Burbank City Council
April 22, 2025

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
3600 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3700 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 3800 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 3900
4000
4100

ALLAN AVE
3500 W Cassia leptophylla Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20–40 3600 Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree Yes -20/20-40 3700 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
ALTA PASEO No Parkway No Parkway

AMBER LN
1800 N Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1900 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
2000 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40

AMHERST DR
100 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400
500
600 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
700 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 800 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
900
1000
AMIGO DR No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ANDOVER DR
100 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
400
500
600
700
800
900

ANGELENO AVE
100 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Raphiolepis Rhaphiolepis Yes -20/-20
400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 600 Angophora costata Angophora (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 700 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
800 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
900
1000
900 W Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20–40 1100 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 ANTIGUA DR No Parkway No Parkway

ASH AVE
100 EAST OF FWY Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ 100 WEST OF FWY Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 200 EAST OF WASH Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia No 40/60 200 WEST OF WASH

AVON ST
100 N Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 300 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
400
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

AVON ST
500 N Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 600 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
700 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
2400
2500
3000
100 S Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 AYERS WAY No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BEACHWOOD DR
100 N Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 400
500
600
700
800
1000
1100
1200
1300
100 S Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 400 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 500
600
700
800
900

BEL AIRE DR
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
300 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm (gateway identity) Yes 20-40/40+ 400 Phoenix canariensis
Canary Island Date Palm (gateway identity) Yes 40+/40+
500
600 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Yes 20-40/40+ 700 Syagrus romanzoffianum Queen Palm, Coco Palm Yes 12-15/50 800 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 900
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – B
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BEL AIRE DR
1000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1100 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 1300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 1400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1500 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 1700
1800 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 1900 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Raphiolepis Rhaphiolepis Yes -20/-20
100 S Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 300 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
500
600
700
800
900

BETHANY RD
Median Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine Yes 20-40/40+
200E
300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
500 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 600 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 700
800
900
1000

BIRMINGHAM RD
300 E Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
400 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 500 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
600
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BIRMINGHAM RD
700 E
800
900

BOB HOPE DR
200 S Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 Eucalyptus nicholii Nichol's Willow-Leaf Peppermint Yes 25-35/40 400 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 500

BONITA AVE
1700 W Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1800 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
1900 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
2000

BONNYWOOD PL
100 N No Parkway No Parkway
300
100 S
500 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25

BRACE CANYON RD
3000 No Parkway No Parkway
3100
3200
3300
3400

BRIGHTON ST
100 N Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
400 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 500 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 600
700
800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BRIGHTON ST
900 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1000 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1100 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1200 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 1300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 1400
1600
1700
1800
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600 Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/30-35
2700 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2800 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
2900
100 S Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40

BROADWAY
1100 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1400
1500

BROOKSHIRE CT PRIVATE PRIVATE

BROWN DR
500 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 600 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 700 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 800 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BRUCE LN
1000 No Parkway No Parkway

BUENA VISTA
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree
200 No Parkway No Parkway
300
400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree No 35-40/35-40
600 No Parkway No Parkway
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1500 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree No 35-40/35-40 1600 No Parkway No Parkway
1700
1800
1900 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree, Australian Willow Myrtle Yes 20-40/20-40 2000 No Parkway No Parkway
2100
2200
2300
2400 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2500 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
2600 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
2700
2800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BUENA VISTA
2900 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 3000 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 No Parkway No Parkway
400
500

BURBANK BLVD
200 E Phoenix dactlifera Date Palm
900 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (median, aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 1000
1100 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm (at major intersection) Yes 20/40+ 1200
1300
1400
1500 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (medians) No 25/25 1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (medians) No 25/25 2200
2400 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm (at major intersection) Yes 20/40+ 2500 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm (at major intersection) Yes 20/40+ 2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

BURBANK BLVD
3100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 3200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 3300 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (median, aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 3400
3500 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm (at major intersection) Yes 20/40+ 3600 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm (at major intersection) Yes 20/40+ 3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200

BURTON AVE
2700 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 3200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
3300 No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CALIFORNIA ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 400 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
1800
2700 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3000 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300
400

CAMBRIDGE DR
400 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
500 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700
800

CAMINO DE VILLAS
1600 E No Parkway No Parkway
1700 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 900
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – C
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CASTLEMAN LN PRIVATE PRIVATE

CATALINA ST
100 N Pyrus Calleryna Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 300 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 400 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Yes 20-40/20-40 500
600
700
800
900
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1700 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ Quercus suber
Cork Oak (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40

CATALINA ST
2200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2300 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30

CEDAR AVE
100 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
200 No Parkway No Parkway
300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CEDAR AVE
400 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 500 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 800
900
200 W Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25

CHANDLER BLVD
900 W No Parkway No Parkway
1000
1100 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1200 Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 1300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics/longevity) No 25/25 1400 Photinia fraseri Photinia Yes -20/-20
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CHANDLER BLVD
3400 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
3500 Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 3600 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics/longevity) No 25/25 3700 Photinia fraseri Photinia Yes -20/-20
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400

CHAVEZ ST
1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1200 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1300
CHERMAK ST No Parkway No Parkway

CHESTNUT ST
100 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 900 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1100
1200
2100 No Parkway No Parkway
2200

CHURCH ST
1800 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1900 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CHURCH'S CT
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1100 E No Parkway No Parkway
1200

CLARK AVE
900 W Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1000 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1100 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 1200 Quercus suber Cork Oak (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 1300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CLARK AVE
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500

CLIFDEN LN PRIVATE PRIVATE

CLYBOURN AVE
4200 S Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
4300 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 4400 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
4500
300 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 500 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 700 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
900 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 2000 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
2100 No Parkway No Parkway
2200
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CLYBOURN AVE
2800 (BEHIND AIRPORT) Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2900 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
3000 Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear No 20-30/20-30
3100

COHASSET ST
2900 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3000 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
3100 Photinia frareri Photinia Yes -20/-20
3200
3300
3400
3500
3800 No Parkway

COLGIN CT
400 E No Parkway No Parkway
500

CORDOVA ST
100 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 400 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
500
800 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 900 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 1000 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1100 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1200
1300
100 S Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Gleditsia tricanthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

CORNELL DR
200 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 500 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 600 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair (diversification) Yes 20-40/40+ 800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 900 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 COUNTRY CLUB DR No Parkway No Parkway
COUNTRY CLUB PL No Parkway No Parkway
CREST RIDGE DR No Parkway No Parkway

CYPRESS AVE
100 E No Parkway No Parkway
200

CYPRESS AVE
300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
600
700
800
900
1000
100 W Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
DAMON WAY No Parkway No Parkway

DARTMOUTH RD
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
400 E Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
500 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 DE BELL DR No Parkway No Parkway

DELAWARE RD
200 E No Parkway No Parkway
300 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 500 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
600
800
900
1000

DINCARA RD
1000 Platanus X acerifolia Sycamore, London Plane Tree No 40+/40+ 1100 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1200 Quercus Suber Cork Oak (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40

DOAN DR
700 N Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40

DURHAM PRIVATE PRIVATE

DYMOND ST
2100 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – D
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

EAST AVE
1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1300 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35

EDISON BLVD
1300 N Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1500 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1600
1700
1800
1900
2000

EDISON RD
200 S No Parkway No Parkway

ELLIOT DR
1700 No Parkway No Parkway

ELM AVE
200 W Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
400 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
ELM CT
100 W Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 STREET TREE MASTER PLAN –E
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ELMWOOD AVE
200 E No Parkway No Parkway
300
400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 700 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 800 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
900 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+ 1000 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania Yes 30/30
1100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
1200 No Parkway No Parkway
100 W Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania Yes 30/30
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400

EMPIRE AVE
1800 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1900 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 2000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100 No Parkway No Parkway
3200
3300
3400 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ETON DR
400 E Cupaniopsis anacardiodes Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 500 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 600 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 700 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
800
900

EVERGREEN ST
100 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane (increased canopy) No 40+/40+ 600 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
700 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1500 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1600 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

FAIRMOUNT ROAD
400 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 500 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
800 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (diversification) Yes 40+/40+ 900
1000

FAIRVIEW ST
100 N Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
200 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500
600
700
800
900
1000 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1100 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 1200 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1300 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1600
1700 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1800 Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia No 20/25
Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1900 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
2000 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 2200 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 2300 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
300 S Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
400 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 500 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – F
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

FARLEY CT PRIVATE PRIVATE

FIFTH ST
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 300 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
600 Platanus x acerifolia London Plane (diversification) No 40+/40+ 700 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 1900 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 100 S Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
200 Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum (diversification) No 20/25 300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
700
800

FIRST ST
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 300
400
500
600
700
100 S
200
300
400
600 No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

FLORENCE ST
100 N Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Yes 20-40/20-40 Gleditsia triancthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 300 No Parkway 1 ft. No Parkway
400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Yes 20-40/20-40 600 Gleditsia triancthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 700 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 800
900
1000
1100

FLOWER ST
100 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
300 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300

FLOYD ST
2100 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2200 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 3000 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35

FOLKSTONE CT PRIVATE PRIVATE
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
FORD
800 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 900 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+

FRANKLIN AVE
4100 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 4200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25

FREDERIC ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
400 Cassia leptophylla
Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1300 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1600 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1700 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 1800 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 2000
2100
2200
2300 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 2600 Agonis Flexuosa Peppermint (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 2700 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 2800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 2900 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

FREDERIC ST
3000 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
3100 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
3200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+

FRONT ST
100 N No Parkway No Parkway
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
100 S
200
300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

GAYLORD DR
500 S No Parkway No Parkway

GIBSON CT ALLEY ALLEY

GLENOAKS BLVD
100 N Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
300 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 400
500 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 600 Gleditsia tricanthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 700 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – G
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

GLENOAKS BLVD
3100 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 3200 Gleditsia tricanthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 3300 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 100 S Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400
500
600
700
800
900

GLENWOOD PL
300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 500 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25

GLENDALE PL
200 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 400 Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 500 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
600
GRAHAM PL No Parkway No Parkway

GRIFFITH PARK DR
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 300 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
400 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
500 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 600 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
700
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

GRIFFITH PARK DR
1000 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1100 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1200 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1300
200 S Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 300 Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 400 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
500 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
600 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+ 700
800

GRINNELL DR
200 E Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 400 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 500 Celtis sinensis Yunnan Hackberry, Chinese Hackberry Yes 40/40 600
700
800
900
1000

GRISMER AVE
1500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1600 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
1700 Photinia fraseri Photinia Yes -20/-20
1800
1900
2000

GROTON DR
400 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
600 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
700 Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 800
900
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
HAMLINE PL No Parkway No Parkway

HAMPTON RD
500 E Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+

HAROLD CIR
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20

HARVARD RD
300 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 400 Quercus suber Cork Oak (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 500 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
600 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
700
800
900
1000
1100 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Yes 20-40/40+ 1200

HATTERAS ST
3900 W Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 4000 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 4100 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
4200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 4300

HAVEN WAY
2600 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2700 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
Firmiana Simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30
2800 No Parkway No Parkway
2900
3000
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – H
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

HAVEN WAY
3100 No Parkway No Parkway
3200
3300

HEFFRON DR
3700 W Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 3800 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
3900 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 4000

HIGHLAND VIEW DR
3100 No Parkway No Parkway

HILTON DR
1800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1900 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
2100 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35

HOLLYWOOD WAY
100 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 400
500
600
700
800 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 900 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1100
1200 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1400 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

HOLLYWOOD WAY
2000 Tabebuia chrysotricha Golden Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 2100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 2200 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2300 Tabebuia chrysotricha Golden Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 2400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100

HOOD AVE
4100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 4200 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
HOWARD CT No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

IRVING DR
400 E Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 600 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
900 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25

ISABEL ST
900 W Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1000 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 1200
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – I
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

JACARANDA AVE
3300 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
4200 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
4300 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
4400

JACKSON ST
1800 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1900 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30

JAMESTOWN RD
500 E Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 600 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+

JANNETTA AVE
2100 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

JEFFRIES
2300 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2500 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – J
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

JEFFRIES
4100 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 4200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 4300 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 4400

JOAQUIN DR
2600 No Parkway No Parkway
2700
2800
2900
3000

JOLLEY ST
2000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2200 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 2300 Tristania conferta Brisbane Box (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

KAREN ST
1800 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1900 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2000 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20

KEELER ST
1600 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1700 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 1800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1900

KEMP ST
800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 900 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40

KENMERE AVE
2100 No Parkway No Parkway
2200
2300
2400

KENNETH RD
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 300 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 500 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – K
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

KENNETH RD
1600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 1700 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 1800 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1900 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 2000 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
100 S
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900

KENWOOD ST
100 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

KENWOOD ST
1400 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1900
2000 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2100 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+

KEYSTONE ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree No 40+/40+
400
500 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 600 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 700 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree No 40+/40+
800 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 1500 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30
1800 No Parkway No Parkway
2200 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2300 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 2400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
2500
2600
2700 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
2800 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2900 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300
400
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
500
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

KILDARE CT PRIVATE PRIVATE
KINGSWAY DR No Parkway No Parkway

KITTRIDGE ST
2300 W Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40
KLING
4100 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 4200 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 4300 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 4400
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

LAKESIDE DR
4100 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40

LAKE ST
100 N Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 200
300
700 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 800 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 900 Tabebuia chrysptricha Golden Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1000
100 S Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 200 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
300 Tabebuia chrysptricha Golden Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1100
1200
1300

LAMER ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
500 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
600
700
800
900
1000
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – L
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

LAMER ST
1100 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1200 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 2000 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2100 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2200 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 2300 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair (diversification) Yes 20-40/40+ 2400 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 3400 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30
100 S Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 300 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40

LANDIS ST
1700 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
1800 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
1900 Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Yes 20-40/20-40
LA RAMBLA No Parkway No Parkway

LEDGE AVE
5000 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 5100 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

LELAND WAY
1200 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1300 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1400 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1500
1600

LIMA ST
100 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
300 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
2800 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
3000 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 100 S Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
200

LINCOLN ST
100 N Gleditsia tricanthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
400
500
600
700
800
900
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

LINCOLN ST
1000 Gleditsia tricanthus inermis Thornless Honey Locust No 25-35/35 1100 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1200 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1300
1500
1600 No Parkway No Parkway
1700 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1800 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1900 Celtis sinensis Yunnan Hackberry, Chinese Hackberry Yes 40/40 2000
2100
2300 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2400 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
2500 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
2600
2700
2800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 2900 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree, Flame of the Forest No 35-40/35-40 100 S Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40

LINDEN AVE
100 W Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 200 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
300 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
100 E No Parkway No Parkway
LINDEN CT No Parkway No Parkway

LISMORE LN PRIVATE PRIVATE
LOCKHEED VIEW DR Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20

LOGAN CT PRIVATE PRIVATE
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

LOMITA ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 400 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 500 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 200 S Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 300 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35

LUTGE AVE
Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 300 W Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

MAGNOLIA BLVD
100 E Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 200
300
400 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
500 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
600 Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree, Flame of the Forest No 35-40/35-40 700
800
900
1000
100 W Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – M
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

MAGNOLIA BLVD
3200 W Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 3300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
3400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400

MAIN ST
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 600 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
700
800
900
1000
1100

MANNING ST
1900 N Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 2000 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
2100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 2200

MANSFIELD DR
2700 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
2800 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+

MAPLE ST
100N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40
300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

MAPLE ST
600 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 700 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40
800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1500 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1600 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1700
1800
1900
2000
2100

MARIA ST
1600 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40

MARIPOSA ST
300 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 500 Pyrus calleryana
Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear (remove for aesthetics)No -20/20-40 600 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree (increased canopy) No 40+/40+ 700
800
900
1000
1100
200 S Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
300 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 400 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 500
600
700
800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

MCFARLANE AVE
4100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
4200 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
MESA VERDE DR No Parkway No Parkway

MONTEREY AVE
1500 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1600 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 1700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300 No Parkway No Parkway
2400
2500 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2600 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 2700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree (diversification) Yes 25-30/25-40 2800
2900
3000
3900
4000
MONTEREY PL No Parkway No Parkway

MORGAN AVE
1800 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1900 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25

MORNINGSIDE DR
1300 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1400 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 1500 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

MOSS ST
400 N No Parkway No Parkway
800 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1100
1200

MYERS ST
100N Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
300 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 400 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 500
600
700
800
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
2400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2500 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 2600 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
2700
2800
2900
100 S Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300
MYSTIC VIEW PL No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

NAOMI ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1700 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 2200
2300
2400 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 2500 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2900 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 3000 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
3100
200 S

NATIONAL AVE
4100 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 4200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum, Lemon Gum Yes 20-40/40+ STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – N
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

NIAGARA ST
100 N Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1900 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
2200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 2300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
100 S Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 400 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+

NINTH ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree, Flame of the Forest No 35-40/35/40 100 S
200
300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

NAOMI ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1700 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 2200
2300
2400 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 2500 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2900 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 3000 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
3100
200 S

NATIONAL AVE
4100 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 4200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum, Lemon Gum Yes 20-40/40+ STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – N
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

NIAGARA ST
100 N Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1900 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
2200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 2300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
100 S Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 400 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+

NINTH ST
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Spathodea campanulata African Tulip Tree, Flame of the Forest No 35-40/35/40 100 S
200
300
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
Oak St
Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 (South Side of Street) Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
(South Side Power Lines) Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ (North Side of Street) Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ 900 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
Quercus suber Cork Oak (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 1000 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
NORTH SIDE OF ST Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ 3000 W Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3100 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
3200 Quercus suber Cork Oak (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 3300 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+ 3400
3500
3600
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – O
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
Oak St
NORTH SIDE OF ST Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ 3700 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3800 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
3900 Quercus suber Cork Oak (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 4000 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+ 4100

OLIVE AVE
100 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 300 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
400 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
300 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 500 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 600
700
800
900
1000
100 W Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 200 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 300 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500 W
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

OLIVE AVE
2500 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2600 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 2700 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2800 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
OLNEY PL No Parkway No Parkway
OMER LN No Parkway No Parkway

ONTARIO ST
100N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
700 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ONTARIO ST
1700 N Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 1800 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
1900 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 2000
2200 No Parkway No Parkway
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2900 Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40
Ligustrum confusum Nepal Pivet

ORANGE GROVE
100 E Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa
300 Tristaniopsis Laurina Water Gum (diversification)
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud
400
500 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
600 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
700 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 800 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 900
1000
1100
1200
200 W
900
1000
1100
1200
ORANGE GROVE TER No Parkway No Parkway

ORCHARD DR
200 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 400 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ORCHARD DR
500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 600 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 700 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
2200 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 2300 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+
2400 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
2500 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Tree Yes 40+/20-40
100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
300 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 400
500
ORCHID LN No Parkway No Parkway
OXNARD ST No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

PACIFIC AVE
1800 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1900 Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
2000 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400

PALM AVE
100 E Arecastrum romanzoffianum Queen Palm, Cocos Palm Yes 40+/30-40 200
300
400 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 500 Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree, Paperbark Yes 20-40/20-40 600 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
700
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – P
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

PALM AVE
800 E Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 900 Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree, Paperbark Yes 20-40/20-40 1000 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
200 W Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
900 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1100
1200

PARISH PL
100 N Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1200 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 1300 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 1900 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 2000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 2100 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 2200 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 2300 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2400 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (increased canopy/native) Yes 40+/40+ 2500 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 2600
2700
100 S Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 300 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 400
500
600
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

PARKSIDE AVE
1300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1500 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1600
1700
1800
1900 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 2000 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
2700 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ PASEO REDONDO No Parkway No Parkway

PASS AVE
100 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Quercus ilex Holly Oak, Holm Oak Yes 35-40/40+
300 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 400
500
600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 700 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 800 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
900 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1000
1100
1200
1300
1400 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
1600 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 1700 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
1800 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 1900
2000
2100
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

PEPPER ST
1400 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 1500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1600 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 1700
1800
1900
2000 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2100 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+

PEYTON AVE
1700 No Parkway No Parkway
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 2300

PRICE DR
600 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
700 Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35

PRICILLIA LN
600 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
700 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40

PROSPECT AVE
100 E Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40

PROVIDENCIA AVE
100 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
400 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increase canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 500
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

PROVIDENCIA AVE
600 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 700 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 800 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
900 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increase canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 1000
1100
100W Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40

PURVIS DR
2500 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel No 15/25
Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

REESE PL
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
400
500
600 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
700 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 900 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
Platanus X acerifolia London Plane (increased canopy) No 40+/40+ 1000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 1100
1200 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 1300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 2200 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 2300 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
2400 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 2500 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
100 S Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
400
500 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 600 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
700 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+

REMY PL
No Parkway No Parkway
REYNOLDS DR No Parkway No Parkway
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – R
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

RICHARD ST
1800 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1900 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25

RIVERSIDE DR
400 W Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 900 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 1000 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore (native) No 40+/40+ 1100 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500 No Parkway No Parkway
2600
2700
2800
2900 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3000 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
3100 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 3200 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore (native) No 40+/40+ 3300
3400
3500
3600
3700 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 3800 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 3900 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 4000
4100
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

RIVERSIDE DR
4200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 4300 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine, African Fern Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 4400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 ROGERS PL No Parkway No Parkway
ROLLINGRIDGE DR No Parkway No Parkway

ROSE ST
100 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Canary Island Pine Yes 30/30 200 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 700 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
900 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/25-40
1000
1100
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
100 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 300 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
400

ROSELLI ST
600 E Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
700 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

ROSEMARY LN
500 N Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 600 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-35 Ligustrum confusum Nepal Pivet No 25/25-30
Photinia fraseri Photinia Yes -20/-20

ROSITA AVE
1800 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
1900 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 2000 Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree (increased canopy) No 40+/40+ Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 RUDELL RD No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

SAN FERNANDO
100 N Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 200
300
800 Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree No 40+/40+
900 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1000 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1100 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
100 S Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 200
300
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – S
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

SAN FERNANDO
400 Arbutus marina Marina Strawberry Tree Yes 25-30/25-30 500 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (median) No 25/25
600 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia (median) No 15/15 700 Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo (median) Yes 20-40/40+
800 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga (median) Yes 20-40/20-40 900
1000

SAN JOSE AVE
300 E Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
400 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 600
700
800
900
1000

SANCOLA AVE
Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+

SANTA ANITA AVE
100 E Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (longevity/aesthetics) No 25/25 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
500 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
600 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
700
200 W Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Rhaphiolepis Rhaphiolepsis Yes -20/-20
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

SARAH ST
4100 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 4200 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 4300 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 4400

SCOTT RD
900 N Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 1000 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1100 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 1200
1300
1400 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 1500 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1600 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 2200 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 2300 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40

SCREENLAND DR
100 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
300 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
600
700
800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

SCREENLAND DR
900 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1200
1300
1400
1500
1800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1900 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2000 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 2100

SEVENTH ST
100 N Eucalyptus ficifolia Red Flowering Gum, Scarlet Gum Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Eucalyptus leucoxylon White Ironbark Yes 30-45/60
300 Eucalyptus nicholii Nichol's Willow-Leafed Peppermint Yes 25-35/40 100 S Eucalyptus nicholii Nichol's Willow-Leafed Peppermint Yes 25-35/40 200 Eucalyptus ficifolia Red Flowering Gum (add) Yes 20-40/20-40 300
400
500

SEVENTH PL
1100 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20

SHELTON ST
300 N Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 400 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
500 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
500 S
600

SHERLOCK DR
900 S Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 1000 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (longevity/aesthetics) No 25/25 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

SIXTH ST
100 N Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak Yes 30/50+
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
500 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
600 Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak Yes 30/50+
700
800
900
1000 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
1100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1200 Angophora costata Gum Myrtle (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 1300 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 1400 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
100 S Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 200 Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Yes 20-40/20-40
300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500
600
700
800
900
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
SKYLINE DR No Parkway No Parkway

SPARKS ST
100 N Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
300 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
400
500
600
700
800
1000
1100
1200
1300
2200 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
2300 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+
100 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 300 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
400
500
600

SPAZIER AVE
100 W E of FWY Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 100 W W of FWY Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 200 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 Quercus ilex Holly Oak
400
1000 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1100 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40

STANFORD RD
400 E Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
500 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 600 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
700 E Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
800 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
STARLIGHT CL No Parkway No Parkway

STEPHAN RD
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 STOUGH CANYON RD No Parkway No Parkway

SUNSET CANYON DR
100 N Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda
200 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
100S
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

THIRD ST
100 N No Parkway No Parkway
200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 300 No Parkway No Parkway
400 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 500
600
700
800
900 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 1000 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 1100 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25 1200 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1300
100 S No Parkway No Parkway
200 Tabebuia impetiginosa Pink Trumpet Tree No 20-40/20-40 300
400
500

THORNTON AVE
2300 W No Parkway No Parkway
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
THURBER PL No Parkway No Parkway
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – T
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

TOLUCA LAKE AVE
4100 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 4200 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
TOLUCA LAKE LN No Parkway No Parkway

TOLUCA PARK DR
500 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 600 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 TRUDI LN No Parkway No Parkway

TUFTS AVE
400 E Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 500 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 600 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
700
800
900

TUJUNGA AVE
100 E Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200
300 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda No 20-40/20-40
400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
500 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Chinese Evergreen Elm Yes 20-40/20-40 600 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak (native) Yes 40+/40+ 700
800
900
1000
1200 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 1300 No Parkway
1400 Hillside/View Conflict
1500
1600
1700
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

TUJUNGA AVE
300 Tristania conferta Brisbane, Pink or Australian Brush Box Yes 20-40/20-40 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

TULARE AVE
1500 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 1600 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1700 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1800 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Yes 20-40/40+
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700 No Parkway No Parkway
2800 No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

UCLAN DR
600 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 700 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 800 Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 900

UNIVERSITY AVE
100 E Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No 25/25
500 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 600 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 700
800
900
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – U
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VALENCIA AVE
200 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
300 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
500
600
700
800
900
1000 No Parkway No Parkway
100 W of FWY Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+ 200 W of FWY Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40 300 Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 400 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40
Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
VALERIO ST No Parkway No Parkway

VALHALLA DR
3500 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 3600 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
3700 Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak Yes 30/50+
3800

VALLEY ST
100 N Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 200 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 600 N Quercus suber Cork Oak (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 700 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 800 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
900
1000
1100
1200
1500
1600
1700
1800
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – V
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VALLEY ST
1900 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 2000 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree (increased canopy) Yes 40+/30-40 2100 Quercus suber Cork Oak (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 2200 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2300 No Parkway No Parkway
100 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

VALLEYHEART DR
1300 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
1400 Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree, Sycamore No 40+/40+ 1500 Calodendrum capense Cape Chestnut Yes 40+/20-40
2900
3000
3100
3200
VALLEY VIEW CREST No Parkway No Parkway

VALPREDA ST
1800 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

VANOWEN PL
4100 No Parkway No Parkway
4200

VANOWEN ST
2500 No Parkway No Parkway
2600 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VANOWEN ST
3700 No Parkway No Parkway
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400

VARNEY ST
400 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
400 S Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 500 Rhaphiolepis Rhaphiolepis Yes -20/-20
800
1100 No Parkway No Parkway
1200

VERDUGO AVE
100 E Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 200 Angophora costata Angophora (increased canopy) Yes 20-40/20-40 300 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
100 W Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 300 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (longevity/aesthetics) No 25/25 900 Photinia fraseri Photenia Yes -20/-20
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VERDUGO AVE
1600 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1700 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (longevity/aesthetics) No 25/25 1800 Jacaranda Mimosifolia Jacaranda (aesthetics) No 20-40/20-40 1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
4200 Quercus agrifolia Live Oak Yes 40+/40+
4300 Photinia fraseri Photenia Yes -20/-20
4400
400 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
500 Prunus Cerasifera Purple-leaf Flowering Plum No 20-40/20-40 Photinia fraseri Photenia Yes -20/-20
VERDUGO SPRING LN No Parkway No Parkway
VIA ALTA No Parkway No Parkway
VIA CARMELITA No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height
VIA LA PAZ No Parkway No Parkway

VIA MONTANA
100 S Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Yes 20-40/40+ 200 Angophora costata Angophora (diversification) Yes 20-40/20-40 300
VIA PROVIDENCIA No Parkway No Parkway

VICTORIA PL
800 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
Rhaphiolepis Rhaphiolepis Yes -20/-20
Photinia fraseri Photenia Yes -20/-20

VICTORY BLVD
100 N Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (add-longevity/aesthetics) No 25/25 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 1100 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
1200 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VICTORY BLVD
2600 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 2700 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2800 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
100 S Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
200
300
1000 W Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
500 Fraxinus angustifolia Raywood Ash, Claret Ash No 25/25-30 600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
VICTORY CT No Parkway No Parkway
300 W
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

VICTORY PL
1000 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1100 Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear No -20/20-40
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
VIEW DR No Parkway No Parkway
VIEWCREST DR No Parkway No Parkway

VIRGINIA AVE
100 S Geijera parviflora Australian Willow, Wilga Yes 20-40/20-40 200 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

VISTA GRANDE PRIVATE PRIVATE
VISTA RIDGE No Parkway No Parkway
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

WALNUT AVE
100 E Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
400 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
500 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Yes 40+/30-40
600 Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
700 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
800 Melaleuca styphelioides Prickly Paper-bark, Ridge Leaf Melaleuca Yes 20-40/20-40 900
1000
1100 No Parkway No Parkway
1200
1300
1400
1500

WARNER BLVD
3300 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 3400 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
3500 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
4000
4100
4200

WASHINGTON CIRCLE
2300 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20

WEDGEWOOD LN PRIVATE PRIVATE

WHITNALL HIGHWAY
100 N Magnolia grandiflora St Mary Magnolia No 20/25
200 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda No 35-40/35-40
400 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
600
700
1200
1300
1400
STREET TREE MASTER PLAN – W
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

WHITNEY LN
3200 No Parkway No Parkway

WILDWOOD CANYON RD
2600 (PARK) No Parkway No Parkway

WILLOW ST
2700 No Parkway No Parkway

WILSON AVE
1600 Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40

WILSON CT
700 S No Parkway No Parkway

WINONA AVE
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
1600 – north side–power lines Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35 1700 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree No 15-20/20-30 1800
1900 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair (diversification) Yes 20-40/40+ 2000 – south side–no power lines Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache (increased canopy) Yes 40+/40+ 2100
2200
2300
2400 No Parkway No Parkway
2500

WINONA AVE
2700 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Yes -20/-20
2800 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (diversification/add) No 25/25 2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
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

Street & Block No. Botanical Name Common Name
Drought
Tolerant Canopy Size/Height

WOODLAND AVE
4100 Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Tree, Yellow Poplar No 20-40/40-50 4200
4300
4400

WOODSTOCK LN
2600 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cupania, Carrotwood Yes 30/30 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud (aesthetics) No 25/25
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree No 20-40/20-35
Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade No -20/20-40

WYOMING AVE
2600 W Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear, Callery Pear No -20/20-40 2700 Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Yes 40+/40+
2800 Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Yes 25-30/20-40 2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
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

City of Burbank
Street Tree Master Plan Review

City of Burbank
Park, Recreation and Community Services Department
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

April 25,
2008

City of Burbank
Street Tree Master Plan Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Page 1

City of Burbank's Commitment to Forestry Services Page 3

Street Tree Master Plan as Living Document Page 4

Considerations for Modifications to Species Selection Page 5

Recommendations Page 7

Conclusion Page 10

Supplemental Information Page 11
References
Photos A through N
Species Selection Index
Street Tree Master Plan

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 1
Introduction

A review of tree species selected for public streets in the City of Burbank was conducted at the request of the City. The trees were reviewed 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.

Examples of groups to be retained due to excellent canopy coverage are some of the many Camphor covered streets in Burbank neighborhoods.

This review relates to an existing, working document known as the Street Tree Master Plan. There are at least two tree species, usually three, approved for each street that were reviewed in this survey. Generally, the larger maturing trees should be the first choice as they provide greater canopy coverage and greater benefits. Existing stands of large crown trees such as Camphors, Oaks, and Sycamores should be retained wherever possible.

Standards for
changing a tree
selection:

Larger canopy
tree;
increased species
diversification;
better adaptation to
site conditions,
performance and
longevity; and
aesthetics

The most common reason for changing a recommended tree
selection for a particular street is in the case where a larger spreading canopy tree will fit the available parkway space.

The space at the ground plane is a crucial consideration since root expansion will cause substantial problems if the space is too small.

Other criteria for changing the tree selections include: where species diversification could be increased; where a particular species might be better adapted to environmental conditions; and where a species may be better suited aesthetically after first considering the above factors.

This Street Tree Master Plan review should be viewed as a fluid document where tree selections are not necessarily final or unchangeable.

Tree selections are chosen for adaptability to the confines of the urban setting and for lower maintenance requirements.

Choosing a particular tree should consider basic growth characteristics, such as whether this species will reasonably fit the intended planting space, desirability of an evergreen or deciduous tree, ultimate crown size and height, rooting characteristics, potential for tree structural problems, and shedding propensities of flowers, fruit, seedpods, and leaves.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 2
After these considerations are met, the process of changing a tree selection may involve a significant degree of
subjectivity, especially where aesthetics are the
consideration.

Subjective arguments could ensue endlessly with regard to tree aesthetics. One person‟s favorite tree may cause great annoyance to the next person. One famous case in point is the Jacaranda tree. This tree is widely revered for its beauty and at the same time despised for its droppings. It has a fantastic display of blue flowers in late spring. It is a wonderful experience to drive or walk a city street lined on both sides with Jacarandas in full bloom. Their fern-like foliage is soft and wispy. Yet, many of the residents on that same street have a vehement disdain for the slippery and staining flowers once they have fallen. A note in the Street Tree Seminar, Inc. publication for trees in Southern
California states, “Consider public opinion before
reforestation with Jacarandas: few trees are regarded more highly- as long as they are on someone else‟s property.” I believe there is a place for this tree in street plantings, but people should be informed about all of its characteristics before mass planting.

Another example is the Liquidambar tree. This species was a widely planted street tree 40 or 50 years ago. People loved its spectacular fall foliage colors and stately height. But now we have learned some hard lessons about the Liquidambar.

The species has a tendency to drop branches in hot weather, roots are very aggressive and wreak havoc with sewer lines and pavement, and the hard-spiked, spherical seedpods can become a nuisance to people walking down the sidewalk.

This tree is no longer recommended for planting in City of Burbank streets.

Another example is illustrated by the Ficus trees on
Magnolia Boulevard. These trees are now targeted for
replacement and are no longer a recommended street tree in the City. Indian Laurel Fig was valued for a clean looking, dense evergreen crown, on a medium to large scale frame.

But with age, the roots of this tree become very assertive and can easily displace sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Further, it can block signage and drop „berries‟, actually small figs that cause inconvenience and extra clean-up for businesses
located below.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 3
Yet another case is illustrated by the Carrotwood tree. This was once considered the new „perfect tree‟. Attractive young glossy leaves on an evergreen tree of mid-sized frame made this a desirable choice. It was widely planted in city streets throughout southern California. Only later was it realized the incredible mess these trees could create with their sticky fruit drop and is now no longer recommended for planting in the streets of Burbank.

Finally, two additional trees no longer recommended for planting in the streets of Burbank come to mind. These are Carob and Aleppo Pine. Both of these species become very large in advanced age. Further, they are subject to structural maladies as they reach senescence and are no longer
recommended as street trees.

Thus after the basics of size to space and growth
characteristics are considered, tree selection is somewhat subjective, influenced by personal tolerances and aesthetic preferences. Again, one person‟s dream tree may be
another‟s worst nightmare.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 4

City of Burbank's Commitment to Forestry Services

The City of Burbank's Forestry Services Section has stated its commitment to Forestry Services in its mission statement:
"Burbank Forestry Services employees take pride in
effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our tradition of more than 50 years of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the
challenges of the future."

City of Burbank
has attained Tree
City USA
designation for 31
consecutive years
In fact, the City of Burbank has not only stated but also demonstrated an exceptional commitment to urban forestry, earning the Tree City USA designation from the National Arbor Day Foundation for 31 consecutive years - one of only two cities with that distinction. The City‟s maintenance and planting of street trees has contributed significantly to its success in consistently earning this award.

City Forestry maintains an urban forest of approximately 35,000 trees overall. Burbank's Street Tree portion of the urban forest, excluding parks, currently consists of
approximately 29,000 trees (Hansen 2007, 2). Funds are budgeted for staff and equipment for maintenance of the City's trees, however staff positions have been reduced while numbers of trees under maintenance has increased. There is a goal of planting 100 new trees annually. Installing a tree is done at the request of the adjacent resident.

The list of services provided by the Forestry Section is extensive and includes tree pruning (including clearing of broken branches), parkway tree removal, parkway tree
planting, and some preventive root pruning.

City Forestry has been involved in planning of the Magnolia Street Reforestation Program, addressing sidewalk upheaval due to problem species (Ficus and Podocarpus) and making recommendations for replacement species.

A crucial component for the City‟s tree maintenance
program is the staff and equipment required to water new trees, especially in the first few formative years. Sufficient quantities and frequency of irrigation water is the single most important requirement for survival and growth, after proper City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 5
planting and quality nursery stock.

Taking irrigation into consideration, new trees are planted only at the request of residents, unless an entire streetscape is being renovated such as Burbank Boulevard. Adoption and watering by the adjacent resident is the best way to insure success. Conversely, if a tree is planted in front of a house against the wishes of the homeowner, chances of tree
survival decline dramatically.

Sufficient water is also important for the health of more mature trees, especially during periods of drought. However, regarding water conservation, trees require far less quantities of water than other common landscape features such as turf- grass lawns. The majority of new commercial and industrial streetscapes are now required to have automatic irrigation.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 6
Street Tree Master Plan as Living Document

Street Tree Master
Plan has been
continually
updated by staff
over the past 20
years
The Street Tree Master Plan has been a key document for the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department for
approximately twenty years, as it lists the street tree species recommended for each city block. It is not meant to be a static document, but a living document intended to be
updated by educated professionals within the City of
Burbank's Forestry Services Section as they deem
appropriate. City staff professionals have updated the species list over the years primarily to reflect maintenance experience with the selections – for example, Liquidambar and Ficus were removed from the list when they proved to be problematic species (Hansen 2007, 1).

Species changes made over the years to the Street Tree
Master Plan reflect the City's long-standing interest in providing aesthetically pleasing choices that are reasonable to maintain and fit the available space. The City's decision to undertake a comprehensive, independent review of the document further affirms its commitment to best practices in urban forestry.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 7
Considerations for Modifications to Species Selection

Any changes to the species selections should be undertaken only with good reason. In order to establish
recommendations for such changes, a number of
considerations are appropriate:

1. Net Economic Benefits of Larger Trees

Some evidence for the economic benefits of planting the largest-maturing tree in the appropriate planting space is provided by a study which quantified net economic benefits of urban trees in Inland Empire Communities, including the Burbank region. The study aimed to quantify both benefits (including energy savings, air quality improvement and
aesthetic benefits of trees) and costs (including purchasing, planting, maintaining trees and infrastructure damage/repair).

Economic analysis
shows the value of
planting the largest
maturing tree in
the appropriate
planting space
The study determined that the average annual net benefits per tree increase with mature tree size as follows
(McPherson et al, 2001, 37):

* –$2 to $14 for a small tree (crown size 25 feet approx.) * $33 to $57 for a medium tree ( crown of 25-40 feet) and * $66 to $85 for a large tree (crown of 40 feet and larger).

In order to promote sustainability at the least cost (and greatest net benefit), the City should maximize the impact of planting efforts while minimizing potential infrastructure encroachment. This can be accomplished through attention to available planting space as well as careful selection of planting stock for initial health and expected longevity.

2. Environmental and Social Benefits

Environmental benefits to an increased urban canopy include improved air quality and particulate reduction, reduced exposure to potentially cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature reductions especially in periods of extreme heat, and energy savings (McPherson et al. 2001, 2- 4).

There are also social benefits, such as increased property values, well-documented positive effects on human behavior, and restorative effects of trees on mental fatigue experienced in modern urban life. A further social benefit is the
City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 8
increased sense of attachment and belonging to a community associated with greater urban canopy (McPherson et al.
2001, 3-4).

3. Appropriate Species Selection and Diversification

Monocultures can be problematic when attacked by a species specific disease or insect. Burbank generally has good species diversification, but over reliance on any one
particular species going forward could set the stage for catastrophic loss, such as the Dutch Elm Disease epidemic on American Elm of the last several decades.

Species should be
diverse and well-
suited to our
Mediterranean
climate
Species selected must be adapted to our Mediterranean
climate, characterized by cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. There may be opportunities to increase the
representation of some native species such as Coast Live Oak, where space and environmental conditions allow.

However, „introduced species‟ of Mediterranean climate- zone trees make up the majority of recommended trees due to better adaptability to rigorous conditions found in the urban environment.

4. Aesthetic Considerations

Maintenance of iconic groups of trees and gateway plantings associated with the aesthetic beauty of the neighborhoods should be an important consideration of any Street Tree Master Plan. Retention of such emblematic groups of trees like the many Camphor covered streets (Photo A) or London Plane and California Sycamore lined neighborhoods (Photo B) should be a high priority.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 9

Recommendations

"The right tree in
the right place"
A longstanding arboricultural mantra is “The right tree should be planted in the right place”. Many future problems can be lessened or avoided altogether by adherence to this guideline. The general recommendation is to plant the
largest-maturing tree in the appropriate planting space in order to maximize the total urban canopy and associated benefits. Other recommendations included are
complementary to this basic approach. The
recommendations are thus:

1. Tree Species Guidelines by Size of Planting Space

Tree Species Index
gives species
choices and
recommended
available planting
space
The goal is to plant tree species that mature at a larger size given available root and air space. Species selection is matched to available planting space. In the case of street trees this involves species selection lists by parkway size (see „Tree Species Index‟ in Supplemental Information).

Such a list would help to ensure the most efficient use of the planting space while still allowing discretion of Department staff in choosing an appropriate species for a given space.

City Forestry currently installs fifteen-gallon (15 gal.) size container trees. These trees are typically about six feet (6 ft.) in height with a trunk diameter of about one inch (1 in.).

Depending on species, the trees grow at different rates to their ultimate size. Variation in species can be quite divergent. For instance a Crape Myrtle grows somewhat
slowly (15 years) to a design height and spread of about twenty feet (20 ft.), while a Tipu Tree grows rapidly (20 feet in 4-5 years) to an ultimate size of fifty feet (50 ft.) in height and crown spread. Each tree‟s rate of growth and ultimate size can be quite different and is linked to its genetic program.

Further, trees often vary by individual within a species.

Analagous to this is the case of variability within
humankind. We are all members of the same genus and
species, Homo sapiens, but individuals can vary greatly in physical attributes influenced by their genetic code and/or environmental conditions.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 10

Thus, we have three general crown sizes into which the City street trees have been categorized: small, medium and large.

Small trees can be expected to mature at about twenty five feet (25 ft.) in ten to fifteen years (10-15 yrs.). Medium sized trees fall into the twenty five feet to forty feet (25-40 ft.) crown height and spread range in twenty years (20 yrs.).

While, large trees are in the forty to sixty feet (40-60 ft.) range for crown height and spread, taking twenty to thirty years (20-30 yrs.) to reach this size.

2. Street Tree Master Plan Changes

Changes in species selections on individual streets have been made with the above considerations of the prior section in mind – net economic benefits of larger trees, environmental and social benefits, species diversification and aesthetic considerations. Again, the primary goal is to maximize crown cover for available planting space.

The intent on each street is to provide appropriate species selections both for new street tree planting, and for
replacement or reforestation after life expectancy of existing trees has been reached.

This concept is called „urban reforestation‟. Trees have a lifespan, going through the stages of maturation to eventually reach over-maturity and death. Therefore, when a City
parkway tree dies it will be replaced with one of the three species selections for that street.

Changes in the choices for each street were considered after examining the Street Tree Master Plan document and by
viewing most of the City streets. Examples of some of the tree changes were previously discussed, including Jacaranda, Liquidambar, Ficus, Carrotwood, Carob and Aleppo Pine.

Species changes were also influenced by aesthetic
considerations.

Further opportunities to create gateways to neighborhoods should also be considered. Palms, while not great shade canopy trees, can be a valuable asset in this regard. Groups of palms formalize entries and define major crossings, such as the newly installed Date Palms at Burbank Boulevard and Buena Vista (Photo C).

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 11
This Street Tree Master Plan review does not presume
wholesale additions of palm trees, but palms could be
considered by Department staff for future delineation of the neighborhoods as was done on the Burbank Boulevard
revitalization.

3. Public Education

The survival of a newly planted tree is particularly dependent on the property owner‟s appropriate watering of that tree.

Residents‟ sense of pride and ownership of newly planted trees is an important aid in their maintenance. At present, the City only installs trees at the request of the adjacent resident, excepting whole street refurbishing in commercial areas such as Burbank Boulevard or South San Fernando
Road where irrigation is installed with the new trees.

Planting trees at the request of the resident helps to insure the new tree will get watered appropriately.

If larger scale residential reforestation is undertaken, the best chance for survival of young trees would include a public education outreach program to involve property owners in their responsibility to help maintain street trees, combined with additional support from maintenance staff to insure trees receive adequate water.

Coordinating public education programs and community
involvement could help sustain new trees. A public
education campaign could include components such as
Channel 6 programs, an information web page, and
pamphlets (door hangers) regarding the care of young trees.

4. Creating Space for Trees

The urban canopy can be increased through the means
described above, without adjustment to existing planting space. A complementary approach is to consider where
larger planting spaces may be created to allow room for more growth of existing trees, especially at the ground plane (Photos D and E).

The City has
implemented
strategies to
minimize root
damage to
infrastructure
Some of the most difficult and costly maintenance hardships presented by street trees are root encroachment on sidewalks (pushing up pavement, creating a tripping hazard for
pedestrians), curbs and gutters (stopping the flow of water), as well as interference with overhead electrical conduction City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 12
lines. The City has used expanded tree wells, tree grates, root pruning, meandering sidewalks, ramp building and
patching, among others to minimize infrastructure damage and encroachment on sidewalks.

In some cases, it may be worth the trade-off to install a wide spreading canopy tree with the intent of widening the
sidewalk at a later date, especially to retain more Oak, Sycamore and Camphor trees in the street tree inventory.

5. Budgetary Funding

Substantial increases in the urban canopy cannot be expected without additional maintenance funding and staffing. As mentioned earlier, root encroachment on hardscape
(sidewalks, curbs and gutters) is one of the most common problems encountered in maintaining mature street trees.

Costs can be minimized at the outset with judicious species selection for available planting spaces (the right tree in the right place), and careful scrutiny of root abatement
procedures for existing trees. However, increased numbers of trees also raise watering, pruning and monitoring costs.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 13
Conclusion

The City of Burbank has a strong record of success in
maintaining and increasing its urban canopy and has reaped environmental and social benefits as a result. The existing Street Tree Master Plan has been a useful document for two decades, and has been modified by experience during that time. Further modifications to species selections should incorporate guidelines that maximize and increase the urban canopy appropriately for the available planting space. There should be a good reason to change the original species.

The criteria for changing a species of trees includes the following:

The benefits of an
urban canopy can
be maximized with
species selection
based on careful
consideration of
relevant factors

where a larger tree will fit the available space;
where species diversification could be increased;
where a particular species might be better adapted to
environmental conditions, increasing performance
and longevity; and
where a species may be better suited aesthetically
after first considering the above factors.

Increased urban canopy requires continued commitment to budgetary funding for urban forest development and
maintenance. However, the net economic benefit of urban forests has been demonstrated. The attached review of the Street Tree Master Plan is intended to provide updated
guidelines for future urban canopy development that can be maintained at the lowest possible cost with careful
management of available resources.

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 14

Supplemental Information
References
Photos A through N
Species Selection Index
Street Tree Master Plan

City of Burbank – Street Tree Master Plan
April 25, 2008 Page 15

References
City of Burbank Forestry Services. Brochure. 1994.

City of Los Angeles Urban Forestry Division. Urban Forestry Division: Street Tree Selection Guide.
http://www.lacity.org/boss/UrbanForestryDivision/StreetTreeSelectionGuide.htm

City of Santa Monica. Community Forest Management Plan 2000. http://smgov.net/osm/Trees/Mgmt_Plan/Complete.pdf

Clark, James R. and Rober Kjelgren. 2006. Water as a limiting factor in the development of urban trees. Western Arborist
Volume 32 Number 3: 20-25.

Costello, L. R., K. S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage By Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Cohasset: Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA).

Hagen, Bruce W.
2007. Root pruning. Western Arborist Volume 33 Number 2: 18-22.

Hansen, Eric. 2007. Street Tree Report. Memorandum to City Manager, July 10, Burbank, CA.

Harris, Richard W., James R. Clark, Nelda P. Matheny. 2004. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

McPherson, E. Gregory, James R. Simpson, Paula J. Peper, Qingfu Xiao, Dennis R.

Pittenger, Donald R. Hodel. 2001. Tree Guidelines for Inland Empire Communities.

Sacramento: Local Government Commission.

MEMORANDUM
To: Marisa Garcia, City of Burbank Parks & Recreation Director From: Shane Russett, Dudek
Subject: Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Memorandum
Date: 1/9/2024
cc: Carey Fernandes, Dudek
Attachment(s): Attachment A: CalEEMod Emissions Output Dudek is pleased to present the following air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy assessment for the proposed Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project ( project) located in the City of Burbank, California (City). This memorandum estimates and assesses air quality, GHG emissions, and energy impacts from the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and City of Burbank standards. 1 Project Description
The project consists of the removal of approximately 119 Aleppo trees (Figure 2, Tree Removal Locations) that have been found to be at risk based on an extensive urban forestry analysis of the tree health and risk of falling trees or tree parts. 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. The trees are located in residential neighborhoods with active pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and are planted in park strips, adjacent to the local streets.
2 Air Quality Assessment

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants that are evaluated include volatile organic compounds (VOCs; also referred to as reactive organic gases [ROG]);oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns in size (coarse par ticulate matter, or PM 10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size (fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5). VOCs and NOx are important because they are precursors to ozone (O3).

APPENDIX D

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 2
JANUARY 2024
Regarding National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) attainment status,1 the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 standards and federal and state PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is also designated as a nonattainment area for state PM10 standards; however, it is designated as an attainment area for federal PM 10 standards. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal and state CO standards, federal and state NO 2 standards, and federal and state sulfur dioxide ( SO2) standards. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is the only area that has been designated as nonattainment for the federal rolling 3 -month average lead standard ; however, it is designated attainment for t he state lead standard (EPA 2022; CARB 2022a ). 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.

2.1.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic noncancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminan t Identification and Control Act. This two -step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” In formation and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.

Examples of TACs include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills.

In August 1998, CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (i.e., diesel particulate matter, or DPM) (17 CCR 93000) as a TAC. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000).

DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on-road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others. DPM is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. More than 90% of DPM is less than 1 micrometer in diameter (about 1/70 the diameter of a human hair), and thus is a subset of PM2.5. DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (soot, also called black carbon) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known carcinogenic organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-

1 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the CAAQS. These standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), respectively, for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards; unclassified = expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 3
JANUARY 2024
butadiene. DPM contributes to premature death; hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma; increased respiratory symptoms; and decreased lung function in children. Those most vulnerable to noncancer health effects are children, whose lungs are still developing, and the elderly, who often have chronic health problems.

2.1.3 Odorous Compounds
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.

2.2 Thresholds of Significance
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 construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s VOC or NO x significance thresholds shown in Table 1. These emission -based thresholds for O 3 precursors are intended to serve as a surrogate for an “ozone significance threshold” (i.e., the potential for adverse O 3 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 O 3 levels in ambient air cannot be reliably or meani ngfully determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 4
JANUARY 2024
Table 1. 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) 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/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)

1.0 g/m3
PM2.5 24-hour
average

10.4 g/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)
Source: SCAQMD 2023.

Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOCs = volatile organic compounds ; NOx = oxides of nitrogen ; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO2 = 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.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 5
JANUARY 2024
In addition to the emission-based thresholds listed in Table 1, 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 th e 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 PM 2.5 is intended to ensure that construction 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 2.

Table 2. 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; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = 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.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 6
JANUARY 2024

2.3 Approach and Methodology
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022 .1.1.21 was used to estimate emissions from the construction 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 constru ction activities (CAPCOA 2022).

2.3.1 Construction
Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the project 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 information provided by the applicant, or on default assumptions if project -specific data was not available. Construction was assumed to commence in January 2025 and last approximately 6 months.2 The analysis contained herein is based on the assumption that the project’s single phase, Tree Removal, would commence for 121 days, from 1/1/2025 to 6/18/2025.

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 3. Additional details regarding construction assumptions are provided in the modeling output, Attachment A.

Table 3. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
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 3 8
Woodchipper 1 6
Stump Grinder 1 4
Notes: See Attachment A for details.

2 The analysis assumes a construction start date of January 2025, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate.

Assuming the earliest start year for construction 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.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 7
JANUARY 2024

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

2.4 Impact Analysis

2.4.1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
SCAQMD administers SCAB’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all CAAQS and 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 O3 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 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 under Section 3.4.2. Detailed results of this analysis are included in Attachment A, CalEEMod Emissions Outputs. As presented in Section 3.4.2, construction and operation of the project 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 to 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

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 8
JANUARY 2024
(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). 3 The SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and the associated Regional Growth Forecast are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2022 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans.

The project involves the removal and replacement of Aleppo Pine trees, and would be non-operational in nature. As the project would be consistent with the 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.

2.4.2 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment 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.

Construction Emissions
Proposed construction 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).

Construction 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, NO x, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. PM10 and PM 2.5 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

3 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 projections in the Connect SoCal are integrated in the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022).

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 9
JANUARY 2024
soil. Table 4 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during tree removal .

Details of the emission calculations are provided in Attachment A.

Table 4. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5
pounds per day
Summer
2025 62.84 13.13 76.35 0.02 1.92 1.38
Winter
2025 62.84 13.16 76.16 0.02 1.92 1.38
Maximum 62.84 13.16 76.35 0.02 1.92 1.38
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = 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 Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 4, project construction would not exceed SCAQMD ’s daily thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

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.

2.4.3 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 respiratory 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.

Construction 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 S RA 7 are presented in Table 5 and compared to the maximum daily on-site construction emissions.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 10
JANUARY 2024
Table 5. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction - Unmitigated Maximum On -Site
Emissions
NO 2 CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per Day
2025 13.16 76.35 1.92 1.38
SCAQMD LST 80 498 4 3
LST Exceeded? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2009.

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = 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 meters.

Emissions include quantification of PDF-AQ-1 and PDF-AQ-2.

As shown in Table 5, 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 analysi s 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.

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 construction would involve on-road vehicle trips from trucks and workers during construction, construction activities would last approximately 6 months and would not require a project-level construction hotspot analysis.

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 f our worst-case intersections in the SCAB: 1) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; 2) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; 3) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard; 4) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway.

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 at the Sunset

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 11
JANUARY 2024
Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection in 2002 and the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.4 parts per million at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in 2002. At the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.

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 study 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 hotspots.

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 healt h. T he closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses proximate 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 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) non - carcinogenic effects. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction 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 construction 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) should 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. A n 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 PM10 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 construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 12
JANUARY 2024
Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation 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 2019 a). Because the project would not involve construction or operational activities that would result in O 3 precursor emissions (VOC or NOx) that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O3 concentrations and associated health impacts.

In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO 2 (since NO2 is a constituent of NO x). Health effects associated with NO x and NO2 include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (CARB 2019b). As depicted in Table 4, project construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx. Thus, the project is not expected to exceed the NO2 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 2019 c). CO tends to be a localized 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 PM10 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 increased 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 pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.

2.4.4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Based on available information, the project is not anticipated to result in other emissions that have not been addressed under Section 3.4.1 through 3.4.3, above. 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

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 13
JANUARY 2024
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. 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 construction 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 an odor impact that is less than significant.
3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Climate Change Overview
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate—such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns—lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leavi ng the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun’s energy reaching the Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2017).

The greenhouse effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface (troposphere).

The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process, as follows: short -wave radiation emitted by the Sun is abso rbed by the Earth, the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long -wave radiation, and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long -wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that co ntributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.

The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales and that, in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations. However, recent climate changes, in particular the warming observed over the past century, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-twentieth century and are the most significant driver of observed climate change (IPCC 2013; EPA 2017). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG conce ntrations in the atmosphere, positive

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 14
JANUARY 2024
radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate system (IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC 2013). Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.

3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g), for purposes of administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3) (see also 14 CCR 15364.5). 4 Some GHGs, such as CO 2, CH 4, and N 2O, are emitted into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH 4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat -absorption potential than CO 2, include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes.

3.1.3 Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a g as influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2017). Th e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the global warming potential ( GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e). The current version of CalEEMod assumes that the GWP for CH 4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH 4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO 2), and the GWP for N 2O is 298, based on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).

3.2 Thresholds of Significance
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 assessi ng 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

4 Climate forcing substances include GHGs and other substances such as black carbon and aerosols.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 15
JANUARY 2024
should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate 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 emis sions 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 co ntributes 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.” 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 int erim 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 CO 2e) per-year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD 2008b). The 10,000 MT CO 2e 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 hoste d 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 gener al land use development

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 16
JANUARY 2024
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 CO2e 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 CO 2e 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 CO 2e per ye ar 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 CO 2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MT CO 2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency 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.

The City of Burbank Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update (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 CO2e per year. Construction 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 construction emissions to the estimated annual operational emissions and then compares operational emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

3.3 Approach and Methodology

3.3.1 Construction
CalEEMod was used to estimate potential project-generated GHG emissions during construction. Construction 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 3.3.1 are also applicable for the

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 17
JANUARY 2024
estimation of construction-related GHG emissions. See Section 3.3.1 for a discussion of construction emissions calculation methodology and assumptions used in the GHG emissions analysis.

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

3.3.3 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 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.

3.4 Impact Analysis

3.4.1 Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Construction of the project would result in 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 construction are presented below in Table 6.

Table 6. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O R CO 2e
Metric Tons
2025 116.23 0.01 0.01 0.05 118.15
Total 116.23 0.01 0.01 0.05 118.15
Amortized Construction Emissions (Over 30-Years) 3.94
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R = refrigerants; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

See Attachment A for complete results.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 18
JANUARY 2024
As shown in Table 6, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 118 MT CO2e.

Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 4 MT CO2e per year.

Carbon Loss
The project will result in the removal of 131 mature Aleppo pine trees, which contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. These mature trees will be replaced by trees belonging to one of the following species: Pink Trumpet Tree, Coast Live Oak, Ginkgo Biloba, Chinese Pistache, and Canary Island Pine. A simulation using the USDA’s iTree software was conducted to estimate the carbon benefit provided by the Aleppo pines slated for removal. This benefit will be added to the project’s amortized construction emissions and will be evaluated against the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e GHG emissions threshold. Although the Aleppo pines will be replaced, no credit for the carbon sequestration provided by the replacement trees will be taken, in order to provide a worst-case estimate of carbon loss. The results of the iTree simulation are provided below in Table 7.

Table 7. Aleppo Pine Removal iTree Simulation Results
Approximate DBH
(inches) Condition

Number of Trees
CO 2 Avoided
(MT)
CO 2 Sequestered
(MT)
6 Good 1 3.61 7.71
12 Good 3 11.57 24.62
18 Good 7 26.99 58.67
18 Fair 2 7.20 15.60
24 Good 10 38.56 81.37
24 Fair 8 28.79 61.37
30 Good 11 42.41 81.96
30 Fair 7 25.19 49.60
36 Good 27 104.11 168.76
36 Fair 14 50.38 83.44
42 Good 26 100.25 116.90
42 Fair 15 53.98 64.60
Total 131 493.05 814.60
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 CO2 avoided refers to the decrease in CO2 emitted due to a reduction in building energy use provided by the trees. CO2 sequestered refers to the amount of CO2 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 493 MT CO2 and will sequester approximately 815 MT CO2, which are equivalent to annual rates of 4.98 MT CO2 avoided and 8.23 MT CO2 sequestered.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 19
JANUARY 2024
For numeric comparison and significance determination, the 30-year amortization period for one-time construction emissions was conservatively applied as opposed to a 99 -year period, as recommended by the SCAQMD. The project results in annual rates of 16.44 MT CO2 avoided and 27.15 MT CO2 sequestered when amortized over a 30- year period. Accounting for the amortized construction emissions of 3.94 MT CO2e per year, the project will result in the annual emission of approximately 47.53 MT CO2e per year, less th an the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

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, GHG emissions impacts associated with operational emissions would be less than significant.

3.4.2 Would the project 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 GHG Reduction Plan Update (GGRP) utilizes efficiency thresholds, which require a per resident, per employee, or per service person metric ; as the project will not result in an operational service population, it cannot use the GGRP for CEQA streamlining (City of Burbank 2022) . Instead, the environmental analysis will include a discussion of the overall consistency with each of the 11 strategies of the CAP, as provided below. The project would not conflict with Strategy C-1, Cornerstone, Strategy BE-1, Building Energy, or Strategy EG- 1, Electricity Generation Strategy, as the project would not impact the City’s ability to meet their electrification targets. The project would not conflict with Strategy T-1, Reduce Passenger Car Vehicle Miles Traveled, Strategy T- 2, Transportation Demand Management, Strategy T -3, Zero -Emission Vehicles, or Strategy T -4, Parking, as the project will not result in any operational trips. The project would not conflict with Strategy W-1, Water-Energy Nexus, or Strategy SW -1, Organic Waste Diversion, as it will not impact per capita water consumption or organics and recycling requirements. The project would be consistent with Strategy CS-1, Carbon Sequestration Strategy, as the project would involve the planting of at least 131 new trees. The project would also not conflict with Strategy CG-1, City Government Actions, as it would not involve City facilities. As such, the project would not conflict with the GGRP.

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 G HG 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.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 20
JANUARY 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 adopt ed 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,5 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 outlines 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 2022b).

As such, given that SB 32 and AB 1279 are the relevant GHG emiss ion 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 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 2022b). Many of the 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 project would benefit from the gradual increase in energy efficiency and reduction in GHG emissions due to the shift from fossil fuels that will be achieved through the statewide programs and measures.

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 emphasizes 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 deplo yment of additional methods to capture 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 statewide goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.

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

5 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).

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 21
JANUARY 2024
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 –204 5 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 ability 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 strategies 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 Energy Assessment

4.1 Background

4.1.1 Electricity
The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into electrical energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system compo nents, including power generation facilities, transmission and distribution lines, substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on -site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed t hrough a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Production of electricity and its conveyance through the power grid occur in response to market demand.

Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh).

For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 watts, the energy required to keep the bulb on for 1 hour would be 100 Wh. If 10 100-watt bulbs were on for 1 hour, the energy required would be 1,000 Wh or 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh).

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 22
JANUARY 2024
On a utility scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts, which is 1 million watts, while energy usage is measured in megawatt-hours (1 million watt-hours) or gigawatt-hours (1 billion watt-hours). Burbank Water and Power (BWP) provides electricity to the project site.

4.1.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network, and therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas provides almost one - third of the state’s total energy requirements and is u sed in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet.

The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides the City with natural gas service. SoCalGas’ service territory encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles and more than 500 communiti es. In 2021, SoCalGas reported an annual natural gas demand of 5,101 million therms (CEC 2023).

4.1.3 Petroleum
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California used approximately 605 million barrels of petroleum in 2021, with the majority (511 million barrels) used for the transportation sector (EIA 2022 ). This total annual consumption equates to a daily use of approximately 1.7 million barrels of petroleum. There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel, so California consumes approximately 69.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, adding up to an annual consumption of approximately 25 billion gallons of petroleum. In California, petroleum fuels refined from crude oil are the dominant source of energy for transportation sources. Petroleum usage in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel.

4.2 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment with respect to energy if the project would:

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.

The above listed Appendix G energy thresholds are applied herein.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 23
JANUARY 2024

4.3 Approach and Methodology

4.3.1 Construction
Electricity
Electricity used on a limited basis to power lighting, electronic equipment, and construction activities necessitating electrical power, as well as electricity usage associated with the supply and conveyance of water used for dust control during construction, is assumed to be minimal and is not estimated herein.

Natural Gas
Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas, and any use is anticipated to be negligible and is not estimated herein.

Petroleum
Construction of the project would consume energy resources as a result of the use of heavy -duty construction equipment, on -road delivery and haul trucks, and workers commuting to and from the project site. Petroleum emissions associated with the use of construction equipment and vehicles, which were used to calculate gallons of petroleum consumed, were calculated using CalEEMod and are provided in Attachment A. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is

8.78 kilograms per MT CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per MT CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2021).

4.3.2 Operations
The proposed Project would not alter the City’s operations . No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in increased operational energy use.

4.4 Impact Analysis

4.4.1 Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? Construction
Electricity
Temporary electric power for as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment would be provided by BWP. The amount of electricity used during project construction 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 construction

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 24
JANUARY 2024
activities would be temporary and minimal, impacts related to electricity consumption during project construction are determined to be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project. Fuels used for construction 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 construction 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 construction 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 construction.

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 Construction Petroleum Demand Scenario
Off -Road
Equipment
(diesel)
Haul Trucks
(diesel)
Vendor Trucks
(diesel)
Worker
Vehicles
(gasoline)
Gallons
Project Construction 7,114.96 0.00 2,982.59 1,495.90
Source: Attachment A.

In summary, construction associated with the development 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, a nd requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to 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 construction activities 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 co nstruction 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 .

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 25
JANUARY 2024
Operation
The proposed Project would not alter the City’s operations . No additional staff would be necessary for operation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in increased operational energy use.

Summary
As explained above, 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 construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.2 Would the Project 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 CALGreen. 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. On this basis, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.
5 Conclusions
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. Similarly, the project would not create a CO hotspot or result in substantial health risk impacts at sensitive receptors within the vicinity. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality.

Estimated total GHG emissions , including amortized construction emissions and the reduction of sequestered carbon associated with the removed Aleppo pines, would be below the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Accordingly, potential cumulative GHG impacts would be less than significant.

Regarding energy, the construction demand for electricity and petroleum under the proposed project would not be unusual or wasteful as compared to overall local and regional demand for energy resources. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impacts to energy.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 26
JANUARY 2024
6 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

January 2008.

CAPCOA. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide, Version 2022.1. Prepared by ICF, in collaboration with Sacramento Metopolitan Air Quality Management District, Fehr & Peers, STI, and Ramboll. April. Accessed December 2022. https://caleemod.com/documents/user- guide/CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.

CARB. 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. 2022a. “State Area Designations”. November 2022. Accessed February 2023. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.

CARB. 2022b. 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.

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2023. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

City of Burbank. 2023. 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
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 27
JANUARY 2024
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2022. “Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2021.” https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html&sid=US &sid=CA.

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.

EPA. 2017. “Climate Change.” Last updated January 19, 2017. Accessed May 2019. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange_.html.

EPA. 2022. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” December 13, 2022. Accessed February 2023. https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/index.html.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific- Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. November. Accessed January 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Edited by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed May 2019. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1.

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.

OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Discussion Draft: CEQA and Climate Change Advisory.

December 2018.

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. 2008a. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.

October 2008. Accessed January 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BURBANK ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT - AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY

14831.03 28
JANUARY 2024
SCAQMD. 2008b. “Resolution No. 08-35: A Resolution of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) approving the Interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold to Be Used by the AQMD for Industrial Source Projects, Rules and Plans When It Is the Lead Agency for Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, Attachment C. December 5, 2008.

SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Accessed November 2022. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2010. “Greenhouse Gases CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting No. 15.” September 28, 2010. Accessed January 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.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 SCAQMD. 2023. “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.

The Climate Registry. 2021. 2021 Default Emission Factors. Accessed October 2021. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-Default-Emission-Factor- Document.pdf.

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

Attachment A
CalEEMod Emissions Output
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
1 / 20
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tree Removal (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
2 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
3 / 20

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
4 / 20

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Aleppo Pine Removal
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 23.8
Location 34.17472691848653, -118.3301849956595
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Burbank
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3936
EDFZ 18
Electric Utility Burbank Water & Power
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 100 100 — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
5 / 20

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 63.4 62.8 13.1 76.3 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 2.20 2,163 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 63.4 62.8 13.2 76.2 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,114 2,114 0.09 0.11 0.06 2,149 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.0 20.8 4.37 25.3 0.01 0.51 0.13 0.63 0.42 0.03 0.46 — 702 702 0.03 0.04 0.31 714 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.84 3.80 0.80 4.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.08 — 116 116 0.01 0.01 0.05 118

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
6 / 20
2025 63.4 62.8 13.1 76.3 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 2.20 2,163 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 63.4 62.8 13.2 76.2 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,114 2,114 0.09 0.11 0.06 2,149 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 21.0 20.8 4.37 25.3 0.01 0.51 0.13 0.63 0.42 0.03 0.46 — 702 702 0.03 0.04 0.31 714 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.84 3.80 0.80 4.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.08 — 116 116 0.01 0.01 0.05 118

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tree Removal (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

63.3 62.8 12.4 74.8 0.01 1.53 — 1.53 1.27 — 1.27 — 1,324 1,324 0.05 0.01 — 1,329 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
7 / 20
1,329—0.010.051,3241,324—1.27—1.271.53—1.530.0174.812.462.863.3Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

21.0 20.8 4.10 24.8 < 0.005 0.51 — 0.51 0.42 — 0.42 — 439 439 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.83 3.80 0.75 4.53 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 72.7 72.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 249 249 0.01 0.01 0.91 253 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.68 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 554 554 0.03 0.09 1.29 582 Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
8 / 20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 236 236 0.01 0.01 0.02 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.71 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 554 554 0.03 0.09 0.03 581 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.4 79.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 80.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 0.01 0.03 0.18 193 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.9

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
9 / 20
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
10 / 20
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
11 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Tree Removal Site Preparation 1/1/2025 6/18/2025 5.00 121 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Tree Removal Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Tree Removal Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 73.0 0.37 Tree Removal Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Gasoline Average 3.00 8.00 10.0 0.48
Tree Removal Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 130 0.42
Tree Removal Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 74.0 0.42

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Tree Removal — — — —
Tree Removal Worker 18.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tree Removal Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Tree Removal Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
12 / 20
Tree Removal Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Tree Removal — — 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 1,130 0.03 < 0.005
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
13 / 20

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through
2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
14 / 20
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from
Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if receiv
ed over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San
Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400
ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project
refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall
vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
15 / 20
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project
refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall
vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 80.0
AQ-PM 66.5
AQ-DPM 49.4
Drinking Water 87.9
Lead Risk Housing 86.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.3
Traffic 71.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 98.4
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
16 / 20
Groundwater 83.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 91.4
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 29.4
Cardio-vascular 29.9
Low Birth Weights 39.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 42.3
Housing 73.0
Linguistic 30.0
Poverty 21.3
Unemployment 48.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 79.49441807
Employed 85.29449506
Median HI 62.88977287
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 61.02912871
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 88.87463108
Transportation —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
17 / 20
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 46.34928782
Social —
2-parent households 32.59335301
Voting 54.29231361
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 26.79327602
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 72.26998588
Supermarket access 62.82561273
Tree canopy 73.27088413
Housing —
Homeownership 61.67073014
Housing habitability 48.73604517
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 50.23739253 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 8.37931477
Uncrowded housing 83.16437829
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 63.64686257
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 51.6
High Blood Pressure 56.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 24.3
Asthma 83.3
Coronary Heart Disease 51.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 68.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 62.8
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
18 / 20
Life Expectancy at Birth 44.7
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 41.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 68.1
Mental Health Not Good 72.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 63.1
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 66.1
Stroke 64.5
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 29.5
Current Smoker 72.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 75.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 33.4
English Speaking 71.5
Foreign-born 48.3
Outdoor Workers 57.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 36.1
Traffic Density 70.2
Traffic Access 68.0
Other Indices —
Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
19 / 20
Hardship 16.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 47.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 61.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 70.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Assuming a single phase of tree removal Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on data request. Other construction equipment (130 hp) represents woodchipper.

Concrete/industrial saws (10 hp) represents chainsaws
. Other construction equipment (74 hp)
represents stump grinder.

Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report, 11/20/2023
20 / 20
Construction: Trips and VMT Based on data request
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
1 / 20
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tree Removal (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
2 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
3 / 20

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
4 / 20

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Aleppo Pine Removal LST
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 23.8
Location 34.17472691848653, -118.3301849956595
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Burbank
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3936
EDFZ 18
Electric Utility Burbank Water & Power
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 100 100 — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
5 / 20

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 63.4 62.8 13.1 76.3 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 2.20 2,163 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 63.4 62.8 13.2 76.2 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,114 2,114 0.09 0.11 0.06 2,149 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.0 20.8 4.37 25.3 0.01 0.51 0.13 0.63 0.42 0.03 0.46 — 702 702 0.03 0.04 0.31 714 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.84 3.80 0.80 4.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.08 — 116 116 0.01 0.01 0.05 118

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
6 / 20
2025 63.4 62.8 13.1 76.3 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 2.20 2,163 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 63.4 62.8 13.2 76.2 0.02 1.53 0.38 1.92 1.28 0.10 1.38 — 2,114 2,114 0.09 0.11 0.06 2,149 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 21.0 20.8 4.37 25.3 0.01 0.51 0.13 0.63 0.42 0.03 0.46 — 702 702 0.03 0.04 0.31 714 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.84 3.80 0.80 4.61 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.08 — 116 116 0.01 0.01 0.05 118

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Tree Removal (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

63.3 62.8 12.4 74.8 0.01 1.53 — 1.53 1.27 — 1.27 — 1,324 1,324 0.05 0.01 — 1,329 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
7 / 20
1,329—0.010.051,3241,324—1.27—1.271.53—1.530.0174.812.462.863.3Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

21.0 20.8 4.10 24.8 < 0.005 0.51 — 0.51 0.42 — 0.42 — 439 439 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.83 3.80 0.75 4.53 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 72.7 72.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — —
— 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 249 249 0.01 0.01 0.91 253 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.68 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 554 554 0.03 0.09 1.29 582 Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
8 / 20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 236 236 0.01 0.01 0.02 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.71 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 554 554 0.03 0.09 0.03 581 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.4 79.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 80.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 184 184 0.01 0.03 0.18 193 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.9

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
9 / 20
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
10 / 20
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
11 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Tree Removal Site Preparation 1/1/2025 6/18/2025 5.00 121 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Tree Removal Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Tree Removal Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 73.0 0.37 Tree Removal Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Gasoline Average 3.00 8.00 10.0 0.48
Tree Removal Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 130 0.42
Tree Removal Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 74.0 0.42

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Tree Removal — — — —
Tree Removal Worker 18.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tree Removal Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Tree Removal Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
12 / 20
Tree Removal Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Tree Removal — — 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 1,130 0.03 < 0.005
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
13 / 20

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through
2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
14 / 20
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from
Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if receiv
ed over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San
Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400
ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project
refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall
vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
15 / 20
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project
refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall
vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 80.0
AQ-PM 66.5
AQ-DPM 49.4
Drinking Water 87.9
Lead Risk Housing 86.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.3
Traffic 71.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 98.4
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
16 / 20
Groundwater 83.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 91.4
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 29.4
Cardio-vascular 29.9
Low Birth Weights 39.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 42.3
Housing 73.0
Linguistic 30.0
Poverty 21.3
Unemployment 48.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 79.49441807
Employed 85.29449506
Median HI 62.88977287
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 61.02912871
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 88.87463108
Transportation —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
17 / 20
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 46.34928782
Social —
2-parent households 32.59335301
Voting 54.29231361
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 26.79327602
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 72.26998588
Supermarket access 62.82561273
Tree canopy 73.27088413
Housing —
Homeownership 61.67073014
Housing habitability 48.73604517
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 50.23739253 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 8.37931477
Uncrowded housing 83.16437829
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 63.64686257
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 51.6
High Blood Pressure 56.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 24.3
Asthma 83.3
Coronary Heart Disease 51.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 68.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 62.8
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
18 / 20
Life Expectancy at Birth 44.7
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 41.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 68.1
Mental Health Not Good 72.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 63.1
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 66.1
Stroke 64.5
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 29.5
Current Smoker 72.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 75.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 33.4
English Speaking 71.5
Foreign-born 48.3
Outdoor Workers 57.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 36.1
Traffic Density 70.2
Traffic Access 68.0
Other Indices —
Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
19 / 20
Hardship 16.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 47.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 61.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 70.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Assuming a single phase of tree removal Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on data request. Other construction equipment (130 hp) represents woodchipper.

Concrete/industrial saws (10 hp) represents chainsaws
. Other construction equipment (74 hp)
represents stump grinder.

Aleppo Pine Removal LST Detailed Report, 1/4/2024
20 / 20
Construction: Trips and VMT Based on data request. LST trip distances.

This data was produced from the i-Tree Planting Calculator version 2.6.0 for Burbank; CA.

Location: Burbank; CA 91506
Electricity Emissions Factor: 252.4
Fuel Emissions Factor: 52
Lifetime: 99
Project Lifetime Tree Mortality: 70
Run Date: 1-9-2024
Group IdentifierTree Group CharacteristicsSpecies DBH (inches)Distance to Building (feet)Direction Building VintageTreeConditionCrownLightExposureCO2 Avoided (pounds)CO2 Avoided ($)CO2 Sequestered (pounds)CO2 Sequestered ($)Electricity Saved (kWh)Electricity Saved ($)Fuel Saved (MMBtu)Fuel Saved ($)Tree Biomass (short ton)Rainfall Interception (gallons)Avoided Runoff (gallons)Avoided Runoff ($)O3 Removed (pounds)NO2 Avoided (pounds)NO2 Removed (pounds)SO2 Avoided (pounds)SO2 Removed (pounds)VOC Avoided (pounds)PM2.5 Avoided (pounds)PM2.5 Removed (pounds)Avoided Value ($)Removal Value ($) 10 (7.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 30.000000000000004 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in fair condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)30 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 fair full sun 55,538.40 $1,291.65 109,346.00 $2,543.05 45,937.90 $9,403.48 239.8 $3,102.66 17.4 612,367.40 177,995.80 $1,590.57 668.5 3.99 151.76 14.06 12.18 24.3 15.16 3.8 $84.84 $3,697.87 11 (27.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 36.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)36 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 229,520.90 $5,337.95 372,058.00 $8,652.92 189,845.30 $38,861.33 990.9 $12,822.20 68.8 2,961,397.80 860,784.60 $7,691.97 2,768.72 16.51 626.8 58.09 50.49 100.44 62.66 15.33 $350.62 $15,241.88 12 (14.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 36.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in fair condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)36 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 fair full sun 111,076.80 $2,583.30 183,959.80 $4,278.34 91,875.70 $18,806.96 479.6 $6,205.31 35.2 1,302,217.60 378,513.40 $3,382.40 1,365.63 7.99 306.54 28.11 24.98 48.61 30.32 7.11 $169.68 $7,436.35 13 (26.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 42.00000000000001 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)42 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 221,020.10 $5,140.25 257,724.90 $5,993.89 182,814.00 $37,422.02 954.2 $12,347.31 66.7 2,988,389.20 868,630.10 $7,762.08 2,696.20 15.9 604.3 55.94 49.35 96.72 60.34 13.79 $337.64 $14,639.78 14 (15.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 42.00000000000001 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in fair condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)42 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 fair full sun 119,010.80 $2,767.83 142,408.00 $3,311.97 98,438.30 $20,150.32 513.8 $6,648.55 38.1 1,470,243.80 427,353.30 $3,818.83 1,481.91 8.56 328.99 30.12 27.22 52.08 32.49 7.07 $181.80 $7,956.01 3 (1.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 6.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)6 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 7,968.50 $185.32 17,002.60 $395.43 6,635.60 $1,358.31 34.2 $442.09 2.4 46,278.50 13,451.70 $120.20 62.6 0.57 15.6 2.02 1.1 3.51 2.19 0.69 $12.24 $405.87 4 (3.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 12.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)12 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 25,502.30 $593.11 54,287.10 $1,262.55 21,093.90 $4,317.93 110.1 $1,424.69 7.3 243,508.80 70,780.30 $632.49 261.37 1.83 61.46 6.45 4.7 11.16 6.96 1.94 $38.96 $1,526.01 5 (7.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 18.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)18 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 59,505.40 $1,383.91 129,340.20 $3,008.06 49,219.10 $10,075.16 256.9 $3,324.27 17.3 625,410.40 181,787.00 $1,624.45 651.39 4.28 151.99 15.06 11.75 26.04 16.24 4.57 $90.90 $3,757.32 6 (2.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 18.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in fair condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)18 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 fair full sun 15,868.10 $369.04 34,384.90 $799.69 13,125.10 $2,686.71 68.5 $886.47 4.8 147,715.40 42,936.20 $383.68 174.72 1.14 40.54 4.02 3.16 6.94 4.33 1.17 $24.24 $998.25 7 (10.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 24.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)24 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 85,007.70 $1,977.02 179,391.70 $4,172.10 70,313.10 $14,393.08 367 $4,748.96 25 969,778.40 281,883.90 $2,518.91 975.66 6.11 225.51 21.51 17.66 37.2 23.21 6.37 $129.86 $5,544.11 8 (8.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 24.0 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in fair condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)24 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 fair full sun 63,472.40 $1,476.17 135,286.80 $3,146.35 52,500.40 $10,746.84 274 $3,545.89 19.6 648,062.20 188,371.20 $1,683.28 737.54 4.56 169.37 16.06 13.38 27.78 17.33 4.59 $96.96 $4,149.55 9 (11.0) Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis) at 30.000000000000004 inches DBH.Planted 0-19 feet and north (0°) of buildings that were built post-1980 with heating and cooling.Trees are in good condition and planted in full sun.Aleppo pine(Pinus halepensis)30 0-19 north (0°)post-1980 good full sun 93,508.50 $2,174.72 180,689.10 $4,202.27 77,344.40 $15,832.39 403.7 $5,223.86 27.8 1,142,246.50 332,014.90 $2,966.89 1,107.10 6.72 253.21 23.67 20.11 40.92 25.53 6.66 $142.85 $6,188.40 Total 1,087,000.00 $25,280.27 1,795,879.20 $41,766.61 899,142.80 $184,054.52 4,692.70 $60,722.27 330.4 13,157,615.70 3,824,502.30 $34,175.76 12,951.35 78.17 2,936.08 275.11 236.08 475.71 296.77 73.09 $1,660.59 $71,541.39 30 25.19 49.60
36 104.11 168.76
36 50.38 83.44
42 100.25 116.90
42 53.98 64.60
6 3.61 7.71
12 11.57 24.62
18 26.99 58.67
18 7.20 15.60
24 38.56 81.37
24 28.79 61.37
30 42.41 81.96
493.05 814.60

4.98 8.23 17.15

MEMORANDUM

To: Marisa Garcia, City of Burbank
Parks & Recreation Director
From: Mike Greene, Dudek
Subject: Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project - Noise Memorandum Date: 12/20/2023
cc: Carey Fernandes, Dudek
Attachments: A – Noise Measur
ement Data
B – Construction Noise Input/Ou
tput
Dudek is pleased to pres
ent the following noise and vibration assessment for the proposed Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project (Project) located in the City of Burbank, California (City), as shown in Figure 1, Project Location.

This memorandum estimates and assesses noise and vibration levels from the proposed Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and City of Burbank standards. 1 Project Description
The Project consists of
the removal of approximately 119 Aleppo trees (Figure 2, Tree Removal Locations) that have been found to be at risk based on an extensive urban forestry analysis of the tree health and risk of falling trees or tree parts. 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. The trees are located in residential neighborhoods with active pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and are planted in park strips, adjacent to the local streets.
2 Environmental Setting

2.1 Noise and Vibration Characteristics

2.1.1 Noise
Sound may be described in
terms of level or amplitude (measured in decibels (dB)), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the amplitude of sound is the decibel. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against low and very high frequencies

APPENDIX E

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 2
DECEMBER 2023

in a manner approximating
the sensitivity of the human ear. Several descriptors of noise (noise metrics) exist to help predict average community reactions to the adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic-generated noise, on a community. These descriptors include the equivalent noise level over a given period (Leq), the statistical

sound level (Ln), the day–night average n
oise level (Ldn), and the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL). Each of
these descriptors uses units of dBA. Table 1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sounds.

In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely noticeable; a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable; and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving of the sound level.

Table 1. Typical Sound Levels i
n the Environment and Industry
Common Ou
tdoor Activities Noise Lev
el (dBA) Common In
door Activities
— 110 Rock band
Jet flyover at 300 meters (
1,000 feet) 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 1 meter (3 fe
et) 90 —
Diesel truck at 15 meters (
50 feet), at
80 kph (50 mph)
80 Food blender at 1 meter (3 feet)
Garbage disposal at 1 meter (3 feet)
Noisy urban area, da
ytime
gas lawn mower at 30 meters (100 feet)
70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet)
Commercial area
Heavy traffic at 90 meter
s (300 feet)
60 Normal speech at 1 meter (
3 feet)
Quiet urban daytime 50
Large business office
Dishwasher, next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40
Theater, large conference room
(background)
Quiet suburban nighttim
e 30 Library
Quiet rural night time 20 Bed
room at night, concert hall
(background)
— 10 Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human he
aring 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; kp
h = kilometers per hour; mph = miles per hour
Source: Caltrans 2013.

Leq is a sound energy le
vel averaged over a specified period (typically no less than 15 minutes for environmental studies). Leq is a single nu
merical value that represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor during a time interval. For example, a 1-hour L eq measurement would r epresent the average amount of energy
contained in all the noise that occurred in that hour. L eq is an effective nois e descriptor because of its ability to
assess the total time-varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors (see Section 2.2). L max is the greatest sou nd
level measured during a designated time interval or event.

2.1.2 Vibration
Vibration is an oscill
atory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration can be a serious concern, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to noise, vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 3
DECEMBER 2023

common sources of vibration
are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earthmoving equipment.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. Peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings and is usually measured in inches per second. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body and is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration.

High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to vibration (e.g., electron microscopes). Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.

2.2 Sensitive Receptors
Noise- and vibration-se
nsitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would be considered noise and vibration sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise.

Sensitive receptors near the Project site consist of residences located adjacent to the park strips where the subject trees were planted.

2.3 Existing Noise Conditions

Noise measurements were
conducted near the Project site on November 17, 2023, to characterize the existing noise levels (Figure 3, Noise Measurement Locations). Table 2 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 the 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.

Table 2. Measured Noise Levels
Receptors Location Date Time
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST1 Adjacent to residence at 16
13 North Niagara Street
11/17/23 2:1
6 p.m.– 2:31 p.m. 56.1 76.2
ST2 Adjacent to residence at 73
9 North
Niagara Street
11/17/23 3:23 p
.m.– 3:38 p.m. 51.6 70.2

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 4
DECEMBER 2023

Table 2. Measured Noise Levels
Receptors Location Date Time
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST3 Adjacent to residence at 22
6 North
Niagara Street
11/17/23 3:46
p.m.– 4:01 p.m. 55.7 78.5
ST4 Adjacent to residence at 21
14 North Pass Avenue
11/17/23 2:42
p.m.– 2:57 p.m. 62.4 85.5
ST5 Adjacent to residence at 11
31 North Sparks Street
11/17/23 1:48 p.m. – 2:03 p.m. 51.2 69.4
ST6 514 South Keystone Str
eet 11/17/23 4:10 p.m. – 4:25 p.m. 55 76.9
Source: Attachment A
Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous soun
d level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibels; L max = maximum sound level during the me
asurement interval.

Six short-term noise
measurement locations (ST1–ST6) were conducted adjacent to nearby noise-sensitive land uses. The measured L eq and maximum noise
levels are provided in Table 2. The field noise measurement data sheets are provided in Attachment A. 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 2, the measured sound levels ranged from approximately 51 to 62 dBA Leq. 3 Regulatory Setting

3.1 Federal
There are no federal n
oise standards that would directly regulate environmental noise during construction and operation of the Project.

3.2 State
In its Transportation an
d Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans recommends a vibration velocity threshold of 0.2 ips PPV (Caltrans 2020) for assessing annoying vibration impacts to occupants of residential structures. Although 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 structure and its fragility but tend to range between 0.2 ips and 0.3 ips PPV for typical residential structures (Caltrans 2020).

3.3 Local

3.3.1 City of Burbank Mu
nicipal Code
The City’s noise standards
found in Chapter 9-3-208 and Chapter 9-1-1-105.8 of the City of Burbank Municipal Code (BMC), set forth sound measurement criteria, minimum ambient noise levels for different land use zoning classifications, sound emission levels for specific uses, hours of operation for certain uses, standards for determining when noise is deemed to be a disturbance, and legal remedies for violations.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 5
DECEMBER 2023

The City
Noise Regulation establishes acceptable ambient sound levels to regulate intrusive noises (e.g., stationary mechanical equipment) within specific land use zones. In accordance with the Noise Regulation, a noise level from any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in such a manner would exceed 5 dBA over the ambient noise level at an adjacent property line is considered a noise violation. The City’s noise standards establish the ambient noise base levels in the zones and during the times as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Ambient Noise Base Le
vels
Base Leve
ls, (dBA) L eq Time Zone
45 Nighttimea Residential
55 Daytimeb Residential
65 Anytime Commercial
70 Anytime All other zones
Source: Burbank Municipal
Code, Section 9-3-208, 2008
a 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
b 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.

According to Section 9-
3-208, when the ambient noise base level for the property on which the machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device is located is higher than the ambient noise base level for adjacent property, the ambient noise base levels for the adjacent property shall apply.

Properties separated by a street shall be deemed to be adjacent to one another.

Section 9-3-204 provides an exemption to the noise standards shown in Table 3 for “emergency work necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger (emphasis added), or work by a private or public utility when restoring utility service.”
Additionally, Chapter 9-1-1-105.8 of the BMC prohibits construction activity which would 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 Community Development Director, Planning Board, 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 specific onsite activity that warrants unique consideration.
4 Noise and Vibration Impacts
Assessment

4.1 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria,
included in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), will determine the significance of a noise impact. Impacts related to noise would be significant if the proposed Project would 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.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 6
DECEMBER 2023

 Generation of excessive groun
dborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
 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, the exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

4.2 Impact Analysis

4.2.1 Would the project
result in the 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 Project.

Short-Ter
m Impacts
Tree work inherently ge
nerates 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 that would be in use during tree removals would include one or more chain saws, a wood chipper, a crane, a skip loader, a flatbed truck, a 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 4. Note that the equipment noise levels presented in Table 4 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 construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of activities during that time.

Table 4. Tree Removal and Construction Equipment
Maximum Noise Levels
Equipment
Type Typical E
quipment (dBA at 50 Feet)
Air compressor 81
Backhoe 85
Chain saw 84
Dozer 87
Flatbed truck 74
Generator 78

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 7
DECEMBER 2023

Table 4. Tree Removal and Construction Equipment
Maximum Noise Levels
Equipment
Type Typical E
quipment (dBA at 50 Feet)
Loader 84
Man lift 75
Paver 88
Pneumatic tools 85
Skip loader 801
Stump grinder 61.82
Water pump 76
Wood chipper 95.53
Source: FTA 2018, except where noted.

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

The maximum noise levels
at 50 feet for the identified tree removal equipment would be approximately 95.5 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 version 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 the receiver/land use types, the equipment type and number of each (e.g., a trencher, a loader), 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 5) were provided by City of Burbank Landscape and Urban Forestry staff.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 8
DECEMBER 2023

Table 5. Tree Removal Scenario As
sumptions
Construct
ion
Phase Anticipat
ed Duration
Equipment

Equipment

Type Quantity
Daily Usa
ge
Hours
Tree Removal 8 hours per t
ree Chain saw 3 8
Wood chipper 1 6
Crane 1 8
Skip loader 1 4
Flat bed truck 2 4
Man lift 1 8
Stump grinder 1 4
Source: City of Burbank Landsc
ape and Urban Forestry Department.

Using the Feder
al Highway Administration’s RCNM and the provided construction equipment information, the estimated noise levels from the removal activities were calculated, as presented in Table 6. The RCNM inputs and outputs are provided in Attachment B.

Table 6. Tree Removal Activity Noise Mo
del Results Summary
Land Use
Off-site
Receptor
Location
Distance
from Construction
Activity
to Noise Receptor
(feet)
Estimated

Construct
ion Noise
Levels (d
BA L eq 8-hr )
Tree remo
val
activitie
s
Residential (Single
Family)
Adjacent to t
he Project
site (nearest residences)
Typical Construction Activit
y
Receiver Distance (40' - 75')

88.4 Residential (Single
Family)
In the vicinity
of the
Project site (several
houses away)
Typical Construction Activit
y
Receiver Distance (200' - 250')

75.6 Source: Attachment B
Notes: Leq 8-hr = 8-hour equivalent continuous soun
d level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibel.

As shown in Table 6
, 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 L eq 8-hr during the typical 8- hour period of tree
removal activities. For residences not immediately adjacent to the Project site but several hundred feet away, the noise from tree removal activities would be less but would still be relatively high, at approximately 76 dBA Leq. Based upon the res
ults in Table 6, noise from the tree removal activity would be more than 5 decibels above City of Burbank presumed ambient noise levels (55 dBA Leq daytime, 45 dBA Leq nighttime), as shown
in Table 3. The tree
removal activity noise would also be more than 5 decibels above measured neighborhood ambient noise levels, which ranged from 51 to 62 dBA Leq), as shown in Table

2. Thus, the short-term noise from the Project would exceed the noise regulation for stationary source noise in BMC Section 9-3-208. However, based upon BMC Section 9-3-204, the Project is exempt because the purpose of the activity is to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger (specifically, the removal of trees determined to be a potential hazard).

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 9
DECEMBER 2023

Furthermore, the
tree removal activity would comply with Chapter 9-1-1-105.8 of the BMC, which prohibits construction activity which would 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 construction activities between the specified hours or days.

All noise-generating construction 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. Therefore, noise from Project construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.2.2 Would the Project
result in the generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Tree removal ac
tivities 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 heavier 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 the 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.

4.2.3 For a Project lo
cated 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?
No privat
e 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 noise contour map, the identified tree removal locations are outside the 65 dBA airport noise contours (Coffman Associates 2016). 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.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVA

L PROJECT - NOISE MEMORANDUM

14831.01 10
DECEMBER 2023

5 Conclusions
In summary, with i
mplementation of standard construction and design techniques and practices, the Project’s short- and long-term noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 6 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15
387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September 2013.

Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. April 2020.

Coffman Associates, Inc. 2016. Bob Hope Airport, 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. Final Noise Compatibility Program Revision #2. March 2016.

CPUC 2015. Proponent's Environmental Assessment April 2015 Mesa 500 kV Substation Project. April 2015.

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.

Ventrac. 2018. LC150 Stump Grinder. Operator’s Manual & Parts Drawings, December 2018.

Vermeer. 2023. BC1800X
L Wood Chipper. Accessed December 7, 2023.
https://www.vermeeraustralia.com.au/bc1800xl-wood-chipper/

£¤101
£¤101
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ159
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ2
§¨¦710
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦110
§¨¦405
§¨¦210
Project Location
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022
Date: 12/14/2023 - Last saved by: ochow - Path: Z:\Projects\j1483103\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd n
City of Burbank
FIGURE 1
!^
Adelanto
Alhambra
Artesia
Colton
Corona
Costa
Mesa
El Segundo
Fillmore
Fontana
Glendale
Hermosa Beach
Hesperia
Huntington Beach
Huntington
Park
Industry
Irvine
Jurupa
Valley
La
Verne
Laguna
Niguel
Lake
Forest
Lancaster
Los
Angeles
Malibu
Moorpark
Norco
Ojai
Oxnard
Palmdale
Palos Verdes
Estates
Rancho
Palos
Verdes
Rialto
San Bernardino
San Fernando
Santa
Clarita
Santa Monica
Santa Paula
Seal
Beach
Sierra
Madre
Simi
Valley
South El Monte
Thousand Oaks
Upland
Ventura
Victorville
Villa Park
West
Hollywood
K e r n C o u n t y
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
S a n
B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y
V e n t u r a
C o u n t y
£¤101
£¤395
ÄÆ48
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ55
ÄÆ159
ÄÆ23
ÄÆ73
ÄÆ241
ÄÆ232
ÄÆ126
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ22
ÄÆ34
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ150
ÄÆ27
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ74
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ14
ÄÆ2 ÄÆ138
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
405
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
210
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
710
§¨¦
15 §¨¦
605
§¨¦
105
Project Site
L O S

A N G E L E S

C O U N T Y
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Tree Removal Locations
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022
Date: 12/14/2023 - Last saved by: ochow - Path: Z:\Projects\j1483103\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure2_TreeRemovalLocations.mxd n
City of Burbank
!( Tree Removal
Location
FIGURE 2
0 4,6002,300
Feet
Noise Measurement Locations
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022
Date: 12/14/2023 - Last saved by: ochow - Path: Z:\Projects\j1483103\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure3_NoiseMeasurementLocations.mxd n
City of Burbank
ST = Short-Term Noise
Measurement Location
FIGURE 3
0 4,6002,300
Feet

Attachment A
Noise Measurement Data
Field Noise Measurement Data
Record: 1767
Project Name Burbank tree removal
Observer(s)
Date 2023-11-17

Meteorological Conditions
Temp (F) 69
Humidity % (R.H.) 63
Wind Light
Wind Speed (MPH) 9
Wind Direction North
Sky Partly Cloudy

Instrument and Calibrator Information
Instrument Name List (ENC) Rion NL-52
Instrument Name (ENC) Rion NL-52
Instrument Name Lookup Key (ENC) Rion NL-52
Manufacturer Rion
Model NL-52
Serial Number 553896
Calibrator Name (ENC) LD CAL150