25-29,604
Calibrator Name (ENC) LD CAL150
Calibrator Name Lookup Key (ENC) LD CAL150
Calibrator Manufacturer Larson Davis
Calibrator Model LD CAL150
Calibrator Serial # 5152
Pre-Test (dBA SPL) 93.9
Weighting? A-WTD
Slow/Fast? Slow
Monitoring
Record # 1
Site ID ST 5
Site Location Lat/Long 34.183560, -118.328791
Begin (Time) 13:48:00
End (Time) 14:03:00
Leq 51.2
Lmax 69.4
Lmin 42.9
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 46.2
L50 49.1
L10 52.8
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
25-29,604
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Gardener / Landscape Noise, Distant Traffic Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
Photo
25-29,604
Comments / Description Facing south
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Facing north
25-29,604
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Facing west
Monitoring
Record # 2
Site ID ST1
Site Location Lat/Long 34.183428, -118.342715
25-29,604
Begin (Time) 14:16:00
End (Time) 14:31:00
Leq 56.1
Lmax 76.2
Lmin 50.9
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 44.4
L50 47.6
L10 56.5
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Traffic Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing south
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing north
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing west
Monitoring
Record # 3
Site ID ST4
Site Location Lat/Long 34.187288, -118.354434
25-29,604
Begin (Time) 14:42:00
End (Time) 14:57:00
Leq 62.4
Lmax 85.5
Lmin 40.7
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 43.4
L50 46.9
L10 56.9
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Gardener / Landscape Noise Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing north
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing south
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing east
Monitoring
Record # 4
Site ID ST2
Site Location Lat/Long 34.168109, -118.338907
25-29,604
Begin (Time) 15:23:00
End (Time) 15:38:00
Leq 51.6
Lmax 70.2
Lmin 40.5
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 42.3
L50 44.6
L10 54.8
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Conversations / Yelling, Distant Traffic Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing south
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing north
Monitoring
Record # 5
Site ID ST3
Site Location Lat/Long 34.159176, -118.334476
25-29,604
Begin (Time) 15:46:00
End (Time) 16:01:00
Leq 55.7
Lmax 78.5
Lmin 45.5
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 47.6
L50 49
L10 54.4
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Traffic Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing east
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing west
Monitoring
Record # 6
Site ID ST6
Site Location Lat/Long 34.170495, -118.329339
25-29,604
Begin (Time) 16:10:00
End (Time) 16:25:00
Leq 55
Lmax 76.9
Lmin 41.7
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 45.2
L50 49.3
L10 49.3
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Birds, Distant Aircraft, Distant Conversations / Yelling, Distant Traffic Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing southwest
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing northwest
Site Photos
25-29,604
Photo
Comments / Description Facing southeast
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
25-29,604
ST1
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 14:16 00d 00:15:00.0 56.1 85.7 76.2 40.9 -.- 56.5 44.4 51.8 47.6 43.6 ---- ----- 25-29,604
ST2
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 15:23 00d 00:15:00.0 51.6 81.2 70.2 40.5 -.- 54.8 42.3 48.3 44.6 42.1 ---- ----- 25-29,604
ST3
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 15:46 00d 00:15:00.0 55.7 85.3 78.5 45.5 -.- 54.4 47.6 50.4 49 47.3 ---- ----- 25-29,604
ST4
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 14:42 00d 00:15:00.0 62.4 92 85.5 40.7 -.- 56.9 43.4 50.3 46.9 43 ---- ----- 25-29,604
ST5
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 13:48 00d 00:15:00.0 51.2 80.8 69.4 42.9 -.- 52.8 46.2 50.6 49.1 45.5 ---- ----- 25-29,604
ST5
Address Start Time Measurement TimeLeq LE Lmax Lmin Ly LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Over Under 1 11/17/2023 18:10 00d 00:15:00.0 55 84.6 76.9 41.7 -.- 59.3 45.2 53.3 49.3 44.3 ---- ----- 25-29,604
Attachment B
Construction Noise Input/Output
25-29,604
To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged (example: 8 per FTA guidance) = 8 Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference Lmax
@ 50 ft. from
FHWA RCNM
Client Equipment
Description, Data
Source and/or Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Barrier / Topo
Insertion Loss (dB)
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable Operation
Time (hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Tree Removal Chain Saw 1 20 84 40 85.9 8 480 79
Chain Saw 1 20 84 45 84.9 8 480 78
Chain Saw 1 20 84 50 84.0 8 480 77
Wood Chipper 1 20 95.5 55 94.7 6 360 86
Crane 1 16 81 50 81.0 8 480 73
Skip Loader 1 40 80 45 80.9 4 240 74
Flat Bed Truck 1 40 74 65 71.7 4 240 65
Flat Bed Truck 1 40 74 75 70.5 4 240 63
Man Lift 1 20 75 45 75.9 8 480 69
Stump Grinder 1 20 61.8 45 62.7 4 240 53
Highest Lmax: 94.7 Total for Tree Removal Phase: 88.4
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal Project RCNM Nearest Resi - Typical 25-29,604
To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged (example: 8 per FTA guidance) = 8 Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference Lmax
@ 50 ft. from
FHWA RCNM
Client Equipment
Description, Data
Source and/or Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Barrier / Topo
Insertion Loss (dB)
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable Operation
Time (hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Tree Removal Chain Saw 1 20 84 200 72.0 8 480 65
Chain Saw 1 20 84 225 70.9 8 480 64
Chain Saw 1 20 84 250 70.0 8 480 63
Wood Chipper 1 20 95.5 225 82.4 6 360 74
Crane 1 16 81 250 67.0 8 480 59
Skip Loader 1 40 80 200 68.0 4 240 61
Flat Bed Truck 1 40 74 250 60.0 4 240 53
Flat Bed Truck 1 40 74 300 58.4 4 240 51
Man Lift 1 20 75 250 61.0 8 480 54
Stump Grinder 1 20 61.8 225 48.7 4 240 39
Highest Lmax: 82.4 Total for Tree Removal Phase: 75.6
25-29,604
Attachment A
Noise Measurement Data
25-29,604
Attachment B
Construction Noise Input/Ou
tput
25-29,604
14831.03 RTC-1
OCTOBER 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Responses to Comments .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Response to Comment Letter A1 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Response to Comment Letter I1 ......................................................................................................................... 7 Response to Comment Letter I2 ......................................................................................................................... 8 Response to Comment Letter I3 ......................................................................................................................... 9 Response to Comment Letter I4 ...................................................................................................................... 10 Response to Comment Letter I5 ...................................................................................................................... 11 Response to Comment Letter I6 ...................................................................................................................... 12 Response to Comment Letter I7 ...................................................................................................................... 13 Response to Comment Letter I8 ...................................................................................................................... 21 Response to Comment Letter I9 ...................................................................................................................... 24 Response to Comment Letter I10 .................................................................................................................... 25 Response to Comment Letter I11 .................................................................................................................... 28 Response to Comment Letter I12 .................................................................................................................... 29 Response to Comment Letter I13 .................................................................................................................... 30 Response to Comment Letter I14 .................................................................................................................... 31 Response to Comment Letter I15 .................................................................................................................... 33 Response to Comment Letter I16 .................................................................................................................... 41 Response to Comment Letter I17 .................................................................................................................... 42 Response to Comment Letter I18 .................................................................................................................... 44 Response to Comment Letter I19 .................................................................................................................... 46 Response to Comment Letter I20 .................................................................................................................... 48 Response to Comment Letter I21 .................................................................................................................... 50 Response to Comment Letter I22 .................................................................................................................... 51 Response to Comment Letter I23 .................................................................................................................... 52 Response to Comment Letter I24 .................................................................................................................... 56 Response to Comment Letter I25 .................................................................................................................... 57 Response to Comment Letter I26 .................................................................................................................... 59 Response to Comment Letter I27 .................................................................................................................... 62 Response to Comment Letter I28 .................................................................................................................... 63 Response to Comment Letter I29 .................................................................................................................... 66 Response to Comment Letter I30 .................................................................................................................... 68 Response to Comment Letter I31 .................................................................................................................... 70 Response to Comment Letter I32 .................................................................................................................... 72 Response to Comment Letter I33 .................................................................................................................... 74 Response to Comment Letter I34 .................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX F
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-2
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I35 .................................................................................................................... 76 Response to Comment Letter I36 .................................................................................................................... 78 Response to Comment Letter I37 .................................................................................................................... 80 Response to Comment Letter I38 .................................................................................................................... 82 Response to Comment Letter I39 .................................................................................................................... 84 Response to Comment Letter I40 .................................................................................................................... 86 Response to Comment Letter I41 .................................................................................................................... 92 Response to Comment Letter I42 .................................................................................................................... 95 Response to Comment Letter I43 .................................................................................................................... 96 Response to Comment Letter O1 ..................................................................................................................... 97 Response to Comment Letter O2 ..................................................................................................................... 99 TABLE
1 Comment letters and Commenters ..................................................................................................................... 3 25-29,604
14831.03 RTC-3
OCTOBER 2024
Responses to Comments
The Draft MND was circulated for public review from May 30, 2024, through July 15, 2024 , for a 45 -day public review period, in accordance with Section 15105(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires a minimum 30-day review period. A total of 45 written comment letters were received on the Draft MND from agencies, organizations, and individuals as shown in Table 1. Each of the written comment letters have been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the individual comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered. For example, Comment Letter A1 contains one comment that is numbered A1-1.
The responses to each comment on the Draft MND represent a good -faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Burbank (City), as lead agency, is not r equired to respond to all comments on the Draft MND, but only those comments that raise environmental issues. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared the attached written r esponses to any significant environmental issues raised.
Table 1. Comment letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
Agency
A1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) July 15, 2024 Individuals
I-1 Robert Platz June 8, 2024
I-2 Erin McAnoy June 10, 2024
I-3 Nancy Brafford June 13, 2024
I-4 Danny Hanna June 13, 2024
I-5 Anand Chandrasekharan June 14, 2024
I-6 Fernando Galeano June 14, 2024
I-7 Fernando Galeano June 14, 2024
I-8 Frances and Jim McPherson June 14, 2024
I-9 Alex Kantor June 15, 2024
I-10 Karen Gerst June 17, 2024
I-11 Vardan Ovsepian June 17, 2024
I-12 Jeanne Zacarias June 17, 2024
I-13 Jennifer Kesinger June 18, 2024
I-14 Yvonne Schwartz June 19, 2024
I-15 K Japhs June 28, 2024
I-16 Carla Endow July 9, 2024
I-17 Farrah Assadi July 11, 2024
I-18 Karen Bortoli July 11, 2024
I-19 Karina Dahlstrom July 12, 2024
I-20 Phillip J Everly July 12, 2024
I-21 Shelby Grimm July 13, 2024
I-22 Kimberly King-Burns July 13, 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-4
OCTOBER 2024
Table 1. Comment letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
I-23 Dyane Mackinnon July 13, 2024
I-24 Victoria Dyer July 14, 2024
I-25 Jacquelyn Everly July 14, 2024
I-26 Anna Borges Laidler July 14, 2024
I-27 Leila July 14, 2024
I-28 James Mackinnon July 14, 2024
I-29 Linda Matsumoto July 14, 2024
I-30 Erin Krueger Mekash July 14, 2024
I-31 Mike Mekash July 14, 2024
I-32 Ario Nejad July 14, 2024
I-33 Sylvia Payaslyan July 14, 2024
I-34 Kelly Stone July 14, 2024
I-35 Jaime Turgeon July 14, 2024
I-36 Mark Asaro July 15, 2024
I-37 Gina Bortoli July 15, 2024
I-38 Gail A Butler July 15, 2024
I-39 Allen Coulter July 15, 2024
I-40 Diana Nicole July 15, 2024
I-41 Cindy and Frank Palmieri July 15, 2024
I-42 Heidi and Nicholas Fecht Siapkaris July 16, 2024
I-43 Barbara Sanchez July 10, 2024
Organizations
O-1 Niagara Street Residents & Burbank Residents for the Environment July 13, 2024 O-2 Guardians of the Pines July 13, 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-5
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter A1
Agency
Caltrans
July 15, 2024
A1-1 The commenter acknowledges the inclusion of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review of the project, which involves the removal and replacement of approximately 121 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine identified as high-risk in various Arborist Reports. The project, set to occur over one to five years, also includes trees already removed on an emergency basis and one that failed in March 2024. The commenter notes that the MND evaluates the
environmental impacts of both the previously and planned tree removals. Caltrans, having reviewed the project documents, provides further comments. The City acknowledges the comment as an int roduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project. No further response is required or necessary.
A1-2 The commenter states that Caltrans will require an Encroachment Permit for any work conducted within the State Right-of-Way. They recommend limiting large-truck travel to off-peak hours and note that any heavy construction equipment or oversized materials will require a permit for transport on State highways. Caltrans advises that construction traffic should be restricted to off-peak periods to reduce potential impacts on State facilities. If construction traffic is anticipated to affect State faciliti es, Caltrans requests a construction traffic control plan for review. As noted in Section 4.9 of the MND, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, prior to
commending work, all applicable encroachment and /or traffic 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-6
OCTOBER 2024
control permits would be obtained by the applicant to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained. The City
acknowledges the comments and will include it for review and consideration by the decision -makers before making the final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-7
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I1
Individual
Robert Platz
June 11, 2024
I1-1 The commenter expresses support for the project and seeks information on where to access a catalog of potential tree selections suitable for their area. As stated in Section 3.0 of the MND, residents and property owners have the opportunity to select the replacement tree species for the tree adjacent to their property from the City’s Street Tree Master Plan (STMP). The STMP is included as Appendix C to the MND.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-8
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I2
Individual
Erin McAnoy
June 10, 2024
I2-1 The commenter seeks clarification on the timeline for planting replacement trees and emphasizes the importance of replacing all removed trees. As discussed in Section 3.0 of the MND, the project entails replacement of all trees removed as part of the program. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is necessary
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-9
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I3
Individual
Nancy Brafford
June 13, 2024
I3-1 The commenter seeks information on tree removal at a particular address. Section 3.0 of the MND identifies all trees that will be removed as part of the project. The project will prioritize the removal of the Aleppo Pines based on the greatest risk to life and property, in a multi -year phased approach within a designated timeframe. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is required or necessary.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-10
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I4
Individual
Danny Hanna
June 13, 2024
I4-1 The commenter asks the status of planting a replacement tree at a particular address. For more information on the project please visit https://www.burbankca.gov/web/parks -recreation/ aleppo-mnd. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is required.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-11
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I5
Individual
Anand Chandrasekharan
June 14, 2024
I5-1 The commenter expresses concern regarding tree planting at a particular address that is not listed as part of the project in Section 3.0 of the MND. The City acknowledges the comment; however, the comment does not address any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-12
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I6
Individual
Fernando Galeano
June 14, 2024
I6-1 The commenter expresses concern over the ongoing planting of pine trees in their neighborhood, requesting that the City halt the planting and provides a contact number for further inquiries. The City acknowledges the comment; however, the comment does not address any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-13
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I7
Individual
Fernando Galeano
June 14, 2024
I7-1 The comment is a follow -up email to comment letter 16 and attaches images of a tree on their property for reference. The comment does not address any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required.
I7-2 This comment is a replica of comment letter I6. Please refer to RTC I6 for a response.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-14
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-15
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-16
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-17
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-18
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-19
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-20
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-21
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I8
Individual
Frances and Jim McPherson
June 14, 2024
I8-1 The commenter expresses concern over the City’s placement of new trees where trees did not previously exist, as opposed to removal and replacement of existing trees. The City acknowledges the comment; however, the comment does not address any
specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required.
I8-2 The commenter expresses concern over inadequate public noticing of the project and the future City Council consideration of approving the project and adopting the MND. The City met its obligations for public noticing for the MND pursuant to CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15072, and will continue to work with owners and residents of the properties affected by the tree replacement. Please contact City Staff Mike del Campo at 818.238.5300 to request replacement trees.
I8-3 This comment accurately reiterates text from the MND’s Project Description, Section 3.0. No further response is required. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-22
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-23
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-24
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I9
Individual
Alex Kantor
June 15, 2024
I9-1 The comment seeks information specific to a tree at a particular address that is not listed for removal in the MND. The comment does not address any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-25
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I10
Individual
Karen Gerst
June 17, 2024
I10-1 The commenter criticizes Burbank’s study on the removal of Aleppo Pine Trees, suggesting bias in its findings. The comment provides no evidence of any bias. The City’s Arborist Report , included as Appendix A of the MND , was prepared by a qualified professional with the intent of ensuring public safety by identifying trees at risk of failure.
I10-2 The commenter expresses concern that the temporary reduction in canopy coverage as the replacement trees grow to maturity would increase local temperatures in the short -term due to the “urban heat island effect.” The commenter also expresses concern that t he short -term reduction in shade would cause residents to pay higher electrical bills running air conditioners to keep cool.
There is no evidence that the tree removals will result in significantly higher localized temperatures. As discussed in the MND, “[t]he Project will ... not reduce shade as compared to the status quo, as the existing trees have reached the end of their natural lives.” (MND at p. 4 -48.) The trees would be replaced at least on a one -to-one basis, and “[w]hen space permits (depending on safety, species selected, and infrastructure in the parkway that could affect the future growth of the new trees) the City of Burbank will plant more than one tree.” (MND at pp. 3-2, 3-
3.) Therefore, “[a]s the project will result in a net increase in trees, it ultimately will result in an increase in shade, consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan Air Quality & Climate Change Element 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-26
OCTOBER 2024
Policy 2.4.” (MND at p. 4-48.) Replacement tree species expected to grow to 25 feet can reach full maturity in 10 -15 years (in contrast to the 30 years asserted in certain comments on the Draft MND). Ultimately, trees grow at different rates, with a Tipu Tipu tree reaching 20 feet within 4 -5 years while a Crape Myrtle may reach 20 feet within 15 years. (MND Appendix C, Street Tree Master Plan at pp. 9-10.) The replacement trees will also be larger in size than the City typically plants. Replacement trees will be at least a 36” box size but 48” boxes would be used when the parkway is physically able to accommodate the larger size. (MND at p. 3 -1.) Ordinarily, the City replants smaller trees in 15 -gallon containers, which are approximately 17” in width. (MND Appendix C, Street Tree Master Plan, at p. 9.)
The removal of the subject trees would occur in a single -family neighborhood with significant amounts of other existing trees and vegetation both in the parkway and in private yards, all of which would remain intact. The project would only remove a limited number of specific trees along a linear parkway. Many of the trees to be removed are aged and heavily-pruned, limiting their canopy and minimizing their effect on local temperatures. The project area also scores at the lowest level for extreme heat climat e hazards, both in exposure and sensitivity. (See Appendix D, Aleppo Pine Removal Detailed Report § 6 at pp. 13 -14, “Climate Risk Detailed Report.”)
Further, any localized increase in temperatures in the short term due to temporary loss of shade would not be considered a “significant impact” under CEQA. As discussed in the MND in section 4.6 at pages 4 -27 through 4 -29, the temporary loss of shade would not significantly increase energy demand from air conditioning. The existing canopy shade saves only 9,082 kWh of electricity per year spread out over the entire project area. This 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-27
OCTOBER 2024
amount of electricity is less than the 9,612 kWh per year used by just one average single-family home. Accordingly, air pollution and GHG emissions caused by additional electrical generation would be less than significant. The commenter’s concern with potentially higher electricity costs are noted, but financial costs are not environmental impacts under CEQA. Additionally, as discussed in the MND in section 4.3 at pages 4 -15 through 4-20, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any criteria pollutant or cause any significant localized impact on pollutant concentrations, including smog, which could cause health impacts. The MND directly accounts for air pollutants removed by the existing pine trees. (MND at p. 4-16, Table 5.).
I10-3 The commenter expresses opposition to the findings of the project’s Arborist Report. The City’s Arborist Report, included as Appendix A of the MND, was prepared by a qualified professional with a focus on ensuring public safety by removing hazard trees.
The City has not asserted that all Aleppo Pine trees are unhealthy.
The City’s STMP advises against planting Aleppo Pines on streets in Burbank due to their substantial size and potential structural issues as they mature. The Arborist Report identified 72 Aleppo Pine trees with varying degrees of risk, including improbable, possible, pro bable, or imminent failure. Although the project would temporarily reduce shade on properties in the vicinity of the project-related tree removal , it will ultimately result in a net increase in tree coverage, enhancing shade and providing long - term environmental benefits.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-28
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I11
Individual
Vardan Ovespian
June 17, 2024
I11-1 The commenter seeks information about a specific tree that is not listed for removal in the MND. The referenced tree is not listed for replacement in the MND because it was not identified in the Arborist Report as having a risk of failure. However, Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) mandates that if any tree on a street or private property overhanging into a street appears to be dead, at risk of falling, dangerous, or obstructive, the Department i s responsible for removing or addressing the hazardous parts of such a tree (City of Burbank 2023a). The City will continue to monitor the health and status of street trees to ensure public safety for its residents. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-29
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I12
Individual
Jeanne Zacarias
June 17, 2024
I12-1 The commenter seeks information about the eligibility for removal of a specific tree near their home. All trees designated for replacement as part of the project are included in Section 3, Project Description, the MND, along with their Arborist Report scores indicating their predicted timelines for replacement. The address in question is not listed among the trees identified for replacement. The City will continue to monitor the health and status of street trees to ensure public safety for its residents. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-30
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I13
Individual
Jenny Kesinger
June 18, 2024
I13-1 The commenter seeks information regarding the removal of a specific tree near their home. The MND indicates that the tree located on or adjacent to the commenter’s property has been assigned a score of “2,” reflecting its status as a candidate for removal in the second phase based on its health, structure, and potential risks if it were to fail. Th e City acknowledges the comment, noting it reflects the commenter’s general support for the project but does not address any specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND’s sections or analyses. The City will consider the comment as part of the review process before making a decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-31
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I14
Individual
Yvonne Schwartz
June 19, 2024
I14-1 The commenter requests information about a specific tree near their home. All trees designated for replacement as part of the project are listed in Section 3.0 the MND, along with their Arborist Report scores indicating their predicted failure timelines. The address in question is not listed among the trees identified for replacement. The City will continue to monitor the health and status of street trees to ensure public safety for its residents. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-32
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-33
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I15
Individual
Japhs
June 28, 2024
I15-1 The commenter questions the timing of the MND, alleging it was prepared after the project had already begun. To clarify, the MND evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed removal of 72 trees, plus the prior removal of 49 trees on an emergency basis. The 49 trees were removed on an emergency basis due to their risk of imminent harm to human life and property. These removals were sanctioned by the court in Guardians of the Pines v. City of Burbank, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCP03707. Below is a summary of this litigation as relevant to the project history.
In February of 2023, a strong storm in the historically -significant rainy winter season of 2022 -2023 hit the City of Burbank. This storm brought wind and rain and caused unusually catastrophic damage from falling trees; whereas a typical winter storm might down one or two trees, the February 2023 storm felled at least twelve trees, including three mature Aleppo Pines located at 216 N. Niagara, 327 N. Niagara, and 1726 N. Pass.
In response, the City began investigating the overall health of the Aleppo Pines across the City. The City hired a third-party arborist, who prepared a report on the health of 122 Aleppo Pines within the City. This report, dated September 13, 2023, deemed three additional Aleppo Pines an “imminent danger” and recommended the City remove them immediately to eliminate the threat to public safety. The City approved removal of the three trees on an emergency basis. In a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) dated 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-34
OCTOBER 2024
October 10, 2023, the City documented the reasons removal of the three trees was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an “Emergency Project.” Specifically, CEQA Guidelines section 15269, subdivision (c) statutorily exempts “(s)pecific a ctions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.” CEQA defines emergency as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.3; CEQA Guidelines, § 15359.)
On October 9, 2023, Petitioner Guardians of the Pines
(“Guardians”) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Petition”) and concurrently filed an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) seeking to prohibit the City “from takin g any actions towards implementing” the alleged “Aleppo Pine Tree Reforestation Project,” including removal of the three Aleppo Pine trees deemed an “imminent danger” located at (1) 400 S. Keystone Street, (2) 113 N. Niagara Street, and (3) 434 N. Niagara Street in the City of Burbank.
On October 11, 2023, the Court heard the ex parte application and continued the hearing until October 30, 2023, but the Court did not prohibit the City from removing the three trees. The City completed the emergency removal of the three Aleppo Pines located at (1) 400 S. Keystone Street, (2) 113 N. Niagara Street, and (3) 434 N. Niagara Street.
On October 26, 2023, the City submitted an Opposition to Petitioners’ TRO which stated that the City would not remove any additional Aleppo Pines until it finished the appropriate level of environmental review. The Court heard Petitioners’ request for a TRO on October 31, 2023. The Court granted the TRO in part and 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-35
OCTOBER 2024
ordered: “The City is prevented from further removal of the subject Aleppo Pines pursuant to the City’s Reforestation Strategy until further order from this court.”
In December of 2023 City arborists continued investigating the overall health of its Aleppo Pines, and three Board Certified Arborists inspected the Aleppo Pines at 814, 1613, and 1633 N.
Niagara Street for hazards. The arborists determined these three trees had a high risk of failing and causing damage to nearby cars and homes. In January of 2024, the City commissioned West Coast Arborists (“WCA”) to assess some of the Aleppo Pines. WCA determined that several of these Aleppo Pines were in poor health and at risk of failing during a winter storm.
On February 1, 2024, a strong winter storm felled eleven trees in the City of Burbank, including an Aleppo Pine. The City’s Master Arborist, using data from the various tree inspections, determined that eight more Aleppo Pines needed to be removed on an emergency basis, prior to any additional strong winter storms, to avoid harm to life, limb, and property.
The Guardians again sought a Court order preventing the City from removing these trees on an emergency basis. On February 20, 2024, the Court denied the Guardian’s request, and the eight trees were subsequently removed.
On March 14, 2024, the Aleppo Pine at 1433 N. Niagara, which was previously recommended in August 2023 by expert arborists for removal, fell over into a Burbank resident’s occupied home during a common Santa Ana wind event. This tree punctured the home’s roof in two places, collapsing it into the living space. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-36
OCTOBER 2024
As a result of these events, the City’s Master Arborist concluded that all of the remaining 38 trees of similar risk category were susceptible to imminent failure. After the City informed the Guardians it intended to remove these 38 trees on an emergency basis, the Guardians again asked the Court to stop the City from removing the trees. On March 26, 2024, the Court denied the Guardians’ request and allowed the City to move forward with removal of the 38 trees. The Court agreed that the removal of these tre es was exempt from CEQA. The City filed a Notice of Exemption on March 27, 2024, and these 38 trees were
subsequently removed.
As discussed above, CEQA does not apply to “[s]pecific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(4).) CEQA defines emergency as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.3.) The City removed these trees on an emergency basis and may now proceed with an MND studying the impacts of removing additional trees of the same species in the same area.
Additionally, “[b]ecause CEQA and the Guidelines do not contain any provisions for environmental review of emergency projects, any emergency work completed pursuant to an emergency
exemption and permit is deemed to be done outside of CEQA's requirements and therefore no subsequent environmental review of that completed work is required.” (CREED -21 v. City of San Diego (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 488, 506.) Environmental review of a project is reviewed by comparing its potential impacts against the physical condi tions of the site after the emergency work. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City’s emergency tree removals did not 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-37
OCTOBER 2024
require environmental review. Regardless, the Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project MND conservatively evaluates the combined impact of the proposed removal of 72 trees, plus the prior removal of 49 trees on an emergency basis. (See MND at p. 3-1.)
I15-2 The commenter disagrees with the MND’s conclusion that the project would not result in a significant effect on the environment, citing the potential increase in the urban heat island effect due to reduced shade , the financial impact on properties due to increased utility bills, and increased water usage. Please refer to RTC I10 -2 for an explanation of why the project would not contribute to the urban heat island effect. With respect to financial impacts, CEQA focuses on impacts of a project on the
environment, and economic effects are not treated as significant effects on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) The City’s implementation of the project is intended to ensure public safety by removing hazard trees, which requires balancing competing concerns on the properties it is intending to protect.
This comment will be included in the project’s CEQA record for consideration by the City Council when MND is presented to them for adoption.
I15-3 The commenter criticizes the project and suggests the project’s proposal replacing two trees for every one removed and allowing residents to choose replacement species are untrue . The MND provides that every tree will be replaced at least on a one -to-one basis, but “[w] hen space permits (depending on safety, species selected, and infrastructure in the parkway that could affect the future growth of the new trees) the City of Burbank will plant more than one tree.” (MND at pp. 3-1 to 3-2.) With respect to the choice of replacement trees, the MND provides “ Residents/property owners will have the opportunity to select the replacement tree 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-38
OCTOBER 2024
species for the tree adjacent to their property from the City of Burbank’s Street Tree Master Plan. ” (MND at p. 3 -2.) The comment does not raise any other specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND analysis, therefore, no further response is required.
I15-4 The commenter suggests the City has removed healthy trees as part of the project that did not pose a hazard and offers other general criticism of the project and the City’s decision to implement the project. For information regarding emergency removals of trees, please see response to comment I15-1.
I15-5 The commenter raises concerns about the potential displacement of wildlife . CEQA review entails consideration of a project’s impacts on sensitive resources such as special -status species and their habitat. Section 4.4 of the MND , Biological Resources, concludes the removal of Aleppo Pine trees will not affect special- status wildlife species in the City, as these trees do not provide suitable habitat for such species. While ornamental conifers like Aleppo Pines may support some common birds and small
mammals adapted to urban conditions, these species have stable populations throughout the region and their displacement would not be considered a significant impact pursuant to CEQA . Aleppo Pines do not offer unique or critical habitat compared to replacement tree species or other common street trees in Southern California. Furthermore, Aleppo Pines do not provide forage or food for either common species or special -status wildlife. T he project area is located within urban, developed regions of the City that do not serve as wildlife corridors. According to the CDFW’s Areas of Conservation Emphasis (2019), the area is ranked as having the lowest connectivity (1 out of 5), indicating limited wildlife movement opportunities (CDFW 2022).
Additionally, MM-BIO-1, Nesting Bird Avoidance, requires that 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-39
OCTOBER 2024
vegetation removal shall occur during the non-breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors (October 1–January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be performed during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1 –September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1 – June 30), a pre -construction survey shall be conducted at the project trees and immediately adjacent to the project trees by qualified biologists for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days before project activities in order to avoid direct or indirect impacts on active nests. Please refer to Section 4.4 of the MND for more information on this mitigation measure . Implementation of mitigation measure MM -BIO-1 will reduce any potentially significant impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, as required by the City’s Housing Element EIR BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance measure, step s will be taken to ensure no inadvertent impacts on nests occur. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by decision - makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I15-6 The commenter criticizes the findings of the project -related arborist report and the MND. Please see the response to comment I15-4.
I15-7 The commenter seeks clarification on revisions made in the project. It is unclear to the City what revisions are referred to in this comment, so no response is possible.
I15-8 The commenter questions why several Aleppo Pine trees on City property that lean noticeably have not been targeted for removal, despite some healthier-looking trees already being destroyed. The project-related tree removal plan is based on recommendations of a qualified professional arborist. The City will continue to 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-40
OCTOBER 2024
monitor the health and status of street trees to ensure public safety for its residents.
I15-9 The commenter expresses concern over the potential for property devaluation resulting from the removal of trees . The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is necessary.
I15-10 The commenter expresses opposition towards the project and City staff. The comment does not address specific issues related to the adequacy of the MND’s sections or analyses. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision- makers before making a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-41
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I16
Individual
Carla Endow
July 9, 2024
I16-1 The commenter raises concerns about planting replacement trees in unirrigated parkways. Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. The water requirements for the replacement trees will not substantially differ from those of the existing trees. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week . Watering is the responsibility of the property owner.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-42
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I17
Individual
Farrah Assadi
July 11, 2024
I17-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and concerns about the MND, but does not provide specific comments on the environmental impact analysis presented in the MND. The City acknowledges the comment, which reflects general opposition to the project. However, it does not raise any concerns regarding the adequacy of specific sections or analyses in the MND. The City will consider the comment as part of the review proces s before making a decision on the project.
I17-2 The commenter suggests the project-related tree removal will have negative affects because it will decrease shade . See RTC I10-2 regarding shade.
I17-3 The commenter raises concerns about impacts to wildlife and various bird species. Please refer to RTC I15 -5 for a response regarding the project’s wildlife impacts.
I17-4 The commenter suggests the City should have prepared an EIR instead of an MND. CCR Section 15070 states a CEQA lead agency may prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration when an i nitial study “shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” The City conducted an environmental impact review of the project pursuant to CEQA and determined that mitigation was available to reduce the project’s impacts to a less- than-significant level. With incorporation of the mitigation 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-43
OCTOBER 2024
identified in the MND, the project would not result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the City believes there is no reason to prepare an environmental impact report for the project.
This comment provides no substantial evidence of any significant impact on the environment.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-44
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I18
Individual
Karen Bortoli
July 11, 2024
I18-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and concern that the MND did not adequately assess the project’s impact on the environment, including reduction in shade on individual properties, effects on ornamental landscaping, and increased utility bills. The MND's primary purpose is to assess the potential physical impacts of the project on the environment and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives to minimize or avoid significant environmental effects. Economic effects are not environmental impacts under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) However, the City acknowledges the commenter’s concern and this comment will be included in the project record and presented for City Council consideration. For a response regarding the urban heat island effect, please refer to RTC I10-2.
I18-2 The commenter raises concerns about the impact on bird habitats resulting from the removal of their tree. Please refer to RTC I15-5 for a response regarding wildlife impacts.
I18-3 The commenter raises concerns regarding increased noise levels from airplanes since prior emergency removals. For a discussion of prior emergency removals, please see RTC I15-1. Section 4.9 of the MND addresses the project’s noise -related impacts, and concludes the tree removal would not cause a measurable increase in noise levels received at nearby residences. The comment does not include any substantial evidence that removing the trees would cause a significant impact on noise levels. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-45
OCTOBER 2024
I18-4 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and suggests that there are inconsistencies in the MND, but does not cite specific inconsistencies. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City wi ll include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-46
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I19
Individual
Karina and Dahlstrom
July 12, 2024
I19-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and its effect on community character, and concern over past interactions with the City regarding the project. The City acknowledges the comment and the opinions of the commenter. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The project’s impact on visual character is addressed in Section 4.1 of the MND, which concludes the project would not result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA because the project’s changes do not conflict with established regulations governing scenic quality. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the City Council prior to a decision on the project.
I19-2 The commenter suggests gradual replacement of the trees to maintain current shade levels as much as possible. The project will prioritize the removal of trees based on the greatest risk to life and property, following a multi -year phased approach within a designated timeframe, as discussed in Section 3.0 of the MND .
For a response regarding the urban heat island effect, please refer to RTC I10-2.The City will consider the comment before making a final decision on the project.
I19-3 The commenter recommends conducting a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) . In response, as described throughout the MND, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant, and there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-47
OCTOBER 2024
CEQA equivalent of the EIS recommended by the commenter).
Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-48
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I20
Individual
Jason Everly
July 12, 2024
I20-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I20-2 The commenter requests that a full EIR should be conducted for the project. In response, as described throughout the MND, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant, and there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts requiring an EIR. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
I20-3 The commenter raises concerns about the shade impacts. They note that the shade from the trees enhances property values, reduces air conditioning costs, mitigates noise pollution, lowers overall temperatures along the street, and contributes oxygen to the environment. With respect to the “urban heat island effect,” see RTC I10-2. Economic effects on property values and electricity bills are not addressed as an environmental impact under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) However, the City acknowledges the commenter’s economic concerns and this comment will be
included in the project record and presented for City Council consideration. With respect to Noise, the MND concludes that the project would not have a significant impact on noise. (See MND at pp. 4-53 to 4-56.)
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-49
OCTOBER 2024
I20-4 The commenter advocates for a long -term approach to tree replacement. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, however the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The project will prioritize the removal of trees based on the greatest risk to life and property, following a multi -year phased approach within a designated timeframe. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project.
I20-5 The commenter suggests that the project warrants preparation of an environmental impact study with public participation. In response, as described throughout the MND, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant, and there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts requiring an EIR (or EIS).
Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-50
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I21
Individual
Shelby Grimm
July 13, 2024
I21-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and also states that the Aleppo Trees have not been examined by at least three independent arborists. As stated in the Section 3.0, Project Description of the MND, the Aleppo trees were examined by RPW Services Inc. and West Coast Arborists (WCA). The commenter urges for a comprehensive environmental review. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR. The City acknowledges the comment, which reflects general opposition to the project but does not raise concerns about the adequacy of any specific sections or analyses in the MND.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-51
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I22
Individual
Kimberly King -Burns
July 13, 2024
I22-1 The commenter questions the approach to replacing Aleppo pines, noting concerns about the size of the replacement trees and the lack of adequate watering support. As stated in Section
3.0 of the MND, the City will replace all project trees with the largest size feasible for each site. The water requirements for the replacement trees will be similar to those of the existing trees. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. Although the project may cause a temporary reduction in shade, it will ultimately result in a net increase in trees, leading to long -term improvements in shade and overall environmental benefits. Regarding shade issues, please see RTC I10-2.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-52
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I23
Individual
Dyane MacKinnon
July 13, 2024
I23-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and the environmental review. The commenter comments on the
environmental review being conducted after project initiation. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. Please refer to RTC I15-1 for a response regarding the timing of the MND and emergency r emovals. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I23-2 The commenter expresses concern about the MND. The commenter states that the removed trees were not included in the MND. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the MND, and throughout the document, the MND analyzes the potential environmental impact of removing and replacing both the trees that have already been removed and the remaining trees, for a total of 122 trees , which includes the 49 Aleppo Pine trees and one Italian Stone Pine the City already removed on an
emergency basis.
The commenter states that the MND neglected to consider the importance of canopy coverage in their tree replacement choices and placement decisions. Additionally, the commenter questions the City's understanding of the trees' sizes and growth rates, and how long it will take to mitigate the impacts of tree removal. They 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-53
OCTOBER 2024
also feel that there is a lack of a clear plan for watering and maintaining newly planted trees. The City will replace all project trees with the largest size that each site can accommodate , with a minimum size of 36” box trees and 48” box sizes where appropriate. (MND at p. 3 -1.) While the project may temporarily reduce shade, it will result in a net increase in trees, leading to long-term improvements in shade and overall environmental benefits. The water requirements for the replacement trees will be similar to those for the existing trees. Additionally, the City is offering slow release tree water bags to residents. The City acknowledges the comment, which reflects general opposition to the project ’s plan . However, it does not raise any concerns regarding the adequacy of specific sections or analyses in the MND. The City will consider the comment as part of the review process before making a final decision on the project.
I23-3 The commenter raises concerns about the urban heat island effect. They criticize the City's mitigation efforts, stating that simply replacing trees on a 1:1 basis or planting trees elsewhere in the city does not address the immediate impact of lost canopy cover in the same area. In response, trees will be replaced in approximately the same location as the removals, along with the City’s commitment to the CAP Policy CS-1.1 to City’s policy to plant 2,000 net new trees, will result in a net increase in trees, and ultimately will result in an increase in shade . For a response regarding the urban heat island effect, please refer to RTC I10-2.
I23-4 The commenter criticizes the City's timing and approach to tree cutting and planting prior to hot summer months and nesting seasons. The commenter asserts that environmental review should have been conducted before commitment to the project and criticizes the projects mitigation procedures. The City has not committed to or approved this project yet. Please refer to RTC I15- 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-54
OCTOBER 2024
1 for a detailed response regarding the timing of the MND and RTC 15-5 for a response regarding wildlife impacts.
I23-5 The commenter raises concerns about the impact on wildlife, particularly birds. The commenter raises concerns about these actions occurring during nesting season. In response, MM-BIO-1, Nesting Bird Avoidance, requires that v egetation removal shall occur during the non -breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors (October 1 –January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be performed during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1– September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1–June 30), a pre- construction survey shall be conducted at the project trees and immediately adjacent to the project trees by qualified biologists for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days before project activities in order to avoid direct or indirect impacts on active nests. Please refer to Section 4.4 of the MND for more information on this mitigation measure and RTCI15-5 for a response regarding wildlife impacts.
I23-6 The commenter raises concerns about noise pollution from the nearby airport. Section 4.9 of the MND addresses the project’s noise-related impacts, and concludes the tree removal would not cause a measurable increase in noise levels received at nearby residences. This comment does not provide substantial evidence of any significant noise impact. Comments regarding the Burbank airport regulations and helicopters are outside the scope of this MND.
I23-7 The commenter expresses opposition to a 1:1 tree replacement approach. As stated in Section 3.0 of the MND, the City will replace all trees with as large of a tree as the site can accommodate, and at least at a 1:1 ratio, and a greater than 1:1 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-55
OCTOBER 2024
ratio where feasible based on safety, available space, and infrastructure conflicts. Please contact City staff regarding tree replacements and project implementation. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the
commenter, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I23-8 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-56
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I24
Individual
Victoria Dyer
July 14, 2024
I24-1 The commenter raises concerns about the decision to remove shade-providing trees at a time of increasingly high temperatures.
Please refer to RTC I10-2 for a response regarding the urban heat island effect.
I24-2 The commenter raises concerns about the project’s impact on birds. In response, please refer to Response to Comment I15-5 for a detailed response.
I24-3 The commenter expresses concern about the care of sapling trees intended to replace those already cut down, along with opposition to the project. In response, Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. The water requirements for the replacement trees will not substantially differ from those of the existing trees. Additionally, the City is offering slow release tree water bags to residents. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-57
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I25
Individual
Victoria Dyer
July 14, 2024
I25-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. T he City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I25-2 The commenter questions if there has been a full EIR done related to this project. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR to be prepared.
I25-3 The commenter expresses disappointment with the lack of communication from the City regarding this project. As required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, Division 13 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) , a Notice of Intent to adopt the MND was available for a 45 -day public comment period ending Monday, July 15, 2024. It is anticipated that the final IS/MND will be presented at the City Council meeting for their consideration on Tuesday, December 10, 2024. More information on public participation please visit https://www.burbankca.gov/web/parks-recreation/aleppo-mnd.
I25-4 The commenter expresses concern over the small replacement trees. In response, the City acknowledges the comment, which reflects general opposition to the project but does not raise concerns about the adequacy of specific sections or analyses in 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-58
OCTOBER 2024
the MND. The City will replace trees with the largest size feasible for each site, and at least at a 1:1 ratio, and a greater than 1:1 ratio where feasible . While the project may temporarily reduce shade, it will ultimately lead to a net increase in trees, resulting in long-term improvements in shade and overall environmental benefits. The comment will be included for review and
consideration by the decision -makers before a final decision on the project.
I25-5 The commenter expresses concern over the absence of a full EIS.
Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR (the CEQA equivalent of an EIS) to be prepared.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-59
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I26
Individual
Anna Borges Laidler
July 14, 2024
I26-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, however, the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I26-2 The commenter suggests that the MND’s project description is inadequate because it does not specify the species of each replacement tree, the exact location of each replacement, and the maintenance that will be required for the replacement trees. The project description presented in Section 3.0 of the MND is an accurate depiction of the project and is appropriate for conducting environmental impact analysis as required under CEQA. The requirement for a project description are set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15124, which requires, among other things, “a general description of the project's technical, economic and environmental characteristics .” The trees designated for replacement will be substituted with species from the City’s STMP, such as Jacaranda, Chinese Pistache, Deodar Cedar, and Canary Island Pine. The STMP ensures these trees are suitable for each location. The City will replace all trees with the largest size that each site can accommodate , and at least at a 1:1 ratio, and a greater than 1:1 ratio where feasible. As outlined in BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, the property owner or occupant whose property borders any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-60
OCTOBER 2024
watering and fertilizing of street trees. The water requirements for the replacement trees will not substantially differ from those of the existing trees. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. The City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule.
I26-3 The commenter raises concerns about irrigation and maintenance responsibilities. Please refer to RTC I16-2 for a detailed response about maintenance responsibilities.
I26-4 The commenter criticizes the MND for underestimating the project’s contribution to the Urban Heat Island Effect. Please refer to RTC I10-2 for a response regarding the urban heat island effect.
I26-5 The commenter raises concerns about biological resources impacts resulting from the removal of the trees. Please refer to RTC I15-5 for a response regarding wildlife. This commenter has not provided any credentials of their expertise in biology and therefore this comment does not contain any substantial evidence of a significant impact on biological resources.
I26-6 The commenter raises concerns regarding noise pollution resulting from the removal of the trees. Please refer to RTC I23-6 for a response regarding noise.
I26-7 The commenter criticizes the City's handling of tree replacement ratio and timing. In addition, they state that the trees have not been maintained by the City. As outlined in BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, the property owner or occupant whose property borders any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. Please contact City staff regarding tree replacements and project implementation. The City acknowledges 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-61
OCTOBER 2024
the comment but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I26-8 The commenter urges City council to halt the project until an EIR is conducted. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR to be prepared.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-62
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I27
Individual
Leila
July 17, 2024
I27-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project . The City acknowledges the comment, and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I27-2 The commenter expresses concern over the project’s wildlife impacts and contribution to the urban heat island effect . For responses regarding the urban heat island effect and wildlife, please refer to RTCs I10-2 and I15-5, respectively.
I27-3 The commenter urges the City to reconsider this project and allow for resident input to mitigate their devastation the project has caused. In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decisi on on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-63
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I28
Individual
James Mackinnon
July 14, 2024
I28-1 This comment, other than comments expressing opposition to the project that do not allege deficiencies with the MND, is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23. Please refer to RTC 123-1 I28-2 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about the MND. Please refer to RTC 123-2.
I28-3 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about the urban heat island effect. Please refer to RTC 123-3.
I28-4 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about the timing of the project . Please refer to RTC 123-4.
I28-5 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about wildlife impacts. Please refer to RTC 123-5.
I28-6 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about noise pollution. Please refer to RTC 123-6.
I28-7 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses concern about the 1:1 replacement strategy .
Please refer to RTC 123-7.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-64
OCTOBER 2024
I28-8 This comment is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I23 and expresses opposition to the project. Please refer to RTC 123-8. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-65
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-66
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I29
Individual
Linda Matsumoto
July 14, 2024
I29-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and asks about the maintenance of trees in front of vacant lots. Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right-of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees . This would apply to the property owner even if the lot is vacant. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. Additionally, the City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule. T he City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I29-2 The commenter suggests the City’s public outreach regarding the project has been inadequate. The City acknowledges the
comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. Please refer to RTC I25 -3 for a response on public participation required by CEQA.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-67
OCTOBER 2024
I29-3 The commenter expresses concern about the project’s biological resources impacts. For a response regarding wildlife, please refer to RTC I15-5.
I29-4 The commenter expresses concern about loss of shade on their property due to past tree removal. Please see RTC I10-2 regarding shade. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I29-5 The commenter expresses concern that the City did not conduct a comprehensive environmental review for the project . The City performed an assessment of the project’s environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA and determined an MND was the appropriate type of document to disclose the impacts to the public and City Council decisionmakers. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
I29-6 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and disappointment in the ir replacement tree. In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-68
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I30
Individual
Eryn Mekash
July 14, 2024
I30-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and concern for the City’s past approach to maintenance of the street trees and for abrupt noticing of the current project. The City acknowledges the comment, which reflects the commenter’s general opposition to the project but does not raise concerns about the adequacy of any specific section or analysis in the MND. The City will include this comment for review and consideration b y the decision - makers before making a final decision on the project.
I30-2 The commenter expresses concern about the impact on wildlife due to tree removals . Please refer to RTC I15 -5 for a response regarding wildlife.
I30-3 The commenter highlights concern about the rising heat index following the removal of trees in their area. Please see RTC I10-2 for a response regarding urban heat island effect.
I30-4 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and concern for the City’s implementation of the project. The City
acknowledges the comment, which reflects the commenter’s general opposition to the project but does not raise concerns about the adequacy of any specific section or analysis in the MND.
The City will include this comment for review and consideration by the decision-makers before making a final decision on the project. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-69
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-70
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I31
Individual
Michael Mekash
July 14, 2024
I31-1 This comment letter is a slightly altered duplicate of comment letter I30. Please refer to RTC I30-1 through I30-4.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-71
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-72
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I32
Individual
Ario Nejad
July 14, 2024
I32-1 The commenter suggests that the City should prepare an EIR instead of an MND for the project’s compliance with CEQA urges the halting or cancellation of the project until a comprehensive EIR is conducted, arguing that the current MND is inadequate.
Additionally, they express concern about irrigation and maintenance of newly planted trees by the City. In response, Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right- of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees.
The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. Additionally, the City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule.. Please see RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR. This comment does not include any evidence of a significant environmental impact.
I32-2 The commenter expresses concern about removing all trees at once. As discussed in Section 3.0 of the MND, tree removal will not occur all at once. The project will prioritize tree removal based on the greatest risk to life and property, following a multi -year phased approach. The financial issues this comment raises are not impacts to the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) I32-3 The commenter expresses concern about impacts on local wildlife, increasing the City's temperature, and increasing noise pollution.
For detailed responses regarding wildlife, the urban heat island effect, and noise, please refer to RTCs, I15-5, I10-1, and I23-6. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-73
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-74
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I33
Individual
Sylvia Payaslyan
July 14, 2024
I33-1 The commentor highlights the trees' crucial role in providing shade and cooling during the hot Burbank summers, and expresses concerns about the impact on local wildlife and pets. The City acknowledges the comment and will present it for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to finalizing the project decision. While the project may cause a temporary reduction in shade, it will ultimately result in a net increase in trees, leading to a long -term enhancement in shade and overall environm ental benefits. For a detailed response concerning the heat island effect and wildlife, please refer to RTC I10-2 and I15-5.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-75
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I34
Individual
Kelly Stone
July 14, 2024
I34-1 The commenter expresses opposition for the project and highlights impacts to birds losing their nests during tree removals.
In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. Additionally, please refer to RTC I15-5 for a response regarding wildlife.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-76
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I35
Individual
Jaime Turgeon
July 14, 2024
I35-1 The commenter asserts that the document lacks clearly defined mitigation measures. The City acknowledges the comment and will ensure it is included for review and consideration by the decision-makers before making a final decision on the project.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO-1, which focuses on Nesting Bird Avoidance, is designed to reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds to a less -than-significant level. Additionally, the analysis has determined that no further mitigation measures are necessary.
I35-2 The commenter expresses concern about irrigation and maintenance. In response, as outlined in the BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. Furthermore, the water requirements for the replacement trees will be comparable to those of the existing trees, and the replacement trees will require less intensive and less frequent maintenance compared to the existing Aleppo Pines. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. The City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule when a service call is called in.
I35-3 The commenter raises concerns about both short-term and long- term impacts of removing mature trees. In response, the MND does analyze both short -term and long -term impacts of the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-77
OCTOBER 2024
project. As discussed in the MND, short term impacts would be temporary and less than significant. The new replacement trees plus the City’s CAP policy to plant 2,000 net new trees will result in a net increase in trees, and ultimately will result in an overall environmental benefit. Please also refer to RTC I10-2.
I35-4 The commenter expresses concern biological impact s. Please refer to RTC I15-5 for a response regarding wildlife.
I35-5 The commenter urges the City to conduct a full EIR. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-78
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I36
Individual
Mark Asaro
July 15, 2024
I36-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and requests an in -person Q&A with the residents of Burbank. The City held public meetings regarding the tree -removal process. Public meetings were held at the Parks and Recreation Board on September 14,2023 and the Burbank Sustainable Commission on September 18, 2023; moreover a community informational meeting was held on November 1, 2023. The City acknowledges the comment, which reflects the commenter’s general opposition to the project but does not raise concerns about the adequacy of any specific section or analysis in the MND. The City will include this comment for review and considerati on by the decision - makers before making a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-79
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-80
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I37
Individual
Gina Bortoli
July 15, 2024
I37-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and concern that the MND’s project description does not specify details such as replacement tree species, mature canopy spreads, planting locations, and long -term maintenance plans. The comment suggests the project should include a comprehensive irrigation plan and that residents should not bear the responsibility for ensuring the survival of newly planted trees. The project description presented in Section 3.0 of the MND is an accurate depiction of the project and is appropriate for conducting environmental impact analysis as req uired under CEQA. As specified in BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, property owners and/or occupants whose properties abut any public area or right -of-way are responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees.
Additionally, the City is offering slow release tree water bags to residents.
I37-2 The commenter argues that the assessment of the urban heat island effect in the MND is lacking. They criticize the City's assertion of a 1:1 replacement ratio as misleading. The City acknowledges the comment and will include it for review and consideration by the decision -makers before making a final decision on the project. Please refer to RTC I10 -2 for a response regarding the urban island heat effect. Please contact City staff regarding tree replacements and project implementation.
I37-3 The commenter expresses concern over the biological impacts and noise pollution. The City acknowledges the comment and will 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-81
OCTOBER 2024
include it for review and consideration by the decision -makers before making a final decision on the project. Please refer to RTCs I15-5 and I23 -6 for detailed responses regarding the wildlife and noise.
I37-4 The commenter requests a full EIR. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-82
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I38
Individual
Gail Butler
July 15, 2024
I38-1 This in an introduction to the comment that emphasizes the importance of the subject matter. No response is necessary.
I38-2 The commenter expresses concern with lack of clearly defined mitigation measures. They point out that they feel the City has failed to specify details such as the exact tree species for replacement, including options with different sizes and mature canopy spreads, as well as uncertainty about planting locations and maintenance plans. Please refer to RTC I35-1 for a response regarding mitigation measures identified in the MND. Additionally, as noted in the MND, the existing Aleppo Pines will be replaced by trees as listed in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan belonging to one of the following species: Jacaranda Chinese Pistache, Deodar Cedar and Canary Island Pine to ensure an appropriate tree species for each location.
I38-3 The commenter raises concerns about tree maintenance. In response, Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right -of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. The City is offering slow -release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. The City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule when a service call is called in.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-83
OCTOBER 2024
I38-4 The commenter raises concerns about both short-term and long- term impacts of removing mature trees, and about the heat island effect. The project will prioritize tree removal based on the greatest risk to life and property, following a multi -year, phased approach within a specified timeframe. For a response regarding the urban heat island effect, please refer to RTC I10-2. No further response is required.
I38-5 The commenter expresses concern over project-related impacts on bird habitats and noise pollution. Please refer to RTC I15-5 for a response regarding wildlife and RTC I23 -6 regarding noise pollution. This comment does not include any evidence of a significant environmental impact.
I38-6 The commenter raises concerns about the city's claim of a 1:1 replacement ratio for trees. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project.
I38-7 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-84
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I39
Individual
Allen Coulter
July 15, 2024
I39-1 The commenter expresses concern about the loss of shade, light impacts, and maintenance of new trees. Please refer to RTC I10- 2 regarding the urban heat island effect. The canopies of the existing Aleppo Pines are sparse due to age and pruning, and do not provide significant protection from ambient nighttime lighting.
After replacement, light and glare conditions will be similar to current levels, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. With regards to maintenance, a ccording to BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, property owners and/or occupants adjacent to public areas or rights -of-way are responsible for watering and fertilizing street trees. The City will maintain the replacement trees following its current maintenance practices, and these trees will require less int ensive and less frequent care compared to the existing Aleppo Pines. Additionally, the City is offering slow release tree water bags to residents.
I39-2 The commenter raises concerns about habitat loss for wildlife, increased dust and noise, and potential aesthetic degradation, and property values . Please refer to RTC I15 -5 for a response regarding wildlife and RTC I23 -6 for a response regarding noise .
Additionally, the visual impacts of the tree replacement are expected to be less than significant. The project will replace trees at or above a 1:1 ratio with species that align with the City’s STMP.
The current Aleppo Pine trees have sparse canopies du e to age and pruning, and do not significantly shield against ambient nighttime lighting. With the new trees in place, light and glare conditions are anticipated to remain similar to existing levels, 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-85
OCTOBER 2024
resulting in less than significant impacts. Concerns about property values do not involve impacts to the environment under CEQA.
I39-3 The commenter suggests implementing a staggered removal program for the Aleppo pines. In response, the project will implement a multi -year, phased approach to tree removal, prioritizing trees based on the highest risk to life and property within a specified timeframe.
I39-4 The comment includes concluding remarks. The City acknowledges the concluding comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commentator, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project. No further response is required or necessary. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-86
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I40
Individual
Diana Nicole
July 15, 2024
I40-1 This is an introduction to the comment and provides background on the project. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No response is necessary.
I40-2 The commenter expresses opposition to the project, specifically criticizing the project mitigation and asserting that the project analysis is vague. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I40-3 The commenter expresses concern about the short-term net loss of tree canopy due to project-related tree removal. Regarding loss of shade from canopy loss, please see RTC I10-2.
I40-4 The commenter questions the MND’s reliance on a 6 -inch DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) assumption for the size of the replacement trees. The 6-inch DBH assumption used in the MND is to estimate air pollutant removal (Table 6) and carbon
sequestration (Table 11). This is a conservative assumption for modeling purposes, as the trees are expected to grow and increase in DBH. A mature tree with larger than 6 DBH would remove more pollutants and sequester more carbon than the assumed 6 DBH 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-87
OCTOBER 2024
trees. This conservative assumption method is appropriate for the MND analysis. Additionally, this comment is not from an expert in biology and therefore does not meet the definition of substantial evidence found in CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
I40-5 The commenter expresses concern about the chances of mortality in the replacement trees due to the responsibility to water the trees is placed on the property owners. As discussed in Section 3.0 of the MND, the City would maintain the replacement trees, in cluding inspection and identification of trees needing further care or replacement. Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right-of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. The City is offering slow -release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. If the tree is found to be dying due to lack of water, the property owner will be charged the cost and labor for the replacement tree. Additionally, the City will inspect and trim the trees as necessary, on a routine schedule. The City will replace any replacement trees which die after planting.
I40-6 The commenter expresses concern about the tree -replacement rate proposed by the project, arguing that a 1:1 ratio or 2:1 ratio would be too low. The tree replacement program, including a minimum of 1:1 replacement with additional trees planted where feasible, is the project described and analyzed for environmental impacts in the MND. The replacement rate is not a mitigation measure to reduce a significant impact. Please see RTC I10 -2 regarding shade and the “urban heat island effect.” This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The City will include this comment on the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-88
OCTOBER 2024
program’s scope for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I40-7 The commenter disagrees with the City’s stance that Aleppo pines are not suitable for planting in city streets. As described in Section
3.0 of the MND, the City intends to replace the Aleppo pine trees removed as part of the project with species from its Street Tree Master Plan , which omits “overly aggressive growth
characteristics, unmanageable health issues, [and] climate incompatibility.” Section 4.1(c) of the MND states the City to did not include Aleppo pine in the Street Tree Master Plan because this species becomes very large in advanced age and are subject to structural maladies as they reach senescence . The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I40-8 The commenter references table 10 of the MND and states that removal of trees in “good” condition should be avoided. In response, the table includes all 122 trees that were included in the tree risk assessment, including the trees that have been already removed on an emergency basis. The remaining tree removals are set to occur over one to five years, prioritizing trees with greater risk and monitoring trees with lesser risk. Please refer to Section 3, Project Description, of the MND which explains the scoring of the trees and their maintenance/removal plan. Aleppo pines with a score of “2” would be inspected and monitored bi - annually over the next one to three years, at which time they would be removed. Aleppo pines with a score of “1” would be monitored after any dead branches are removed. These trees would be planned for removal in the next three to five years if their condition does not change. Yearly inspections would be conducted until they are replaced to monitor for stressors and structural warnings. The comment alleges that the MND fails to analyze any “alternatives” 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-89
OCTOBER 2024
to the Project. Alternatives analysis are not required in MNDs. (CEQA Guidelines § 15071.)
I40-9 The commenter raises concerns about the aesthetic impact of the project. The commenter suggests these trees might have historic status, would have a cumulative impact, and states that the MND uses a 6-inch DBH for aesthetic modeling. Please refer to Section
4.1 of the MND for discussion on less than significant aesthetic impacts. The trees are not catalogued by the City as historic resources and would be removed due to hazardous conditions to prevent further tree failures. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant as the replacement trees along with the City’s commitment to the CAP Policy CS -1.1 to City’s policy to plant 2,000 net new trees, will result in a net increase in trees, and ultimately will result in an increase in canopy.
I40-10 The commenter raises concerns about loss of habitat and wildlife impacts. For a response regarding wildlife, please refer to I15-5.
I40-11 The commenter claims that the MND must be recirculated and is inadequate to comply with CEQA. The MND complies with CEQA and does not warrant recirculation. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-90
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-91
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-92
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I41
Individual
Cindy Palmieri
July 15, 2024
I41-1 The commenter advocates for a gradual, phased approach for the removal of trees. They also emphasize the financial and environmental costs associated with immediate removal and replacement. The comment recommends the City considers the conclusions of the Guardian of the Pines group’s tree assessment.
As noted in Section 3.0 of the MND , the project will be implemented on a multi-year, phased schedule for tree removal, focusing on trees that pose the greatest risk to life and property within a defined t imeframe. The City’s approach is based on the recommendations of a qualified arborist, as published in the Arborist Report. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project and financial concerns, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I41-2 The commenter outlines several steps they believe the City should take when it becomes necessary to remove dangerous trees. They recommend ensuring that there are no active bird nests before cutting trees down, soil preparation and nutrient amendment for new tree plantings, planting larger trees , proper care for new trees, removing trees during cooler months, and using the harvested wood from removed trees for city projects or selling it .
The MND specifically provides Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which provides that “ Vegetation removal shall occur during the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-93
OCTOBER 2024
non-breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors (October 1 –January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be performed during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1–September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1 –June 30), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted at the project trees and immediately adjacent to the project trees by qualified biologists for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days before project activities in order to avoid direct or indirect impacts on active nests. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the project trees, the vegetation clearing/tree removal shall be allowed to proceed.“ The City acknowledges the remainder of the comment, but notes it does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
I41-3 The commenter advocates for better public participation in future projects involving tree removal . The City acknowledges the comment, but notes it does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-94
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-95
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I42
Individual
Heidi and Nicholas Fecht Siapkaris
July 16, 2024
I42-1 The commenter suggests the MND is flawed and should not be adopted by the City Council. This comment will be reviewed and considered by the decision-makers before a final decision is made on the project. For responses to concerns raised in this comment letter, please refer to RTC I15 -5 regarding wildlife, RTC I10-2 concerning the urban heat island effect, and RTC I23-6 on noise.
Additionally, as outlined in BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, property owners and/or occupants whose properties adjoin public areas or rights-of-way are responsible for the watering and fertilizing o f street trees. The City is also offering slow release tree water bags to residents.
I42-2 The commenter advocates for the preparation of a full EIR. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-96
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter I43
Individual
Barbara Sanchez
July 10, 2024
I43-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project. In response, the City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-97
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter O1
Organization
Niagara Street Residents & Burbank Residents for the Environment July 13, 2024
O1-1 The commenter suggests the MND’s project description is inadequate because it does not specify the species of each replacement tree, the exact location of each replacement, and the maintenance that will be required for the replacement trees. The comment also suggests the project description does not clearly define mitigation measures for the project. The project description presented in Section 3.0 of the MND is an accurate depiction of the project and is appropriate for conducting environmental impact analysis required under CEQA. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures are presented where the MND identifies potentially significant environmental impacts. The City will replace all trees with the largest size feasible for each site. Replacement trees will be maintained according to the City's existing practices for tree upkeep and will require less intensive and less frequent maintenance compared to the current Aleppo Pines. These trees will be selected from the City’s STMP and include species such as Jacaranda, Chinese Pistache, Deodar Cedar, and Canary Island Pine, ensuring suitability for each location. As noted in Section 3.0 of the MND, the City will maintain the replacement trees consistent with its existing practices for street tree maintenance.
O1-2 The commenter expresses concerns about irrigation
responsibilities for the replacement trees. As outlined in BMC Title 7, Chapter 4, property owners or occupants whose properties adjoin public areas or rights -of-way are responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees. This is not a change in the current condition, which requires property owners or occupants to 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-98
OCTOBER 2024
irrigate the existing street trees that would be removed as part of this project. Additionally, t he City is offering slow -release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner.
O1-3 The commenter expresses concerns about the short -term and long-term impacts of removing mature trees on temperatures, and the urban heat island effect , Please refer to RTC I10 -2 for a response regarding the urban heat island effect.
O1-4 The commenter expresses concerns about the project’s biological resources impacts. Please refer to RTC I15 -5 for a response regarding wildlife.
O1-5 The commenter asserts that the removal of trees has resulted in increased noise pollution in several areas. Please refer to RTC I23- 6 for a response regarding noise.
O1-6 The commenter highlights concerns about the timing of tree replacement, claiming that the city’s 1:1 replacement ratio is not being met in practice. They note that many trees have not been replaced promptly, with some replacement trees left in their boxes for extended periods without proper maintenance, leading to their death and eventual removal. Please contact City staff regarding tree replacements and project implementation. The City
acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of th e commenter but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-99
OCTOBER 2024
Response to Comment Letter O2
Organization
Channel Law Group, LLP
July 15, 2024
Declarations – substance – does not raise any issues.
O2-1 This in an introduction to the comment and gives background on when an EIR is required. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision -makers prior to a final decision on the project.
O2-2 The commenter asserts that potential for significant impacts remain and that an EIR is required. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR. This comment argues that the “Expert declarations” submitted on behalf of the commenter during prior litigation constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact.
These declarations were not drafted in response to the MND, but rather in relation to prior emergency removals. See RTC I15 -1 regarding prior litigation. These declarations do not contain substantial evidence that the project as designed and mitigated would cause any significant impacts on the environment. The portions of this comment discussing “tree canopy and tree inventory,” do not relate to an environmental impact recognized under CEQA. Additionally, these comments are not from experts in biology and therefore do not meet the definition of substantial evidence found in CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-100
OCTOBER 2024
O2-3 The commenter asserts that the NOI is deficient because it did not provide the address or addresses to locate the mitigated negative declaration, rather it provided a general link to the City’s homepage. Further, the commenter states that the MND is not posted on the web page where the notice indicates the MND may be found, and that the City must revise the NOI to include a direct link to the web page that the City has created for the project.
Additionally, the commenter states that the public comment period should be extended for a minimum of 45 days. The City Parks and Recreation webpage does include a link to the MN D and has during the entirely of the 45 public review.
O2-4 The commenter claims that the City failed to consult with trustee agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to d etermining whether a negative declaration or environmental impact report is required for a project , per Public Resources Code Section 21080.3. The City included CDFW in its distribution of the draft MND, and CDFW did not issue any comments on the document. As can be found at
ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024051383, the MND was circulated to a number of state agencies inc lude the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Department of Parks and Recreation and 14 other state agencies.
O2-5 The commenter states that the project description lacks information to adequately determine potential environmental risks, including length of key phases, precise size of replacement trees, selection process for residents/property owners to choose the species of replacement trees, irrigation methods, and more .
These comments fail to explain how the project description is inadequate under CEQA. The project description includes the time period for the key phases of the project. Trees with scores “2” would “need to be inspected and monitored bi -annually over the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-101
OCTOBER 2024
next one to three years, at which time they would be removed .,” while trees with score “1” would “ be planned for removal in the next three to five years if their condition does not change. Yearly inspections would be conducted until they are replaced to monitor for stressors and structural warnings.” (MND at pp. 3-3 and 3-4.) The replacement trees will be sized in at least 36” boxes, but 48” boxes when possible. (MND at p. 3 -1.) Tree species will be selected by residents based on the existing Tree Master Plan. (MND at p. 3-2.) Responsibility for watering trees already lies with residents based on existing City policy.
O2-6 The commenter raises concerns about the aesthetic impact of the project, including photos to show the aesthetic difference between replacement trees. The project’s aesthetics -related impacts are discussed in MND Section 4.1. Section 4.1(c) states that because the project will occur in an urban area, the CEQA standard for assessing a significant impact involves determining if the project complies with applicable zoning and other regulations governing the area’s scenic quality. The project’s compliance with the BMC and the Street Tree Master Plan are discussed in Section 4.1(c). The term “replacement” is used as it is commonly defined: the Aleppo pines will be removed and new trees will be planted in their place.
O2-7 The commenter claims that the air quality project design features (PDFs) are just mitigation measures. In compliance with CEQA this MND distinguishes between PDFs, which are features
incorporated into the design of the project to minimize or avoid adverse impacts; and mitigation measures.
Accordingly, MMs are actions taken by the lead agency and/or applicant to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. After a project has been evaluated with its 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-102
OCTOBER 2024
consistency with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, additional MMs are identified by the lead agency to reduce environmental impacts. The MND properly includes PDFs that are not considered MMs in a manner that does not improperly compress the MND’s disclosure and analysis functions, in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines.
O2-8 The commenter criticizes the MND’s reliance on the iTree software for its impact analysis. MND Table 4 and the associated discussion show that the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants due to tree removal and planting activities is less than significant.
MND Table 5 shows that removing the Aleppo Pines, without replacement, will not result in a significant impacts to air quality because losing their reduction of criteria pollutants will not surpass the thresholds of significance. Therefore, the additional reductions by the replacement trees shown in Table 6 are not relied upon for the MND’s conclusion that the Project will not result in a significant impact.
O2-9 The commenter suggests the MND’s cumulative impact analysis relative to air quality is inadequate because it failed to consider the project’s impacts in combination with other tree-replacement projects. The introduction to Section 4.3(b) accurately notes that air quality is inherently a cumulative impact, and that SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards in consideration of past, present, and future development trends that affect regional emissions and ambient air quality. The analysis presented in Section 4.3(b) demonstrates the project does not exceed standards set by SCAQMD to improve the region’s cumulative air quality. The comment does not identify any other tree removal projects in the region the MND should have included in a cumulative impact analysis. As discussed in RTC I10- 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-103
OCTOBER 2024
2, the City’s current adopted plans will increase the total number of trees in the City.
O2-10 The commenter suggests the MND’s MM-BIO-1 defers analysis of the project’s impacts on wildlife. For a response the project’s regarding wildlife impacts, please refer to RTC I15 -5. The assessment of potential impacts presented in Section 4.4 concluded the project does not have the potential to result in an impact on special-status species because there is no habitat for such species. The section concludes the project does have the potential to affect species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by disturbing nests that could be active during tree removal. The mitigation measure requiring a pre-activity survey to identify nests that require avoidance is not deferring analysis of a project impact on wildlife; it proposes to implement a very common practice that is intended to demonstrate compliance with a federal law. MM-BIO- 1 is not conditioned on another agency’s future review of environmental impacts. This comment contains no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant environmental impact to common, unprotect mammal and bird species.
O2-11 The commenter states that that there should be a mitigation to assure that the trees will survive. The commenter also claims the City must prepare an EIR. In response, the City of Burbank Municipal Code Section 7-4-102 states that “the Department and the Director shall have exclusive jurisdiction and control over the planting, care and removal of trees, shrubs, and plants in the streets and on other property under the control of the City ”.
Therefore, the project would comply with the local policies an d ordinances protecting trees. Any replacement trees that might die would be replaced. Please refer to RTC I17 -4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-104
OCTOBER 2024
O2-12 The commenter expressed concern about the impacts from loss of tree canopy, specifically biological, air quality and greenhouse gas, aesthetic, and heat island impacts . As described above in RTC O2-6, the new replacement trees plus the City’s policy to plant 2,000 net new trees will ultimately result in a net gain of trees, providing long -term benefits for shade and the environment.
Aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. For detailed responses regarding the urban heat island effect and wildlife, please refer to RTCs I10-2 and I15-5.
O2-13 The commenter expresses concern over the long -term ambient noise increases resulting from a lack of tree cover. The removal and replacement of these trees would produce only minimal and temporary noise. Please refer to RTC I23 -6 for a response regarding noise. This comment provides no substantial evidence that the project could cause a significant impact on noise.
O2-14 The commenter expresses concern over the resident’s responsibility to maintain the replacement trees and the MND’s lack of analysis on the urban heat island effect, and requests an EIR to be prepared. As stated above, the City’s of BMC Title 7, Chapter4, Section 102 states that “ the Department and the Director shall have exclusive jurisdiction and control over the planting, care and removal of trees, shrubs, and plants in the streets and on other property under the control of the City ”. Title 7, Chapter 4 of the City of BMC states that the property owner and/or occupant whose property adjoins any public area or right- of-way is responsible for the watering and fertilizing of street trees.
As such, the project would comply with the local policies and ordinances protecting trees. The City is offering slow-release tree water bags to residents that can be filled up once or twice a week, at the responsibility of the property owner. Please refer to RTC I10- 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-105
OCTOBER 2024
2 for a response regarding the urban heat island effect. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
O2-15 The commenter claims that the City must prepare an EIR. Please refer to RTC I17-4 for a response regarding the request for an EIR.
O2-16 This is an introduction to the declaration of Gordon Mann. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary.
O2-17 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and claims public interaction has been ignored. The City has held public meetings regarding the tree removal process, including an in- person meeting about the project on November 1, 2023. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
O2-18 The commenter claims that the City does not have a canopy analysis or goal. In response, the project will result in no net loss in trees. Although the project may temporarily reduce shade, the new replacement trees plus the City’s policy to plant 2,000 net new trees will ultimately result in a net gain of trees, providing long-term benefits for shade and the environment. Regarding the urban heat island effect, please see RTC 10-2.
O2-19 The commenter notes that there is no pruning mitigation strategy for the project. P lease refer to Section 3, Project Description, of the MND which explains their maintenance/removal plan. Aleppo 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-106
OCTOBER 2024
pines with a score of “2” would be inspected and monitored bi - annually over the next one to three years, at which time they would be removed. Aleppo pines with a score of “1” would be monitored after any dead branches are removed. These trees would be planned for removal in the next three to five years if their condition does not change. Yearly inspections would be conducted until they are replaced to monitor for stressors and structural warnings. This comment is not made to any specific portion of the MND nor does it provide substantial evidence of any significant impact on the environment.
O2-20 The commenter states that the City has historically enlarged planters around existing trees. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is required or necessary.
O2-21 The commenter expresses concern about the loss of canopy. In response, the replacement trees along with the City’s
commitment to the CAP Policy CS -1.1 to City’s policy to plant 2,000 net new trees, will result in a net increase in trees, and ultimately will result in an increase in canopy . Regarding carbon sequestration, the MND found that the removal of the Aleppo pines will not result in a significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. (MND at page 4 -35 to 4-37.) This comment does not provide any s ubstantial evidence the Project may have a significant impact on GHG emissions.
O2-22 The commenter criticizes the risk assessments for the trees. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND . No further response is required or necessary.
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-107
OCTOBER 2024
O2-23 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and its replacement trees. T he City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND.
O2-24 The commenter believes that the trees should be re-assessed by another assessor and discusses the City’s risk management practices. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND . No further response is required or necessary.
O2-25 The commenter references a report to the Sustainable Burbank Commission and claims the tree analysis is skewed. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND . No further response is required or necessary.
O2-26 The commenter criticizes the City’s approach to the removals. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND . No further response is required or necessary.
O2-27 The commenter suggests growing the new trees before planting to develop a canopy. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is required or necessary.
O2-28 This is a closing statement to the declaration of Gordon Mann. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-108
OCTOBER 2024
adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
O2-29 This is an attachment of Gordon Mann’s resume. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is required or necessary.
O2-30 This is an introduction to the declaration of Carl Mellinger. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary
O2-31 The commenter expresses disagreement with the City’s opinions and arborist reports regarding the failure risk and health of the Aleppo pines. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. No further response is necessary.
O2-32 The commenter states that removing all Aleppo pine trees will result in a large impact. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND. Importantly, this declaration was drafted before the MND was published. No further response is necessary.
O2-33 This is a closing statement to the declaration of Carl Mellinger.
The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-109
OCTOBER 2024
will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project.
O2-34 This is an introduction to the declaration of Gordon Mann. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary.
O2-35 The commenter expresses opposition to the risk assessments and ratings of trees. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary.
O2-36 The commenter provides a data analysis by tree for the tree risk assessments. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary.
O2-37 The commenter states that he disagrees with Mike del Campo’s supplemental declaration. The comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the MND No further response is necessary.
O2-38 This is a closing statement to the declaration of Gordon Mann. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it expresses the opinions of the commenter, including general opposition to the project, but the comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of analysis in the MND. The City will include the comment for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the project. 25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-110
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-111
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-112
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-113
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-114
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-115
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-116
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-117
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-118
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-119
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-120
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-121
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-122
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-123
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-124
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-125
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-126
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-127
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-128
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-129
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-130
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-131
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-132
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-133
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-134
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-135
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-136
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-137
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-138
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-139
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-140
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-141
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
ALEPPO PINE TREE REMOVAL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 14831.03 RTC-142
OCTOBER 2024
25-29,604
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal
and Replacement Project
NOVEMBER 2024
Prepared for:
CITY OF BURBANK
Parks & Recreation
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Marisa Garcia
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Carey Fernandes
25-29,604
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
25-29,604
14831.03 i NOVEMBER 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table ......................................................................................... 3 TABLE
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................................... 3
25-29,604
Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14831.03 ii NOVEMBER 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
25-29,604
14831.03 1 NOVEMBER 2024
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)).
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Burbank (City) to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measure identified in the MND for the proposed Aleppo Pine Tree Removal and Replacement Project (project) located throughout the City’s public ROW areas in residential neighborhoods and park strips. The City, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is carried out.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for biological resources.
Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, of the adopted mitigation measure, party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure, timing for implementation of the mitigation measure, agency responsible for monitoring of implementation, and date of completion. With the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location:
City of Burbank
Parks & Recreation Department
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
25-29,604
Downtown West Planned Unit Development Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14831.03 2 NOVEMBER 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
25-29,604
14831.03 3 NOVEMBER 2024
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance.
Project tree removal activities shall be conducted in
compliance with the conditions set forth in the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and
Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests.
Vegetation removal shall occur during the non -
breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors
(October 1–January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting
birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be performed during the br eeding season for nesting
birds (March 1 –September 30) and nesting raptors
(February 1–June 30), a pre-construction survey shall
be conducted at the project trees and immediately
adjacent to the project trees by qualified biologists for nesting birds and/o r raptors within 3 days before
project activities in order to avoid direct or indirect impacts on active nests. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the
project trees, the vegetation clearing/tree removal
shall be allowed to proceed.
If the biologist finds an active nest within or
immediately adjacent to the project trees and
determines that the nest may be impacted or
breeding activities substantially disrupted, the
biologist shall delineate a buffer zone of 250 feet for non-raptor nesting birds and a minimum of 500 feet
for nesting raptors. To protect any nest site, the
following restrictions to project activities shall be
Prior to
construction
activities
Project Biologist City of Burbank
25-29,604
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14831.03 4 NOVEMBER 2024
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
required until nests are no longer active, as
determined by a qualified biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any
occupied nest; and (2) access and surveying shall be
restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest,
unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.
A modification to this buffer requi rement may be
allowed with consultation by the Un ited States Fish
and Wildlife Services and/or the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, if the nesting cycle
has been completed or the monitoring biologist
determines that the nest has failed. Project sites
shall be resurveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than 7 days. A nesting bird survey shall be submitted at the conclusion of the site
survey. Vegetation clearing/tree removal can only
proceed into the buffer after the qualified biologist
determines that the nest is no longer active.
Tree Maintenance Plan
TREE MAINTENANCE PLAN.
As part of the settlement agreement resolving
Guardians of the Pines v. City of Burbank , Case No.
23STCP03707, dated February 28, 2025 (the
“Settlement Agreement”), the City will adhere to the
following Tree Maintenance Plan in the same manner
as a mitigation measure . The Plan requires the
following:
• For the first year of planting, replacement street
trees shall be monitored for growth under the
direction of City employees through visual
inspections at least twice a month.
Prior to
Construction and
for three years
after replacement
of trees.
City of Burbank City of Burbank
25-29,604
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14831.03 5 NOVEMBER 2024
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
• Trees shall be pruned and trimmed during a three
(3) year establishment period according to ISA
standards.
• Those replacement street trees which do not
survive in a three (3) year establishment period
shall be replaced by the City at a 1:l ratio with 36-
inch box trees (at a minimum).
• Replacement trees and replacements of dead
trees shall occur within 12 months of discovery
between the months of October 1- March 31.
• The City shall be required to manually water
replacement trees planted subsequent to
January 28, 2025, 33 times for one (1) year.
• The City may use water bags so long as they are
installed consistent with manufacture
instructions.
• City shall plant replacement trees at a 2:1 ratio
with a minimum 36 -inch box trees. 48 - inch box
trees shall be installed when feasible.
25-29,604
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14831.03 6 NOVEMBER 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6048019.1
25-29,604