans represented in the Overall Conceptual Landscape Plan4 developed by Urban Arena and in accordance with the specifications for replacement trees described in Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-67, Table IV (Table 1). The allocation of replacement tree number and size per removed tree vigor category is demonstrated in Table 2 and Table 3 below. Table 2 represents the replacement requirements for all of the eucalyptus trees located within the project boundary. Table 3 represents the replacement requirements for all of the woody shrub “trees” located within the project boundary. Table 2 TREE REPLACEMENT TABLE FOR EUCALYPTUS TREES IDENTIFIED AT PROJECT SITE Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number of Trees to Remove Replacement Ratio Replace With Minimum Size Very poor < 45% 1 1:1 1 15 Gallon Poor 45-55% 2 1:1 2 15 Gallon Average 60-65% 1 1:4 4 24″ Box Average 70% 1 1:4 4 36″ Box Very good 80-85% 1 1:4 4 48″ Box TOTAL TREES 6 15 4 Source: Overall Conceptual Landscape Plan – L1. 2018. Urban Arena, Inc. October. January 3, 2020 Page 6 Table 3 TREE REPLACEMENT TABLE FOR WOODY SHRUB “TREES” IDENTIFIED AT PROJECT SITE Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number of Trees to Remove Replacement Ratio Replace With Minimum Size Poor 45-55% 3 1:1 3 15 Gallon Average 60-65% 9 1:4 36 24″ Box Average 70% 5 1:4 20 36″ Box Very good 75% 1 1:4 4 36″ Box Very good 80-85% 10 1:4 40 48″ Box Excellent 90-100% 6 1:4 24 48″ Box TOTAL TREES 34 127 A total of 15 eucalyptus trees and 127 “arborescent” woody shrubs of various sizes may require replacement onsite. The City of Fontana will have final purview concerning actual tree replacement requirements. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Tree Location Map Attachment 1: Tree Inventory Table Attachment 2: Photographs Sincerely, ULTRASYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL INC. Michelle Tollett ISA Certified Arborist (WE-12103A) Matthew Sutton ISA Certified Arborist (WE-12790A) ❖ EXHIBITS ❖ EXHIBIT 1 TREE LOCATION MAP Legend Fontana VictoriaResidential Project T1T2 T3T4T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10T11 T12T13T14T15 T16 T17 T18 T19T20 T21 T22T23 T24T25T26T27 T28 T29T30 T31 T32T33T34T35 T36 T37 T38 T39 T40 Dead Tree Dead TreeDead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree Dead Tree ¯Tree Survey 0 100 200 Feet 0 30 60 Meters Path: \\gissvr\GIS\Projects\6096_Fontana_Victoria_Residential\MXDs\6096_Fontana_Victoria_Tree_Canopy_2019_12_23.mxdService Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri(Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Esri, HERE, Garmin,(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community; UltraSystems Environmental, Inc., 2019 Tree Trunk Tree Dripline Project Boundary Disclaimer: Representations on this map or illustration are intended only to indicate locations of project parameters reported in the legend. Project parameter information supplied byothers (see layer credits) may not have been independently verified for accuracy by UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. This map or illustration should not be used for, and does notreplace, final grading plans or other documents that should be professionally certified for development purposes. !(Project Location SanBernardinoCountyLosAngelesCounty RiversideCountyOrangeCounty San DiegoCounty County P a c i ficOcean December 27, 2019 Scale: 1:2,400 ❖ ATTACHMENTS ❖ ATTACHMENT 1 TREE INVENTORY TABLE Tree ID #Scientific Name Longitude Num-ber of Trunks Height (ft) Canopy Diame-ter (ft) Heritage Tree (Yes or No) Comments 1 Eucalyptus globulus 117.50181865°W 4 46 75 No Average 70%2 Eucalyptus globulus 117.50184917°W 2 12 46 No Poor 55%3 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50212544°W 2 15 57 No Very good 85%4 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50212620°W 3 15 70 No Excellent 90%Small mammal holes by tree. 5 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50234699°W 11 15 119 No Very good 80%Small mammal holes by trunk.6 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50231101°W 8 18 108 No Very good 85%Small mammal holes. Large, vigorous leaves. Broken branches likely due to mountain bikers.7 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50208673°W 8 15 86 No Average 70%Small mammal holes by tree. 8 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50206084°W 15 15 80 No Average 90%Small mammal holes by tree. 9 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50200497°W 8 20 107 No Very good 80%Small mammal holes by tree. Potential transient camp at base.10 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50288093°W 3 11 67 No Poor 45%Canopy dying from the top down.11 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50307966°W 6 17 91 No Average 65%12 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50295132°W 7 15 86 No Very good 80%Prunus ilicifolia juvenille growing at base of trunk. 13 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50314024°W 4 10 67 No Average 65%Discolored, yellowing foliage.14 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50333025°W 3 14 48 No Very good 75%15 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50345920°W 8 16 95 No Excellent 95%Small mammal holes by tree. Three blue-gray gnatcatchers (Polioptila caerulea) visiting tree.16 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50263125°W 10 20 110 No Excellent 95%Small mammal holes by tree. 17 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50255578°W 26 16 81 No Very good 85%Small mammal holes near tree.18 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50247469°W 15 18 84 No Poor 45%Larger mammal burrows beneath trunk. Small mammal holes near tree.19 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50239725°W 13 20 68 No Average 70%Small mammal holes by tree. 20 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50250946°W 10 14 80 No Poor 50%50% canopy dieback. TREE INVENTORY TABLE Holly leaf cherry 34.12766750°N 109.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12702083°N 40.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12769288°N 52 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 31.12691446°N 31.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12691024°N 17.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12696093°N 19.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12660777°N 38.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12672618°N 13.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12677240°N 30.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12649683°N 39.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12647799°N 39.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12654594°N 65.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12618948°N 9.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12622872°N 13.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12613040°N 41.0 Eucalyptus 34.12578368°N 13.3 Common Name Latitude DBH (in) Vigor Scale Rating (10% to 100%)Eucalyptus 34.12579448°N 44.6 Holly leaf cherry 34.12800608°N 41.0 Holly leaf cherry 34.12780717°N 77.0Holly leaf cherry 34.12793714°N 54 6096 City of Fontana Victoria Residential Project Tree ID #Scientific Name Longitude Num-ber of Trunks Height (ft) Canopy Diame-ter (ft) Heritage Tree (Yes or No) Comments 21 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50223540°W 11 11 73 No Average 60%Small mammal holes by tree. 22 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50208593°W 19 10 71 No Very good 80%Small mammal holes by tree. 23 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50210491°W 12 11 65 No Average 65%24 Eucalyptus globulus 117.501720259°W 2 10 21 No Very poor 40%original trunk is dead and there are crown resprouts25Eucalyptus globulus °117.501723617°W 1 40 69 No Very good 85%Small mammal holes near tree. 26 Eucalyptus globulus 117.50175452°W 10 12 48 No Poor 45%Original trunk is dead. Crown resprouting. Prominent insect boring in trunk is evident.27 Eucalyptus globulus 117.50172811°W 2 40 42 No Average 65%Mechanical damage near base of trunk.28 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50280490°W 15 23 95 No Average 65%Small mammal holes by tree. Coyote tracks nearby. 29 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50287531°W 9 27 80 No Average 70%Small mammal holes by tree. Coyote tracks nearby. Large and medium-sized burrows at base of tree.30 Prunus ilicifolia 117.50297881°W 8 13 68 No Very good 80%Small mammal holes by tree. 31 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50309304°W 9 19 109 No Average 70%Small mammal holes by tree. 32 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50308732°W 7 25 87 No Very good 85%Small mammal holes by tree. 33 Sambucus mexicana 117.50303223°W 5 17 74 No Average 65%Small mammal holes by tree. Winter dormant with limited old leaves remaining on branch tips.34 Prunus ilicifolia 117350332555°W 10 12 76 No Excellent 95%Small mammal holes by tree. 35 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50360694°W 11 16 64 No Average 65%Small mammal holes by tree. 36 Prunus ilicifolia 117350361628°W 5 12 42 No Excellent 90%Small mammal holes by tree. 37 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50305121°W 7 30 99 No Average 70%Small mammal holes by tree. 38 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50299500°W 8 14 57 No Very good 85%Small mammal holes by tree. Possible transient encampment at base of tree.39 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50274416°W 12 15 58 No Average 65%Small mammal holes by tree. Multiple trunks pruned near ground level.40 Cercocarpus betuloides 117.50276853°W 9 18 58 No Excellent 95%Small mammal holes by tree. TREE INVENTORY TABLE Common Name Latitude DBH (in) Vigor Scale Rating (10% to 100%)Holly leaf cherry 34.12813417°N 43.0 Eucalyptus 34.124773552°N 6.0Eucalyptus34.124739187°N 36 Holly leaf cherry 34.12825032°N 68Holly leaf cherry 34.12831944°N 50.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12510084°N 102Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12509056°N 84.0 Eucalyptus 34.12467820°N 9.0Eucalyptus34.12467704°N 34.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12522030°N 93.0Elderberry34.12526575°N 85.0 Holly leaf cherry 34.12513483°N 34.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12514388°N 75 Holly leaf cherry 34.12544920°N 14.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12543693°N 91 Holly leaf cherry 34.12514831°N 52Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12521667°N 43.0 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12532188°N 39 Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12554469°N 45.0Birch-leaf mountain-mahogany 34.12541682°N 25.0 6096 City of Fontana Victoria Residential Project ❖ ATTACHMENTS ❖ ATTACHMENT 2 PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO 2: View at northcentral location of site facing south demonstrating some of the living and dead wood shrub “trees” documented during the survey. PHOTO 4: View near southwest corner of site property facing northeast demonstrating disturbed Riversidean sage scrub and ruderal habitats. Note road disturbances. PHOTO 1: View at northwest corner of site property facing southeast demonstrating ruderal habitat in foreground with disturbed Riversidean sage scrub and eucalyptus groves in the distance. PHOTO 3: View near northeast corner of site property facing southwest demonstrating habitat of wood shrub trees and non- native grasses and forbs. PHOTO 6: View at southeast location of site facing northwest, demonstrating a small eucalyptus grove near the southeast corner and ruderal and Riversidean sage scrub habitats. PHOTO 8: View from southcentral bank of remnant channel system transecting southern region of site property, facing north, demonstrating Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. PHOTO 5: View at southcentral area of site property facing north, demonstrating mixture of ruderal and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub habitats. PHOTO 7: View from southcentral bank of remnant channel system transecting southern region of site property, facing northwest, demonstrating Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. PHOTO 10: View from northeast bank of remnant channel system transecting southern region of site property, facing southwest, showing Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and eastern road. PHOTO 12: View from eastern boundary fence facing north, demonstrating eucalyptus grove outside of site property. PHOTO 9: View from southcentral bank of remnant channel system transecting southern region of site property, facing northeast, demonstrating Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. PHOTO 11: View from southeast bank of remnant channel system transecting southern region of site property, facing northwest, showing Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and eastern road. PHOTO 14: View from eastern boundary fence facing south, demonstrating eucalyptus groves inside and outside of site property. PHOTO 16: View from south central region of site facing south, demonstrating stand of surveyed evergreen wood shrub “trees”. PHOTO 13: View from eastern boundary fence facing north, demonstrating eucalyptus groves inside and outside of site property. PHOTO 15: View at southeast corner of site property facing north, demonstrating eucalyptus grove inside and outside of site property. PHOTO 18: View from eastcental region of site facing nothwest, demonstrating evergreen wood shrub “trees”. PHOTO 20: View from westcentral fenceline facing south, demonstrating stand of surveyed evergreen wood shrub “trees” and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub. PHOTO 17: View from southeastern region of site facing southeast, demonstrating evergreen wood shrub “trees”. PHOTO 19: View near northeast corner of site property facing north, demonstrating holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) “trees”. PHOTO 22: View from westcentral fenceline facing north, demonstrating stand of surveyed evergreen wood shrub “trees” and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub. PHOTO 24: Example of small mammal hole. These holes were prevalent around many of the wood shrub “trees” on site. PHOTO 21: View from westcentral fenceline facing northeast, demonstrating stand of surveyed evergreen wood shrub “trees” and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub. PHOTO 23: One of several dead wood shrub “trees” on site. PHOTO 26: Facing northwest of Tree 26. PHOTO 28: View facing west of Tree 28 (Cercocarpus betuloides). PHOTO 25: View facing southwest of eucalyptus grove: Tree 27 (left), Tree 25 (center) and Tree 24 (right). PHOTO 27: View facing east of Tree 26 (foreground) and Tree 27 (behind fallen tree). Eucalyptus trees in distance are off property. PHOTO 30: View facing north of eucalyptus Tree 2 (left). PHOTO 32: View facing west of Tree 28, Mountain mahagony (Cercocarpus betuloides). PHOTO 29: View facing south of eucalyptus trees: Tree 1 (left), Tree and Tree 2 (right). PHOTO 31:View facing north of eucalyptus trees: Tree 2 (left) and Tree 2 (right).