APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL STUDY - Los Angeleseng2.lacity.org/techdocs/emg/docs/griffith/... · City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering

APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL STUDY

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project Draft EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2013011012 October 2013

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL STUDY

GRIFFITH PARK CRYSTAL SPRINGS NEW BASEBALL FIELDS PROJECT

P R E P A R E D F O R :

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 1149 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90015 Contact: Maria Martin (213) 485‐5753

P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF International 601 W. Fifth Street, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Contact: Paulette Franco (213) 312‐1753

OCTOBER 2013

ICF International. 2013. Biological Resources Technical Study, Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project. October. (ICF 00327.13.) Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Los Angeles, CA.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering

Biological Resources Technical Study Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project TOC‐1 October 2013

ICF 00327.13

Contents

Page

Summary .................................................................................................................................... S‐1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 1

Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 5

Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 8 Federal ............................................................................................................................................. 8 State ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Local .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 13 Griffith Park Overview ................................................................................................................... 13 Project Alternative Setting ............................................................................................................ 14

Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 16 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 16 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................. 18

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 26 Alternative 1, Option A – Crystal Springs North ............................................................................ 26 Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South ............................................................................ 26 Alternative 2 – North Atwater ....................................................................................................... 26

Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................................................. 26 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 27 References ................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: City of Los Angeles Standard Tree Removal Application Checklist

Appendix B: Arborist Certification and Landscape Architecture License

Appendix C: Photos of Protected Trees Requiring Removal



ICF 00327.13

List of Tables

1 Federally Listed Species Documented in the Area of the Proposed Project Area ...................... 17

2 Alternative 1, Option A, Crystal Springs North – Tree Data ................................. follows references

3 Alternative 1, Option B, Crystal Springs South – Tree Data ................................ follows references

4 Alternative 2, North Atwater Park – Tree Data ........................................................ follows references

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2 Project Location Map ................................................................................................................................................ 3

3 Alternative 1, Option A – Crystal Springs North ........................................................................................... 4

4 Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South ........................................................................................... 6

5 Alternative 2 – North Atwater Park ................................................................................................................... 7

6 Alternative 1, Option A – Crystal Springs North Tree Survey and Impacts ................................... 19

7 Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South Tree Survey and Impacts (west) .................... 20

8 Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South Tree Survey and Impacts (east) ...................... 21

9 Alternative 2 – North Atwater Tree Survey and Impacts ...................................................................... 22



ICF 00327.13

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

BMPs best management practices

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

City City of Los Angeles

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CWA Clean Water Act

DBH diameter breast height

DEIR draft environmental impact report

Framework General Plan Framework

General Plan City of Los Angeles General Plan

I‐5 Interstate 5

ISA International Society of Arboriculture

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

msl mean sea level

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PTR protected tree report

RAP City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SEA Significant Ecological Area

SR‐134 State Route 134

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey


Biological Resources Technical Study Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project S‐1 October 2013

ICF 00327.13

Summary The City of Los Angeles (City) is proposing the construction of two new youth baseball fields in one of three locations being considered within Griffith Park. Each alternative would require the removal of trees protected by the City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance and the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) Tree Preservation Policy. Alternative 1, Option A (Alternative 1A), would require the removal of 45 trees, including 15 protected trees. Alternative 1, Option B (Alternative 1B), would require the removal of 68 trees, including 13 protected trees, six of which would require mitigation. Alternative 2 would require the removal of 28 trees. All tree removals would require mitigation.


Biological Resources Technical Study Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project 1 October 2013

ICF 00327.13

Introduction The City of Los Angeles (City) is proposing the construction of two new youth baseball fields in one of three locations being considered within Griffith Park. An Initial Study was completed by the City in January 2013. The Initial Study concluded that additional technical studies and preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) be initiated. These studies are being prepared with the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this study is to analyze the potential for impacts of the proposed project with regard to biological resources.

Project Location The proposed project would be located in the Hollywood community of the city of Los Angeles and entirely within Griffith Park. The park is located northwest of downtown Los Angeles, just west of the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5 [I‐5]), roughly between Los Feliz Boulevard on the south and the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134 [SR‐134]) on the north (see Figure 1).

As shown in Figure 2, three locations are being considered for the proposed project. Alternative 1, Option A (Alternative 1A), would be located at 4730 Crystal Springs Drive, within the northeastern part of the Crystal Springs Picnic Area of the park. The Alternative 1A site, which covers approximately 4 acres, is northeast of Pote Field, south of Harding Municipal Golf Course, and west of I‐5. Alternative 1, Option B (Alternative 1B), would also be located in the Crystal Springs Picnic Area but just southeast of Pote Field, on the grassy area across from the loop driveway and parking lot. Alternative 2 would be located in North Atwater Park, across from I‐5 and the Los Angeles River.

Project Description Alternatives Two alternatives are being considered as part of this technical study. Alternative 1 would locate the proposed baseball fields within the Crystal Springs Picnic Area of the park and include two options (Option A and Option B) for placement of the fields. Alternative 2 would locate the baseball fields just across from I‐5 and the Los Angeles River, within the North Atwater Park area of Griffith Park. The alternatives are described in more detail below.

Alternative 1, Option A – Crystal Springs North The City is proposing to construct two youth baseball fields within the north Crystal Springs Picnic Area of Griffith Park. Each baseball field would include a home plate, bases, a pitcher’s mound, batters’ and catchers’ boxes, two dugouts (with two benches, approximately 20 seats each), two bleachers, 16‐foot‐high outfield/perimeter fencing, natural grass, warm‐up areas, and a scoreboard (refer to Figure 3 for the conceptual project layout under Alternative 1A). Landscaping and an irrigation system would also be installed. In addition, Alternative 1A would involve upgrades to the existing restroom facility. Restroom upgrades would be limited to interior remodeling and measures to increase access for those with disabilities.



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13

Under this alternative, seven picnic tables would be relocated within or near the Crystal Springs Picnic Area. The northeast segment of the loop driveway, which currently supports vehicle circulation around the Crystal Springs Picnic Area, would be removed to accommodate the baseball fields (see Figure 3). As a result, five parking spaces would be removed and two “hammerhead” turning circles would be created, replacing the existing access loop.

Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South The baseball fields proposed under Alternative 1B would include the same elements proposed under Alternative 1A. One baseball field would be located just southeast of Pote Field; the second would be located southeast of the first field, in the area across from the loop driveway and parking lot (see Figure 4). Alternative 1B would also involve upgrades to the existing restroom facility. Restroom upgrades would be limited to interior remodeling and measures to increase access for those with disabilities.

To accommodate this alternative, 56 picnic tables would be relocated within or near the Crystal Springs Picnic Area. No changes to existing circulation or parking are anticipated under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – North Atwater Park Under Alternative 2, an existing softball field would be retrofitted to accommodate youth baseball and a new youth baseball field would be constructed (see Figure 5). The existing backstop, bleachers, and player benches would remain; the rest of the softball field would be upgraded. The new youth baseball field would be constructed just north of the softball field. The new bleachers, backstop, and players’ benches would match those of the existing field.

To accommodate this alternative, an existing basketball and sand volleyball court would be removed. Unlike Alternatives 1A and 1B, Alternative 2 would not displace picnic tables, although new picnic tables would be added to the area as part of the project.

Construction Construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2015 and be completed in the summer of 2016 (approximately 12 months). Post‐construction activities (e.g., finalizing as‐built plans, training the maintenance and operations staff regarding the use of the scoreboard, irrigation systems, security lights, and other systems) would occur in the fall and winter of 2016–2017. The baseball fields would be fully operational in the spring of 2017.

Currently, it is anticipated that Pote Field and a portion of the Crystal Springs Picnic Area would remain open during construction of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, a portion of the North Atwater Park area would also remain open during construction.

The analysis in this document assumes that, unless otherwise stated, the project would be designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and formally adopted City standards, including, but not limited to:

Los Angeles Municipal Code

Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Code



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13

Bureau of Engineering Standard Plans

Urban Forest Program/Tree Care Manual

Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction

Work Area Traffic Control Handbook

Additions and Amendments to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction

Regulatory Setting This section provides an overview of biological resources and evaluates impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed would include existing vegetation, landscaping, biological resources, potential impacts on sensitive species (including migratory bird species), sensitive natural communities, and federally protected wetlands. This section was prepared utilizing information from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) list of endangered and threatened species. The proposed project is evaluated in terms of whether the implementation of would result in the permanent loss of, or loss of access, to biological resources occurring within the project area.

Federal Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species; it also ensures that the activities of federal agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. At the federal level, the USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are responsible for administration of the Endangered Species Act (Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531‐1544, 87 Stat. 884).

Clean Water Act (CWA). At the federal level, the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) is the primary law regulating wetlands and waters. The CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Waters of the United States include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas, and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, a three‐parameter approach including the presence of hydrophytic (water‐loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (subject to saturation/inundation) is used. All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Executive Order for Wetland Protection. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency, such as the Federal Highway Administration,



ICF 00327.13

cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: 1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and 2) the proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 661‐ 667e, March 10, 1994, as amended 1946, 1958, 1978, and 1995) requires that whenever waters or a channel of a stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be modified by a public or private agency under a federal license or permit, the federal agency must first consult with the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries Service. This act requires compliance with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where construction would occur (in this case the CDFW), with a view to conservation of birds, fish, mammals, and all other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA (16 U.S.C. Sections 703–711) includes provisions for the protection of migratory birds, including the non‐permitted take of migratory birds, under the authority of USFWS and CDFW. The MBTA protects over 800 species, including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many common species.

The MBTA decrees that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) are fully protected. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. Projects that are likely to result in the taking of birds protected under the MBTA require the issuance of take permits from the USFWS. Activities that would require such a permit would include, but not be limited to, the destruction of migratory bird nesting habitat during the nesting season when eggs or young are likely to be present. Under this act, surveys are required to determine if nests will be disturbed and, if so, a buffer area with a specified radius around the nest would be established so that no disturbance or intrusion would be allowed until the young had fledged and left the nest. If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area would vary with species and local circumstances (e.g., presence of busy roads), and would be based on the professional judgment of the monitoring biologist.

State California Endangered Species Act. The CDFW is responsible for the administration of the California Endangered Species Act. Unlike the federal Endangered Species Act, there are no State agency consultation procedures under the California Endangered Species Act. For projects that affect both a State and federally listed species, compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act will satisfy the California Endangered Species Act if the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is "consistent" with the California Endangered Species Act. Projects that result in a take of a State‐only listed species require a take permit under the California Endangered Species Act. The federal and/or State acts also lend protection to species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3500 through 3705, Migratory Bird Protection. Sections 3500 through 3705 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate the taking of migratory birds and their nests. These codes prohibit the taking of nesting birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Typically, the breeding/nesting season is from March 1st



ICF 00327.13

through August 30th. Depending on each year’s seasonal factors, the breeding season can start earlier and/or end later.

State Agency Wetland Regulation. At the State level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The RWQCBs were established under the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. The RWQCB also issues water quality certifications in compliance with Section 401 of CWA. In certain circumstances, the Coastal Commission or Bay Conservation and Development Commission may also be involved. Sections 1600‐1607 of the Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under jurisdiction of the ACOE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration Agreement obtained from the CDFW.

Local County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Area. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) in 1981 with the adoption of the General Plan. The collection of SEAs together was intended to designate critical components of the biodiversity of Los Angeles County as it was known and understood at that time (http://planning.lacounty.gov/view/sea‐existing). Most of Griffith Park is designated as SEA‐37; however, the project site is not located within an SEA.

City of Los Angeles General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan addresses community development goals and policies relative to the distribution of land use, both public and private, and acts to protect large tracts of open space for habitat conservation, species protection, watershed maintenance, and other purposes. The General Plan integrates the Citywide elements and community plans, and gives policy direction to the planning regulatory and implementation programs.

The General Plan Framework (Framework), adopted December 1996 and amended in August 2001, is a more general, long‐term, programmatic document, implemented by the various individual elements of the General Plan. Policies related to open space conservation and protecting the city’s natural resources, including biological resources such as sensitive species, habitats, and wildlife movement corridors, are found in the Framework. The state requires that conservation and open space elements be included in City and county general plans. The latter is to address conservation, protection, development, utilization, and reclamation of natural resources. The former is to address the remaining natural and other open space resources. Polices related to the protection and conservation of natural resources including biological resources are found in the Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan. The intent of the Conservation Element of the Framework is the conservation and preservation of natural resources, including (but not limited to) biological resources such as endangered species and habitats. The Conservation Element contains policies for avoidance and minimization of significant impacts to sensitive resources, protection, and conservation of habitats, and the establishment of habitat restoration and enhancement programs.



ICF 00327.13

City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance. Ordinance number 177404 is an ordinance amending various provisions of Articles 2 and 7 of Chapter I and Article 6 of Chapter IV and Section 96.303.5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to assure the protection of and to further regulate the removal of protected trees. This ordinance became law on April 23, 2006 (City of Los Angeles 2006). The ordinance regulates the following Southern California native tree species, measuring four inches or more in cumulative diameter, four and one‐half feet above the ground level at the base of the tree:

Any oak tree of the genus Quercus indigenous to California excluding Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa)

Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica var. californica)

Western (California) Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and

California Bay (Umbellularia californica).

All trees meeting the criteria above will be considered protected trees within this report. Removal or relocation of protected trees requires a permit from the Board of Public Works. Removal or relocation are defined as “any act that will cause a protected tree to die, including but not limited to acts that inflict damage upon the root system or other part of the tree by fire, application of toxic substances, operation of equipment or machinery, or by changing the natural grade of land by excavation or filling the drip line area around the trunk.”

A protected tree report (PTR) must be submitted to the Board of Public Works to apply for a tree removal permit. The PTR must contain the required information listed in the City of Los Angeles Standard Tree Removal Application Checklist, see Appendix A.

The City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance requires mitigation for the removal of protected trees. The ordinance requires the replacement of each tree removed by at least four trees of the protected tree species of a 15 gallon or larger size specimen measuring one inch or more in diameter at a point one foot above the base and at least seven feet in height. The current Board of Public Works has increased the minimum requirements for protected tree replacement to 4:1 (see Appendix A). The exact size and number of trees planted for mitigation shall approximate the value of the tree to be replaced. The exact size and number of tree planted for mitigation will be determined by the City of Los Angeles. The ordinance also regulates the act of pruning of protected trees. Pruning must be approved and comply with the pruning standards set forth in the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). A bond must be posted or other assurance acceptable to the city engineer to guarantee the survival of the trees required to be mitigated. A fee for the tree permit will be charged and will be determined in the manner provided in Section 12.37 I 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code for establishing fees.

City of Los Angeles Policies for the Installation and Preservation of Landscaping and Trees on Public Property. This policy was established in 1971 to establish measures for providing the maximum quantities of trees and other vegetation on public property to provide functional, ecological, aesthetic, and sociological public benefits. The policy requires all improvement projects to include a maximum number of trees and other vegetation, identifies who will be financially responsible for the improvements, and states who will prepare plans for the work and maintain the trees and vegetation. The policy identifies how removal of public trees and vegetation should be approached, including the investigation of alternatives to salvage trees before approval of removing existing trees. The replacement of trees and vegetation and the coordination of the policy program are identified therein (City of Los Angeles 1971).



ICF 00327.13

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Griffith Park Wildlife Management Plan. The RAP established the Griffith Park Wildlife Management Plan (Plan) to document the park's biodiversity and provide recommendations to the City of Los Angeles for future management of its resources. The Plan establishes a baseline of biological resources documented within the park and identifies threats to these resources. Recommendations outlined in the Plan are intended to ensure that future park uses take into account the rich diversity of plant and wildlife species supported by Griffith Park and ensure that these resources are not negatively affected by the thousands of human visitors to the park each year.

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Tree Preservation Policy. The RAP established the Tree Preservation Policy as a regulatory tool to provide additional protections to urban forest trees within parks beyond the protections regulated by the City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance (City of Los Angeles 2006). In addition to the trees protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Tree Preservation Policy regulates protection of Heritage, Special Habitat Value, and Common Park trees. The definitions of each are included below:

Heritage trees are individual trees of any size or species that are specifically designated as heritage because of their historical, commemorative, or horticultural significance. Heritage trees are protected trees. The Heritage Trees list can be obtained from RAP Griffith Maintenance/Forestry Division. Before a Heritage tree is pruned, damaged, relocated, or removed, recommendations from RAP staff arborists must be obtained. The Forestry Arborist makes a recommendation to the General Manager for removal. The General Manager or designee must make the final approval before the tree can be removed.

Special Habitat Value trees are protected trees and include Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Boxelder (Acer negundo), Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California Walnut (Juglans californica), Northern California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Hollyleaf Cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), Catalina Cherry (Prunus lyonii), Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Sandbar Willow (Salix exigua), Red Willow (Salix laevigata), Pacific Willow (Salix lasiandra), Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis), and California Bay (Umbellularia californica). Before a Special Habitat Value tree is pruned, damaged, relocated, or removed, recommendations from RAP staff arborists must be obtained. The Forestry Arborist makes a recommendation to the General Manager for removal. The General Manager or designee must make the final approval before the tree can be removed.

Common Park Trees provide aesthetic, sentimental, economical, and environmental value. Every tree in City of Los Angeles parks is recognized as a valuable asset and must be protected. The Forestry Arborist may recommend removal.

The RAP Tree Preservation Policy requires that Department of Recreation and Parks Arborists provide recommendations before any heritage, special habitat value, or common park tree can be removed, relocated, or pruned. Requests to remove, relocate, or prune protected trees must be submitted to the Forestry Division. Pruning must be in compliance with ISA tree pruning guidelines and under the supervision of an ISA certified staff member. For heritage and special habitat value trees, the Forestry Arborist makes a recommendation to the General Manager for removal. The General Manager or designee must make the final approval before the tree can be removed. For a Common Park Tree, the Forestry Arborist may recommend removal. For large scale tree removal projects, the Griffith Maintenance/Forestry Division must follow established Notification Protocol when informing the public, local government officials, organizations, and department representatives. Removal of trees under RAP’s tree preservation ordinance requires mitigation, including, replacement in accordance with the ordinance ratios. Coordination and authorization from RAP’s Urban Forestry Division is required.



ICF 00327.13

Environmental Setting Griffith Park Overview Griffith Park, one the largest municipal parks in the nation, approximately 4,200 acres in size, was established in 1896 by the donation of private land owned by Colonel Griffith J. Griffith. The Park is owned and operated by the City and is located within the eastern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains at elevations ranging from approximately 384 to 1,625 feet above mean sea level (msl) and includes much rugged terrain consisting of rocky hills, canyons, and gullies. The project area is located within an area of gentle rolling hills at elevations ranging from approximately 408 to 420 feet above msl.

Griffith Park is located within the Hollywood Community Plan area of the city of Los Angeles and the Griffith Park Master Plan. The City of Los Angeles General Plan designates the project area for open space land uses. The project area is zoned Open Space (OS‐1XL), which allows for the development of parks and recreational facilities, natural resource preserves for the managed production of resources, marine and ecological preserves, public water supply reservoirs, water conservation areas and sanitary landfill sites that have received certificates of closure in compliance with federal and state regulations.

Griffith Park is in a very high fire hazard severity zone due to its high percentage of brush. In 2007, a fire burned a large segment, approximately 817 acres, within the central wilderness portion of the Park. Although most of the structures within the impacted area survived, the majority of the plant life was burned.

Griffith Park is within the Los Angeles River Watershed. The Los Angeles River Watershed is approximately 834 square miles in area and extends from the eastern portions of the Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Hills, and Santa Susana Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains on the west. The Los Angeles River Watershed encompasses and is shaped by the path of the Los Angeles River, which flows from its headwaters in the mountains eastward to the northern corner of Griffith Park where the channel turns southward through the Glendale Narrows before it flows across the coastal plain toward Long Beach. Birds are among the most numerous and conspicuous wildlife species in Griffith Park (Urban Forest Program, October 2004). Approximately 200 bird species have been recorded including:

California towhee (Melozone crissalis)

black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)

Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna)

red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

red‐shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

Reptiles including:

western fence‐lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)

coastal whip tail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri),

western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus)



ICF 00327.13

Mammals including:

coyote (Canis latrans)

raccoon (Procyon lotor)

striped skunk (Memphitis memphitis)

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi)

Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)

Project Alternative Setting All project alternative sites are located within Griffith Park and all alternatives propose to remove and replace matures trees, relocate picnic tables, and construct youth baseball fields. The project footprint for all three alternatives are relatively level, located within a park setting, are currently vegetated with ornamental and native trees and turf grass, and are heavily irrigated. Ornamental and nonnative landscape areas occur within and near many of the high‐use areas including the alternative areas. This broad category includes horticultural trees, shrubs and lawns. Some native trees exist, but many exotic trees and shrubs have been introduced.

In general, the trees present within and adjacent to the project alternative sites include California native, ornamental, and invasive tree species. Native species identified on the sites include California incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Ornamental trees include deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), chitalpa (Chitalpa tashkentensis), camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos), evergreen ash (Fraxinus udhei), black walnut (Juglans nigra), golden rain tree (Koelreuteria paniculata), American sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), white mulberry (Morus alba), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia), fern pine (Podocarpus gracilior), lavender trumpet tree (Tabebuia avellanadae), and Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia). Invasive trees include Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), which has been listed as invasive (California Invasive Plants Council 2006).

Alternative 1 (Option A) ‐ Crystal Springs North This alternative footprint consists of approximately 3.32 acres. During the site visits, 67 trees were recorded of which 45 would be removed for this alternative. The tree species within this alternative are the following:

Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina)

Black walnut (Juglans nigra)

California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)

Camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora)

Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis)

Chitalpa (Chitalpa tashkentensis)



ICF 00327.13

Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)

Fern pine (Podocarpus gracilior)

Lavender trumpet tree (Tabebuia avellanadae)

Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)

White mulberry (Morus alba)

Alternative 1 (Option B) – Crystal Springs South This alternative footprint consists of approximately 4.98 acres. During the site visits, 77 trees were recorded of which 68 would be removed for this alternative. The tree species within this alternative are the following:

American sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua)

California incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens)


Camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora)

Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis)


Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)

Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara)

Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii)

Goldenrain tree (Koelreuteria paniculata)

London plane (Platanus x acerifolia)

Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)

Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei)

Silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos)

Alternative 2 ‐ North Atwater Park This alternative footprint consists of approximately 3.37 acres. During the site visits, 35 trees were recorded of which 26 would be removed for this alternative. The tree species within this alternative are the following:

Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina)


Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis)


Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens)

Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea)

Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)



ICF 00327.13

Environmental Impact Analysis The alternative project sites were visited by a biologist and an arborist on separate days. The results of those reconnaissance site assessments are presented below.

Methodology

General Biological Assessment The project sites were evaluated for the presence, absence, and likelihood of occurrence of special‐status species and vegetation types, and for more general biological resource issues potentially posing a constraint to the project through applicable laws and regulations. Accessible, adjacent areas were examined to provide context. Focused surveys for plants or wildlife were not performed during this reconnaissance site visit. Parameters for special‐status plants included topography, soil conditions, elevation, hydrology, and life history needs for the specific species. Special‐status parameters for wildlife include connectivity to documented and potentially occurring habitat, hydrology, access to the site, foraging and nesting habitat, the site’s operational activities, and life history needs for each species.

The site visit was conducted by ICF International biologist Kim Boydstun on August 1, 2013, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. Conditions were fair, with clear skies; temperature ranged from 80°F to 84°F; and the wind was 0 to 2 miles per hour. The site visit was performed by walking the alternative site locations and visually assessing all areas. The biologist walked the project sites and obtained 100% visual coverage. Field notes were compiled including conditions, visible disturbance factors, species, vegetation types, and more general biological resource issues observed or detected. Common plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Wildlife species were detected by sight, call, tracks, scat, or other sign.

Reconnaissance Tree Survey An arborist survey was conducted at the project alternatives sites on August 28, 2013, by a “tree expert” as defined by the City of Los Angeles Standard Tree Removal Application Checklist. See Appendix B for verification of the current license and certification qualifying the “tree expert.”

The arborist survey methods followed standard professional practices. All tree location data were collected with a global positioning system unit. Trees within the defined areas of project disturbance, overhanging the project area, and greater than 4 inches in diameter breast height (DBH) were surveyed. Each tree was assigned an individual number for tracking purposes, but the trees were not physically tagged. Each tree was photographed. A photo of each protected tree that requires removal is included in Appendix C.

Literature Search for Threatened or Endangered Species A search of the CNDDB identified six wildlife and plant species federally and state‐listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate, with potential to occur within the Burbank U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, as presented in Table 1 (CNDDB 2013). At the time of the reconnaissance site visit, no threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species were observed.



ICF 00327.13

Table 1. Federally Listed Species Documented in the Area of the Proposed Project Area

Species Federal Status State Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence

Birds Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus

FE SE Riparian woodlands in southern California. Not expected to occur. Lack of suitable habitat within project alternative sites.

Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica

FT None Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2,500 feet in southern California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas, and slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.

Not expected to occur. Lack of suitable habitat within project alternative sites.

Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus

FE

SE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms below 2,000 feet. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.


Plants Nevin’s barberry Berberis nevinii

FE SE Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub. On steep, north-facing slopes or in low grade sandy washes. 290–1,575 meters.


San Fernando Valley spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina

FC SE Coastal scrub. Sandy soils. 3–1,035 meters. Not expected to occur. Lack of suitable habitat within project alternative sites.

Slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras

FE SE Chaparral, coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub). Flood deposited terraces and washes; associations include Encelia, Dalea, Lepidospartum, etc. 200–760 meters.


Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search of the Burbank 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. Accessed September 10, 2013. FC – Federal Candidate SC – State Candidate FT – Federal Threatened FE – Federal Endangered SE – State Endangered ST – State Threatened



ICF 00327.13

Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to biological resources if it would:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

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

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

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

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

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

In addition to the thresholds identified in Appendix G, the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide holds that the a project would normally have a significant impact if it would result in:

a. The loss of individuals, or the reduction of existing habitat, of a state or federally listed endangered, threatened, rare, protected, or candidate species, or a Species of Special Concern or federally listed critical habitat;

b. The loss of individuals or the reduction of existing habitat of a locally designated species or a reduction in a locally designated natural habitat or plant community;

c. Interference with wildlife movement/migration corridors that may diminish the chances for long‐term survival of a sensitive species;

d. The alteration of an existing wetland habitat; or

e. Interference with habitat such that normal species behaviors are disturbed (e.g., from the introduction of noise, light) to a degree that may diminish the chances for long‐term survival of a sensitive species.

Construction Impacts

Trees

A total of 179 trees were recorded during the tree survey. The location of each tree is shown in Figures 6 through 9. Specific information pertaining to each tree is provided in Tables 2 through 4, which are presented at the end of this report. Construction impacts to trees were based on conceptual ball field layouts in Figures 3 through 5.



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13



ICF 00327.13

Construction of the project would result in the removal and direct disturbance of numerous trees considered protected by the City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance, the RAP Tree Preservation Policy, and the City’s Policy for the Installation and Preservation of Landscaping and Trees on Public Property. In all project alternatives protected trees are located in the footprint of ball fields where construction activities including raising and lowering existing grades, trenching for irrigation, and excavation for associated park facility improvements will require tree removal.

Additional effects on protected trees could occur during construction as a result of damage to trees located adjacent to the construction footprint. Activities conducted within the dripline of trees, such as trenching or grading, movement of construction vehicles and equipment, and spillage or dumping of fuel, oil, concrete, or other harmful substances, could result in damage to root systems and possible tree mortality.

The removal or harming of protected trees as a result of construction activities with any of the project alternatives would conflict with the City of Los Angeles Tree Preservation Ordinance, the RAP Tree Preservation Policy, and the City’s Policy for the Installation and Preservation of Landscaping and Trees on Public Property, and this would be a significant effect. However, removed trees would be replaced in accordance with City policy and coordination and authorization from RAP’s Urban Forestry Division would be required for any park trees and other vegetation that is removed by the proposed project. Applicable best management practices (BMPs), as described in the RAP Urban Forest Program, would be followed, including planning proactively, installing protective tree fencing, establishing a tree protection zone, installing a root buffer and mulch, maintaining irrigation or adequate soil moisture, establishing erosion control measures, conducting proactive pruning, trenching with alternative methods, and installing alternative types of hardscape.

Alternative 1, Option A – Crystal Springs North

Sixty‐seven (67) trees were surveyed for Alternative 1 Option A. Based on the conceptual layout prepared for this alternative, it is estimated that 45 trees would require removal during the construction process. Four trees may be temporarily affected from pruning or root disturbance during the construction process, but could require removal depending on the actions of the construction contractor, how closely BMPs are followed, and if unforeseen design changes would be required. Three trees would be temporarily affected during the construction process and would require BMPs to be successfully preserved. Fifteen (15) trees are located across the parking area and would likely not be affected at all by construction of this alternative, but temporary construction fencing should be erected around these trees as an extra precaution.

Of the 45 trees targeted for removal, 15 trees are protected under the Los Angeles Tree Protection Ordinance or the RAP Tree Preservation Policy. The impacted species each have the following number of trees and total trunk diameter required for removal: Black Walnut, three trees – 102 inches; California Sycamore, eight trees – 319 inches; and Coast Live Oak, one tree – 47 inches. See Table 2 for the complete protection status of the trees requiring removal.

With compliance with City policies regarding protected trees, this impact would be less than significant.



ICF 00327.13

Alternative 1, Option B – Crystal Springs South

Seventy‐seven (77) trees were surveyed for Alternative 1 Option B. Based on the conceptual layout prepared for this alternative, it is estimated that 68 trees would require removal during the construction process. Two trees may be temporarily affected from pruning or root disturbance during the construction process, but could require removal depending on the actions of the construction contractor, how closely BMPs are followed, and if unforeseen design changes would be required. Seven trees would be temporarily affected during the construction process and would require BMPs to be successfully preserved.

Of the 68 trees targeted for removal, 13 trees are protected under the Los Angeles Tree Protection Ordinance or the Department of Recreation and Parks Tree Preservation Policy. The impacted species each have the following number of trees and total trunk diameter required for removal: Evergreen Ash, three trees – 120 inches; Fremont Cottonwood, four trees – 88 inches, California Sycamore, four trees – 23 inches; and Coast Live Oak, two trees – 14 inches. See Table 3 for the complete protection status of the trees requiring removal.


Alternative 2 – North Atwater Park

Thirty‐five (35) trees were surveyed for Alternative 2. Based on the conceptual layout prepared for this alternative, it is estimated that 28 trees would require removal during the construction process. Two trees may be temporarily affected from pruning or root disturbance during the construction process, but could require removal depending on the actions of the construction contractor, how closely BMPs are followed, and if unforeseen design changes would be required. Five trees are located next to the adjacent equestrian facility, downslope from the existing ball field, and would likely not be affected at all by construction of this alternative; but temporary construction fencing should be erected around these trees as an extra precaution.

Of the 28 trees requiring removal, four trees are protected under the Los Angeles Tree Protection Ordinance and the RAP Tree Preservation Policy. The trees impacted at this site are all California sycamore with 46 inches total trunk diameter. See Table 4 for the complete protection status of the trees requiring removal.


Vegetation Cover

Vegetation at the alternative sites consists of turf grass surrounded by landscaped areas, planted ornamental and native trees as well as weedy vegetation was recorded along the edges of the driveways and parking lot areas at each alternative location. A shallow drainage channel, which has recently been restored, is located off‐site but directly west of the Alternative 2 site may contain surface water during the rainy season. This area has been planted and is currently being irrigated. Significant impacts not occur on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations by CDFW or USFWS.



ICF 00327.13

Wildlife

The criteria for determining significant impacts to wildlife includes substantial disruption of wildlife corridors; substantial interferences with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; and damage to wildlife or their habitat.

Common bird species observed during the site visit include black phoebe, Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Construction of the youth baseball fields would result in disturbance and removal of trees as described above. These trees may provide limited nesting habitat for migratory birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In order to avoid impacts to migratory birds during the nesting season, mitigation would be required.

The site is located adjacent to urban and highly developed areas. Wildlife adapted to urban areas, such as crows, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and opossums (Didelphimorphia sp.) may traverse through the alternative project sites searching for food and shelter, but these commons species are not likely to utilize the site itself for nesting or denning. The alternative sites are located adjacent to the area of Griffith Park that is designated as SEA‐37, but none of the alternative sites are a part of the SEA. None of the alternative sites function as a wildlife corridor.

Impacts associated with project development would not substantially inhibit the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. There are no migratory wildlife corridor for wildlife within the project sites and the project would not impede any wildlife nursery sites.

Wetlands

No wetlands exist within or adjacent to any of the alternative sites, therefore, no significant impacts on wetlands would occur and no environmental mitigation commitments are required. Impacts associated with project development would not occur to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA because direct removal, fill, or hydrological interruption will not occur because of project development. There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the alternatives sites.

Operational Impacts

Trees

Under both of the alternatives, it is anticipated that after project construction the project area would be maintained and irrigated in the same manner as prior to construction. The area is currently irrigated regularly, planted with turf grass, and used for recreation. The impacts of the operations of the proposed facilities are expected to have the same effect on the tree resources as current operations. No impacts on trees are expected during project operation.

Other Biological Resources

Operation of the proposed project would not significantly affect wildlife travel routes and movement, including migratory birds. Therefore, no further discussion of operational impacts on biological resources is necessary.



ICF 00327.13

Mitigation Measures Alternative 1 Option A – Crystal Springs North

Nesting Birds

MM‐1 Mitigation Measure for Protection of Nesting Birds.

Construction activities that involve tree removal or trimming would be timed as much as possible to occur outside the migratory bird nesting season, which occurs generally from March 1 through August 31, and as early as February 1 for raptors.

If construction must occur during the migratory bird nesting season that would remove or disturb suitable nesting habitat, one biological survey would be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction, or if observed during construction activities. The surveys would indicate the presence or absence of any protected native birds in the habitat to be removed and any other habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area. If a protected native bird is found, surveys would be continued in order to locate any nests. If an active nest is found, construction within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptor nests) would be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged (minimum of six weeks after egg‐laying), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The buffer may be reduced by the monitoring biologist based on site‐specific conditions, including the bird species and nest location (e.g., within the vicinity of developed areas, taking into consideration the site’s pre‐construction noise and activity levels, etc.).

Alternative 1 Option B – Crystal Springs South

Nesting Birds


Under Alternative 1 Option B, this mitigation measure would be the same as that described for Alternative 1 Option A.

Alternative 2 – North Atwater

Nesting Birds


Under Alternative 2, this mitigation measure would be the same as that described for Alternative 1 Option A.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. Therefore, there would be no significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources.



ICF 00327.13

Cumulative Impacts CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. The study area for cumulative impacts to biological resources is defined for this project as the Griffith Park and Los Angeles River Narrows areas of Los Angeles. In this area, construction activities associated with the project alternatives would disturb biological resources existing in the project area and, thereby, contribute to the progressive loss of biological resources.

All significant impacts identified in the analysis have been mitigated to less‐than‐significant levels. The incremental effects of the proposed project, after mitigation, would not contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact to biological resources. With mitigation, all project‐related impacts would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level; therefore, the alternatives’ contribution to significant cumulative impacts would be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.



ICF 00327.13

References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Natural Communities List, Arranged Alphabetically

by Life Form. Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ natural_communities.asp>. Accessed: August 2013.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Element Reports for the Burbank 7.5‐minute Quadrangle Maps. Sacramento, CA: Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division. Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cnddb.htm>. Accessed: May 2013 and July 2013.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Biogeographic Information and Observation Database. Available: <http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/>.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Laws and Regulations Directing Environmental Review and Species Take Programs. Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ regcode.html>.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. n.d. California Historical Resources Information System. Office of Historic Preservation. South Central Coastal Information Center.

California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. (Cal‐IPC Publication 2006‐02). Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council.

City of Los Angeles. 1971. Policies for the Installation and Preservation of Landscaping and Trees on Public Property. Special Order SO26‐1071. Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. September. Available: <http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/sporders/common/ dsp_so_mod.cfm?sporder=SO 18‐0372&so_type=1&so=SO 26‐1071 >.

City of Los Angeles. 2004. Urban Forest Program. Department of Recreation and Parks. October. Available: < http://www.laparks.org/dos/forest/pdf/UrbanForestProgram.pdf>.

City of Los Angeles. 2006. Ordinance Number 177404. March. Available: <http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/ProtectedTreeOrd.pdf>. Accessed: August 2013.

Google Earth. 2013. Aerial imagery for the project area. Date of Image: January 12, 2013. Accessed: July 2013.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 2009. Significant Ecological Areas of Los Angeles County. Available: <http://planning.lacounty.gov/view/sea‐existing>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed: August 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Carlsbad office database of threatened and endangered species. March 5. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/GIS/CFWOGIS.html>. Accessed: July and August 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available: <http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab//>. Accessed: July 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1967. Burbank, California, 7.5‐minute quadrangle map.

Tables

Table 2. Alternative 1, Option A, Crystal Springs North – Tree Data R

AP

Tre

e I.D

. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)

Diameter of Individual Trunks (inches)

Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17056 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes California

Sycamore Platanus racemosa

38 38 0 0 0 0 50 55 Temporary, Possibly permanent

17052 2 No No No No Canary Island Pine

Pinus canariensis

4 4 0 0 0 0 5 14 Lean; Crooked trunk

Removal

17019 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes California Sycamore

Platanus racemosa

30 30 0 0 0 0 48 55 Lean; 15+°

Removal

15429 4 No No No No Coast Live Oak

Quercus agrifolia

3 2 1 0 0 0 12 9 None anticipated

15430 5 Yes No No No Coast Live Oak

Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia


RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 15436 11 No No No No Coast Live

Oak Quercus agrifolia


17243 12 No No No No Monterey Pine

Pinus radiata 30 15 15 0 0 0 32 30 Major pruning cuts on trunk; Co-dominant trunks

None anticipated


Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia



Quercus agrifolia


17245 18 Yes No Yes No California Sycamore

Platanus racemosa

23 23 0 0 0 0 50 50 Lean 10°; Curved trunk

None anticipated

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17244 19 Yes No Yes No California


24 24 0 0 0 0 60 45 Lean 10°; Large arched cracked branch over target zone; Asym-metrical crown

Temporary, Possibly permanent


Pinus canariensis

5 5 0 0 0 0 10 17 Slight basal lean

Removal


Platanus racemosa

27 27 0 0 0 0 56 50 Some water sprouts

Removal

17022 22 No No No No Arizona Ash

Fraxinus velutina

19 19 0 0 0 0 30 30 Crack at union; Co-dominant trunks; Lots of dieback

Removal

17023 23 No No No No Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis

19 7 7 5 0 0 30 22 Multi-trunked; Trunk wounds

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17024 24 No No No No Arizona

Ash Fraxinus velutina

14 14 0 0 0 0 28 24 Co-dominant trunks; Dieback

Removal


Platanus racemosa

30 30 0 0 0 0 60 45 Co-dominant trunks; Mistletoe


17026 26 Yes No Yes Yes California Sycamore

Platanus racemosa

15 15 0 0 0 0 42 38 Lean 10° Removal

17027 27 No No No No Camphor Cinnamomum camphora

11 6 5 0 0 0 16 16 Co-dominant trunks

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

10 10 0 0 0 0 26 25 Nearly dead; Major decay; Insects

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

18 18 0 0 0 0 34 30 Co-dominant trunks; Dieback

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17038 30 No No No No Arizona

Ash Fraxinus velutina

18 18 0 0 0 0 36 30 Dieback; Water sprouts; Broken limbs; Hollow trunk

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

16 16 0 0 0 0 34 30 Co-dominant trunks; Multiple limb attach-ment; Dieback

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

24 24 0 0 0 0 40 35 Co-dominant trunks; Some dieback

Removal


12 8 4 0 0 0 28 22 Removal


Platanus racemosa

20 20 0 0 0 0 50 48 Lean 45° Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17030 35 No No No No London

Plane Tree Platanus x acerifolia

16 16 0 0 0 0 50 45 Hollow trunk; Oozing trunk wounds; Arched trunk

Removal


Platanus racemosa

29 29 0 0 0 0 50 55 Lean 5° Removal


Platanus racemosa

25 25 0 0 0 0 44 50 Lean 15° Removal



Removal

17034 39 No No No No Lavender Trumpet Tree

Tabebuia avellanadae

6 6 0 0 0 0 18 15 Leaves burned at tips

Removal


Platanus racemosa

33 33 0 0 0 0 52 55 Lean 15° Removal


16 5 4 4 3 0 24 15 Multi-trunked; Trunk wounds; Insects

Removal


Pinus canariensis

8 8 0 0 0 0 14 20 Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17073 43 No No No No Canary

Island Pine Pinus canariensis

3 3 0 0 0 0 8 11 Forming new leader

Removal


Pinus canariensis



Pinus canariensis

10 10 0 0 0 0 16 20 Forming new leader

Temporary


Pinus canariensis

11 11 0 0 0 0 18 23 Top of tree turning brown

Removal


Platanus racemosa

20 20 0 0 0 0 32 48 Removal

17039 48 No No No No Fern Pine Podocarpus gracilior

7 7 0 0 0 0 18 20 Removal


Fraxinus velutina

17 17 0 0 0 0 36 30 Trunk wounds; Insects; Co-dominant trunks

Removal


Platanus racemosa

18 18 0 0 0 0 40 48 Lean 5° Removal


Platanus racemosa

52 52 0 0 0 0 80 65 Water sprouts; Lean 15°

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17045 52 No No No No White

mulberry Morus alba 25 25 0 0 0 0 36 35 Lean 10°;

Trunk wounds; Major pruning cuts

Removal

17046 53 No No No No White mulberry

Morus alba 20 20 0 0 0 0 34 35 Trunk wounds; Co-dominant trunks; Dieback

Removal

17048 54 No No No No White mulberry

Morus alba 26 26 0 0 0 0 38 35 Water sprouts; Trunk wounds; Co-dominant trunks; Some dieback

Removal


15 4 3 3 3 2 16 18 Multi-trunked

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17047 56 No No No No White

mulberry Morus alba 20 20 0 0 0 0 48 35 Water

sprouts; Trunk wounds; Lean 15 °; Dieback

Removal

7949 57 Yes Yes No Yes Coast Live Oak

Quercus agrifolia

47 24 23 0 0 0 25 32 Co-dominant trunks; Major canopy pruning cuts; Sculptural

Removal


Pinus canariensis

7 7 0 0 0 0 12 15 Removal

17042 59 No No No No Fern Pine Podocarpus gracilior


Removal


Platanus racemosa

20 20 0 0 0 0 38 45 Lean 10° Temporary

17063 61 No Yes Yes Yes California Sycamore

Platanus racemosa

0 0 0 0 0 0 44 60 Lean 5° Temporary

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17062 62 No No No No Silver

Dollar Gum Eucalyptus polyanthemos

42 42 0 0 0 0 48 60 Co-dominant trunks; Water sprouts

Removal

8847 63 No Yes No No Black Walnut

Juglans nigra 28 28 0 0 0 0 38 28 In decline Removal


Juglans nigra 38 38 0 0 0 0 48 50 Co-dominant trunks; Trunk wounds; Twisted leader

Removal


Platanus racemosa

30 30 0 0 0 0 36 60 Lean 5° Removal


Juglans nigra 36 36 0 0 0 0 50 50 Trunk wounds; Major pruning cuts; Leaves burned; 16 Leaflets with largest in the middle

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(in

ches

)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17057 67 No No No No White

mulberry Morus alba 16 16 0 0 0 0 36 35 Some

Dieback; Water sprouts

Removal

Table 3. Alternative 1, Option B, Crystal Springs South – Tree Data R

AP

Tre

e I.D

. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17120 68 No No No No London


19 19 0 0 0 0 36 35 Insects; Dead wood

Temporary


Platanus racemosa

5 5 0 0 0 0 18 18 Lean 10° Removal

17128 70 No No No No London Plane Tree

Platanus x acerifolia

22 22 0 0 0 0 40 40 Sparse foliage

Removal

17122 71 No No No No California Incense Cedar

Calocedrus decurrens

4 4 0 0 0 0 4 12 Removal



17 17 0 0 0 0 40 40 Sparse foliage; Mistletoe; Lean 10°

Temporary


Platanus racemosa

36 36 0 0 0 0 56 60 Lean 5° Temporary

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17125 74 No No No No London


19 19 0 0 0 0 18 45 Dead wood; Insects; In decline; Water sprouts

Removal



17 17 0 0 0 0 30 40 In decline; Dead wood; Dieback

Removal



20 20 0 0 0 0 40 40 Dieback; Dead wood; In decline; Water sprouts

Removal



25 25 0 0 0 0 50 40 Trunk wounds; Sparse foliage

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17130 78 No No No No London


24 24 0 0 0 0 50 40 Sparse foliage; Dieback; Dead wood

Removal


Pinus canariensis

7 7 0 0 0 0 14 18 Removal



26 26 0 0 0 0 50 40 In decline; Dieback; Dead wood; Co-dominant trunks

Removal

17163 81 No No No No Chinese Pistache

Pistacia chinensis

4 4 0 0 0 0 16 12 Removal

17162 82 No No No No Deodar Cedar

Cedrus deodara

9 9 0 0 0 0 18 18 Removal

NEW 83 No No No No London Plane Tree


26 26 0 0 0 0 50 40 Sparse foliage; Dieback

Removal

NEW 84 No No No No London Plane Tree


12 12 0 0 0 0 36 40 Lean 5°; Dieback

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17154 85 No No No No London


7 7 0 0 0 0 24 18 Sparse foliage; Lean 5°

Removal


7 7 0 0 0 0 24 15 Removal


11 11 0 0 0 0 24 16 Lean 15+° Removal




Removal



21 21 0 0 0 0 40 40 Mistletoe; Insects; Dieback; Trunk wounds; Water sprouts

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17144 90 No No No No London


30 30 0 0 0 0 50 45 Mistletoe; Multiple limb attach-ment; Dieback

Removal


Platanus racemosa

4 4 0 0 0 0 14 16 Removal



15 15 0 0 0 0 44 35 Some dieback

Removal



15 15 0 0 0 0 32 35 Some dieback

Temporary


Platanus racemosa

6 6 0 0 0 0 18 20 Lean 5°; Insects

Removal

17137 95 No Yes No No London Plane Tree





Quercus agrifolia

7 3 2 2 0 0 12 14 Removal


Cedrus deodara

15 15 0 0 0 0 24 28 Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17145 98 No No No No London


17 17 0 0 0 0 50 44 Some dieback

Removal


Cedrus deodara

10 10 0 0 0 0 26 20 Top of tree turning brown

Removal




Removal


Quercus agrifolia

7 3 2 2 0 0 14 15 Removal


Pinus canariensis

8 8 0 0 0 0 14 16 Top of tree missing

Removal



10 10 0 0 0 0 28 22 Lean 45+°; Sparse foliage; Dieback

Removal



16 16 0 0 0 0 40 42 Dieback Removal


Cedrus deodara

20 20 0 0 0 0 20 25 Top of tree missing

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17151 106 No No No No Deodar

Cedar Cedrus deodara

11 11 0 0 0 0 20 30 Removal


Quercus agrifolia

2 1 1 0 0 0 6 7 Removal


Quercus agrifolia

3 3 0 0 0 0 14 12 One broken branch

Removal


Quercus agrifolia

3 3 0 0 0 0 10 11 Removal



7 7 0 0 0 0 26 18 Dieback; Sparse foliage; Dead wood

Removal

NEW 111 No No No No Monterey Pine

Pinus radiata 14 14 0 0 0 0 24 20 Co-dominant trunks; Lean 15°

Removal



10 10 0 0 0 0 30 30 Sparse foliage; Dieback; Dead wood

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17160 113 Yes No Yes No California


12 12 0 0 0 0 36 32 Lean 15° Temporary


Platanus racemosa

8 8 0 0 0 0 26 28 Racemosa Removal


Quercus agrifolia

3 1 1 1 0 0 8 11 Removal


Cedrus deodara

10 10 0 0 0 0 18 25 Temporary

17184 117 No Yes No No Evergreen Ash

Fraxinus udhei 42 42 0 0 0 0 60 50 Multiple limb attach-ment

Removal


Fraxinus udhei 32 32 0 0 0 0 56 50 Multiple limb attach-ment

Removal

17186 119 No No Yes No Fremont Cottonwood

Populus fremontii

24 24 0 0 0 0 48 60 Insects Removal

17187 120 No Yes No No London Plane Tree


37 37 0 0 0 0 60 60 Beehive in base

Temporary

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17188 121 No No Yes No Fremont

Cottonwood Populus fremontii

17 17 0 0 0 0 28 40 Insects; Co-dominant trunks

Removal


8 8 0 0 0 0 20 18 Lean 15° Removal


Pistacia chinensis

4 4 0 0 0 0 14 13 Some leaves burned

Removal


Populus fremontii

22 22 0 0 0 0 40 60 Removal


Populus fremontii

25 25 0 0 0 0 48 60 Lean 10° Removal


Fraxinus udhei 46 46 0 0 0 0 70 65 Co-dominant trunk; Sparse foliage; Dieback

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17195 127 No No No No Canary


6 6 0 0 0 0 14 12 Tree stake girdling tree

Removal


Pinus canariensis

8 8 0 0 0 0 16 16 Removal

17204 129 No No No No Chinese Elm

Ulmus parvifolia

15 15 0 0 0 0 38 35 Contorted, but balanced trunk


17205 130 No No No No Silver Dollar Gum

Eucalyptus polyanthemos

27 27 0 0 0 0 50 55 Multiple limb attach-ment; Trunk wounds

Removal


Pistacia chinensis

6 6 0 0 0 0 36 20 Leaves burned

Removal

17221 132 No No No No Golden Rain Tree

Koelreuteria paniculata

10 10 0 0 0 0 18 35 In decline Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17222 133 No No No No Chinese

Elm Ulmus parvifolia

17 17 0 0 0 0 50 30 Insects; Poor branching; Some Dieback

Removal



29 29 0 0 0 0 60 60 Multiple limb attach-ment

Removal



7 7 0 0 0 0 24 16 Multiple limb attach-ment; Trunk wounds

Removal

17223 136 No No No No Chinese Elm

Ulmus parvifolia

24 24 0 0 0 0 60 55 Insects Removal

17224 137 No No No No American Sweetgum

Liquidamber styraciflua

14 14 0 0 0 0 30 50 Broken limbs

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17225 138 No No No No American

Sweetgum Liquidamber styraciflua

15 15 0 0 0 0 30 50 Broken branch; Crooked trunk

Removal

17226 139 No No No No American Sweetgum

Liquidamber styraciflua

16 16 0 0 0 0 30 45 Broken limbs; Leaves burned

Removal



5 5 0 0 0 0 18 13 Leaves burned

Removal


8 8 0 0 0 0 22 16 Lean 15° Removal



30 30 0 0 0 0 60 50 Insects; Sparse foliage; Dieback; Lean 10°

Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

Ord

inan

ce?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

Des

igna

tion?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk D

iam

eter

(inc

hes)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 17217 143 No No No No London


25 25 0 0 0 0 60 50 Sparse foliage; Dieback; Lean 10°

Removal

NEW 144 No No No No Camphor Cinnamomum camphora

40 15 8 6 6 5 30 22 Multi-trunked; Multiple limb attach-ment

Removal

Table 4. Alternative 2, North Atwater Park – Tree Data R

AP

Tre

e I.D

. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

O

rdin

ance

?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk

Dia

met

er (i

nche

s)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 9306 145 No No No No Canary


25 25 0 0 0 0 50 50 Large pruning cuts; Sap on trunk

Removal


Pinus canariensis


Removal


Pinus canariensis


Removal


Platanus racemosa

9 9 0 0 0 0 24 30 Sparse foliage; Codominant trunks

Removal


Platanus racemosa

13 13 0 0 0 0 32 40 Removal


Platanus racemosa

14 14 0 0 0 0 18 34 Sparse foliage; Codominant trunks

Removal


3 3 0 0 0 0 14 15 Lean 30° Removal


Platanus racemosa

10 10 0 0 0 0 32 28 Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

O

rdin

ance

?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk

Dia

met

er (i

nche

s)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 8936 153 No No No No Canary


25 25 0 0 0 0 50 50 Removal


Pinus canariensis


Removal


Pinus canariensis

20 20 0 0 0 0 30 45 Removal


Pinus canariensis

24 24 0 0 0 0 45 50 Removal


Fraxinus velutina

17 17 0 0 0 0 36 32 Lean 30+°; In decline

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

9 9 0 0 0 0 18 25 Lean 30+°; In decline; Trunk cracked

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

13 13 0 0 0 0 34 28 In decline Removal


Pinus canariensis

24 24 0 0 0 0 44 50 Large pruning cuts; Sap on trunk; Lean 15°

Removal


Pinus canariensis


Removal


Pinus canariensis

24 24 0 0 0 0 44 50 Lean 10° Removal

RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

O

rdin

ance

?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk

Dia

met

er (i

nche

s)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 8930 163 No No No No Canary



Removal


Pinus canariensis

20 20 0 0 0 0 48 50 Removal


Pinus canariensis

25 25 0 0 0 0 50 50 Removal


Pinus canariensis


Removal


Fraxinus velutina

17 17 0 0 0 0 40 28 In decline; Trunk wounds; Decay

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

13 13 0 0 0 0 20 18 In decline; Multiple limb attachment; Trunk wounds

Removal


Fraxinus velutina

14 14 0 0 0 0 24 26 In decline; Trunk wounds; Broken limb

Removal

11552 170 No No No Yes Italian Cypress

Cupressus sempervirens


RA

P T

ree

I.D. #

ICF

Tre

e I.D

. #

Prot

ecte

d by

City

O

rdin

ance

?

RA

P H

erita

ge D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P Sp

ecia

l Hab

itat V

alue

D

esig

natio

n?

RA

P C

omm

on P

ark

Tre

e D

esig

natio

n?

Spec

ies C

omm

on N

ame

Spec

ies S

cien

tific

Nam

e

Cum

ulat

ive

Tru

nk

Dia

met

er (i

nche

s)


Dri

p D

iam

eter

(fee

t)

Hei

ght (

feet

)

Rem

arks

Impa

cts

1 2 3 4 5 11551 171 No No No Yes Italian

Cypress Cupressus sempervirens


11550 172 No Yes No No Tasmanian Blue Gum

Eucalyptus globulus

72 18 28 16

10 0 32 40 Multi-trunked; Water sprouts

None anticipated

11549 173 No Yes No No Tasmanian Blue Gum

Eucalyptus globulus

61 14 15 15

17 0 34 40 Multi-trunked; Water sprouts

None anticipated

11546 174 No No No Yes Tasmanian Blue Gum

Eucalyptus globulus

32 32 0 0 0 0 50 55 Insects None anticipated


Platanus racemosa

6 6 0 0 0 0 22 16 Lean 5°; A popular gathering place



Platanus racemosa


9311 177 No No No No Italian Stone Pine

Pinus pinea 29 29 0 0 0 0 45 40 Co-dominant trunks; Lean 45+°; Trunk wounds

Removal


Pinus pinea 29 29 0 0 0 0 45 40 Lean 15+° Removal


Pinus pinea 31 31 0 0 0 0 45 40 Lean 15° Removal

Appendix A Crystal Springs Baseball Fields Project Biological

Resources Technical Study City of Los Angeles Standard Tree Removal Application

Checklist

Appendix B Crystal Springs Baseball Fields Project Biological

Resources Technical Study Arborist Certification and Landscape Architecture

License

Appendix C Crystal Springs Baseball Fields Project Biological

Resources Technical Study Photos of Protected Trees Requiring Removal

Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Appendix C

Alternative 1 Option A – Crystal Springs North

Biological Resources Technical Study Griffith Park Crystal Springs New Baseball Fields Project C‐1 October 2013

ICF 00327.13

DRP ID# 17052, ICF ID# 3 This tree is designated Protected, Heritage, Special Habitat Value, and Common Park Tree.


DRP ID# 17026, ICF ID# 26 This tree is designated Protected, Special Habitat Value, and Common Park Tree.





ICF 00327.13








ICF 00327.13




DRP ID# 8847, ICF ID# 63 This tree is designated Heritage.




ICF 00327.13







ICF 00327.13

DRP ID# 17121, ICF ID# 69 This tree is designated Protected and Special Habitat Value.



DRP ID# 15151, ICF ID# 96 This tree is designated Protected.




ICF 00327.13

DRP ID# 15150, ICF ID# 101 This tree is designated Protected.







ICF 00327.13

DRP ID# 17186, ICF ID# 119 This tree is designated Special Habitat Value.







ICF 00327.13



Alternative 2 – North Atwater Park


ICF 00327.13





Documents

APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL STUDY - Los Angeleseng2.lacity.org/techdocs/emg/docs/griffith/... · City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering