Burbank City Council
December 17, 2024

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project
Prepared for:

City of Burbank
Parks & Recreation
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Marisa Garcia
Prepared by:

605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Carey Fernandes
October 2024

ATTACHMENT 2

This page is intentionally blank.

Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024 Page i
Contents
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................ ................................ ............................... 2-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-1

4.1 AESTHETICS................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-4

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................ ...................... 4-6

4.3 AIR QUALITY................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-8

4.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.2 OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................ ................................ .................... 4-21

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-25

4.6 ENERGY................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4-26

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................ ................................ ........................... 4-29

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................ ................................ .......... 4-32

4.8.1 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.8.2 OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4-32

4.8.3 CARBON LOSS ........................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS................................ ............................ 4-42

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ .... 4-45

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................ ................................ ................... 4-47

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-49

4.13 NOISE ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4-50

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................ ................................ ................ 4-57

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-58

4.16 RECREATION................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-59

4.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................ ................................ ............................... 4-60

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ......... 4-62

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................ ................................ ..... 4-64

4.20 WILDFIRE................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-66

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................ ......................... 4-68

5.0 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5-1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6-1 Appendices
A Arborist Report
B Addendum to the Level 2 Risk Assessment

Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024 Page ii
C City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
D Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Memorandum E Noise Memorandum
F Response to Comments

FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Project Location................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6-3 2 Tree Locations................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6-5 TABLES
Table Page
1 Project Implementation (Tree Removal) Scenario Assumptions ................................ ............. 4-9 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................ ................................ ..... 4-10 3 Localized Significance Thresholds for Source -Receptor Area 33 (Southwest San Bernardino Valley) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-12 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Implementation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions .......................... 4-15 5 Air Pollutants Removed by Existing Pine Trees ................................ ................................ ... 4-16 6 Air Pollutants Removed by Replacement Trees ................................ ................................ ... 4-16 7 Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction – Unmitigated............. 4-17 8 Total Proposed Project Implementation Petroleum Demand ................................ ................ 4-27 9 Estimated Annual Implementation Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ........... 4-35 10 Aleppo Pine Removal iTree Simulation Results ................................ ................................ ... 4-36 11 Replacement Trees iTree Simulation Results ................................ ................................ ...... 4-37 12 Consistency with The City of Burbank’s Climate Action Plan ................................ ................ 4-38 13 Measured Noise Levels ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-51 14 Tree Removal and Implementation Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ................................ 4-54 15 Tree Removal Scenario Assumptions................................ ................................ .................. 4-55 16 Tree Removal Activity Noise Model Results Summary ................................ ......................... 4-55

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Project Title: Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project Project Location: City of Burbank
Project Applicant: City of Burbank
Parks & Recreation Department
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Lead Agency: City of Burbank
Parks & Recreation Department
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact Person: Mike del Campo
818.238.5300
[email protected]
General Plan Designation(s): Undesignated Public Right-of-Way (ROW)

Zoning Designation(s): N/A

PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of Burbank (City) is proposing to remove and replace 72 Aleppo Pine trees that have been found to be at risk of falling, in addition to the 49 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine the City already removed on an emergency basis in late 2023 and early 2024, and one Aleppo Pine tree that fell during windy conditions in March 2024. The project will prioritize the removal of trees based on the greatest risk to life and property, in a multi-year phased approach within a designated timeframe. All removed trees will be replaced at or above a 1:1 ratio.

PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local agencies to identify potentially significant environmental impacts of their actions and where possible avoid or mitigate those impacts.

The City of Burbank is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA by the City as Lead Agency to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. As demonstrated below, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below the level of significance, and the City may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 .

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

ORGANIZATION OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized into six sections as follows:

Section 1.0, Introduction, identifies the project and provides a summary of the project components. The Introduction also summarizes the purpose and structure of this Initial Study.

Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, describes the existing conditions, surrounding land use, general plan, and existing zoning of the project site.

Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the project.

Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis for each resource topic and identifies the potential impacts of implementing the project.

Section 5.0, References, identifies printed references and individuals cited in this Initial Study.

Section 6.0, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared this Initial Study

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Burbank is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. The northeastern part of the City is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains and the western edge of the city is located near the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley.

Burbank is bisected by Interstate 5 and adjacent to the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale (City of Burbank 2013). The regional location of the project site is shown on Figure 1. The hazardous trees the project would remove and replace are located throughout the City ’s public ROW areas in residential neighborhoods and park strips; the location of the project trees are shown in Figure 2, Tree Locations. A full list of the project tree locations is found in Section 3, Project Description, and in Appendix A.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The hazardous trees the project would remove all have health issues and are at risk of falling. The trees’ roots and root collar include buried/not visible roots, stem girdling, dead roots, decay, ooze, cracks, conks/mushrooms, cavity, cut/damaged roots, and root plate lifting. The trees’ crown and branches include unbalanced crowns, dead twigs/branches, broken/hangers, over -extended branches, cracks, codominant, weak attachments, previous branch failures, cavity/nest hole, dead/missing bark, cankers/galls/burls, sapwood damage/decay, conks, heartwood decay, included bark, and response growth. The trees’ pruning history ranges from topped, flush cuts, thinned, and lion-tailed. Project trees are identified as having either improbable, possible, probable, or imminent likelihood of failure.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Burbank2035 General Plan land use designations of the surrounding areas include low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, regional commercial, open space, and institutional (City of Burbank 2013) . The project trees are in urban areas, primarily surrounded by residential development.

General Plan Designation(s): Undesignated Public ROW
Zoning Designation(s): N/A

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND
The City of Burbank received an Arborist Report from RPM Services Inc. on September 13, 2023. The Arborist Report included a tree risk assessment for 121 Aleppo Pine trees (Pinus halepensis) and one Italian Stone Pine (Pinus Pinea)1 located in the City of Burbank. The City has had a history of Aleppo Pine tree failures in the past year with two (2) complete tree failures occurring during rainy weather conditions and one (1) complete tree failure during windy conditions in March 2024. There were no reported injuries but there was a significant amount of property damage. The trees included in the tree risk assessment were planted approximately 100+ years ago when the properties were first developed.

The trees are in park strips and residential neighborhoods with active pedestrian traffic and possible 24- hour occupancy in the homes and businesses located in the project area. The arborist report from RPW Services dated September 13, 2023 indicated that the majority of the trees should be removed, including three trees marked as Urgent, which the report recommended should be removed as soon as possible (Appendix A). The City commissioned a Level 2 Risk Assessment report from West Coast Arborists (WCA) to study the 38 trees identified in the RPW report as having a risk score of “3.” This report was completed on January 10, 2024, with an addendum issued on January 29, 2024 (Appendix B).

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project (project) would remove and replace approximately 72 Aleppo Pine trees in the City of Burbank that have been found to be at risk as a result of the Arborist Report’s analysis of the tree health and risk of falling trees. The project would involve the removal and replacement of these trees ranging from removal within one year if warranted, to removal in the next three to five years. These are in addition to the 49 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine the City already removed on an emergency basis in late 2023 and early 20242, and one Aleppo Pine tree that fell during windy conditions in March 2024. This MND, however, conservatively analyzes the potential environmental impact of removing and replacing both the trees that have already been removed and the remaining trees, for a total of 122 trees.

The removal of each tree would require approximately one workday (i.e., 8 hours per tree). Work would take place during daytime hours only (from 7 AM to 5 PM) Monday through Friday.

The City of Burbank will replace all Project trees with as large of a tree as the site can accommodate. The replacement trees shall not be smaller than a 36” box size tree, however the City will make every effort to plant a 48” box size tree, which is the largest size tree the most parkways can accommodate. When replanting for the removed Aleppo pines, the City of Burbank will replant at a minimum of one tree for each tree removed. When space permits (depending on safety, species selected, and infrastructure in the

1 One tree at 1023 East Santa Anita Avenue was recently discovered to be an Italian Stone Pine, Pinus Pinea, despite being incorrectly identified as an Aleppo Pine for decades. The existence of this single example of a different species does not affect the overall Project, and the MND continues to refer to the Project as the “Aleppo Pine Removal and Replacement Project.”
2 Two trees of the 38 approved from emergency removals (Tree # 6 at 500 S. Buena Vista and the tree at 1130 N. Niagara) were found to host birds’ nests. The City temporarily halted removals. Removal will resume at the end of 2024 nesting season or after the nests are relocated, if feasible.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

parkway that could affect the future growth of the new trees) the City of Burbank will plant more than one tree.

Residents/property owners will have the opportunity to select the replacement tree species for the tree adjacent to their property from the City of Burbank’s Street Tree Master Plan. The Street Tree Master Plan includes an index of species “suitable for planting in city streets,” and excludes species with “overly aggressive growth characteristics, unmanageable health issues, [and] climate incompatibility.” Aleppo Pines are not on the Street Tree Master Plan’s index (Appendix C) The cost of the tree, regardl ess of size, and installation will be paid by the City. Residents/property owners may also request a slow-release watering bag for the tree at no cost.

The City would maintain the replacement trees consistent with its existing practices for maintenance of the existing tree. The replacement trees would require less intensive and less frequent maintenance than the existing Aleppo Pines.

BASIS OF SCORING – ARBORIST REPORT
Aleppo Pine Trees with a score of “Urgent” (Already Removed on Emergency Basis) On October 11, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to remove the following three (3) Aleppo Pine trees scored as “Urgent” on an emergency basis due to the imminent danger they propose to the potential targets in the residential area.
434 N. Niagara St.
400 S. Keystone St.
113 N. Niagara St.

The trees were removed on October 11, 2023 (400 S. Keystone), October 12, 2023 (113 N. Niagara), and October 13, 2023 (434 N. Niagara).

Aleppo Pine Trees with a score of “3” (Already Removed on Emergency Basis) On February 21, 2024, following heavy rains, the City filed a NOE to remove the following eight (8) trees on an emergency basis due to the imminent danger they propose to the potential targets in the residential area.
241 N. Niagara St.
246 N. Niagara St. (two trees)
1613 N. Niagara St.
1633 N. Niagara St.
734 N. Niagara St.
814 N. Niagara St.
1023 E. Santa Anita Ave. (Italian Stone Pine)
The trees were all removed between February 21 and February 26, 2024.

Additionally, on March 14, 2024, the Aleppo Pine tree at 1433 N. Niagara St. fell during windy conditions and has been removed. The City thereafter removed 36 of the 38 remaining trees with a score of “3”

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

between March and May of 2024. Birds’ nests were discovered in two trees (Tree # 6 at 500 S. Buena Vista and the tree at 1130 N. Niagara), and removal activities were halted. Removal of these two trees will resume at the end of the 2024 nesting season or after the nests are relocated, if feasible. However, this MND will conservatively analyze the removal of these trees. These trees were located at:
2920 W. Verdugo Ave. 500 S. Buena Vista St. - 6
716 Niagara St. 500 S. Buena Vista St. - 7
731 N. Niagara St. 129 N. Niagara St. -2
1130 N. Niagara St. 200 N. Niagara St.
1133 N. Niagara St. -1 204 N. Niagara St.
1133 N. Niagara St. -2 210 N. Niagara St.
1210 N. Niagara St. 211 N. Niagara St.
1226 N. Niagara St. 218 N. Niagara St.
1600 N. Niagara St. -2 219 N. Niagara St.
1604 N. Niagara St. 226 N. Niagara St. -2
3003 W. Olive Ave. -1 236 N. Niagara St.
209 N. Orchard Dr. 237 N. Niagara St.
1706 N. Pass Ave. 242 N. Niagara St.
1707 N. Pass Ave. 310 N. Niagara St.
1750 N. Pass Ave. 324 N. Niagara St.
2100 N. Pass Ave. 332 N. Niagara St.
519 E. Santa Anita Ave. 540 S. Keystone St.
500 S. Buena Vista St. -1 2027 N. Fairview St.
500 S. Buena Vista St.- 2 700 S. Sixth St.

Aleppo Pine Trees with a score of “ 2”
Fifty-four (54) of the Aleppo Pine trees that have been scored as “2” would be the second stage of the removals due to their overall health, structure, and potential targets if they were to fail. Canopy reduction on these trees began on November 27, 2023 and was completed on or about December 10, 2024. These trees would need to be inspected and monitored bi-annually over the next one to three years, at which time they would be removed.
532 S. Niagara St. 4200 W. Woodland Ave.
346 N. Niagara St. 130 N. Screenland Dr.
433 N. Niagara St. 514 S. Keystone St.
435 N. Niagara St-1 500 S. Buena Vista St.- 5
435 N. Niagara St-2 500 S. Buena Vista St.- 8
439 N. Niagara St. 500 S. Buena Vista St.- 9
739 N. Niagara St. 500 S. Buena Vista St.-10
806 N. Niagara St. 1012 N. Frederic St. -1
810 N. Niagara St. 1012 N. Frederic St. -2
951 N. Niagara St. 1536 N. Keystone St.
1135 N. Niagara St. -1 1539 N. Keystone St.
1135 N. Niagara St. -2 2017 W. Monterey Ave. -1
1208 N. Niagara St. 2017 W. Monterey Ave. -2

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

1348 N. Niagara St. 2017 W. Monterey Ave. -3
1513 N. Niagara St. 124 N. Niagara St.
1550 N. Niagara St. -1 125 N. Niagara St.
1550 N. Niagara St. -2 128 N. Niagara St.
1633 N. Niagara St. -2 129 N. Niagara St. -1
2239 N. Niagara St. 201 N. Niagara St.
3003 W. Olive Ave. -2 208 N. Niagara St.
620 E. Palm Ave 226 N. Niagara St. -1
1703 N. Pass Ave. 233 N. Niagara St.
1740 N. Pass Ave 926 N. Lima St
2011 N. Pass Ave 330 W. Lutge Ave.
2114 N. Pass Ave. 2829 W. Burbank Blvd.
2360 N. Reese Place 118 N. Niagara St.
1400 N. Naomi St. 315 N Niagara St.

Aleppo Pine Trees with a score of “ 1”
Eighteen (18) of the Aleppo Pine trees have been scored as “1” and would be monitored after any dead branches are removed. These trees would be planned for removal in the next three to five years if their condition does not change. Yearly inspections would be conducted until they are replaced to monitor for stressors and structural warnings.
719 N Niagara St. 2125 N. Pass Ave. -1
1245 N. Niagara St 2125 N. Pass Ave. -2
1525 N. Niagara St -1 1131 N. Sparks St.
1525 N. Niagara St -2 500 S. Buena Vista -3
1600 N. Niagara St -1 500 S. Buena Vista -4
1609 N. Niagara St -1 1036 N. Maple St.
1609 N. Niagara St -2 1415 N. Avalon St.
2921 W. Olive Ave -1 1010 Elmwood Ave.
1726 N. Pass Ave 2144 Evergreen St.

Relationship to Potential Future Urban Forest Master Plan The City of Burbank’s involvement with the Tree City USA program for over 46 years is a testament to the City's commitment to preserving its urban forest. To proactively manage the City’s urban forest of 33,000 trees, and separate from the proposed Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project, the City of Burbank is currently considering the potential future development of an Urban Forest Master Plan .

This plan would include updating the City's park and street tree inventory, conducting a health assessment of all City-owned trees, completing an urban canopy study, reviewing the City's tree policies and procedures, and assessing the City -wide pruning cycle. This potential future plan is neither dependent on nor necessitated by the proposed Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project. This potential future plan would not change the scope or nature of the proposed Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project or its potential environmental impacts. The Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project would address a specific set of Aleppo Pines (and one Italian Stone Pine) that were all planted at

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

the same time in discrete areas of the City and present a unique danger to the public as they all reach the end of their natural lives within a relatively short period of time. Therefore, the Aleppo Tree Removal and Replacement Project has independent utility for the City of Burbank regardless of whether or not a future city-wide Urban Forest Master Plan project is adopted. The City would also conduct appropriate analysis under CEQA prior to adoption of any future Urban Forest Master Plan.

CITY OF BURBANK APPROVAL ACTIONS
Actions and approvals required from the City in association with the proposed project include:
• Review of the Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project and Environmental Review by the Parks and Recreation Board
• Approval of the Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project and Environmental Review by the Burbank City Council

RELATED TECHNICAL REPORTS
The following technical report was utilized in the preparation of this MND and are incorporated by reference:
• Appendix A: RPW Services Inc. 2023. Arborist Report . September 13, 2023. • Appendix B: WCA. 2024. Addendum to the Level 2 Risk Assessment. January 29, 2024. • Appendix C: City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan • Appendix D: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Memorandum • Appendix E: Noise Memorandum
• Appendix F: Response to Comments

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality Energy
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
of Significance

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to appli cable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature

Date

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenc ed information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significa nt Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

4.1 AESTHETICS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project :
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact . Scenic vistas generally refer to viewpoints that provide expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public . The Burbank2035 General Plan identifies views of the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast and views of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains to the south . Downslope views from hillside development in the Verdugo Mountains toward the city and the Santa Monica Mountains beyond are considered to be valued scenic resources within the City. On a more urbanized scale, the character of neighborhoods, architecture, vegetation, and landscaping provide scenic value to the City (City of Burbank 2013). Removal of the project trees would not impact scenic views of mountains. Within the neighborhoods, removal of the trees would create a minimal, temporary decrease in landscaping, until the trees are replaced. Upon replacement of the Aleppo Pine trees, visual impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources , including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the Burbank2035 General Plan EIR and the California Department of Transportation’s State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no officially designated scenic highways in Burbank ( AECOM 2012a; Caltrans 2018). Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur. c) In non -urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project tree locations are within urbanized areas of the City. The proposed actions would take place within public ROW. The Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Title 7 Chapter 4 contains guidelines for the maintenance and removal of trees and vegetation. Section 7-4-107 of the BMC states that the City will maintain street trees within a public area and/or public ROW. Section 7-4- 110 if the BMC states that any tree standing in any street and overhanging or projecting into the street appears to be dead, liable t o fall, dangerous or an obstruction to public travel, the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department (Department) shall cause such tree, or such part thereof as appears to be dead, liable to fall, dangerous or an obstruction to travel, to be cut down and if in any street, to be removed therefrom (City of Burbank 2023a). The project would comply with the applicable standards and guidelines of the BMC.

In addition, the City adopted an updated a Street Tree Master Plan in 2008 that reflects the City’s long-standing interest in providing aesthetically pleasing choices that provide the greatest canopy coverage, are appropriate for the environmental conditions, provide diversity, are reasonable to maintain and fit the available space. The Street Tree Master Plan includes a Tree Species Index of trees suitable for plan ting in the City’s streets, a Street Tree Master Plan for each Street & Block, and a review o f the City’s previous Street Tree Master Plan for changing standards.

According to the 2008 Street Tree Master Plan, Aleppo Pine trees are no longer recommended for planting in the streets of Burbank because this species becomes very large in advanced age and are subject to structural maladies as they reach senescence (Appendix C). The City would be required to refer to the Street Tree Master Plan regarding standards for the replacement of trees as part of this project.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Lane Use Element Policy 4.3 provides: “Use street trees, landscaping, street furniture, public art, and other aesthetic elements to enhance the appearance and identity of neighborhoods and public spaces.” Here, the Project will replace the Aleppo Pines with trees from the Street Tree Master Plan. The Project is consistent with Policy

4.3 because it will replace street trees, at a greater than one -to-one ratio where feasible, and enhance the appearance and identity of the neighborhoods. The Project will replace the Aleppo Pines with trees from the Street Tree Master Plan, which was drafted “with the goal of increasing City-wide street tree canopy coverage in a sustainable manner while maintaining iconic groupings and gateway plantings associated with the aesthetic beauty of the neighborhoods.” (Appendix C at p. 1.)

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Burbank2035 General Plan Policy 4.5 requires that pedestrian-oriented areas include street trees and landscaping. The Project is consistent with Policy 4.5 because it will replace the Aleppo Pines with more street trees.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Land Use Element Green House Gas Reduction Plan, Policy CS-

1.1 provides that the City will “Plant 2,000 net new trees by 2030 and 5,000 net new trees by 2045 to sequester carbon and create urban shade to reduce the urban heat island effect.” The Project is consistent with this policy because the Aleppo pines will be replaced at least at a one-to-one ratio, and a greater than one -to-one ratio where feasible. Based on these considerations, the project would be in compliance with the applicable zoning and regulations governing scenic quality and trees in the City and no impact would occur . d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project trees are in residential neighborhoods in the City including homes and businesses where there are existing sources of ambient nighttime lighting. The canopies of the Aleppo Pine trees are sparse due to age and pruning, and currently do not provide significant protection from ambient nighttime lighting. Upon replacement of trees, light and glare would be similar to existing conditions and impacts would be less than significant.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dep t. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by t he California Depart ment of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non -agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use?

Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
According to the California Important Farmland Finder database, the identified trees are located on land classified as "Urban and Built-Up Land." Additionally, the Burbank2035 General Plan EIR states that there are no designated Important Farmland located within the City (AECOM 2012a).

Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
According to the Burbank2035 General Plan EIR, no Williamson Act contracts are located within the City (AECOM 2012a). The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
According to the Burbank2035 General Plan EIR, the City does not contain forestland (AECOM 2012a). The identified trees are located on developed areas of the city and are not zoned as forest, timberland or for Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? As discussed in Response 4.2(c) above, the City does not contain forestland . Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
As discussed in Response 4.2(a) through 4.2(c) above, the project would be located in urbanized areas with no existing agricultural uses, Farmland, or forest lands in the vicinity. No impact would occur.

4.3 AIR QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Approach and Methodology
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.21 was used to estimate emissions from the implementation3 phase of the project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction activities (CAPCOA 2022). “Summer” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the O3 season (May 1 to October 31), and “winter” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).

4.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION
Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with implementation of the project, i.e., removal of the trees, were estimated using CalEEMod for the following emission sources: operation of off -road construction equipment, fugitive dust, on -road hauling, vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.

CalEEMod input parameters were based on in formation provided by the applicant, or on default assumptions if project -specific data was not available. Project implementation was assumed to commence in October 2023 and last 122 days (i.e., one day for each tree) . The assumed construction start date of October 2023 represents the earliest date the project would initiate. The earliest start year for the project represents the worst-case scenario for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in-use off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years. In actuality, the project is projected to commence over a five-year period. As discussed above, the removal of each tree would require approximately one workday (i.e., 8 hours per tree). As discussed above, this is a conservative assumption due to the fact that the only 72 trees remain to be removed.

The project is anticipated to result in 8 one-way haul truck trips per day as a result of tree debris. The mix of construction equipment, estimated hours of equipment operation per day, and on-road vehicles used for the air emissions modeling of the project are shown in Table 1. Additional details regarding implementation assumptions are provided in the modeling output, Attachment A.

Table 1. Project Implementation (Tree Removal) Scenario Assumptions Project
Implementation
Phase
Average Daily One -Way
Vehicle Trips Equipment
Workers
Vendor
Trucks
Haul
Trucks Equipment Type Quantity
Daily
Usage
Hours
Phase 1
Tree Removal 18 0 8 Crane 1 8
Rubber Tired Loader 1 4
Chainsaws 1 8
Woodchipper 1 6
Stump Grinder 1 4
Notes: See Attachment A for details.

3 Due to the nature of the project, the term “implementation” has been use to describe the tree removal activities.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.3.2 OPERATIONS
The project would not alter the City’s operations. No additional staff would be necessary for the operation of the project.

Thresholds of Significanc e
The significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts to air quality are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), as follows:

A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan B. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on air quality. SCAQMD has adopted thresholds to address the significance of air quality impacts resulting from a project. A project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS for O3, which is a nonattainment pollutant, if the project’s implementation emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s VOC or NOx significance thresholds shown in Table 2. These emission-based thresholds for O3 precursors are intended to serve as a surrogate for an “ozone significance threshold” (i.e., the potential for adverse O3 impacts to occur) because O 3 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual project ’s emissions of O 3 precursors (VOC and NO x) on O3 levels in ambient air cannot be reliably or meaningfully determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods.

Table 2. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (Pounds per Day) Operation (Pounds per Day) VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SOx 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Leada 3 3
TACs and Odor Thresholds
TACsb Maximum incremental cancer risk  10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas  1 in 1 million) Chronic and acute hazard index  1.0 (project increment)

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (Pounds per Day) Operation (Pounds per Day) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants c

NO2 1-hour average
NO2 annual
arithmetic mean
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:

0.18 ppm ( state)

0.030 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)

CO 1-hour average
CO 8-hour average
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal)

9.0 ppm ( state /federal)
PM10 24-hour
average

PM10 annual
average

10.4 g/m 3 (construction) d

2.5 g/m 3 (operation)

1.0 g/m 3
PM2.5 24-hour
average

10.4 g/m 3 (construction) d

2.5 g/m 3 (operation)
Source: SCAQMD 2023.

Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOCs = volatile organic compounds ; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO x = sulfur oxides ; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO 2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter . a The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b TACs include carcinogens and non -carcinogens.
c Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A -2, unless otherwise stated. d Ambient air quality threshold are based on SCAQMD Rule 403.

The phasing out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. As gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.

In addition to the emission-based thresholds listed in Table 2, SCAQMD also recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of construction activities. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis.

To account for truck activity, it was assumed that each truck would travel 1,000 feet on-site. For project sites of 5 acres or less, the SCAQMD LST Methodology includes lookup tables that can be used to determine the maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the localized significance criteria (i.e., the emissions would not cause an exceedance of the applicable concentration limits for NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) without performing project-specific dispersion modeling (SCAQMD 2009). The project would disturb less than 5 acres per day, so it is appropriate to use the lookup tables for the LST evaluation.

The LST significance thresholds for NO 2 and CO represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards, while the threshold for PM 10 represents compliance with Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The LST significance threshold for PM2.5 is intended to ensure that construction

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

emissions do not contribute substantially to existing exceedances of the PM 2.5 ambient air quality standards. The allowable emission rates depend on the following parameters:
• Source-receptor area (SRA) in which the project is located • Size of the project site
• Distance between the project site and the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals)
The project site is located in SRA 7 (East San Fernando Valley). LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1-, 2-, and 5-acre sites for varying distances. The nearest sensitive-receptor land uses are residences on the boundaries of which tree removal will occur. As such, the LST receptor distance was assumed to be 25 meters, the most conservative distance option. The LST values from the SCAQMD lookup tables for SRA 7 (East San Fernando Valley) for a 1-acre project site and a receptor distance of 25 meters are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Localized Significance Thresholds for Source -Receptor Area 33 (Southwest San Bernardino Valley)
Pollutant Threshold (pounds/day)
Construction
NO2 80
CO 498
PM10 4
PM2.5 3
Source: SCAQMD 2009.

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM 10 = coarse particulate matter; PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter Localized significance thresholds were determined based on the values for a 1-acre site at a distance of 25 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Project Design Features
The Project would include a Project Design Feature (PDF) aimed to reduce project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions. This PDF will be included as an enforceable condition of approval by the City. The PDF, henceforth referred to as PDF -AQ-1, includes the following requirements:
• Improve fuel efficiency of construction equipment
o Reduce unnecessary idling (modify work practices, install auxiliary power for driver comfort); o Perform equipment maintenance (inspections, detect failures early, corrections); o Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment; o Use the proper size of equipment for the job; and
o Use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric drive trains).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

• Use alternative fuels for electricity generators and welders at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power.
• Use an ARB-approved low-carbon fuel for construction equipment. Emissions of NOx from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated. Additional information about low-carbon fuels is available from ARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program. • Reduce electricity use in the construction offices by using best-available technology and replacing heating and cooling units with more efficient ones.
• Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. • Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk, and curb materials).
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control. This may consist of the use of nonpotable water from a local source.

This PDF has not been quantified for the purpose of emissions modeling.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) administers the South Coast Air Basin’s (SCAB) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The AQMP is the regional path towards improving air quality and meeting federal standards for air pollutants, and each AQMP incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The most recent approved SCAQMD AQMP is the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board in December 2022. The SCAQMD 2022 AQMP was developed to address the attainment of the 2015 national 8 -hour O3 ambient air quality standard (70 parts per billion) for the SCAB and Coachella Valley. The 2022 AQMP provides actions, strategies, and steps needed to reduce air pollutant emissions and meet the O 3 standard by 2037.

The purpose of a consistency finding with regard to the AQMP is to determine if a project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These criteria are (SCAQMD 1993):
• Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. • Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

To address the first criterion, project -generated criteria air pollutant emissions have been estimated and analyzed for significance and are addressed in Section 4.3(b). Detailed results of this analysis are included in Appendix D. As presented in Section 4.3(b), tree removal and post- removal and replacement of trees would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds.

The second criterion regarding the project’s potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining consistency between the project’s land use designations and its potential to generate population growth. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and not in conflict with or obstructing implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used t o develop the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2020). The most recent RTP/SCS is SCAG’s 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), which was adopted on September 3, 2020. This document, which is based on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, is used by SCAQMD to develop the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2022) 4.

The project involves the removal and replacement of hazardous trees, and would be non - operational in nature. As the project would be consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan designation and zoning for the site, implementation of the project would not generate an increase in growth demographics that would conflict with existing projections within the region.

Accordingly, the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in the SCAQMD AQMP development.

In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP would be less than significant.

4 Information necessary to produce the emissions inventory for the SCAB is obtained from SCAQMD and other governmental agencies, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into its Travel Demand Model for estimating/projecting vehicle miles traveled and driving speeds.

SCAG’s socioeconomic and transportation activities projec tions in the Connect SoCal are integrated in the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these consi derations, project -level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

IMPLEMENTATION EMISSIONS
Proposed implementation activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment) and off-site sources (i.e., haul trucks and worker vehicle trips). Emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity; the specific type of activity; and, for particulate matter, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated.

Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions would also be generated by entrained dust, which results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil. Table 4 presents the estimated maximum daily implementation emissions generated during tree removal. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4. Estimated Maximum Daily Implementation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Winter
2023 21.82 12.01 31.95 0.02 1.36 0.95
2024 21.74 11.68 31.66 0.02 1.35 0.94
Maximum 21.82 12.01 31.95 0.02 1.36 0.95
SCAQMD
Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded?
No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NO x = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO x = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Emissions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and Rule 1113.

See Appendix D for complete results.

As shown in Table 4, project implementation would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds.

Therefore, implementation impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

Trees can improve air quality by (1) reducing air temperature, (2) reducing building energy consumption and (3) directly removing pollutants such as surface -level ozone and particulate

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

matter from the air (NPS 2022). The amount of criteria air pollutants removed from the air by the pine trees slated for removal has been estimated using the United States Department of Agriculture’s iTree Planting Calculator. The total pounds of pollutants removed over a 99 -year period were averaged to find a removal value in pounds per day. The results are shown below in Table 5.

Table 5. Air Pollutants Removed by Existing Pine Trees
Daily Pollutants
Removed by
Existing Pines
NO 2 SO2 PM 2. 5
Pounds per Day (All Trees Combined)

0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Source: iTree Planting Calculator
Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM 10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.

The majority of the existing mature Aleppo pine trees will be replaced by trees as listed in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan belonging to one of the following species: Jacaranda Chinese Pistache, Deodar Cedar and Canary Island Pine. An iTree modeling run was conducted for pollutants removed. The results of the iTree modeling are shown below. Note that the replacement trees are conservatively assumed to have a DBH of 6 inches, which will increase as they mature.

The modeling was conducted over a 30-year period, consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended period for the amortization of construction emissions.

Table 6. Air Pollutants Removed by Replacement Trees
Tree
Species
Approximate
DBH
(inches) Condition
NO 2 SO2 PM 2. 5
Pounds per Day (Singular Tree of Each
Species)
Chinese
Pistache
6 Excellent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Deodar
Cedar
6 Excellent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Canary
Island Pine
6 Excellent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Average <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Notes: Criteria air pollutants removed are evaluated over a 30- year period, the SCAQMD-recommended period for amortized construction GHG emissions . iTree assumes an electricity emissions factor of 252.4 kg CO2 equivalent/MWh.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The proposed project would not alter the City’s operations. No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project. Because the project would not result in substantial changes to routine operational activities, air quality impacts associated with operational air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respirator y diseases. According to SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The nearest sensitive-receptor land uses are residences on the boundaries of which tree removal will occur.

Implementation activities associated with the project would result in temporary sources of on-site fugitive dust, construction equipment emissions, and on -site mobile source emissions. The maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for source-receptor area (SRA) 7 are presented in Table 7 and compared to the maximum daily on-site construction emissions.

Table 7. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction – Unmitigated
Maximum On -Site
Emissions
NO 2 CO PM 10 PM 2. 5
Pounds per Day
2023 21.82 12.01 31.95 0.02
2024 21.74 11.68 31.66 0.02
SCAQMD LST 80 498 4 3
LST Exceeded? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2009.

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM 10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold. Localized significance thresholds are shown for a 1.5 -acre project site corresponding to a distance to a sensitive receptor of 25 meter s.

As shown in Table 7, the project LST would not exceed the established significance thresholds, and thus would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors during construction.

CO HOTSPOTS
Traffic -congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” CO transport is extremely limited a nd disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrat ions are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 93.123(c)(5), Procedures for Determining Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 Concentrations (Hot-Spot Analysis), states that “CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are not required to consider construction-related activities, which cause temporary increases in emissions. Each site which is affected by construction related activities shall be considered separately, using established ‘Guideline’ methods. Temporary increases are defined as those which occur only during the construction phase and last five years or less at any individual site” (40 CFR 93.123). While project implementation would involve on-road vehicle trips from trucks and workers during construction, construction activities would occur on a maximum of 72 days (one day per tree removal) over five years and would be temporary. Therefore, no a project-level construction hotspot analysis is required.

In addition, at the time that the SCAQMD Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) was published, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS as a result of the steady decline in CO concentrations in the SCAB due to turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities. The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP (SCAQMD 2003) for the four worst -case intersections in the SCAB, including the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.

The 2003 AQMP projected 8 -hour CO concentrations at these four intersections for 1997 and from 2002 through 2005. From years 2002 through 2005, the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.8 parts per million in 2002 and the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.4 parts per million in 2002.

Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour CO CAAQS unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day.

Because the project would not increase daily traffic volumes at any stu dy intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur.

Based on these considerations, the project would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality with regard to potential CO ho tspots.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses prox imate to the project site.

Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SCAQMD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk - assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects.

The SCAQMD recommends a Hazard Index of 1 or more for acute (short-term) and chronic (long- term) noncarcinogenic effects. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during implementation would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy equipment operations and use of heavy-duty trucks.

DPM has established cancer risk factors and relative exposure values for long-term chronic health hazard impacts; however, no short-term, acute relative exposure level has been established for DPM. Total project implementation would last approximately 6 months, after which project-related TAC emissions would cease. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments (which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions) s hould be based on a 30 -year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual receptor; however, such assessments should also be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. An 8 -month construction schedule represents a short duration of exposure (2% of a 30-year exposure period), while cancer and chronic risk from DPM are typically associated with long-term exposure. Thus, the project would not result in a long-term source of TAC emissions.

Exhaust PM10 is typically used as a surrogate for DPM, and as shown in Table 4, which presents total PM 10 from fugitive dust and exhaust, project -generated construction PM10 emissions are anticipated to be below the SCAQMD threshold. Due to the relatively short period of exposure and minimal DPM emissions on site, TACs generated during implementation would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Implementation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds.

The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 for the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, existing O3 levels in the SCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. Health effects associated with O3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2019a). Because the project would not involve implementation activities that would result in O 3 precursor emissions (VOC or NO x) that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the project is not anticipated to s ubstantially contribute to regional O 3 concentrations and associated health impacts.

In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 (since NO2 is a constituent of NO x). Health effects associated with NOx and NO2 include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (CARB 2019b). As depicted in Table 4, project implementation emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx. Thus, the project is not expected to exceed the NO 2 standards or contribute to associated health effects.

Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light-headedness, and reduced mental alertness (CARB 2019c). CO tends to be a localized

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

impact associated with congested intersections. CO hotspots were discussed previously as a less than significant impact. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.

The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for PM 10 under the CAAQS and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems.

Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increase d respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing (EPA 2016). As with O3 and NOx, the project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed SCAQMD’s mass daily or LST thresholds.

In summary, the project would not result in any potentially significant contribution to local or regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those poll utants. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project is not anticipated to result in other air quality emissions that have not been addressed under the previous text in Section 4.3 . As such, this analysis focuses on the potential for the project to generate odors.

The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during tree removal. Potential odors produced during this phase would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment (e.g., gas powered work trucks, chain saws, woodchipper, et cetera). Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during implementation would be less than significant.

Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food -processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SCAQMD 1993). The project is non- operational in nature and would not create any new sources of substantial odor during operation.

Therefore, project operations would result in odor impact that is less than sig nificant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The City’s planning area supports suitable habitat for 11 special -status plant species and 9 special-status wildlife species occur. Because the City is built out, with the exception of the Verdugo Mountains, most of these species ’ suitable habitats are located in the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains (AECOM 2012b). The project would involve the removal of Aleppo pine trees, which are not a candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant species, and would not impact any other candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant species. The special-status wildlife species in the City that could occur or are known to occur would not be impacted by the removal of Aleppo pine trees, because these trees are not suitable habitat for these species .

Ornamental conifers, such as the Aleppo pine trees, could however support common , urban - adapted native and nonnative birds and small mammals (AECOM 2012b). These common, unprotected species, however, have large, stable populations throughout the region. The Project will replace only 12 2 of over 33,000 trees in the City. Aleppo pines do not provide any unique or special habitat for common native and nonnative bird and small mammals as compared to the replacement tree species or any other common street tree species in southern California. Aleppo pines do not provide a source of forage or food for either common, unprotected species, or any special -status wildlife. While the existing, mature Aleppo pines could provide marginally more habitat for common, unprotected species than the replacement trees due to simply their larger size, th e marginal reduction of habitat would have a less than significant impact on these common species.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted a comment letter on March 18, 2022, on the City’s Final EIR for the City’s Housing Element update, which noted possible impacts from planned housing development citywide on three species: least Bell’s vireo, special-status species of bats, and monarch butterflies. 5 The Project would not have an impact on least Bell’s video because they require riparian habitat, which does not occur near the Aleppo pines. The Project area is not known to be habitat for any special-status species of bats. The impact on bats would be less than significant because the Aleppo pines are not expected to support a maternity or winter roost because they are within a residential neighborhood. The loss of a few individual non- listed species of bats from the loss of day/night roosts would not rise to the level of significance.

No impacts to monarch butterflies are expected because the majority of wintering sites are within

1.5 miles from the ocean and have very specific microclimate conditions, including dappled sunlight, high humidity, access to fresh water, and an absence of freezing temperatures or high winds (The Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper 2024), which are not present on site .

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species, including approximately 800 native species, without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; this applies to

5 The Housing Element FEIR is available at https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp -content/uploads/2022/09/Final- EIR.pdf.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

active nests. California Fish and Game Code Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Removal of project trees could cause mortality to bird species and/or destruction of eggs or active nests if occurring during the general nesting season of February 1 through August 31. This would be a potentially significant impact without mitigation. However, nesting bird surveys prior to removal or maintenance avoids and minimizes the risk of taking an active nest. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO 1, would reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds to a less-than- significant level. This mitigation is consistent with what is required in the Housing Element EIR MM-BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance. Project tree removal activities shall be conducted in compliance with the conditions set forth in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests. Vegetation removal shall occur during the non-breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors (October 1–January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be performed during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1–September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1–June 30), a pre- construction survey shall be conducted at the project trees and immediately adjacent to the project trees by qualified biologists for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days before project activities in order to avoid direct or indirect impacts on active nests. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the project trees, the vegetation clearing/tree removal shall be allowed to proceed.

If the biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the project trees and determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the project activity. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to project activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest; and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be 100 –300 feet for non -raptor nesting birds and 300–500 feet for nesting raptors. Vegetation clearing/tree removal can only proceed into the buffer after the qualified biologist determine s that the nest is no longer active.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element Policies 8.2 and 8.5 would require the improvement of ecological and biological conditions when making public improvements and encourage landscaping that incorporates native plant species . The project trees would be replaced with trees from the Street Tree Master Plan Tree Species Index, which includes trees that are suitable for planting in the streets of Burbank. These trees are screened for overly aggressive growth characteristics, unacceptable structural weaknesses, unmanageable health issues, climate incompatibility, and more (Appendix C). The project would comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan policies by replacing hazardous trees with trees that would improve the ecological and biological conditions of the City. These trees would be suitable for the common native and nonnative wildlife species in the City. As such, the project would not result in impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species and impacts would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project tree locations are within residential neighborhoods in the City; these areas have been developed and do not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. No impact to these biological resources would occur as a result of the projec t. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project tree locations are within residential neighborhoods in the City and are not located on or near federally protected wetlands (USFWS 2023). No impact to these biological resources would occur as a result of the project.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife movement in the City is primarily within open space areas in the Verdugo Mountains and are linked by canyons and natural drainages (AECOM 2012a). The project tree locations are within urban, developed areas of the City that do not act as wildlife corridors. According to the CDFW’s Areas of Conservation Emphasis, last updated in 2019, the project area is mapped as having the lowest connectivity ranking (1 out of 5), designated as having limited connectivity opportunity (CDFW 2022). Implementation of the proposed project will no t significantly affect wildlife movement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Title 7, Chapter 4 of the BMC, Trees and Vegetation, includes rules and regulations about the maintenance and removal of trees in the City. Section 7 -4-108 of the BMC requires the City to develop and maintain a list of trees in the City, including landmark trees, trees of outstanding size and beauty, and dedicated trees. These trees must be identified, mapped and recorded, and given special treatment to retain and protect them (City of Burbank 2023a). Trees not on this list are not afforded special protecti on. The Street Tree Master Plan no longer recommends Aleppo Pine trees for planting in the streets of Burbank because this species becomes very large in advanced age and are subject to structural maladies as they reach senescence (Appendix C). In addition, Section 7-4-110 of the BMC states that i f any tree standing in any street, or standing on any private property and overhanging or projecting into the street appears to be dead, liable to fall, dangerous or an obstruction to public travel, the Department shall cause such tree, or such part thereof as appears to be dead, liable to fall, dangerous or an obstruction to travel, to be cut down and if in any street, to be removed therefrom (City of Burbank 2023 a). The Arborist Report (Appendix A) identified 121 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine with the risk of falling; the project would involve the removal and replacement of Aleppo Pine trees identified in the Arborist Report ranging from urgent removal to removal in the next three to five years. The trees

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

would be replaced with appropriate tree species identified in the Street Tree Master Plan.

Therefore, the project would comply with the local policies and ordinances protecting trees and impacts would be less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other related plans for lands within the City’s planning area (AECOM 2012a). Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The City of Burbank Historic Preservation Plan provides helps identify and manage cultural resources within the City. Based on a review of the City of Burbank’s Historic Preservation Plan, none of the project trees or locations are listed as potentially significant historic properties (City of Burbank 1999). Additionally, the neighborhoods surrounding the project trees do not have any recognized historic or aesthetic value derived from the trees. The project would remove and replace trees within public right-of-way and would not impact any existing structures. As such, the project would prevent at-risk trees from falling and damaging nearby structures. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and no impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The project tree locations are within urban, previously disturbed areas of the City. Minimal ground disturbance would occur to remove and replace trees , and there are no known archaeological resources in the areas where trees would be removed and replaced . c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The project tree locations are within previously disturbed areas of public right-of-way. It is unlikely that human remains would be found or disturbed in the process of removing and replacing select trees. However, should human remains be unexpectedly encountered during ground -disturbing activities, they shall be treated consistent with applicable law including, without limitation, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the county coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, the county coroner shall follow all required protocols according to PRC Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains resulting from the projects would be less than significant.

4.6 ENERGY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

IMPLEMENTATION
Electricity
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment would be provided by Burbank Water and Power ( BWP). The amount of electricity used during project implementation would be minimal because typical demand stems from the use of electronic equipment, in addition to electrically powered hand tools. As the electricity used for implementation activities would be temporary and minimal, impacts related to electricity consumption during project implementation are determined to be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during implementation of the proposed project. Fuels used for implementation would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection “Petroleum". Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of implementation would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect on the environment; therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

Petroleum
Offroad equipment used during implementation of the project would primarily rely on diesel fuel, as would vendor and haul trucks. In addition, construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of implementation.

The estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment, haul trucks, and vendor trucks, as well as estimated gasoline fuel usage from worker vehicles, is shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Total Proposed Project Implementation Petroleum Demand Scenario
Off -Road
Equipment
(diesel)
Haul Trucks
(diesel)
Vendor Trucks
(diesel)
Worker
Vehicles
(gasoline)
Gallons
Project
Implementation
7,114.96 0.00 2,982.59 1,495.90
Source: Appendix D
In summary, implementation of the project is estimated to consume a total of approximately 11,593 gallons of petroleum. Notably, the project would be subject to CARB’s In -Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements.

Overall, while project implementation would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction.

Further, the petroleum consumed related to construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not necessitate new petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed in California. Therefore, because petroleum use during project construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

POST TREE REMOVAL
The proposed project would not alter the City’s operations. No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project. However, building electricity demand could change due to the removal of the mature Aleppo pines (NPS 2022). The United States Department of Agriculture’s iTree Planting Calculator was used to estimate the total electricity saved due to the presence of the Aleppo pines over a 99 -year period. The average electricity savings provided by the 122 trees was estimated to be approximately 9,082 kWh per year. The average annual energy use for single-family homes in California is approximately 9,612 kWh per year (Wigness 2023). Therefore, the sum of the energy savings provided by all 122 trees annually will approximately equal the annual energy demand of one single -family home in California.

SUMMARY
The project would use renewable energy onsite as determined to be feasible and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, or petroleum during project implementation or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6). Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the project under CALGre en.

CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, high-rise residential, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals, as well as certain residential and non-residential additions and alterations.

As the project concerns the removal and planting of trees, these standards would not be applicable.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.8, the proposed project would not conflict with the City of Burbank Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update (GGRP). The proposed project would also not conflict with CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, which identifies several strategies to reduce

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

GHG emissions through energy efficiency. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.8, the proposed project would be subject to these strategies as many are state actions requiring no additional involvement at the project level. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans for energy efficiency, and the impacts during implementation and operation would be less than significant.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on - or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

According to the Burbank2035 General Plan, not Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated in the City. The City contains one active fault, the Verdugo Fault, located just south of the Verdugo Mountains (City of Burbank 2013). No faults run through the project tree locations; therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Verdugo Fault system and other regional faults are the main contributors to seismic ground shaking potential in the City and the surrounding region (AECOM 2012a). The project would contain no habitable structures or other structural development that would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects due to strong seismic ground shaking. Rather, the project would involve removing trees that have been found to be at risk of falling and replace the trees with more stable and resilient trees; the project would prevent the risk of substantial adverse effects of at -risk falling trees due to strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction occurs when shaking increases pore water pressure and causes the soil to lose its strength and behave as a liquid. The excess pore pressures are often pushed upward through fissures and soil cracks, which causes water ‐soil slurry to bubble onto the ground surface.

Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated and loose, fine ‐ to‐medium‐grained soils, in areas where the groundwater table lies within 50 feet of the surface. As depicted in Exhibit S-4 of the Burbank2035 General Plan, much of Burbank is located atop soils susceptible to liquefaction, including many of the project tree locations (City of Burbank 2013). The project would prevent the risk of substantial adverse effects of at-risk falling trees due to seismic-related ground failure. No impact would occur.
iv) Landslides?
Landslides typically occur on moderate to steep slopes that are affected by such physical factors as slope height, slope steepness, shear strength, and orientation of weak layers in the underlying geologic units. The project site and surroundings are generally flat , with soils stabilized by development and landscaping. The project would not result in the creation of moderate to steep slopes that may become susceptible to landslides. In addition, the project would not result in placement of habitable structu res that would put people or property at risk due to landslides.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project would involve removing and replacing approximately 121 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine in the City of Burbank that have been found to be at risk of falling. The removal of trees may result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil; however, best management practices (BMPs) such as covering of exposed soil stockpiles, sediment barriers, storm drain protection, and various other measures designed to minimize potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be implemented during removal and replacement (CASQA 2003). Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The potential for landslides, debris flows, and shallow mudslides is a potential geologic hazard in the hilly portions of the planning area, including areas located at the base of the Verdugo Mountains north of Sunset Canyon Drive. Additionally, collapsible soils are typically young, loose deposits that have the potential for significant abrupt volumetric change when wetted. An increase in surface water infiltration such as from heavy irrigation or prolonged rainfall (AECOM 2012a).

The project does contain trees in hilly areas of the City, however, as described in Section 3.0, the City has experienced complete tree failures occurring during rainy weather conditions. Severe weather conditions such as prolonged rainfall would increase the risk of falling trees; therefore, with implementation of the project, removal and maintenance of trees identified in the Arborist Report would reduce the risk of unstable soils and falling trees. The project would not involve development on an unstable geologic unit or soil ; the project would prevent damage resulting from unstable geologic units or soils and no impact would occur. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils are characterized by shrink/swell properties that, over time, can lead to cyclical volumetric changes that can damage structures such as building foundations and roadways. The project trees are located in park strips and residential neighborhoods where development have been approved and constructed, and the soils present were considered suitable to support the structures. The project would not involve construction of any habitable structures or other built elements that would be considered s usceptible to adverse effects from expansive soils .

Therefore, soil expansion would not pose a potential concern for project implementation. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project would not result in construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
According to the Burbank2035 General Plan EIR, the City’s planning area includes areas of non- fossil-bearing granitic rocks in the Verdugo Mountains . However, the portions of the City ’s planning area that lie within the San Fernando Valley are underlain by potentially fossil-bearing Pleistocene nonmarine sediment and Holocene alluvium ( AECOM 2012a). The project tree locations are located within developed areas of the City underlain by non-fossil bearing rocks. In addition, project activities would not excav ate deep enough to encounter native soil with paleontological resources. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Approach and Methodology

4.8.1 IMPLEMENTATION
CalEEMod was used to estimate potential project-generated GHG emissions during implementation, i.e., tree removal. Implementation of the project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road haul trucks, and worker vehicles. All details for construction criteria air pollutants discussed in Section 4.3 are also applicable for the estimation of construction-related GHG emissions.

See Section 4.3 for a discussion of construction emissions calculation methodology and assumptions used in the GHG emissions analysis.

4.8.2 OPERATIONS
The proposed project would not alter the City’s operations . No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project.

4.8.3 CARBON LOSS
The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) iTree Planting Calculator was used to evaluate the potential carbon loss due to increase in building energy use and loss of carbon sequestration

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

associated with the Project (USDA 2023). Carbon loss was estimated using tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree condition provided by the City, along with default parameters within iTree.

Thresholds of Significanc e
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to GHGs are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to GHG emissions would occur if the project would:

A. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the proposed project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global cl imate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated at a project level under CEQA.

The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures.

Rather, the State CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). The State of California has not adopted emission - based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory, titled “Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory,” states that:
“[N]either the CEQA statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable.… Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, such emissions must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. (OPR 2018) Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project -by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.” Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

In October 2008, the SCAQMD proposed recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects as presented in its Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008a). This guidance document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the CAPCOA, explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions. The draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document was not adopted or approved by the Governing Board. However, in December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide-equivalent (MT CO2e) per-year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD 2008b).

The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold, which was derived from GHG reduction targets established in Executive Order (EO) S -03-05, was based on the conclusion that the threshold was consistent with achieving an emissions capture rate of 90% of all new or modified stationary source projects.

SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. From December 2008 to September 2010, SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses (SCAQMD 2010):

Tier 1 Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2.

Tier 2 Consider whether or not the project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3.

Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO 2e per year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO 2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e per year), and mixed -use projects (3,000 MT CO 2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year would be used for all non- stationary source projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.

Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MT CO2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable ef ficiency targets, move to Tier 5.

Tier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

The City of Burbank GGRP proposes GHG thresholds based on service population, but since the project is non-operational in nature and will not result in a change in housing or employment, the thresholds provided in the GGRP are not applicable to the project .

Per the SCAQMD guidance, project emissions will be compared to the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MT CO 2e per year. Implementation emissions will be amortized over the operational life of the project, which is assumed to be 30 years (SCAQMD 2008 a). This impact analysis, therefore, adds amortized implementation emissions to the estimated annual operational emissions and then compares operational emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

IMPLEMENTATION EMISSIONS
Implementation Activity
Implementation of the project would result in greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off -road construction equipment, on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. GHG emissions generated by project implementation are presented below in Table 9.

Table 9. Estimated Annual Implementation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric Tons
2023 61.84 >0.01 >0.01 0.03 62.92
2024 52.64 >0.01 >0.01 0.03 53.56
Total 114.49 0.01 0.01 0.06 116.48
Amortized Implementation Emissions (Over 30 Years) 3.88 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH 4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R = refrigerants; CO 2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

See Appendix D for complete results.

As shown in Table 9, the estimated total GHG emissions during implementation would be approximately 11 6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO 2e). Estimated project -generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 4 MT CO 2e per year.

Carbon Loss
The project will result in the removal of 121 mature Aleppo pine trees and one Italian Stone pine tree, which contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. A simulation using the USDA’s iTree software was conducted to estimate the carbon benefit provided by the pines slated for removal. This benefit will be added to the project’s amortized implementation emissions and will be evaluated against the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e GHG emissions threshold. The results of the iTree simulation are provided below in Table 10.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 10. Aleppo Pine Removal iTree Simulation Results
Approximate
DBH (inches) Condition
Number of
Trees
CO2 Avoided
(MT)
CO2
Sequestered
(MT)
12 Good 2 4.22 8.95
18 Good 6 12.66 29.95
24 Good 10 21.11 52.23
24 Fair 5 9.85 23.66
30 Good 9 19.00 45.75
30 Fair 7 13.79 32.77
36 Good 27 56.99 120.08
36 Fair 14 27.58 57.80
42 Good 26 54.88 84.58
42 Fair 15 29.55 45.72
Italian Stone Pine
(38 in)
Good 1 2.11 4.41
Total 122 251.73 505.89
Notes: CO2 Avoided and CO2 Sequestered are evaluated over a 99- year period, the maximum amount of time able to be analyzed in iTree. iTree assumes an electricity emissions factor of 252.4 kg CO2 equivalent/MWh.

Note that CO 2 avoided refers to the decrease in CO 2 emitted due to a reduction in building energy use provided by the trees. CO 2 sequestered refers to the amount of CO 2 stored in the biomass of the trees themselves. Over a 99 - year period, the Aleppo pine trees to be removed as a part of the project will avoid the emission of approximately 252 MT CO2 and will sequester approximately 506 MT CO2, which are equivalent to annual rates of 2.54 MT CO 2 avoided and

5.11 MT CO 2 sequestered.

For numeric comparison and significance determination, the 30-year amortization period for one- time implementation emissions was conservatively applied as opposed to a 99 -year period, as recommended by the SCAQMD. The project results in annual rates of 8.39 MT CO2 avoided and

16.86 MT CO2 sequestered when amortized over a 30- year period. Accounting for the amortized implementation emissions of 3.88 MT CO2e per year, the project will result in the annual emission of approximately 29.13 MT CO2e per year, less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

The majority of the mature Aleppo pine trees will be replaced by trees as listed in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan belonging to one of the following species: Jacaranda, Chinese Pistache, Deodar Cedar and Canary Island Pine. An iTree modeling run was conducted for the four species of replacement trees in order to present per-tree average values for CO2 avoided and sequestered.

The results of the iTree modeling are shown below. Note that the replacement trees are conservatively assumed to have a DBH of 6 inches, which will increase as they mature. The modeling was conducted over a 30-year period, consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended period for the amortization of implementation emissions.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 11. Replacement Trees iTree Simulation Results
Tree
Species
Approximate
DBH
(inches) Condition
CO2 Avoided
(MT)
CO2 Sequestered
(MT)
Jacaranda 6 Excellent 1.02 1.86
Chinese
Pistache
6 Excellent 0.33 3.40
Deodar Cedar 6 Excellent 0.62 3.49
Canary Island
Pine
6 Excellent 1.06 1.31
Average 0.75 2.52
Notes: CO2 Avoided and CO2 Sequestered are evaluated over a 30- year period, the SCAQMD-recommended period for amortized construction GHG emissions . iTree assumes an electricity emissions factor of 252.4 kg CO2 equivalent/MWh.

As shown in Table 11, the average replacement tree would avoid the emissions of 0.75 MT CO2 and would sequester 2.52 MT CO2 over a 30-year period. Replacement trees in the Street Tree Master Plan were specifically selected for long -term sustainability taking into account climate change, including drought tolerance.

POST REMOVAL EMISSIONS
The proposed project would not alter the City’s operations. No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project. Because the project would not result in substantial changes to routine operational activities, GHG emissions impacts associated with post removal emissions would be less than significant.
b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potential to Conflict with the City of Burbank GHG Reduction Plan Update This project is unique, as it is non -operational in nature and therefore will not result in any operational vehicle trips or emissions. The City of Burbank GGRP Update utilizes efficiency thresholds, which require a per resident, per employee, or per servi ce person metric; as the project will not result in an operational service population, it cannot use the GGRP for CEQA streamlining (City of Burbank 2023b). Instead, the environmental analysis will include a discussion of the overall consistency with each of the 11 strategies of the Climate Action Plan (CAP), as provided below.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 12. Consistency with The City of Burbank’s Climate Action Plan CAP Policy Project Consistency
C-1.1 Lead by example by focusing on equity
constraints associated with existing building
electrification by leveraging BWP’s operations
and efficiency programs to develop an
Affordable Housing Electrification Program to
lead Burbank’s electrification targets through
retrofitting low -income and affordable housing
units in Burbank to all electric, retrofitting 100
affordable housing units by 2030 and all 320
affordable housing units owned by Burbank
Housing Corporation in the City by 2045.

Not Applicable. The project does not impede the
City’s ability to meet its electrification targets.

BE-1.1 Electrify 100% of new construction in
the City by 2023.

BE-1.2 Leverage BWPs marketing programs
to convert 3,000 residential and 170
commercial natural gas -fueled HVAC and
water heating units in existing private
buildings to electric heat pumps by 2030, and
10,000 residential and 560 commercial units
by 2045.

BE-1.3 Continue to increase building energy
efficiency through BWP ’s rebate and
incentive programs to reduce annual
customer energy use by a collective 63 GWh
by 2030.

Not Applicable. The project does not impede the
City’s ability to meet its electrification targets.

EG-1.1 Goal to achieve 100% GHG -neutral
electricity generation by 2040.

Not Applicable. The project does not impede the
City’s ability to meet its electrification targets.

T-1.1 Implement the Complete Our Streets
Plan, increasing active transportation
modeshare 2% by 2030 and 3% by 2045.

T-1.2 Provide clean, abundant, affordable and
accessible public transit, with a zero-
emissions bus fleet by 2030.

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not result in operational vehicle trips.

T-2.1 Continue Transportation Management
Organization (TMO) Expansion, reaching
60% of employees by 2030 and 90% by
2045.

T-2.2 Update the TMO program and
ordinance to increase compliance with the
City’s 1.61 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR)
Goal to reduce employees commuting to
Burbank via single occupancy vehicle.

Require 30% of TMO businesses achieve the

1.61 AVR target by 2030, and 60% by 2045.

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not result in operational vehicle trips.

T-3.1 Increase zero-emission vehicle
adoption to 23% of all passenger vehicles by
2030 and 100% by 2045.

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not result in operational vehicle trips.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

CAP Policy Project Consistency
T-4.1 Implement Parking Management as
identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan
Mobility Element and the City Council’s Six
Parking Management Principles.

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not result in operational vehicle trips.

W-1.1 Reduce per capita water consumption
from current levels of 132 GPCD (gallons per
capita per day) to 124 GPCD by 2030 (a

6.1% reduction) and to 120.5 GPCD by 2045
(an 8.7% reduction).

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not impact per capita water consumption.

SW-1.1 Meet SB 1383 organics and recycling
requirements, reducing organic waste
disposal 75% by 2025.

Not Applicable. The project is non -operational
and will not impact organics and recycling
requirements.

CS-1.1 Plant 2,000 net new trees by 2030
and 5,000 net new trees by 2045 to sequester
carbon and create urban shade to reduce the
urban heat island effect.

Consistent. The project will result in no net loss in
trees. Although the project would result in a
temporary decrease in shade that could result in
an increase in the urban heat island effect, this
will not be the case long -term. The new
replacement trees plus the City’s policy to plant
2,000 net new trees, will result in a net increase
in trees, and ultimately will result in an increase in
shade.

CG-1.1 Complete annual progress reporting
and a triennial GGRP review and update.

CG-1.2 Retrofit all City Streetlights and
Outdoor Lighting to Light -Emitting Diode
(LED) by 2030.

CG-3.1 Electrify 25% of existing City facilities
by 2030 and 100% of existing City facilities,
where electrification is practical and feasible,
by 2045, as well as all newly constructed City
buildings.

CG-4.1 Implement a flexible employee
commute program, with a target of 25% of
applicable City employee staff time utilize
telecommuting by 2030.

Not Applicable. The project does not involve City
facilities.

Source: City of Burbank 202 3b.

Potential to Conflict with State Reduction Targets and CARB’s Scoping Plan The California State Legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) to provide initial direction to limit California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the state’s long-range climate objectives. Since the passage of AB 32, the State has adopted GHG emissions reduction targets for future years beyond the initial 2020 horizon year. For the project, the relevant GHG emissions reduction targets include those established by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) and AB 1279, which require GHG emissions be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% below 1990 levels by 2045, respectively. In addition, AB 1279 requires the state achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

As defined by AB 32, CARB is required to develop The Scoping Plan, which provides the framework for actions to achieve the State’s GHG emission targets. The Scoping Plan is required to be updated every five years and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and initiatives that will reduce GHG emissions statewide. The first Scoping Plan was adopted in 2008, and was updated in 2014, 2017, and most recently in 2022. While the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project-level evaluations,6 it is the official framework for the measures and regulations that will be implemented to reduce California’s GHG emissions in alignment with the adopted targets. Therefore, a project would be found to not conflict with the statutes if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein.

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update was the first to address the state’s strategy for achieving the 2030 GHG reduction target set forth in SB 32 (CARB 2017), and the most recent CARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality update outli nes the state’s plan to reduce emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with AB 1279 and assesses progress is making toward the 2030 SB 32 target (CARB 2022). As such, given that SB 32 and AB 1279 are the relevant GHG emission targets, the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plan updates that outline the strategy to achieve those targets, are the most applicable to the project.

The 2017 Scoping Plan included measures to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency (including the mandates of SB 350), increase stringency of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, measures identified in the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and increase stringency of SB 375 targets. The 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon and accelerates programs currently in place, including moving to zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high global warming potential ( GWP); providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; and displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines) (CARB 2022). Many of t he measures and programs included in the Scoping Plan would result in the reduction of project -related GHG emissions with no action required at the project - level.

The 2045 carbon neutrality goal required CARB to expand proposed actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan to include those that capture and store carbon in addition to those that reduce only anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions. However, the 2022 Scoping Plan em phasizes that reliance on carbon sequestration in the state’s natural and working lands will not be sufficient to address residual GHG emissions, and achieving carbon neutrality will require research, development, and deployment of additional methods to ca pture atmospheric GHG emissions (e.g., mechanical direct air capture). Given that the specific path to neutrality will require development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available, the project’s role in supporting the statewid e goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.

6 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” ( CNRA 2009).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Overall, the project would comply will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent applicable and required by law. As mentioned above, several Scoping Plan measures would result in reductions of project-related GHG emissions with no action required at the project -level, including those related to energy efficiency, reduced fossil fuel use, and renewable energy production by the utility. As demonstrated above, the project would not conflict with CARB’s 2017 or 2022 Scoping Plan updates and with the state’s ability to achieve the 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals.

Potential to Conflict with the Southern California Association of Governments 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light trucks in the Southern California Region pursuant to SB 375 (SCAG 2020). In addition to demonstrating the region’s a bility to attain the GHG emission-reduction targets set forth by CARB, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Thus, successful implementation of the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with various transportation and housing choices while reducing automobile use.

The following strategies are intended to be supportive of implementing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and reducing GHGs: focus growth near destinations and mobility options; promote diverse housing choices; leverage technology innovations; support implementation of sustainability policies; and promote a green region (SCAG 2020). The strat egies within the SCAG would not apply to the project, as it is non -operational in nature and would not result in any trips or employees once tree removal and replacement is complete.

Based on the analysis above, the project would be consistent with the SCAG 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS.

In summary, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the project’s impact associated with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in t he project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The project would involve removing and replacing approximately 121 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine in the City of Burbank that have been found to be at risk of falling. The removal or replacement of the trees would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project does not involve construction that would require transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, including fueling and servicing construction equipment on site, and transporting fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents . Therefore, no im pact would occur. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As discussed in Section 4.9(a), the project would not involve the use of hazardous materials. The project would involve removing and replacing hazardous trees around the City and would not involve the release of materials into the environment. No impact would occur. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project includes trees located within one -quarter mile of existing schools, however, as discussed in Section 4.9(a) and 4.9(b) above, the project would not involve the use of hazardous materials. Potential health impacts related to implementation air emissions are analyzed in Section

4.3 of this MND. As such, implementation related air emissions would result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts to schools within one-quarter mile of the project trees would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database tracks cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination. According to the database search, no sites or f acilities listed in the database are located at the project tree locations (DTSC 2023). The SWRCB’s GeoTracker database identifies leaking underground storage tanks, waste discharge sites, oil and gas sites, and other waste or cleanup sites. A review of Ge oTracker did not identify any open sites or facilities at the project tree locations (SWRCB 2023). The City has many hazardous waste facilities and sites, and leaking underground storage tanks, waste discharge sites, oil and gas sites, and other waste or cleanup sites; however, the project is not located on these sites and implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no hazardous materials are expected to be present, and no impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Hollywood Burbank Airport is within the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).

The project contains trees located within the Airport Influence Area 65 CNEL Noise Contour of the Hollywood Burbank Airport. The project would involve the removal and replacement of trees around the City and would prevent safety hazards of falling trees. In addition, removal and replacement of the trees would result in minimal, temporary sources of noise. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would prevent falling trees from creating emergency situations or damage. The project trees are in public right-of-way and could result in temporary partial road closures to remove and replace trees. However, prior to commencing work, if needed, all applicable encroachment and/or traffic control permits would be obtained by the applicant to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained. The project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency respo nse plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The City contains Mountain Fire Zones, depicted in Exhibit S-1 Fire Zones of the Burbank2035 General Plan along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in the northeast part of the city and in the southwestern edge of the city adjacent to an undeveloped portion of the Hollywood Hills (City of Burbank 2013), also identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) as recommended by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2011). The majority of the trees being in the middle of the City where extreme wildfires are not a risk. Hazardous trees at risk of falling could increase fire risk if it were to fall on a powerline. The project would involve removal and replacement of trees that have been found to be at risk of falling and would prevent hazardous trees from exacerbating wildfire risks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off -site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on -
or offsite;

iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Removal of trees would require earthwork activities that could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation, which could subsequently degrade downstream receiving waters and violate water quality standards. However, as discussed in Section 4.7(b), BMPs such as covering of exposed soil stockpiles, sediment barriers, storm drain protection, and various other measures designed to minimize potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be implemented during removal and replacement (CASQA 2003).In addition, the project, during and after tree removal activities, would be required to comply with Section 8-1-1003 of the BMC, Discharge to the Storm Drain System, which prohibits illicit connection and illicit discharges to the MS4 drainage system, and Section 8- 1-1004 of the BMC, Runoff Management Requirements , which primarily consists of control measures necessary to mitigate and control storm water pollution.

Upon completion of the project, the project sites would be similar to existing conditions, and would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts related to violations of water quality standards and or waste d ischarge would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project would not involve groundwater extraction or recharge that would produce any effect on the local groundwater supply or groundwater table. No impact would occur . c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite ?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ?
and
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
As described in Section 4.7(b) and above, BMPs implemented during tree removal would minimize potential for soil erosion. The project would involve minimal, temporary ground alteration to remove the trees. Upon replacement of trees, drainage patterns would be similar to existing conditions. The

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

project sites are located in urban areas with large impervious areas and storm drains. Any surface runoff or flood flows would be directed into storm drains that would not be impacted by the project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project sites are in urban areas of the City and are distanced from the ocean and other bodies of water. According to Exhibit S-6: FEMA Flood Zone Areas of the Burbank2035 General Plan, the City contains 500-year floodplains and 100-year floodplains mostly surrounding the hydraulic features in the City including Lockhead Channel and Burbank Western Channel. Flooding may occur when stream and channels overflow as a result of excessive precipitation. There are three reservoirs upstream from the City, ho wever as stated in the Burbank2035 General Plan, these reservoirs are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation in Burbank (City of Burbank 2013). The project would be implemented prior to severe weather conditions to prevent the risk of falling trees. Therefore, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) serves as the long-term planning document that will help to ensure the City can provide its customers with reliable water supplies through 2045 (City of Burbank 2021). The project sites are located on urban are as of the City , largely covered with impervious surfaces. Implementation of the project would result in removal and replacement of trees; upon completion, the project would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces when compared to existing conditi ons. The project would not result in the use of groundwater supplies that would result in conflicts with a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (e.g., a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (e.g., a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community. The project trees are in public ROW of residential neighborhoods. The surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Implementation activities to remove trees would result in temporary closure of sidewalks and streets, however, removal of trees would not occur all at once and removal of an individual tree would not significantly impair mobility within communities. The project would be implemented to prevent falling trees from falling onto homes, businesses, or into streets, therefore impairing mobility of a community and street. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project tree locations are within Public ROW in the City. As described in the City of Burbank2035 General Plan, public rights-of-way areas are not parcels , but include the areas surrounding the parcels that underlie streets, freeways, and some public utilities. They are not assigned a land use designation and are typically not zoned (City of Burbank 2013).

Policy 1.6 of the Burbank2035 General Plan Air Quality & Climate Change Element requires measures to control air pollutant emissions at construction sites and during soil-disturbing or dust- generating activities. As described in Section 4.3, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds and would not result in significant air pollutant emissions. Although the project would result in a temporary decrease in shade that could result in an increase in the urban heat island effect, this will not be the case long-term. As the project will result in a net increase in trees, it ultimately will result in an increase in shade, consistent with the Burbank2035General Plan Air Quality & Climate Change Element Policy 2. 4. Policy 8.2 of the Burbank2035General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element requires the improvement of ecological and biological conditions when making public improvements . The Project will also not reduce shade as compared to the status quo, as the existing trees have reached the end of their natural lives. In addition, Policy 4.3 of the Burbank2035General Plan Land Use Element seeks to use street trees to enhance the appearance and identify of neighborhoods. The project trees, Aleppo Pine, are no longer recommended as street trees in the City due to their structural maladies; therefore, replacement of these hazardous trees with new trees, consistent with the species listed in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan, would be consistent with the City’s identity and would improve the biological and ecological conditions within the City. As described in Section 4.2, the project would incorporate renewable energy strategies, consistent with Policy 10.1 of the Burbank2035General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. As such, the project would not conflict with t he Burbank2035 General Plan’s goals or policies.

Title 7, Chapter 4, Trees and Vegetation, of the BMC contain standards and regulations for the planting, care, and removal of trees, shrubs, and plants in public streets. Section 7-4-107 of the

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

BMC states that t he Department may remove trees, shrubs, and plants situated in the streets whenever the tree, shrub, or plant is actually or potentially defective, dangerous, or an obstruction to public travel, or is otherwise in violation of Section 7-4-110. Section 7-4-110 states that if any tree standing in any street, or standing on any private property and overhanging or projecting into the street appears to be dead, liable to fall, dangerous or an obstruction to public travel, the Department shall cause such tree, or such part thereof as appears to be dead, liable to fall, dangerous or an obstruction to travel, to be cut down and if in any street, to be removed therefrom (City of Burbank 2023a). As described in Section 3.0, 121 Aleppo Pine and one Italian Stone Pine trees have been identified a tree risk assessment indicated that the majority of the trees should be removed. The project would be consistent with the BMC by removing trees that are potentially hazardous. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the Street Tree Master Plan by selecting replacement trees from the Tree Species Index to ensure an appropriate tree species for each location (Appendix C). The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project . Impacts would be less than significant.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The City is located atop areas classified as MRZ -2, a mineral classification that indicates that mineral resources may be present, and MRZ -3, a mineral classification which indicates that the significance of mineral resources could not be evaluated from available data (City of Burbank 2013).

The project tree locations are located within urbanized neighborhoods in both MRZ-2 and MRZ-3.

Due to the urbanization of the City, mining of potential mineral resources would not be feasible. Past land use changes to accommodate planned urbanization now preclude mining activities in Burbank and Burbank is not considered to be a potential future source for mineral resources (City of Burbank 2013). Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? As described in 4.12(a), the project tress locations are not delineated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites. As such, the project would have no impact on the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

4.13 NOISE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Discussion

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise measurements were conducted near the project site on November 17, 2023, to characterize the existing noise levels (see Figure 3 of Appendix E). The sites were chosen as representative of the general areas surrounding the trees listed in the Arborist report . Table 13 provides the location, date, and time the noise measurements were taken. The noise measurements were taken using a Rion NL-52 sound level meter equipped with a 0.5-inch, pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre -amplifier. The sound level meter meets th e current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 (Precision) sound level meter. The accuracy of the sound level meter was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above the ground.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 13. Measured Noise Levels
Receptors Location Date Time Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA) ST1 Adjacent to
residence at
1613 North
Niagara Street
11/17/23 2:16 p.m. – 2:31 p.m. 56.1 76.2
ST2 Adjacent to
residence at
739 North
Niagara Street
11/17/23 3:23 p.m. – 3:38 p.m. 51.6 70.2
ST3 Adjacent to
residence at
226 North
Niagara Street
11/17/23 3:46 p.m. – 4:01 p.m. 55.7 78.5
ST4 Adjacent to
residence at
2114 North
Pass Avenue
11/17/23 2:42 p.m. – 2:57 p.m. 62.4 85.5
ST5 Adjacent to
residence at
1131 North
Sparks Street
11/17/23 1:48 p.m. – 2:03 p.m. 51.2 69.4
ST6 Adjacent to
residence at
514 South
Keystone
Street
11/17/23 4:10 p.m. – 4:25 p.m. 55 76.9
Source: Appendix E
Notes: L eq = equivalent continuous sound level (time -averaged sound level); dBA = A -weighted decibels; L max = maximum sound level during the measurement interval.

Six short -term noise measurement locations (ST1 –ST6) were conducted adjacent to nearby noise-sensitive land uses (residences). The measured Leq and maximum noise levels are provided in Table 13. The field noise measurement data sheets are provided in Attachment A of Appendix E. The primary noise sources consisted of traffic on the local roadways; secondary noise sources included distant landscaping noise, distant aircraft, distant conversations, and birds. As shown in Table 13, the measured sound levels ranged from approximately 51 to 62 dBA L eq.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
There are no federal noise standards that would directly regulate environmental noise during construction and operation of the project.

State
In its Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans recommends a vibration velocity threshold of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (ips PPV) (Caltrans 2020) for assessing annoying vibration impacts to occupants of residential structures. Although

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

this Caltrans guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the absence of such limits at the local jurisdictional level. Similarly, thresholds to assess building damage risk due to construction vibration vary with the type of stru cture and its fragility but tend to range between 0.2 ips and 0.3 ips PPV for typical residential structures (Caltrans 2020) .

Local

CITY OF BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE
The City’s allowable construction activity hours are found in Section 9 -1-1-105.10 of the BMC, which indicates between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays —Sundays or City holidays are not allowed . The Community Development Director, Planning Commission, or City Council may grant exceptions pursuant to land use entitlements or wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the above -mentioned chapter or other s pecific onsite activity that warrants unique consideration .

BURBANK2035 GENERAL PLAN
Chapter 5 (the Noise Element) of the Burbank2035 General Plan includes the following policies (under “Goal 7”) with respect to reducing construction, maintenance, and nuisance noise in residential areas and at noise-sensitive land uses:
• Policy 7.1 Avoid scheduling city maintenance and construction projects during evening, nighttime, and early morning hours.
• Policy 7.2 Require project applicants and contractors to minimize noise in construction activities and maintenance operations.
• Policy7.3 Limit the allowable hours of construction activities and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.
• Policy 7.4 Limit the allowable hours of operation for and deliveries to commercial, mixed - use, and industrial uses located adjacent to residential areas.

Furthermore, the Noise Element states the following with respect to construction noise:
"In the City of Burbank Municipal Code, construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday is exempt from applicable noise standards. With this regulatory exemption, the City acknowledges that construction noise is an acceptable public nuisance when conducted during the least noise - sensitive hours of the day. The City also acknowledges that construction noise could cause a substantial temporary increase in the ambient noise environment at nearby noise -sensitive receptors if construction occurs during the more noise-sensitive hours (i.e., evening, nighttime, early morning), or if construction equipment is not properly equipped with noise control devices.”

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Noise generated by the project would be limited to short -term, on-site noise from the proposed removal of identified Aleppo Pine trees; no long-term or operational noise would occur as a result of the proposed project7. This short-term noise would only occur during the hours allowed by the City (BMC Section 9-1-1-105.10). As explained in the Noise Element of the General Plan, such noise is exempt from any otherwise applicable noise standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase noise levels in excess of any applicable standards. Nevertheless, the analysis below is provided f or informational purposes.

SHORT -TERM IMPACTS
Tree work inherently generates high intensity, short duration, temporary noise events. Based upon information from City of Burbank Landscape and Urban Forestry staff, the removal of each tree would require approximately one workday (i.e., 8 hours per tree). Work would take place during daytime hours only (from 7 AM to 5 PM) Monday through Friday. Project noise and vibration levels would vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. As part of the site preparation process, affected residents and other sensitive receptors will be notified regarding the purpose of the project and the expected schedule a minimum of 48 hours advance of the commencement of work.

Equipment types that would be in use during tree removals would include a chain saw, wood chipper, crane, skip loader, flatbed truck, man lift, and a stump grinder. The noise levels of the tree removal equipment would be similar to that of typical construction equipment. The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction and tree removal equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 14. Note that the equipment noise levels presented in Table 14 are maximum noise levels. Typically, the equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of tree removal and implementation activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of activities during that time.

7 The long -term effect of the tree removal in terms of noise reduction would be negligible: “Trees and bushes are very poor noise barriers; they provide very little attenuation as a result of shielding”. (Harris 1991). A very dense and continuous expanse of foliage would be required to effect a measurable or noticeable reduction in ambient noise levels. Per the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement: “It is uncommon for trees and vegetation to result in a noticeable reduction in noise. A vegetative strip must be very dense and wide for there to be any meaningful shielding effect. ” (Caltrans 2013).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 14. Tree Removal and Implementation Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type
Typical Equipment
(dBA at 50 Feet)
Typical Equipment
(dBA at 40 Feet)
Chain saw 84 86
Crane 81 83
Flatbed truck 74 76
Man lift 75 77
Skip loader 801 82
Stump grinder 61.82 63.7
Wood chipper 95.53 97.4
Source: FTA 2018, except where noted . Published FTA noise levels at the reference distance of 50 feet are also shown here adjusted for a distance of 40 feet, using the attenuation rate for a point source of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels.
1 Ref: CPUC 2015.
2 Ref: Ventrac 2018.
3 Ref: Vermeer 2023.

The maximum noise levels at 40 feet for the identified tree removal equipment would be approximately 97.4 dBA for the equipment typically used for construction projects, although the hourly noise levels can vary substantially. For this project in which the size of the site as well as the scope of the work is limited, the number and types of equipment would be relatively small, and the hours of operation are estimated to be relatively short, at approximately 8 hours per tree removal site. Tree removal noise would attenuate at approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance.

Most activities associated with the project would occur at distances of approximately 40 feet or more from the nearest residences.

A spreadsheet-based emulator of the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate tree removal noise levels at the typical distance to the nearest residences. (Although the model was funded and promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, the RCNM is often used for non-roadway projects, because the same types of equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of construction work). Input variables for the RCNM consist of th e receiver/land use types, the equipment type and number of each (e.g., one crane), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of hours the equipment typically works per day), and the distance from the noise -sensitive receiver. The RCNM has default duty -cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty- cycle values were used for this noise analysis.

Details as to the type and number of pieces of (shown in Table 15) were provided by City of Burbank Landscape and Urban Forestry staff.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Table 15. Tree Removal Scenario Assumptions
Implementation
Phase
Anticipated
Duration
Equipment
Equipment
Type Quantity
Daily Usage
Hours
Tree Removal 8 hours per tree Chain saw 1* 8
Wood chipper 1 6
Crane 1 8
Skip loader 1 4
Flat bed truck 1* 4
Man lift 1 8
Stump grinder 1 4
Source: City of Burbank Landscape and Urban Forestry Department. *up to two or three, but intermittent usage expected within a single day and thus treated as one.

Using the Federal Highway Administration’s RCNM and the provided construction equipment information, the estimated noise levels from the removal activities were calculated, as presented in Table 16. The RCNM inputs and outputs are provided in in Appendix E.

Table 16. Tree Removal Activity Noise Model Results Summary Land Use
Off -site Receptor
Location
Distance from
Implementation
Activity to Noise
Receptor (feet)
Estimated
Implementation
Noise Levels (dBA
Leq 8-hr)
Tree removal
activities
Residential (Single
Family)
Adjacent to the project
site (nearest
residences)
Typical
Implementation
Activity Receiver
Distance (40' - 65')

87.6 Residential (Single
Family)
Near the project site
(within 1-2 houses
away)
Typical
Implementation
Activity Receiver
Distance (90' - 115')

81.7 Residential (Single
Family)
In the vicinity of the
project site (several
houses away)
Typical
Implementation
Activity Receiver
Distance (200' - 250')

75.0 Source: Appendix E
Notes: Leq 8-hr = 8-hour equivalent continuous sound level (time -averaged sound level); dBA = A -weighted decibel.

As shown in Table 16, short -term noise levels at the nearest noise -sensitive land uses (the residences adjacent to the tree removal site) are estimated to be approximately 88 dBA Leq 8-hr during the typical 8-hour period of tree removal activities. For residences not immediately adjacent to the project site but at least 200 feet away, the noise from tree removal activities would be less at 75 dBA 8-hr Leq. The tree removal activity noise would be above measured neighborhood ambient noise levels, which ranged from 51 to 62 dBA Leq), as shown in Table 13. However, the

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

short-term noise impact several houses away from the site would be similar to the maximum 20- dBA increases allowed for leaf blowers per BMC 9 -3-208-A.

The tree removal activity would comply with Section 9-1-1-105.10 of the BMC, which prohibits construction activity that could create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and at any time on Sundays or national holidays. The proposed project would not conduct noisy implementation activities between the specified hours or days. All noise -generating implementation would take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and would not occur on Sundays and holidays. In addition, affected residents would be notified a minimum of 48 hours in advance of the commencement of work. Because of the nature of the project, the noise would only be present on a single day for each tree, meaning a maximum of 122 removals spread out over 5 years, without repeating noise at any single location.

For all of the forgoing reasons, noise from project implementation would not increase noise levels in excess of any applicable standards and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Tree removal activities that might expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Groundborne vibration from construction activities is typically attenuated over short distances. The h eavier pieces of construction equipment used for this project would include loaded trucks, a crane, and a large wood chipper.

Based on published vibration data, the anticipated heavy construction equipment would generate a vibration level of approximately 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet from the source; lighter construction equipment, such as a skip loader (i.e., small bulldozer), would generate a substantially lower vibration level of approximately 0.003 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet from the source (FTA 2018). It is anticipated that heavy equipment would operate as close as approximately 40 feet from existing residences. At the distance from the nearby residences to where construction activity would be occurring on the project site, the peak particle velocity vibration level would be approximately 0.044 inches per second. As such, vibration levels would be less than the Caltrans threshold of 0.20 inches per second for human annoyance or the standard used by Caltrans for t he prevention of structural damage to typical residential buildings of 0.3 ips PPV (Caltrans 2020). Because groundborne vibration from project construction would not exceed recognized standards, and due to the temporary occurrence of vibration levels, vibration impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in th e project area to excessive noise levels?
No private airstrips exist in the project vicinity. The nearest airport is Hollywood Burbank Airport, located generally to the north of the project site, within 2 miles. Based upon the airport’s current

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

noise contour map, the identified tree removal locations are outside the 65 dBA airport noise contours (Coffman Associates 2016; Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element). As discussed previously, based upon the literature, no measurable or audible change in airport noise levels resulting from the removal of the trees is anticipated. Furthermore, the workers would be equipped with and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) including hearing protection (i.e., ear plugs and/or muffs) as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose or result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees around the City. The project would not involve the development of housing or businesses or the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on population growth. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees located near residential neighborhoods. However, the project would have no impact on the existing housing and would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

Discussion
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
The project would not involve the construction of any new land uses that could increase permanent or temporary population in the area, and thus would not increase demand for fire protection or emergency response services for residential, commercial, or industrial areas. In addition, the removal of hazardous trees reduces the potential for destruction of private property and loss of life or serious injury, which resulting tree failures could draw emergency services from responding to other emergency situations. No impacts related to fire protection services would occur as a result of the project.

Police protection?
The project would not involve construction of any new land uses that could increase permanent or temporary population in the area. Therefore, the project would not result in a higher level of human activity that could increase demand for law enforcement or emergency response services. As such, the project would reduce the risk of emergency response services from falling trees. In addition, the removal of hazardous trees reduces the potential for destruction of private property and loss of life or serious injury, which resulting tree failures could draw emergency services from responding to other emergency situations. Therefore, no impacts related to police protection services would occur as a result of the project.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Schools?
The project would not involve creating new housing or a large number of employment opportunities. Therefore, implementation of the project would not generate new students or increase the demand on local school systems, and no impact to school services would occur.

Parks?
The project would not involve creating new recreational areas or parks. It also would not increase population in the area and thus would not increase demand for parks and recreation facilities. The City has a Joint Use Agreement with Burbank Unified School District to make schools available during non-institutional hours for community use, which increases park use for the community.

The removal and replacement of trees would result in a minimal decrease in tree canopy throughout the City and would not increase the need for additional parks. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parks and recreation.

Other public facilities?
The project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees in the City. The project would not involve construction of any new land uses or infrastructure , and would not result in increased population in the project region. Thus, implementation of the project would not create demands for use or maintenance of other public facilities. There would be no impact to other public facilities.

4.16 RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The project would target select trees around the City for removal and replacement due to hazardous conditions. The project tree locations are not located on existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project would not entail construction of any new land uses that could increase permanent or temporary population in the area, and thus would not increase use of any existing neighborhood parks, regional parks, or other recreational facilities.

In addition, the decrease in tre e canopy throughout the City would be minimal, and would not result in a substantial increase in the use of parks or recreational facilities. The City currently has a parkland to resident ratio above the required (City of Burbank 2013); as such, the existing parks could support an increase in use. Therefore, the project would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of a recreational facility. As such, there would be no impact to recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project site does not contain recreational facilities, nor would the project require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts would occur.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The project has the potential to create temporary lane closures, sidewalk closures, and bicycle lane closures during the removal and replacement of trees. Project activities may increase congestion during peak travel times due to a decrease of vehicle lane capacity, however due to temporary nature of implementation activities, the project would not have the potential to conflict with goals and policies in the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element (City of Burbank 2013) or Bicycle Master Plan (City of Burbank 2009). The contractor would obtain all applicable permits required for temporary encroachment to allow use of City-owned right-of-way (BMC Section 7-3- 7) , street use to allow the complete or partial closure of sidewalks for short term purposes (BMC Sections 6-1-17 and 6-1-23), excavation/construction permit requiring excavation, trenching or any type of digging in the City right of way (BMC Section 7-1-206(b)) and/or transportation of oversized loads in the City (BMC Section 6-1-25). Advance notification of work would be provided to affected residents and businesses per excavation/construction permit requirements. Driveway and pedestrian access will be maintained at all times during construction activities. For any lane closures or work in the public right-of-way, Traffic Control Plan based on the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices and approved by City’s Traffic Engineer will be implemented. Therefore, access for all road using vehicles, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be maintained at all times during implementation. Upon completion, no impacts to the circulation system would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) focuses on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for determining the significance of transportation impacts. It is further divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3) qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states that “ge nerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts,” and defines VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project .” “Automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. The OPR has clarified in its Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) that heavy-duty truck VMT is not required to be included in the estimation of a project’s VMT. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), “Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non -motorized traveled.”
The project would require vehicle usage of construction vehicles to remove and replace trees; however, the amount and distance of automobile travel for project activities would be minimal and temporary as they would be within a specific project area within the city boundaries . Upon completion of the project, VMT in the City would not increase. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would not involve geometric design features or incompatible uses. Upon replacement of trees, the project locations would return to existing conditions. No impact would occur. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project has the potential to create temporary lane closures, sidewalk closures, and bicycle lane closures during the removal and replacement of trees. Any potential lane and driveway closures would be coordinated with area residents and businesses to provide proper access for residents within the affected neighborhood as well as continued emergency access for first responders when necessary. Upon completion, no impacts to the emergency access would occur.

Removal of hazardous trees would prevent falling trees from blocking emergency access during a storm event. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource s
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, based on a review of the City of Burbank’s Historic Preservation Plan, none of the project trees or locations are listed as potentially significant historic properties (City of Burbank 1999). Therefore, the Project would not cause any substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined i n Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) .
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe .

The City of Burbank contacted the following California Native American tribes via an email on January 29, 2024 and a letter on January 29, 2024 , informing them of the project , including providing a description of the proposed project, project location, and the name of our project point of contact, should they wish to schedule a consult ation. Upon receiving an updated Tribal Consultation List on February 14,2024, letters were promptly mailed to the updated contacts on the same day.

Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
San Fernando Band of Mision Indians
San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Tongva Tribe

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

On February 23, 2024 the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, responded to the City with a request for a consultation. However, after further consideration, on March 26, 2024 they indicated they no longer had any concerns due to the work being above ground .

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
waste water treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, waste water treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees and would not generate a demand for water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. No impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees and would not generate a demand for potable water. Section 7 -4-104 of the BMC states that property owners/occupants of property abutting public area/ right-of-way shall be responsible for watering street trees located within the abutting public area and/or public right -of-way. Therefore, water required for the replacement trees would not substantially differ from the existing tree water requirements. As such, the project would not generate any new or increased demand for water or expanded entitlements. No impact would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The project would not generate wastewater; therefore, it would not require or result in construction of a new or expansion of an existing wastewater treatment facility. No impact would occur. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The project would involve the removal and replacement of hazardous trees. Trees that would be removed would be turned to mulch, some of which would be available to all residents at no cost.

Therefore, the project would not result in solid waste. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed in Section 4.19(d) above, the project would not result in solid waste. The project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste and recycling. No impact would occur.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.20 WILDFIRE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post -fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?

Discussion
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
According to CAL FIRE’s and the Burbank2035 General Plan, the project tree locations are not located in areas designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), except for two project trees (532 S. Niagara St and 1010 Elmwood Ave.), located towards the edges of the City at the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains and at the southern edge of the City. These trees are located within Mountain Fire Zones, depicted in Exhibit S -1 Fire Zones of the Burbank2035 General Plan, which are also areas designated as Very Hig h Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (City of Burbank 2013; CAL FIRE 2011). Implementation activities to remove trees would result in temporary closure of sidewalks and streets, however, removal of trees would not occur all at once and removal of an individual tree would not significantly impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ev acuation plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Only two project trees are located within Mountain Fire Zones and VHFHSZ (City of Burbank 2013; CAL FIRE 2011). Areas at risk for extreme wildfires include lands where dense vegetation with severe burning potential is present (AECOM 2012). The project is in urban neighborhoods of the City, with the majority of the trees being in the middle of the City where extreme wildfires are not a risk. The project would involve removal and replacement of trees that have been found to be at risk of falling and would pre vent unhealthy trees from exacerbating wildfire risks .

Furthermore, the project tree locations are relatively flat and would not influence prevailing winds or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risk. Tree species slated for replacement would be listed in the City’s Master Tree Plan and would not be prone to high wildfire risks. As such, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks such that project users would be exposed to pollutants concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impact s to the environment?
The project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; the project would involve the removal and replacement of trees a specific project area within the City. The Project area is already served by sidewalk and roadway infrastructure that would not need to be significantly modified to facilitate removal and replacement of trees. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
For reasons described previously in Sections 4.9(g) and 4.20(a), (b), and (c), the project would not pose a substantial risk for wildfire. The project would be located on relatively flat land. As such, implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks from post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant .

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or rest rict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the ef fects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects .)

c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potential impacts related to sensitive and special -status habitat, wildlife species, and plant species are discussed in Section 4.4. As discussed in Section 4.4, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with incorporation of MM-BIO-1. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment or impact fish or wildlife species or plant communities. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the ef fects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects .) As indicated in the analysis presented throughout Section 4 of this MND, the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts in any issue area. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. The City has approximately 28,000 parkway trees, for a total of approximately 33,000 trees citywide. As such, in the absence of significant Project -level impacts, the incremental contribution of the proposed project in removing and replacement of 122 trees would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings was considered throughout Section 4 of this MND. Based on this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation measures incorporated would result in a substantial adverse effect on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

5.0 REFERENCES
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

5.0 REFERENCES
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

AECOM. 2012a. Burbank 2035 Environmental Impact Report. November 2012. https://www.burbankca. gov/documents/173607/0/Planning_2021_Burbank2035+DEIR.pdf/7b9f4666-6b6e-915e-a2fd- 785535462c67?t=1638490370426
AECOM. 2012b. Burbank2035 General Plan EIR Appendix A Technical Background Report. July 2012. https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/2021_planning_Burbank2035+EIR+ Appendices+A-E.pdf/60f6ccba -bea4-7912-2d59-e6547a3fa071?t=1627598572876 CAL FIRE. 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE.

September 2011. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5807/burbank.pdf Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office . September, 2013.

Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map . 2018. Accessed November 2023. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office.

April 2020.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update.

January 20. Accessed January 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_ pp_final.pdf.

CARB. 2019a. “Ozone & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ozone -and-health.

CARB. 2019b. “Nitrogen Dioxide & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen -dioxide- and-health.

CARB. 2019c. “Carbon Monoxide & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon -monoxide- and-health.

CARB. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 2022. Accessed January 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping- plan/2022-scoping-plan- documents.

CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook.

January 2003.

5.0 REFERENCES
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

CDFW. 2022. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer. Version 5.96.99. (Commercial Subscription).

Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.

City of Burbank. 1999. Historic Preservation Plan. November 1999. https://www.burbankca.gov/ documents/173607/0/HistoricPreservationPlan.pdf/874e1979 -a0b6-abac-88d2- c8aeb036ae9d?t=1612304426623
City of Burbank. 2009. Bicycle Master Plan, Adopted December 15, 2009. Accessed at https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/240347/20210204 -Bicycle-Master-Plan- 001.pdf/53be8720 -2d59-19ad-bd4a-168ac74d7d22?t=1612567201263 City of Burbank. 2013. Burbank 2035 General Plan . Adopted February 19, 2013 . https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+ Plan.pdf/139656b0 -80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 .

City of Burbank. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/ downloads/BWP_2020UWMP_Final.pdf
City of Burbank. 2023 a. Burbank Municipal Code. September 12, 2023. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank
City of Burbank. 2023 b. City of Burbank Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/GGRP+Update+Final_ w.App.pdf/5c876fb6 -fed4- 49e5-d7b6-dbcf058491a1?t=1666594217752 CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2015. Proponent's Environmental Assessment April 2015 Mesa 500 kV Substation Project. April 2015 .

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2023. EnviroStor Database. Accessed November 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ .

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM).” https://www.epa.gov/pm -pollution/health-and-environmental-effects -particulate- matter-pm.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division.

FTA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third Edition.

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

5.0 REFERENCES
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

NPS (National Park Service) 2022. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Forests. https://www.nps.gov/ articles/000/uerla-trees-air-pollution.htm
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program.

Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

February 2015. Accessed January 2019. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/ 2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. The 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal. Adopted September 3, 2020.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Accessed January 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules -compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993).

SCAQMD. 2003. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations.

August 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/ 2003-air-quality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v. pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2, 2022. Accessed March 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/2022-air- quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. GeoTracker Database. Accessed November 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

The Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper . 2024. Western Monarch Biology. Accessed April 2024. https://www.monarchmilkweedmapper.org/western-monarch-biology/.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Forestry Service. 2023. iTree Planting Calculator. https://planting.itreetools.org/ .

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed November 2023. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ Ventrac. 2018. LC150 Stump Grinder. Operator’s Manual & Parts Drawings, December 2018.

Vermeer. 2023. BC1800XL Wood Chipper. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.vermeeraustralia.com.au/bc1800xl-wood-chipper/ Wigness, Sam. 2023. How Much is the Average Electric Bill in California? https://www.solar.com/ learn/how-much-is-the-average-electric-bill-in-california/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20our% 20analysis%20of,kWh%20per%20month%20for%20apartments

5.0 REFERENCES
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF BURBANK
Marisa Garcia, Parks and Recreation Director
Mike del Campo, Parks and Recreation Assistant Director

CEQA CONSULTANT
DUDEK
Carey Fernandes, Practice Director
Tuesday Christopher, Environmental Planner
Mark Storm, INCE Bd. Cert., Acoustic Services Manager
Michael Cady, Senior Biologist
Shane Russett, Air Quality Specialist
Sabita Tewani, Senior Transportation Planner
Olana Chow, GIS Analyst

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Figure 1. Project Location

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

Figure 2. Tree Locations

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project October 2024

This page is intentionally blank.

Appendix A
Arborist Report

Appendix B
Addendum to the Level 2 Risk Assessment

Appendix C
City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan

Appendix D
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Energy Memorandum

Appendix E
Noise Memorandum

Appendix F
Response to Comments

Customer
Information:

ARBORIST REPORT
☐ Residential ☒ Commercial ☐ HOA ☐ Other:
☐ New Client ☒ Existing Client ☐ New Job Site/Property Date: 09/13/2023
Summary
Tree risk assessment for (122) Aleppo Pine trees (Pinus halepensis) located in the city of Burbank. There are concerns about failing trees or tree parts and has requested a tree risk assessment be conducted on all Aleppo Pine trees for general health and safety concerns (potential failures). There has been a history of tree failures in the past year with two (2) complete tree failures occurring during rainy weather conditions. There were no reported injuries but there was a significant amount of property damage. The trees in question were planted roughly 100+ years ago when the properties were first developed. These trees are located in a residential neighborhood with active pedestrian traffic and possible 24-hour occupancy in the homes and businesses located in the target zone. Trees are planted in park strips. The project’s objectives and requirements are referred to as the “Scope of Work” and stated below.

Scope of Work
The goals of the assessment are to:
• Evaluate the current health, conditions, and defects of the trees listed. • Identify and evaluate potential targets, tree parts, and likelihood of failure. • Assess and categorize overall tree risk.
• Make recommendations/mitigation options for hazardous trees and any additional recommendations.

Management’s acceptable risk (amount of risk manager is willing to accept) has been determined to be very low. Per the client’s request, any hazardous trees that are deemed unsafe or expected to fail under normal or extreme weather conditions within the next five years will be recommended for removal or mitigation (i.e. trimming, treatment, etc.).

Level(s) of Assessment & Job Details
A limited visual assessment (level 1) will be conducted on all requested tree species to identify trees with imminent, probable, or possible likelihood of failures. Visual assessments will be done via drive-by (car) and walk-by (on foot) to look for obvious defects or other conditions of concern. Any trees that require a higher level of assessment (level 2- Basic Assessment) due to significant defects will be identified and conducted.

Tools to be used for level 1 & 2 assessments includes:
• Measuring tools
• Binoculars
• Magnifying glass
• Probe and soil probe
• Compass
• Camera
City of Burbank
Attn: Mike del Campo
(818) 238-5343
[email protected]
Aleppo Pine Tree Inspection
150 N. Third St., 3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91502-1232

APPENDIX A

Limitations
I relied upon information of the site and subject tree(s) that you have provided to me and assumed all the information to be correct and true. If any of the information is found to be inaccurate, the conclusion of the final report may be invalidated. Observations and findings are valid up to the day the assessment(s) is performed and cannot predict natural phenomenon, unexpected events, or tree health issues (i.e. pest infestations, diseases, cultural practices, etc.) that may arise later resulting in tree failure or decline.

My observations will be based only on a visual inspection of the tree(s) at the time of inspection. Any issues buried within the trees or ground that are not visible will require specialists or a Level 3 assessment.

All trees are associated with some levels of risk. According to Dunster, Smiley, Matheny and Lilly (2017), “It is impossible to maintain trees free of risk; some level of risk must be accepted to experience the benefits that trees provide.” Trees are living organisms and cannot predict with certainty when, where or how a tree will fail in the future. However, trees and the risks they carry can be manage at acceptable levels, but they cannot be entirely eliminated. The only way to do so is to remove all trees.

Arborists use their education, knowledge, skills, and experience to inspect trees, make recommendations to enhance their beauty and health, and reduce potential risks that are associated with living trees. Often times conditions are hidden within the trees or below ground that are not always visible. Trees and the environment they are situated in are dynamic and change throughout the year. Arborists cannot guarantee the health or safety of the tree(s) assessed under all circumstances, or within the specified time frame. Cultural practices, weather conditions (abiotic) or living organisms (biotic) can contribute to the decline or failure of tree(s) and tree parts.

Mediation recommendations are based on the arborist’s experience, professional judgement and opinion, and up to the clients to choose or disregard the provided information and/or recommendations. There is no guarantee, expressed or implied, that tree failure will not occur in the near future.

Recommendations
After inspecting and reviewing the list of addresses with Aleppo pine trees throughout the city, I am recommending the majority of the trees to be removed. In general, the trees inspected have a multitude of problems including poor structure, included bark, severe leans, canopy die back, and in some cases, borers compromising the structures, the average age of the trees, and limited root space. I have created a scoring table to organize the list of trees into four categories to correspond with the attached excel sheet of each tree’s evaluation. Three (3) trees I recommend removing as soon as possible due to the imminent danger they propose to the potential targets in the residential area. These three (3) trees are marked as Urgent on the attached excel chart. Forty-seven (47) of the trees I have recommended as the next hazardous due to their overall health, structure, and potential targets if they were to fail. These trees have been scored with a number 3 on the attached excel chart. I recommend this group be removed before severe weather seasons. Fifty-four (54) of the trees I recommend as a third stage of potential removals due to their overall health, structure, and potential targets if they were to fail. These trees have been scored with a number 2 on the attached excel chart. Many of these trees need to have the canopy heavily reduced due to large over extended branches and large dead/dying limbs that need to be removed. I recommend this work be completed before severe weather seasons. Trees should be inspected and monitored bi-annually after canopy reduction is completed over the next 1-3 years. If canopy reduction is not an option, I recommend to be removed within the next physical year. The final eighteen (18) trees I am recommending to be monitored after any dead branches are removed. These trees have been scored with a number 1 on the attached excel chart. I recommend yearly inspections to monitor this set of trees for stressors and structural warnings. These eighteen (18) trees should be put on a planned list of removals in the next 3-5 years if their condition does not change.

Aleppo Pine Trees with a Score of “Urgent”
434 N. Niagara St.
400 S. Keystone St.
113 N. Niagara St.

Aleppo Pine Trees with a Score of “3”
2920 W. Verdugo Ave
716 Niagara St.
731 N. Niagara St
734 N. Niagara St
814 N. Niagara St
1130 N. Niagara St
1133 N. Niagara St -1
1133 N. Niagara St -2
1210 N. Niagara St
1226 N. Niagara St
1433 N. Niagara St
1600 N. Niagara St -2
1604 N. Niagara St
1613 N. Niagara St
1633 Niagara St -1
3003 W. Olive Ave. -1
209 Orchard Dr.
1706 Pass Ave.
1707 Pass Ave
1750 N. Pass Ave
2100 N. Pass Ave.
519 Santa Anita Ave.
500 S. Buena Vista -1
500 S. Buena Vista -2
500 S. Buena Vista -6
500 S. Buena Vista -7
129 N. Niagara St -2
200 N. Niagara St
204 N. Niagara St
210 N. Niagara St
211 N. Niagara St
218 N. Niagara St.
219 N. Niagara St
226 N. Niagara St. -2
236 N. Niagara St
237 N. Niagara St
241 N. Niagara St.
242 N. Niagara St
246 N. Niagara St -1
246 N. Niagara St -2
310 N. Niagara St
324 N. Niagara St
332 Niagara St
540 S. Keystone St.
2027 N. Fairview St.
1023 E. Santa Anita Ave.
700 S Sixth St

Aleppo Pine Trees with a Score of “2”
532 S. Niagara St.
346 N. Niagara
433 N. Niagara St.
435 N. Niagara St-1
435 N. Niagara St-2
439 N. Niagara
739 N. Niagara St.
806 Niagara St.
810 N. Niagara St
951 N. Niagara St
1135 N. Niagara St -1
1135 N. Niagara St -2
1208 N. Niagara St
1348 N. Niagara St
1513 N. Niagara St
4200 Woodland Ave
130 N. Screenland Dr.
514 S. Keystone St.
500 S. Buena Vista -5
500 S. Buena Vista -8
500 S. Buena Vista -9
500 S. Buena Vista -10
1012 N. Frederic St. -1
1012 N. Frederic St. -2
1536 N. Keystone St.
1539 N. Keystone St.
2017 Monterey Ave -1
2017 Monterey Ave -2
2017 Monterey Ave -3
124 N. Niagara St

1550 N. Niagara St -1
1550 N. Niagara St -2
1633 Niagara St -2
2239 N. Niagara St
3003 W. Olive Ave. -2
620 Palm Ave
1703 Pass Ave.
1740 N. Pass Ave
2011 N. Pass Ave
2114 N. Pass Ave.
2360 N. Reese Place
1400 N Naomi St
125 N. Niagara St
128 N. Niagara St.
129 N. Niagara St -1
201 N. Niagara St
208 N. Niagara St
226 N. Niagara St. -1
233 N. Niagara St.
926 N. Lima St
330 Lutge Ave.
2829 Burbank Blvd
118 N. Niagara St
315 N Niagara St

Aleppo Pine Trees with a Score of “1”
719 N Niagara St.
1245 N. Niagara St
1525 N. Niagara St -1
1525 N. Niagara St -2
1600 N. Niagara St -1
1609 N. Niagara St -1
1609 N. Niagara St -2
2921 W. Olive Ave -1
1726 N. Pass Ave

2125 N. Pass Ave. -1
2125 N. Pass Ave. -2
1131 N. Sparks St.
500 S. Buena Vista -3
500 S. Buena Vista -4
1036 N. Maple St.
1415 N. Avon St.
1010 Elmwood Ave
2144 Evergreen St.

If you have further questions, feel free to give me a call or email. Thank you.

Mandy Flaig
ISA Certified Arborist WE-12910A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (TRAQ)
DPR Qualified Applicator License (QAL) #140441

RPW Services, Inc.

Office: (714) 870-6352
[email protected]
Office: 714-870-6352

Disclaimer & Limitations
Trees are living organisms and their life span cannot be predicted. Consultations, written reports and appraisals are considered an unbiased professional opinion and do not constitute a complete tree risk assessment or warranty against continued decline, failure, or tree mortality. The health and condition of trees will change throughout the year, recommendations are only based on limited visual observations gathere d at the time of inspection. We cannot predict secondary or re-infestation from pests or diseases. As such, additional applications or treatment revisions may be needed.

There is no guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies in the trees may not arise in the future. RPW Services cannot guarantee that any proposed treatments will save a tree or be effective if proper cultural practices (i.e. irrigation, mulching, pruning, fertilization, etc.) are not followed. However, we do guarantee that the materials will be applied correctly and at the maximum allowable rate as determin ed by the product labels and site conditions.

City of Burbank
Addendum to the Level 2 Risk Assessment
47 Aleppo Pines and 1 Italian Stone Pine
SUBMITTED TO:

Micha
el Del Campo
City of Burbank
275 E. Olive Street
Burbank, CA 91502
PREPARED BY:

Jeff Crain
Plant Health Care Arborist
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist
WE-6658B
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification
JANUARY 29, 2024

APPENDIX B

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Trees Included in this Addendum ............................................................................................... 1 Limits of the Assignment ............................................................................................................ 3 Purpose and Use of the Report .................................................................................................... 3 Observations ................................................................................................................................... 3 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 25 Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................. 25 Limitation of Tree Risk Assessment ......................................................................................... 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 27 211 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 27 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 27 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 28 734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 28 814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 28 1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 29 1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 29 1600 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 29 1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 29 1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 29 1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................... 30 209 S. Orchard Drive – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 30 1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ................................................................. 30 519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ........................................................ 30 700 S. Sixth Street – Side-3 (Pinus halepensis) ....................................................................... 31 2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) ............................................................. 31 Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 31 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix A Images ...................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix B Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ..................................................................... 57

Appendix C Tree Risk Matrix Example ....................................................................................... 58 Appendix D Certificate of Performance ....................................................................................... 59

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

1 Summary

This addendum to the initial Risk Assessment for 47 Aleppo Pines and 1 Stone Pine is an update for a select group of the subject trees based on additional information regarding historical root pruning for sidewalk repair that was not available at the time of the original assessment.

The repair work included pruning of roots within twelve to twenty-four inches (12” – 24”) of the base of the trees. Cutting structural roots this close to the base of a tree, especially those three inches (3”) in diameter or greater, can significantly reduce the stability of tree and would have an impact on the likelihood of failure at the root plate. Unfortunately, the records do not indicate the size or number of roots that were removed; therefore, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the likelihood of failure might change with any certainty.

If roots with a diameter of three inches (3”) or greater were cut during the sidewalk repairs, this could potentially change the Likelihood of Failure of some of the observed defects and the overall Risk Ratings that were presented in the original assessment report for four (4) of the trees included in this addendum: 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1; 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2; 734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1; and 814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1. All four (4) trees would change from a current Risk Rating of Moderate to High under these conditions. Because the location, size, and number of roots cut was not indicated on the historical work orders, these changes in Risk Rating are only hypothetical.

All the trees included in this addendum were Recommended for Removal in the original assessment report. Those recommendations are unchanged in this addendum, although the added information may be useful for prioritization and scheduling if the City of Burbank staff, as the controlling authority, decides to follow the recommendations for removal.

Introduction

Trees Included in this Addendum

Additional root pruning history for sidewalk and curb repairs was provided for the trees listed in Table 1. The date(s) when root pruning occurred are also provided in this table.

Address Tree # Root Pruning Date(s)
211 N. Niagara Street Front-1 07/06/2004
246 N. Niagara Street Front-1 09/08/2021
246 N. Niagara Street Front-2 09/08/2021
734 N. Niagara Street Front-1 10/10/2012, 04/12/2023
814 N. Niagara Street Front-1 06/26/2013, 04/10/2018

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

2 Address Tree # Root Pruning Date(s)
1130 N. Niagara Street Front-1 02/06/2008, 05/10/2016
1433 N. Niagara Street Front-1 01/23/2013
1600 N. Niagara Street Front-2 01/23/2013
1604 N. Niagara Street Front-1 01/23/2013
1613 N. Niagara Street Front-1 11/13/2006
1633 N. Niagara Street Front-1 02/23/2006, 03/31/2009,
01/23/2013
209 S. Orchard Drive Front-1 05/30/07
1707 N. Pass Avenue Front-1 2014
519 E. Santa Anita Avenue Front-1 01/28/2004
700 S. Sixth Street Side-3 03/31/2009
2027 N. Fairview Street Front-1 06/16/2015
Table 1: Trees Included in the Addendum

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

3 Limits of the Assignment

Only the trees shown in Table 1 were included in this addendum. All other trees in the original assessment are excluded. The recommendations in this report are based on the site information provided. Discrepancies in the provided information from actual conditions may alter the findings of the assessment.

The recommendations presented are intended to provide the City with tree management options.

The City, as the controlling authority, will make the final decisions as to which trees shall be retained and which recommended mitigation measures, if any, will be implemented.

The report is not intended to be legal advice and does not represent legal advice as such.

Purpose and Use of the Report

This addendum is intended to provide the City of Burbank, Department of Parks and Recreation, Landscape and Forestry Services with additional information regarding the risk and likelihood of failure for the trees and tree parts included in the original assessment based on historical records of root pruning activity provided by the City after the initial report was submitted. The original assessment was conducted by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Board Certified Master Arborist Jeff Crain (WE-6658B) in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 9) – 2017 Tree Risk Assessment standards and ISA Best Management Practices (BMP) Tree Risk Assessment 2017. The updated findings represent the professional opinions of the assessor, based on the new information provided by the City and these standards and BMP’s, for use by the City in tree management decisions for the subject trees as the controlling authority.

Observations

The original assessment observations for each of the subject trees included in this addendum following the Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment is provided in Tables 2 (Health), 3 (Site Conditions), and 5 (Risk Assessment). Table 4 lists the identified targets used in the risk assessment. The data in these tables was based on available information and site conditions at the time of the site visit. Photos of the trees included in this addendum at the time of the site visit are provided in Appendix A.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

4 Species
Diameter
at Breast
Height
(DBH,
in.)
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Spread
Diameter
(ft.)
Vigor Foliage Pests
Normal Chlorotic Necrotic
211 N. Niagara Street – Front 1
Pinus
halepensis 35.5 40 – 45 35 Normal 85 10 5 No signs
observed
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 30 50 – 55 45 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2
Pinus
halepensis 41.5 55 – 60 60 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 45.5 40 – 45 60 Normal 90 0 10 No signs
observed
814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 31 40 – 45 40 Low 90 0 10 No signs
observed
1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 35 60 – 65 70 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 42 50 – 55 45 Low 90 0 10 No signs
observed
1600 N. Niagara Street – Front-2
Pinus
halepensis 47.5 50 – 55 50 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 35 50 – 55 40 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 64 55 – 60 40 Normal 95 0 5
Rounded
borer
holes
1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 38 55 – 60 40 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
209 Orchard Drive – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 24.5 40 – 45 55 Normal 90 0 10 No signs
observed
1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 36 60 – 65 50 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed
519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 42 60 – 65 50 Normal 90 0 10 No signs
observed

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

5 Species
Diameter
at Breast
Height
(DBH,
in.)
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Spread
Diameter
(ft.)
Vigor
Foliage
Pests
Normal Chlorotic Necrotic
700 S. Sixth Street – Side-3
Pinus
halepensis 42 50 – 55 65 Normal 90 0 10 No signs
observed
2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1
Pinus
halepensis 34.5 45 – 50 40 Normal 95 0 5 No signs
observed.

Table 2: Health Conditions for the subject trees.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

6 Slope
(%) Aspect Soil Conditions
Pavement
Over
Roots
Wind Exposure Site Changes
211 N. Niagara Street – Front 1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial
Historic root cuts for
past sidewalk and curb
repairs.
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial N/A
814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial Historic root cuts for sidewalk repair.
1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial N/A
1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial Historic root cuts for sidewalk repair.
1600 N. Niagara Street – Front-2
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial N/A
209 Orchard Drive – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 50% Partial N/A
519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 75% Partial N/A
Slope
(%) Aspect Soil Conditions
Pavement
Over
Roots
Wind Exposure Site Changes
700 S. Sixth Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 100% Partial N/A
2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1
Flat N/A Limited Volume 100% Partial N/A
Table 3: Site Factors for the subject trees

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

7 Target
#
Target Description Occupancy
Rate
1 Homes at Specified Address and Adjacent Constant
2 Street at Specified Address Constant
3 Parked Vehicles in Street Frequent
4 Parked Vehicles in Residence Driveway Occasional
5 People on Sidewalk/Street Occasional
6 People in Homes/Building Occasional
7 Fence at Specified Address Constant
8 Buildings a Specified Address and Adjacent Constant
9 Overhead Utility Line Constant
Table 4: Targets identified in the subject area.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

8 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
211 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Unbalanced crown
with weight
concentrated at the
end of overextended
branches.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Trunk
Two cavities (25% of
circumference, 12”
depth, 10% of
circumference, 6”
depth) and associated
heart rot.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Limited soil volume
with pavement over
50% of roots.

1 Improbable
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Unlikely Significant Low
3 High Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

9 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Twisted scaffold
branches with
sharp turns in
opposite directions
and weight at
ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Twisted trunk with
several corrected
leans and weight
concentrated in
upper canopy.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Dead and decaying
visible structural
roots.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.

1 Improbable
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Unlikely Significant Low
3 High Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

10 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Load on main
scaffold with weak
connection
concentrated at the
top and end of
branches.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely
Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely
Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Significant
included bark at
union with main
scaffold.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.

1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

11 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
ends towards
residence.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Twisted scaffold
branches with
sharp turns in
opposite directions
and weight at ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Previous failure of
large scaffold
branch not
completely
compartmentalized
with signs of
decay.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Uncorrected 15°
lean with load
concentrated at the
top of the canopy
in the direction of
the lean.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Signs of decay in
trunk.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Dead and decaying
visible structural
roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

12 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) [cont.] Roots /
Root
Collar
Dead and decaying
visible structural
roots.
4 Possible
Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
75% of roots.

1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

13 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Twisted,
codominant
scaffold branches
with sharp turns in
opposite directions
and weight at ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Uncorrected 20°
lean with load
concentrated at the
top of the canopy
and in the direction
of the lean.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Visible circling
roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
75% of roots.

1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

14 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Cavity (5% of
circumference, 6”
– 8” deep) and
signs of decay
from old pruning
wound.
1 Improbable
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Unlikely Significant Low
3 High Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Visible circling
roots.
1 Unlikely
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
75% of roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

15 Tree Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Twisted,
overextended
branches with
load concentrated
at the ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Large dead
branch on south
side of tree.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 Low Unlikely Minor Low
3 Low Unlikely Minor Low
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Twisted trunk
with poor taper at
base.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 Low Unlikely Significant Low
3 Low Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Signs of decay.
1 Possible
High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 Low Unlikely Significant Low
3 Low Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 Low Unlikely Significant Low
3 Low Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
75% of roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 Low Unlikely Significant Low
3 Low Unlikely Significant Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

16 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1600 N Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with
load concentrated
at the ends.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
10° uncorrected
lean with load
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy and in the
direction of the
lean.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Codominant
Scaffold Branches
with included bark
in the union and
weight
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy and end of
branches.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

17 Tree Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Twisted,
overextended
branches with
load concentrated
at the ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Partially
corrected 17°
lean with load
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy and in the
direction of the
lean.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

18 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with
load concentrated
at the ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Dead/Missing
bark with signs of
decay into
sapwood.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Codominant
Scaffold Branches
with included bark
in the union and
weight
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy and end of
branches.
1 Possible
High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.
1 Probable
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

19 Tree Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Twisted,
overextended
branches with
load concentrated
at the ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Partially
corrected 19°
lean with load
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy and in the
direction of the
lean.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
75% of roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Medium Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

20 Tree Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
209 S. Orchard Drive – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Unbalanced
canopy with
majority of
foliage in the
direction of the
trunk lean toward
Orchard Drive.
2 Possible
High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
7 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Twisted,
overextended
branches with
weak
attachments.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
7 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
24° uncorrected
lean with load
concentrated at
the top of the
canopy in the
direction of the
lean.
2 Possible
High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
7 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Previous root cuts
for sidewalk
repair 18” from
trunk on tension
side of lean.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
7 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Limited soil
volume with
pavement over
50% of roots.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
7 Low Unlikely Significant Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

21 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
ends.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Codominant trunks
with load
concentrated at the
top and ends of
branches.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Incomplete
compartmentalization
of old pruning wound
with signs of decay
in the union of
codominant
secondary trunks.
1 Possible
Low
Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Limited soil volume
with pavement over
50% of roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

22 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at ends
and weak
attachments.
1 Possible
Medium Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
Trunk
Codominant
secondary trunks
with included bark
in the union.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Limited soil volume
with pavement over
75% of roots.
1 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

23 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequence
s of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
700 S. Sixth Street – Side-3 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
end.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
8 Mediu
m Unlikely Minor Low
Trunk
Lowest scaffold
branch attached at
90° angle to main
trunk, with a cavity
below attachment.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
8 Mediu
m Unlikely Minor Low
Roots /
Root
Collar
Pavement over 100%
of roots. Tree has
outgrown the well
with structural roots
growing over the
pavement.
2 Possible
High
Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
3 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
8 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

24 Tree
Part Defect
Target
#
(From
Table
3)
Likelihood
Consequences
of Failure
Risk
Rating Failure Impact Failure and
Impact
2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis) Moderate Crown /
Branches
Overextended
branches with load
concentrated at the
end.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
9 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
Twisted,
codominant
branches with weak
connections.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Minor Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Minor Low
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Significant Low
6 Low Unlikely Significant Low
9 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
Trunk
Wound from
previous branch
removal/failure with
damage from 5’
above grade to base
of trunk on the
tension side of trunk
lean. Signs of decay
in underlying wood.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant
Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
9 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
Roots /
Root
Collar
Decay in visible
structural roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
9 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
Limited soil volume
with pavement
within 4’ of trunk
over 100% of roots.
1 Possible
Low Unlikely Significant Low
2 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
4 Low Unlikely Significant Low
5 Low Unlikely Severe Low
6 Low Unlikely Severe Low
9 High Somewhat
Likely Significant Moderate
Table 5: Risk Assessment Results

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

25 Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Methodology

Data collection for this assignment was used to derive a level of risk based on the matrices found in the ISA Best Management Practices (BMPs) for tree risk assessment (see Appendix C Tree Risk Matrix Table). The level of risk determined (low, moderate, high, or extreme) is to be used by risk managers to help in tree management decisions.

There are three components used to calculate the risk rating for a tree part: (1) likelihood of failure; (2) likelihood of impact; and (3) consequences of failure.

Likelihood of Failure is the chance that a tree or tree part will fail within the time frame of the risk assessment, based on the observed defects and site conditions. There are four rating categories for likelihood of failure. An imminent rating is given to a tree or tree part that is in the process of failing or will most likely fail in the near future under normal weather conditions.

A rating of probable is assigned to a tree or tree part that may be expected to fail under normal weather conditions within the specified time frame of the risk assessment. The possible rating indicates a tree or tree part that is not likely to fail under normal weather conditions but may be expected to fail in extreme weather conditions with the specified timeframe. Finally, an unlikely rating for likelihood of failure indicates that a tree or tree part is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in extreme weather conditions within the timeframe of the assessment.

Likelihood of Impact is the chance of a tree failure impacting a target during the specified timeframe of the assessment. This component requires the identification of targets within the target zone. The target zone is generally considered as the area within the drip line of the tree for branch failures; the area within a circle with a radius of one time the tree height for large branches or trunk failure with no dead branches; and a circle with a radius of one and a half times the height of the tree for whole tree failure with dead branches. The occupancy rate for targets identified within each target zone must also be considered when determining the likelihood of impact. Occupancy rate is considered constant if the target is present at nearly all times (buildings, structures, etc.); frequent if the target zone is occupied for a large portion of the day (shopping areas, arterial roads); occasional if the target zone is occupied infrequently or irregularly (country roads); and rare if the target zone is not commonly used by people or mobile/movable targets (back country trails). Once the appropriate targets and occupancy rate have been identified, a likelihood of impact rating can be assigned as high, medium, low, or very low. A high likelihood of impact is given if the failed tree or tree part is likely to impact the target; medium if the failed tree or tree part could impact that target, but is not expected to do so; low if there is a slight chance that the failed tree or tree part will strike the target; and very low if the chance of the failed tree or tree part impacting a specific target is remote.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

26 The final component to the risk rate is consequences of failure. With this component the value of targets is taken into consideration to categorize the consequences if the tree or tree part were to fail and impact the specific target. The ratings for consequences of failure are negligible, minor, significant, or severe. The people who use and frequent the target zone are generally the most important targets.

The time frame for the assessment in this report is one (1) year.

Each tree was assessed for defects in three parts: (1) Crown and Branches; (2) Trunk; (3) Roots and Root Collar. The three components and the resulting risk rating were calculated for each tree part and each target identified within the target zone for that part. An overall risk rating for each tree was assigned based on the highest rating for any part of that tree.

Limitation of Tree Risk Assessment

Any change in site use, damage to the tree from biotic or abiotic causes, and construction work within the dripline of the tree alters the conditions which this risk assessment was performed, and thus would require that a new assessment be performed.

According to the Tree Risk Assessment Manual, Second Edition, published by ISA, it is impossible to maintain trees free of risk.

“There is no way to guarantee that a tree will not fail. Tree benefits increase as the age and size of trees increase; however, some level of risk must be accepted to experience the benefits provided. The goal in assessing and managing trees is to strike a balance between the risk that a tree poses and the benefits that individuals and communities derive from trees.

“A considerable level of uncertainty is typically associated with tree risk assessment due to our limited ability to predict natural processes (rate of decay, response growth, etc.), weather events, traffic and occupancy rates, and potential consequences of failure.

“Condition affecting trees change constantly; none of us will ever be able to predict every tree failure. Conducting a tree risk assessment neither ensures not requires perfection. Risk assessment should, however, ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify the likelihood of failure, the likelihood of impact, and the consequences of failure present at the time of assessment.

“Abnormally extreme storms such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and freezing rain are not predictable and, in most cases, are not considered for categorizing likelihood of failure.”

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

27 Conclusion

As stated in the original assessment, most of the subject trees have outgrown the available parkway space, limiting the area available for structural root growth necessary to support the weight of a large mature tree and access to sufficient water and nutrients. The trees have responded by extending roots under the adjacent hardscape and into the irrigated landscapes of the adjacent residences. As these extended roots grow and expand, they can lift and damage the hardscape above, creating uneven surfaces that present a hazard to the residents. Historical records, not available at the time of the initial assessment, indicate that the trees included in this addendum damaged the surrounding hardscape to an extent that repairs were required for the safety of the residents.

The repair work included pruning of the roots that had caused the damage so that the original grade could be restored. The bases of the subject trees were within twelve to twenty-four inches (12” – 24”) of adjacent hardscape. Cutting structural roots this close to the base of a tree, especially those three inches (3”) in diameter or greater, can significantly reduce the stability of tree and would have an impact on the likelihood of failure at the root plate. Unfortunately, the records do not indicate the size or number of roots that were removed; therefore, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the likelihood of failure might change with any certainty. The potential change in likelihood of failure and risk rating for each of the addendum trees if roots greater than three inches (3”) in diameter is discussed below.

211 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2004, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Possible change in the Likelihood of Failure of observed defects and overall Risk Rating if roots greater than three inches (3”) in diameter were cut.

Depending on the number, location and size of the root cuts in 2021, the Likelihood of Failure for “Dead and decaying visible structural roots” could potentially change from Possible to Probable. This change would result in a change in the Risk Rating from Moderate to High for two (2) observed targets (Niagara Street and Vehicles parked on Niagara Street), resulting in a change in overall Risk Rating from Moderate to High.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

28 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis)

Possible change in the Likelihood of Failure of observed defects and overall Risk Rating if roots greater than three inches (3”) in diameter were cut.

Depending on the number, location and size of the root cuts in 2021, the Likelihood of Failure for “Dead and decaying visible structural roots” and “Limited soil volume with pavement over 50% of roots” could potentially change from Possible to Probable. This change would result in a change in the Risk Rating for both defects from Moderate to High for three (3) observed targets (Home at 246 N. Niagara Street and adjacent homes, Niagara Street, and Vehicles parked on Niagara Street), resulting in a change in overall Risk Rating from Moderate to High.

734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Possible change in the Likelihood of Failure of observed defects and overall Risk Rating if roots greater than three inches (3”) in diameter were cut.

There are two separate records for sidewalk repair with associated root pruning for this tree, one in October of 2012 and another in April of 2023. It is likely that the tree was able to respond to any loss of stability from the root cuts in 2012 with new root growth, or that no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair. Depending on the number, location and size of the root cuts in 2023, the Likelihood of Failure for “Dead and decaying visible structural roots” and “Limited soil volume with pavement over 75% of roots” could potentially change from Possible to Probable. This change would result in a change in the Risk Rating for both defects from Moderate to High for two (2) observed targets (Niagara Street and Vehicles parked on Niagara Street), resulting in a change in overall Risk Rating from Moderate to High.

814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Possible change in the Likelihood of Failure of observed defects and overall Risk Rating if roots greater than three inches (3”) in diameter were cut.

There are two separate records for sidewalk repair with associated root pruning for this tree, one in June of 2013 and another in April of 2018. It is likely that the tree was able to respond to any loss of stability from the root cuts in 2013 with new root growth, or that no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair. Depending on the number, location and size of the root cuts in 2018, the Likelihood of Failure for “Uncorrected 20° lean with load concentrated at the top of canopy and in the direction of the lean”, “Decay in visible structural roots”, and “Limited soil volume with pavement over 75% of roots” could potentially change from Possible to Probable. This change would result in a change in the Risk Rating for each of these defects from Moderate to High for two (2) observed targets (Niagara Street and Vehicles parked on Niagara Street), resulting in a change in overall Risk Rating from Moderate to High.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

29 1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

There are two separate records for sidewalk repair with associated root pruning for this tree, one in February of 2008 and another in May of 2016. It is likely that the tree was able to respond to any loss of stability from the root cuts on both occasions with new root growth, and that no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repairs.

1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2013, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

1600 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2013, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2013, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

30 The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2006, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

There are three separate records for sidewalk repair with associated root pruning for this tree, one in February of 2006, another in March of 2009, and a third in January of 2013. It is likely that the tree was able to respond to any loss of stability from the root cuts on each occasion with new root growth, or that no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repairs.

209 S. Orchard Drive – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2007, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2014, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2004, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

31 700 S. Sixth Street – Side-3 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2009, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

No Expected change to the Likelihood of Failure of any observed defect or the overall Risk Rating.

The root cuts for sidewalk repair for this tree were conducted in 2015, so it is likely that the tree has already responded with new root growth to address any issues with stability, or no significant cuts to structural roots were required for the repair.

Recommendation

All trees included in this addendum were Recommended for Removal in the original assessment report. The historical records of sidewalk repairs and associated root pruning do not change this recommendation, although this information may be useful in prioritizing removals, should the City decide to follow this recommendation. The history of sidewalk repairs also supports the initial conclusion that most of the forty-eight (48) trees included in the original assessment have outgrown the available growing space in the parkways and should be considered for replacement. Four (4) of the trees included in this addendum had records for two or three separate repair events, indicating root damage to surrounding hardscape is an ongoing issue for these mature pines. It is highly likely that additional repairs will be required as parkway space becomes more limited and roots extended under the hardscape expand. The Likelihood of Failure of the root plate and associated risk will likely increase each time roots must be cut for sidewalk repair. The City of Burbank will make all final management decisions as the controlling authority.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

32 Glossary
Codominant – stems or branches of nearly the same size and diameter that originate from a union.

Consequences of failure – Personal injury, property damage, or disruption of activities due to the failure of a tree or tree part.

Drip line – Imaginary line defined by the branch spread of a single plant or group of plants.

DBH-Trunk Diameter at Breast Height, 4.5 feet above ground level.

Frequent-The target zone is occupied for a large portion of the day or week.

Girdling Roots – Root that encircles all or part of the trunk of a tree or other roots and constricts the vascular tissue and inhibits secondary growth and the movement of water and photosynthates.

Improbable – The tree or tree part is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in extreme weather conditions within the specified time frame.

Level 2 Basic Risk Assessment – A detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor inspect completely around the tree trunk looking at the visible aboveground roots, trunk, branches, and site.

Likelihood of Failure – The chance of a tree or tree part failure occurring within the specified time frame.

Likelihood of Impact – The chance of a tree failure impacting a target during the specified time frame.

Low (Risk)-Defined by its placement in the risk rating matrix; consequences are negligible, and likelihood of failure is unlikely, or consequences are minor, and likelihood is somewhat likely.

Low Tree Vigor-Overall tree health is poor to fair. There are dead twigs and branches, and growth is reduced compared to other trees of the same species in a stand. The tree may be affected by pests or disease.

Minor (Consequence)-Minor personal injury, low to moderate-value property damage, or small disruption of activities.

Moderate (Risk)-Defined by its placement in the risk rating matrix; consequences are minor, and likelihood of failure is very likely or likely, or likelihood of failure is somewhat likely, and consequences are significant or severe.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

33 Negligible (Consequence)-No personal injury, low value property damage, or disruptions that can be replaced or repaired.

Normal Tree Vigor-Overall tree health is good. Expected growth and foliage color for the time of year is observed.

Pathogen – causal agent of disease. Usually refers to microorganisms.

Possible – Failure may be expected in extreme weather conditions but is unlikely during normal weather conditions within the specified time frame.

Probable – Failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within the specified time frame.

Rare-The target zone is not commonly used by people or other mobile/movable targets.

Risk-The combination of the likelihood of an event and the severity of the potential consequences.

Risk Rating-The level of risk combining the likelihood of a tree failing and impacting a specified target, and severity of the associated consequences.

Root Plate – The structural roots and associated soil that make up the support area for a tree.

Scaffold Branches – Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.

Secondary Branches – Branches that emerge from the scaffold or other branches in a tree.

Severe (Consequences)-Serious personal injury or death, high-value property damage, or major disruption of important activities.

Significant (Consequences)-Substantial personal injury, moderate to high-value property damage, or considerable disruption of activities.

Structural Roots – Large roots emanating from the root collar that provide anchoring and support for a tree.

Targets-People, property, or activities that could be injured, damaged, or disrupted by a tree failure.

Time frame – Time period for which an assessment is defined.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

34 Tree Parts – Divisions of the overall tree examined individually as part of the risk assessment.

Uncorrected Lean – Tree with a trunk lean lacking upright growth in the upper canopy.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

35 Bibliography

American National Standards Institute. 2017. American National Standard: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices (Pruning) ANSI A300, (Part 1) – 2017 Pruning. Tree Care Industry Association, Londonberry, NH. 33 pp.

Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon J. Lilly. 2017. Tree Risk Assessment Manual Second Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Lilly, Sharon J., Edward F. Gilman, & E. Thomas Smiley. 2019. Best Management Practices:

Pruning. Third Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

36 Appendix A Images
211 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Twisted scaffold structure

Large cavity on trunk Decay in the same cavity

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

37 Second cavity with signs of decay Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

38 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Twisted scaffold structure.

Twisted trunk with corrected leans. Decay in roots.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

39 246 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Overextended branches.

Included bark in scaffold attachment. Decay in visible roots.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

40 734 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Signs of decay in previous branch failure.

Uncorrected lean. Signs of root decay.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

41 814 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Twisted scaffold structure.

Uncorrected 20° lean. Visible circling roots.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

42 Decay in visible roots. Limited soil volume.

Limited soil volume. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

43 1130 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Overextended branches.

Visible circling roots. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

44 1433 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Dead branch on south side.

Twisted trunk with poor taper. Signs of decay in trunk.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

45 Decay in visible roots. Decay in visible roots.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

46 1600 N. Niagara Street – Front-2 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Uncorrected 10° lean.

Signs of decay in visible roots. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

47 1604 N. Niagara Street – Front-1

Overview Twisted, overextended branches.

Overview Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

48 1613 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Dead/missing bark on trunk.

Signs of decay and borer activity on Codominant secondary trunks with trunk. included bark.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

49 Codominant secondary trunks with Decay in visible roots and lower trunk. included bark.

Decay in visible roots and lower trunk. Decay in visible roots and lower trunk.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

50 1633 N. Niagara Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Partially corrected 19° lean.

Decay in visible roots and lower trunk. Decay in visible roots.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

51 209 S. Orchard Drive – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Twisted branch structure.

Uncorrected 24° lean. Previous root cuts 18” from trunk.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

52 1707 N. Pass Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Codominant secondary trunks with included bark in the union.

Limited soil volume. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

53 519 E. Santa Anita Avenue – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Codominant secondary trunks with
included bark in the union.

Codominant secondary trunks with Limited soil volume. included bark in the union.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

54 700 S. Sixth Street – Side-3 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Main scaffold attached at 90° angle.

Cavity beneath the attachment of Limited soil volume. main scaffold.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

55 Limited soil volume. Limited soil volume.

Limited soil volume. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

56 2027 N. Fairview Street – Front-1 (Pinus halepensis)

Overview Signs of decay on tension side of trunk lean.

Decay in visible roots. Limited soil volume.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

57 Appendix B Assumptions and Limiting
Conditions

1. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the Consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. Standard of Care has been met with regards to this project within reasonable and normal conditions.

2. The Consultant will not be required to give testimony or to attend court due to this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.

3. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.

4. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the Consultant.

5. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a stipulated result, a specified value, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

6. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, or coring, unless otherwise stated. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree(s) or property in question may not arise in the future.

7. 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 trees. It is highly recommended that you follow the arborist recommendations; however, you may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations and/or seek additional advice.

8. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organ isms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guar antee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period.

9. Any recommendations and/or performed treatments (including, but not limited to, pruning or removal) of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services, such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and any other related issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist can then be expected to consider and reasonably rely on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

10. The author has no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this report or the parties involved. He/she has inspected the subject tree(s) and to the best of their knowledge and belief, all statements and information presented in the report are true and correct.

11. Unless otherwise stated, trees were examined using the tree risk assessment criteria detailed by ANSI A300 (Part 9)-2017 Tree Risk Assessment, a. Tree Structure Assessment.

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

58 Appendix C Tree Risk Matrix Example

Tree Care Professionals Serving Communities Who Care About Trees www.WCAINC.com

59 Appendix D Certificate of Performance

I, Jeff Crain certify that:
• I have personally inspected the trees referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the assessment is stated in the attached report and the Limits of the Assignment.
• I have no current or prospective interest in the tree or the property that are the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts.
• My analysis opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report.
• My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events.

I further certify that I am a member of good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of municipal arboriculture in a full-time capacity for a period of more than nine years.

Respectfully,

Jeff Crain
Plant Health Care Arborist
West Coast Arborists Inc.

ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # WE-6658B
ISA Qualified Risk Assessor

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo A Camphor trees create a dreamy, green, cooling canopy over streets. Trees can dramatically cool temperatures in summer, but are valuable in other ways as well. Home values are increased, desirability of such neighborhoods is increased, public perception is raised adding benefit to the greater community.

These Camphor trees are growing in 5.5 feet wide parkways on 200 North Orchard Drive.

APPENDIX C
City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

B

These London Plane trees are another example of the value of large shade trees. Even in winter dormancy, perceptions and quality of life are raised due to their presence on this residential street.

This is a standard 5.5 feet width parkway in the 500 block of South Mariposa Street.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

C

Newly installed Date Palms, Phoenix dactylifera, will help to define this major intersection when fronds are untied and they begin to grow.

These trees can eventually double their present height.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

D

Large, spreading canopy trees, such as these Camphor trees, should be retained wherever possible.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

E

The City is using alternative means to retain large canopy trees.

This enlarged planting area borrows from the sidewalk, but allows for trunk and root expansion, increasing prospects for greater longevity.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

F

Wide parkway planting areas (12.5 feet) can accommodate larger, wide spreading species.

Photo looks west along 400 block of East Olive Avenue at Coast Live Oaks and Holly Oaks.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

G

Wide planting areas with plenty of root space are a good opportunity to maximize crown coverage with large maturing species. Photo looks east on East Olive Avenue and shows a Holly Oak, not yet at mature size.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

H

A Southern Magnolia (dwarf variety) is not the best fit for the smaller planting spaces in highly-urban settings such as this one in the 200 block of East Angeleno Avenue.

This is a four feet square (4 ft. by 4 ft.) tree well that cannot be enlarged significantly due to a lack of space and minimum requirements for public sidewalks.

The pavement has been replaced and the tree-well (cut-out) enlarged since this photo was taken.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

I

A Camphor tree works well in this 6.5 ft. width parkway at 200 North Sixth Street. This tree may have had past root pruning to fit this space, but provides great benefits to the adjacent apartment building and the whole neighborhood.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

J

There are many opportunities to add to the existing urban forest canopy cover throughout the city. This ten feet wide (10.5 ft.) empty parkway is in the 600 block of East Orange Grove Avenue.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

K

Chinese Elm canopies the street in the 500 block of East Grinnell Drive.

The 8.5 ft. parkway provides plenty of space for roots.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

L

Chinese Elms still work in a narrower (5.5 ft.)
parkway in the 600 block of East Grinnell Drive.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

M

An unusual and luxurious parkway (45 ft. width) in the 1000 block of North Sixth Street provides an opportunity for the largest species available.

These Eucalyptus trees are approaching 90 feet in height with upwards of 60 feet crown spread.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

N

A wide crown spread should be considered, wherever space allows, to increase canopy cover, reduce summer temperatures in the urban heat island, beautify neighborhoods, and help provide a sense of attachment to the community.

This 12 feet wide median in the 300 block of East Bethany Road allows enough space for these huge wide-spreading Italian Stone Pines.

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Photo

O

City of Burbank-Street Tree Master Plan Tree Species Index

TREE SPECIES INDEX

Introduction to this Index:

First, trees are living organisms. Trees
do not always grow as anticipated or as
people may expect them to. The mature size ranges of height and crown spread are observed ranges that can be greatly influenced by soil type, soil volume, application of water, handling at delivery, and even differences among individuals within a species. For example, a tree growing in a small sidewalk tree-well in limited soil volume may only reach half the size of the same species planted in an open, irrigated landscape area.

Prolonged drying of soil and roots during the spring and summer growing seasons, if the tree survives, will severely inhibit future growth. Water requirements can lessen as a tree matures and establishes a broader or deeper root system. Thus, the drought tolerance category may change as a
tree matures. Damage to trees during transport can
permanently stunt growth. For example, a tree may never recover fully from the shock if dropped off the delivery truck at the planting site.

A second point about this index: The trees on this index list are suitable for planting in city streets, but not all the tree types on the list are currently growing in City of Burbank streets. The list provides some alternative species that could be included if desired. If a particular tree does not appear in this index, there is likely a very good reason. Trees are screened for overly aggressive growth characteristics, unacceptable structural weaknesses, unmanageable health issues, climate incompatibility, and etcetera.

Again, not all tree species are appropriate for planting in the streets of the city.

Otherwise, this index lists trees currently grown in the city streets, accepted as desirable species, and potential additions to the master plan palette. Each tree is listed by botanic and common name, described as evergreen or deciduous, with mature size ranges for height and crown spread. The recommended spacing (distance between each tree) and parkway width are also listed. Finally, a drought tolerance category is included.

Tree Species Index
Botanical Name/Common Name
Conifer,
Deciduous,
Evergreen,
Palm
Height Crown Spread Spacing Parkway
Size
Drought
Tolerant
1 Agonis flexuosa /Peppermint Tree E. 20–40 20–40 35–40 4–6 Yes 2 Angophora costata /Gum Myrtle E. 20–40 20–40 35–40 5–6 Yes 3 Arbutus 'Marina'/Marina Strawberry Tree E. 25–30 25–30 25–30 3–4 Yes 4 Bauhinia purpurea /Purple Orchid Tree D. 20–40 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes 5 Betula nigra /River Birch D. 35 20–40 35–40 4–6 No
6 Brachychiton populneus /Bottle Tree E. 20–40 25–30 35 3–4 Yes 7 Brahea armata /Mexican Blue Palm P. 20–40 -20 25–30 4–6 Yes 8 Brahea edulis /Guadalupe Palm P. 20 -20 25–30 4–6 Yes 9 Butia capitata /Pindo Palm E. -20 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes
10 Calodendrum capense /Cape Chestnut D. 20–40 40+ 35–40 4–6 Yes 11 Cassia leptophylla /Gold Medallion Tree E. 20–35 20–40 30–35 4–6 No 12 Casuarina cunninghamiana /River She-Oak E. 50+ 30 40 4–6 Yes 13 Catalpa speciosa /Western Catalpa D. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 Yes 14 Cedrus atlantica /Atlas Cedar C. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 Yes 15 Cedrus deodara /Deodar Cedar C. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 Yes 16 Celtis sinensis /Chinese Hackberry D. 40 40 40 4–6 Yes 17 Cercis canadensis /Eastern Redbud D. 25 25 25–30 3–4 No 18 Chionanthus retusus /Chinese Fringe Tree D. -20 -20 25–30 4–6 No 19 Chitalpa tashkentensis /Chitalpa D. 20–40 20–40 25–30 4–6 Yes 20 Cinnamomum camphora /Camphor Tree E. 30–40 40+ 35–40 5–6 Yes 21 Cupaniopsis anacardioides /Cupania E. 30 30 35–40 3–4 Yes 22 Eriobotrya deflexa /Bronze Loquat E. -20 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes 23 Erythrina crista-galli /Cockspur Coral Tree D. 20–30 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 24 Eucalyptus citriodora /Lemon Scented Gum E. 40+ 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 25 Eucalyptus ficifolia /Red-Flowering Gum E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 26 Eucalyptus leucoxylon /White Ironbark E. 60 30–45 35–40 6+ Yes 27 Eucalyptus nicholii /Nichol's Willow-Leaf Peppermint E. 40 25–35 30–35 4–6 Yes 28 Firmiana simplex /Chinese Parasol Tree D. 20–30 15–20 25 3–4 No 29 Fraxinus angustifolia /Raywood Ash D. 25–30 25 25 3–4 No 30 Geijera parviflora /Australian Willow E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 31 Ginkgo biloba /Maidenhair Tree (male) D. 40+ 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 32 Gleditsia triacanthus inermis /Honey Locust D. 35 25–35 30–35 3–4 No 33 Hymenosporum flavum /Sweet Shade E. 20–40 -20 25–30 3–4 No 34 Jacaranda mimosifolia /Jacaranda D. 20–40 20–40 35–40 5–6 No 35 Koelreuteria bipinnata /Chinese Flame Tree D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 No 36 Koelreuteria paniculata /Golden Rain D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 37 Lagerstroemia indica /Crape Myrtle D. -20 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes 38 Laurus nobilis /Sweet Bay E. 20–40 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes 39 Ligustrum lucidum /Glossy Leaf Privet E. 25–30 25 25–30 3–4 No 40 Liriodendron tulipifera /Yellow Poplar D. 40–50 20–40 35–40 5–6 No 41 Magnolia grandiflora /Southern Magnolia E. 60 40 40 6–8 No 42 Magnolia grandiflora/Majestic Beauty Southern Magnolia E. 20–40 25 25–30 4–6 No 43 Magnolia grandiflora/ St. Mary Magnolia E. 25 20 25 4–5 No 44 Melaleuca quinquenervia /Cajeput E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 45 Nyssa sylvatica /Sour Gum D. 35 25 30–35 4–6 No
46 Phoenix canariensis /Canary Island Date Palm P. 40+ 40+ 35–40 5–6 Yes 47 Phoenix dactylifera /Date Palm P. 40 35 35 4–6 Yes
48 Photinia x fraseri /Photinia E. -20 -20 25–30 3–4 Yes 49 Pinus canariensis /Canary Island Pine C. 40+ 20–40 35–40 5–6 Yes 50 Pinus eldarica /Mondell Pine C. 40+ 20–40 35–40 5–6 Yes 51 Pinus pinea /Italian Stone Pine C. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 Yes 52 Pistacia chinensis /Chinese Pistache D. 40+ 40+ 35–40 4–6 Yes 53 Pittosporum undulatum /Victorian Box E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 54 Platanus x acerifolia /London Plane D. 40+ 40+ 35–40 5–6 No 55 Platanus racemosa /California Sycamore D. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 No 56 Podocarpus gracilior/ African Fern Pine E. 40+ 20–40 30–35 5–6 Yes 57 Prunus caroliniana /Carolina Laurel Cherry E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 58 Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea'/Purple-leaf Plum D. 20–40 20–40 25–30 3–4 No 59 Pyrus calleryana /Ornamental Pear D. 20–40 -20 30–35 3–4 No 60 Quercus agrifolia /Coast Live Oak E. 40+ 40+ 35–40 5–6 Yes 61 Quercus ilex /Holly Oak E. 40+ 35–40 35–40 5–6 Yes
62 Quercus suber /Cork Oak E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 5–6 Yes 63 Quercus virginiana /Southern Live Oak E. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6+ Yes 64 Rhaphiolepis /Raphiolepis Majestic Beauty E. -20 -20 25 3–4 Yes 65 Robinia x ambigua 'Idahoensis'/Idaho Locust D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 3–4 Yes 66 Sapium sebiferum /Chinese Tallow Tree D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 67 Schinus molle /California Pepper E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 68 Sophora japonica /Japanese Pagoda D. 35–40 35–40 40 4–6 No 69 Spathodea campanulata /African Tulip Tree E. 35–40 35–40 40 4–6 No 70 Stenocarpus sinuatus /Firewheel E. 25 15 25 3–4 No
71 Syagrus romanzoffianum /Queen Palm P. 30-40 40+ 25–30 3–4 Yes 72 Tabebuia chrysotricha /Golden Trumpet Tree D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 3–4 No 73 Tabebuia impetiginosa /Lavender Trumpet Tree D. 20–40 20–40 30–35 3–4 No 74 Tipuana tipu /Tipu Tree D. 40+ 40+ 35–40 6–8 No
75 Tristania conferta /Brisbane Box E. 20–40 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes 76 Tristaniopsis laurina /Water Gum E. 25 20 25 3–4 No
77 Ulmus parvifolia /Chinese Elm E. 20–40 20–40 35–40 6–8 Yes 78 Washingtonia robusta /Mexican Fan Palm P. 40+ 20–40 30–35 4–6 Yes Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
ADORNOS WAY No Parkway No Parkway

ALAMEDA AVE
100 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Magnolia grandiflora St. Mary Magnolia No 20/25
300 Raphiolepis Rhaphiolepis Yes -20/-20
400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
100 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400
900
1000
1200
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – A
Key: Black – Existing tree species to remain in Master Plan Red – Existing tree species to be removed from Master Plan Green – New tree species to be added to Master Plan