DECEMBER 2017 - Huntington Beach, California...7 CONCLUSION ... functions associated with surveying,...

ARBORIST REPORT FOR ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 114-481-32 AND 114-150-36,

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

SLP-HB Magnolia, LLC2 Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, California 92614 Contact: James O’Malley

Prepared by:

31878 Camino Capistrano No. 200

San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Contact: Ryan Gilmore, ISA-Certified Arborist WE-9009AM

760.815.6356

DECEMBER 2017

Arborist Report for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 114-481-32 and 114-150-36

10689 i December 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..............................................................3 2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................ 3

3 METHODS .........................................................................................................................9 3.1 Scope of Work Limitations ..................................................................................... 9

4 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................11 4.1 Tree Summary ....................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Mapping ................................................................................................................ 12 4.3 Tree Removal ........................................................................................................ 12

5 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................13

6 TREE PROTECTION .....................................................................................................15

7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................17

8 ARBORIST’S DISCLOSURE ........................................................................................19

9 REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................21

APPENDICES

A Tree Information Matrix B Representative Site Photographs C Tree Location Exhibit D Tree Protection Measures

FIGURES

1 Regional Map .......................................................................................................................5 2 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................7


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page No.

10689 ii December 2017

TABLE

1 Summary of Ornamental Tree Species ..............................................................................11


10689 1 December 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

A tree inventory and assessment of assessor’s parcel numbers 114-481-32 and 114-150-36 (project) was performed pursuant to Chapter 13.5 of the City of Huntington Beach (City) Municipal Code and City memo CI-74 Tree Replacement For CEQA Compliance (CI-74). The City’s Municipal Code requires the obtainment of a tree removal permit for all trees proposed for removal. City memo CI-74 requires the replacement of matures trees that exceed ten inches in diameter measured at approximately four feet grade. For purposes of this inventory, all trees that measured one inch or greater in trunk diameter at chest height (4.5 feet above ground level) were evaluated as part of this updated arborist report.

Dudek was retained by SLF-HB Magnolia, LLC. to conduct a tree inventory and assessment of the project site. Dudek’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborists performed various functions associated with surveying, inventorying, and evaluating the condition of selected trees on the project site, as described in this report.

The purpose of this report is to present the physical characteristics, mapped locations, and disposition of the trees.


10689 3 December 2017

2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The project site is generally bounded by undeveloped land to the north, Magnolia Street on the east, and Huntington Channel to the south and west (Figure 1, Regional Map, and Figure 2, Vicinity Map). This tree assessment addresses the project site, where development activity is proposed.

2.1 Existing Conditions

The project site is approximately 29 acres and consists of previously disturbed land which has been cleared and graded and a landscaped park-like area. The park-like area of the project site includes trees and shrubs associated with urban landscaping. The trees and shrubs are located in selected groupings and/or are dispersed throughout the property historically to screen the oil-storage facility from the public view.

2.2 Project Characteristics

The proposed project site, in early stages of planning, and will consist of mixed use development.

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

Camp PendletonSouth

SanClemente

DanaPoint

San JuanCapistrano

LagunaNiguel

AlisoViejo

LagunaBeach

LagunaHills Coto De

Caza

RanchoSanta MargaritaNewport

Beach MissionViejo

TrabucoHighlands

ElToro

CostaMesa

Irvine

HuntingtonBeach

TustinSantaAna

SealBeach

TustinFoothills

GardenGrove

LosAlamitos

Orange

AnaheimBuenaPark

Placentia Yorba LindaFullerton

Brea

Corona

Norco

PedleyMira

LomaRubidoux

GlenAvon

LakewoodCerritos

BellflowerNorwalk

Downey Santa FeSprings

HaciendaHeights

DiamondBar

Industry WalnutPomona

WestCovina

ChinoHills

Chino

BloomingtonOntarioMontclair

FountainValley

Westminster

Cypress

LaHabra

La Mirada

SouthWhittier

La HabraHeights

RowlandHeightsWhittier

Pico Rivera

MontebelloMonterey

ParkRosemead

BaldwinPark

TempleCity

Orange CountyLos Angeles County

Riverside County

Orange County

OrangeCountySan Diego

CountyP a c i f i cO c e a n

?39

?241

?142

?133

?83

?71

?57

?22

?72

?90

?55

?73

?91

?19

?74

?1

?60

§̈¦405

§̈¦10

§̈¦15

§̈¦5

Copyright:© 2014 Esri

FIGURE 1Regional Map

Arborist Report for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 114-481-32 and 114-150-36

Z:\Tem

plates

\Arcm

ap\Ne

w_Pro

tos\Ge

neric\8

x11_P

ortrait

.mxd 1

/15/20

09

0 105MilesI

Project Site

^

?39

?1

Figure 2

Arborist Report for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 114-481-32 and 114-150-36

Date:

7/14/2

016 -

Last s

aved b

y: ckal

lstrand

- Pa

th: Z:\

Projec

ts\j978

4_Hunt

ington

Beach

\Vicinit

y.mxd

0 2,5001,250 Feetn

^

Project Location

Vicinity Map


10689 9 December 2017

3 METHODS

Dudek mapped tree locations using a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XH Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. The Pathfinder has a horizontal accuracy of 1 meter (1 sigma) using differential code positioning techniques. Since tree canopies can sometimes cause loss of satellite lock by blocking the line-of-sight to satellites, an electronic compass and reflectorless electronic distance measuring device was also used to map tree locations. The electronic distance measuring/compass combination operates in concert with the Pathfinder system to position offsets, and offset information automatically attaches to the GPS position data string. The electronic tree locations were then evaluated using ArcView 10.4 software to determine the position of the trees relative to the project site.

The trees throughout the project site were tagged on the trunk with an aluminum tag bearing a unique identification number. These tree tag numbers correspond to the tree information matrix in Appendix A. Tree diameter was found using a diameter tape with adjusted figures for diameter measurements when wrapping the tape around an object’s circumference. Diameter measurements were taken using protocol provided in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the ISA (Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers 2000). The diameter at breast height of each tree measurement was taken at a circumference at 4.5 feet above the ground along the trunk axis, with common exceptions. In cases where a tree’s trunk was located on a slope, the 4.5-foot distance was approximated as the average of the shortest and longest sides of the trunk (i.e., the uphill side and downhill side of a tree’s trunk, respectively), and the measurement was made at the circumference of the trunk at this point. Tree height was visually estimated. Tree canopy diameters were estimated by “pacing-off” the measurement based on the investigator’s knowledge of his stride length or by visually estimating the canopy width. The diameter measurements were made along an imaginary line intersecting the tree trunk that best approximated the average canopy diameter.

Pursuant to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, tree health and structure were evaluated with respect to five distinct tree components: roots, trunk, scaffold branches, small branches, and foliage. Each component was assessed with regard to health factors such as insect, fungal, or pathogen damage; mechanical damage; presence of decay; presence of wilted or dead leaves; and wound closure. Components were graded as good, fair, poor, and dead, with good representing no apparent problems, and dead representing a dying and/or dead tree.

3.1 Scope of Work Limitations

No root crown excavations or investigations or internal probing were performed during the tree assessments. Therefore, the presence or absence of internal decay or other hidden inferiorities in individual trees could not be confirmed. It is recommended that any large tree proposed for


10689 10 December 2017

preservation or relocation in an urban setting be thoroughly inspected for internal, or subterranean, decay by a qualified arborist before finalizing preservation or relocation plans.


10689 11 December 2017

4 RESULTS

4.1 Tree Summary

On October 10, 2017, Dudek’s ISA-certified arborist/urban forester conducted field evaluations of the trees within the project site. In summary, there are 92 ornamental trees dispersed throughout the project site. The 92 ornamental trees are represented by 11 species. As depicted in Table 1, Italian stone pine (Pinus pineaoccurs at the highest population level on the project site, with 46 individual trees, representing 50% of the site’s trees. The remaining 46 trees include ten Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), three bushy yate (Eucalyptus lehmannii), two California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), one carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), six silk-floss trees (Ceiba speciosa), two evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii), one holly oak (Quercus ilex), ten mousehole tree (Myoporum laetum), one New Zealand Christmas tree (Metrosideros excelsa), and ten river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Table 1 provides a summary of the individual species.

Table 1 Summary of Ornamental Tree Species

Tree Species Scientific Name Common Name Number of Trees Percentage

Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree 10 10.87% Eucalyptus lehmannii Bushy yate 3 3.26% Platanus racemosa California sycamore 2 2.17% Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood 1 1.09% Ceiba speciosa Silk floss tree 6 6.52% Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen pear 2 2.17% Quercus ilex Holly oak 1 1.09% Pinus pinea Italian stone pine 46 50.00% Myoporum laetum Mousehole tree 10 10.87% Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas tree 1 1.09% Eucalyptus camaldulensis River red gum 10 10.87%

Total 92 100% Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

The trees are either single- or multi-stemmed and have diameters that range from one to 50 inches. Average tree heights range from five to 65 feet, and canopy widths extend from five to 50 feet at their widest points. The tallest trees consist primarily of bushy yate, silk floss tree, Italian stone pine, and red river gum trees. The larger tree species, including the silk floss tree, Italian stone pine, and red river gum, dominate the larger canopy spread categories. Appendix A provides tree height and canopy cover attribute information for each tree on the project site. Appendix B provides representative site photographs of the project area.


10689 12 December 2017

The trees share similar health and structural ratings, the majority of which are in fair to poor health and structure. As presented in Appendix A, a total of 78 trees (84.78%) exhibit fair health, three (3.26%) trees good health, and eleven (11.96%) trees in poor health. Structurally, 81 trees (88.04%) are considered in fair condition and ten (10.87%) trees are considered in poor condition. There is one tree (1.09%) that is classified as good condition. Fair condition trees are typical, with few maladies but declining vigor. Trees in poor condition exhibit declining vigor, unhealthy foliage, poor branch structure, or excessive lean. The most commonly observed maladies include pruning wounds, drought dieback, and crown topping.

4.2 Mapping

The location of each tree identified in the project site is depicted in Appendix C.

4.3 Tree Removal

All 92 trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project footprint.


10689 13 December 2017

5 MITIGATION

The City Memo CI-74 requires mitigation for the removal of mature trees that exceed ten inches diameter measured approximately four feet above grade. Of the 92 trees proposed for removal, 50 require mitigation in accordance with the City’s Memo CI-74. The City Memo CI-74 requires mature trees removed be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio with 36-inch box size replacement trees. Table 2 provides a summary of required mitigation. As such, it is required that the 50 removed mature trees be replaced with a minimum of 100, 36-inch box size replacement trees.

Table 2 Summary of Mature Tree Requiring Mitigation

Tree Species Scientific Name Common Name Number of Trees Required Mitigation

Ceiba speciose Silk floss tree 5 10 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River red gum 7 14 Eucalyptus lehmannii Bushy yate 3 6 Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas tree 1 2 Pinus pinea Italian stone pine 24 48 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 2 4 Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen pear 2 4 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree 6 12

Total 50 100


10689 15 December 2017

6 TREE PROTECTION

In total, 92 trees are proposed for removal within the project site. A total of 50 of these trees are considered to be mature trees by the City and require mitigation. As such, a total of 100, 36-inch box size replacement trees would be required to be planted, monitored and maintained. No trees are proposed to be preserved onsite. Should preservation be selected, Dudek recommends that trees be protected according to the tree protection measures in Appendix D.


10689 17 December 2017

7 CONCLUSION

The project site includes 92 ornamental trees that are represented by 11 individual species. Based on the proposed project footprint, all 92 trees would require removal to accommodate the project. Of the 92 trees on site, 50 are considered to be mature trees by the City. Thus, the City requires mitigation for the removal of the 50 mature trees with 100, 36-inch box size replacement trees. The total number of trees proposed for removal is based on preliminary development plans and may be reduced as the project limits are refined. Any adjustments to the number of impacted trees will be documented by the proposed project’s arborist.


10689 19 December 2017

8 ARBORIST’S DISCLOSURE

This report provides conclusions and recommendations based on a visual examination of the trees and surrounding site by an ISA-certified arborist and on a reasonable reliance on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the arborist. The examination did not include subterranean or internal examination of the trees.

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near them. Although trees provide many benefits to those who live near them, they also include inherent risks from breakage or failure that can be minimized but not eliminated.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi, weather, and other forces of nature, and conditions that lead to tree failure are often hidden within trees and below ground. There are some inherent risks with trees that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, even by a skilled and experienced arborist. Arborists cannot predict acts of nature including, without limitation, storms of sufficient strength, which can cause even an apparently healthy tree to fail. Additionally, arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for any specific period of time. A tree’s condition could change over a short or long period of time due to climatic, cultural, or environmental conditions. Further, there is no guarantee or certainty that recommendations or efforts to correct unsafe conditions will prevent future breakage or failure of a tree.

To live or work near trees is to accept some degree of risk. Neither the author of this report nor Dudek assumes responsibility or will be liable for any claims, losses, or damages to any tree, death, or injury to any person or any loss of or damage to any personal or real property.


10689 21 December 2017

9 REFERENCE

Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal. 9th ed. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture.

APPENDIX A Tree Information Matrix

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

2Eucalyptus

camaldulensisRiver red gum 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 20 25 Fair Fair Yes -117.97132 33.646803

3Eucalyptus

camaldulensisRiver red gum 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 Poor Poor No -117.97135 33.646827

5Eucalyptus

camaldulensisRiver red gum 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 Poor Poor Yes -117.97162 33.646807

7Eucalyptus


10Eucalyptus

camaldulensisRiver red gum 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 5 Poor Fair No -117.97157 33.64662

16 Myoporum laetumMousehole

tree1 7 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 Fair Fair No -117.97144 33.646629


tree1 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 Fair Poor No -117.97144 33.646609


tree2 5 6 0 0 0 0 15 15 Fair Poor No -117.9714 33.646616


tree3 5 6 8 0 0 0 15 15 Fair Poor No -117.97139 33.646571


tree3 2 2 2 0 0 0 10 10 Fair Poor No -117.97143 33.646586


tree1 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Poor No -117.97144 33.646575


tree5 9 8 8 9 7 0 25 25 Poor Fair No -117.97147 33.64643


tree5 7 8 8 7 6 0 25 25 Poor Fair No -117.97147 33.646406

24Eucalyptus

lehmanniiBushy yate 2 18 12 0 0 0 0 35 35 Fair Fair Yes -117.97147 33.646197

94 Pyrus kawakamiiEvergreen

pear1 18 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 Good Fair Yes -117.97117 33.646221

95 Pyrus kawakamiiEvergreen

pear1 18 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 Good Fair Yes -117.97118 33.646122

96 Ceiba speciose Silk floss tree 5 22 20 40 40 25 0 50 50 Fair Fair Yes -117.97124 33.64608

97 Ceiba speciose Silk floss tree 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 30 25 Fair Poor Yes -117.9712 33.646032



X Y

Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix

Individual Stem Diameter

(in.) Canopy

(ft.)Health Structure

Tree

No.Botanical Name

Common

NameStems

Height

(ft.)

Mature

Regulated

Tree

1

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

X Y



(in.) Canopy


Tree

No.Botanical Name

Common

NameStems

Height

(ft.)

Mature

Regulated

Tree

100 Pinus pineaItalian stone

pine1 26 0 0 0 0 0 55 45 Fair Fair Yes -117.97129 33.645987










pine1 7 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97134 33.645833


pine2 8 7 0 0 0 0 30 25 Fair Fair No -117.9713 33.645765







121Eucalyptus


126 Ceiba speciose Silk floss tree 5 9 8 7 7 7 0 20 25 Fair Fair No -117.97123 33.64538




132Eucalyptus


136Eucalyptus

camaldulensisRiver red gum 2 8 7 0 0 0 0 35 20 Poor Fair No -117.97156 33.645104

150Eucalyptus


151Eucalyptus


152 Quercus ilex Holly oak 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 Fair Fair No -117.97138 33.645049

153Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian

pepper tree3 4 3 3 0 0 0 15 15 Fair Fair No -117.97152 33.644881

2

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

X Y



(in.) Canopy


Tree

No.Botanical Name

Common

NameStems

Height

(ft.)

Mature

Regulated

Tree

154Eucalyptus


155Eucalyptus


156Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian


159Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian

pepper tree2 9 10 0 0 0 0 30 20 Fair Fair Yes -117.9713 33.644804

160Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian


161Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian


162Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian













pine1 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97133 33.644387


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Fair Fair No -117.97132 33.644439


pine1 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Fair Fair No -117.97133 33.644462











3

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

X Y



(in.) Canopy


Tree

No.Botanical Name

Common

NameStems

Height

(ft.)

Mature

Regulated

Tree

204Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian

pepper tree4 13 10 11 12 11 0 15 35 Fair Poor Yes -117.97149 33.643797




pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 Fair Fair No -117.97188 33.643424


pine1 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 Fair Fair No -117.97181 33.643432


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Fair Fair No -117.97177 33.643412


tree1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Poor Fair No -117.97183 33.643461

228 Platanus racemosaCalifornia

sycamore2 14 8 0 0 0 0 30 25 Poor Fair Yes -117.97179 33.643365

229 Platanus racemosaCalifornia

sycamore1 20 0 0 0 0 0 30 25 Poor Fair Yes -117.97177 33.643307


pine1 7 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97185 33.643329


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Fair Fair No -117.97183 33.643311


pine1 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97185 33.64326


pine1 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97188 33.643292


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97191 33.643341


pine1 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97194 33.643329


pine1 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97195 33.643305


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97196 33.64331


pine1 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97197 33.643329


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 Fair Fair No -117.97199 33.643304


pine1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Fair Fair No -117.97199 33.643287



4

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

X Y



(in.) Canopy


Tree

No.Botanical Name

Common

NameStems

Height

(ft.)

Mature

Regulated

Tree






pine1 7 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 Fair Fair No -117.97229 33.643111


pine1 7 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 Fair Fair No -117.97228 33.643092


pine2 8 6 0 0 0 0 20 10 Fair Fair No -117.97233 33.643065

285Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian


286Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian


293Cupaniopsis

anacardiodesCarrotwood 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 Fair Fair No -117.97247 33.643025

300Schinus

terebinthifolius

Brazilian



tree3 6 6 4 0 0 0 15 20 Fair Fair No -117.97217 33.642784


pine3 16 18 18 0 0 0 20 35 Good Good Yes -117.97212 33.642715

303Metrosideros

excelsa

New Zealand

Christmas tree5 12 9 9 7 6 0 35 35 Fair Fair Yes -117.97196 33.643043

5

APPENDIX B Representative Site Photographs

Appendix B - Representative Site Photographs

2. Overview photo of the trees on site, as

viewed facing northwest.

1. Overview photo of the trees on site on the

southern portion of the property, as viewed

facing southwest

Photographs were taken on October 10, 2017 1

Appendix B - Representative Site Photographs





2 Photographs were taken on October 10, 2017

APPENDIX C Tree Location Exhibit

Appendix C -Tree Location ExhibitArborist Report for Asessor’s Parcel Numbers 114-481-32 and 114-150-36

SOURCE: AERIAL- SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS, 2017

File

Strin

g 0 20 40 60 8010

Feet

LegendTree Locations

Brazilian pepper

Bushy yate

California sycamore

Carrotwood

Silk floss tree

Evergreen pear

Holly oak

Italian stone pine

Mousehole tree

New Zealand Christmas tree

River red gum

APPENDIX D Tree Protection Measures

Appendix D – Tree Protection Measures

The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction

impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and

developers for maximum benefit to the trees.

Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction

Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected

in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily

fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and

construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or

edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be

considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal.

Pre-Construction Meeting: A pre-construction meeting should be held between all contractors

(including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the

contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and

spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written

acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information

on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion

of work practices that will accomplish such.

Protection and Maintenance During Construction Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to:

Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy

machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and

subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum,

stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a

Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan.

Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber,

concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection

zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water

retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids

such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and

glycol (anti-freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away

from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of

toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death.

Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without

special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the

approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support

and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even

temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air

availability to the trees’ roots.

Tree Protection Measures Page 2

Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the

trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction

materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above

ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If

contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International

Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards.

Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all

trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal

direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is

necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All

cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The

trench should be made no deeper than necessary.

Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will

require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root

pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month

during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the

root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a

consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees.

Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a

temporary above ground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and

evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the

tree trunk, especially during warmer months.

Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the

tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified

Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies.

Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the

construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to

control mite and insect populations.

Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis

during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction

baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be

included in the report on a minimum annual basis.

Maintenance After Construction Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to

sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees.

Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic

mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control.

Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain

clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a

recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA

Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning

should conform to ISA standards.

Tree Protection Measures Page 3

Watering: The natural trees that are not disturbed should not require regular irrigation, other than the

12 months following substantial root pruning. However, soil probing will be necessary to accurately

monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the

trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. The trees should be

irrigated only during the winter and spring months.

Watering Adjacent Plant Material: All plants near the trees should be compatible with water

requirements of said trees. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks

and allowed to dry out in-between, rather than frequent light irrigation. The soil should not be

allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray should not hit the trunk of any

tree. A 60-inch dry-zone should be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro-spray

irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays.

Washing: Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once

every 2 weeks. Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This

should continue beyond the construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only

in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and

insect infestations.

Spraying: If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control

should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted;

the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark-boring beetles and

other invading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the

direction of a licensed pest control advisor.

Inspection: All trees that were impacted during construction within the TPZ should be monitored by

an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The Arborist should

submit an annual report, photograph each tree and compare tree health and condition to the original,

pre-construction baseline.

DECEMBER 2017 - Huntington Beach, California...7 CONCLUSION ... functions associated with surveying,...

Documents

Transcript of DECEMBER 2017 - Huntington Beach, California...7 CONCLUSION ... functions associated with surveying,...