AR 15 Attachment A_Brookside Golf Course_Initial Study_MND_with Appendices — Pasadena City Council, July 10, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Vehicle type Gasoline Diesel CNG Electricity
ELEC
VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day All other buses 0 0 0.00 144,213 14,122 10.21 0 0 0.00 0 LDA 149,966,457 4,951,891 30.28 1,365,564 28,876 47.29 0 0 0.00 3,181,478 LDT1 17,043,180 652,540 26.12 6,627 304 21.78 0 0 0.00 144,752 LDT2 51,802,173 2,129,498 24.33 378,461 10,888 34.76 0 0 0.00 469,870 LHD1 3,836,225 367,280 10.44 2,744,971 126,149 21.76 0 0 0.00 0 LHD2 625,803 68,770 9.10 1,067,421 54,454 19.60 0 0 0.00 0 MCY 1,237,635 34,667 35.70 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
MDV 32,233,548 1,629,223 19.78 771,652 28,703 26.88 0 0 0.00 250,682 MH 190,935 37,177 5.14 61,785 5,859 10.54 0 0 0.00 0
Motor coach 0 0 0.00 91,142 13,998 6.51 0 0 0.00 0
OBUS 163,041 32,643 4.99 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
PTO 0 0 0.00 76,505 15,508 4.93 0 0 0.00 0
SBUS 55,608 6,053 9.19 109,536 14,360 7.63 0 0 0.00 0
T6 793,122 157,239 5.04 4,140,797 393,561 10.52 0 0 0.00 0 T7 5,769 1,407 4.10 6,735,541 1,021,710 6.59 106,828 47,783 2.24 0 UBUS 32,989 7,783 4.24 1,181 209 5.66 437,121 111,088 3.93 1,070 Total 257,986,485 10,076,171 25.60 17,695,397 1,728,701 10.24 543,949 158,871 3.42 4,047,852 3,496,431,421

0.36%
81875000 12419573.21
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Los Angeles (SC) 2022 All Other Buses Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2387.615771 144212.5891 20055.97247 14.12157342 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate GAS 3949334.32 149966456.8 18636854.28 4951.890616 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate DSL 34750.74201 1365564.321 164528.3052 28.87579459 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 78084.60157 3181477.948 389918.6908 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 458115.2498 17043179.81 2118381.376 652.5401757 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 270.6503295 6627.200698 961.4710483 0.304298206 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 3508.68045 144752.0157 17546.16027 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 1372144.276 51802172.9 6443902.5 2129.497975 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 8920.377392 378460.5711 44003.20424 10.88805719 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 14383.25646 469869.8144 72773.64326 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 105423.6869 3836224.58 1570655.854 367.2799521 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 64097.22758 2744971.33 806262.4886 126.1492688 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 17796.61867 625803.0177 265143.1013 68.76969502 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 25927.3097 1067421.343 326132.9395 54.45422002 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate GAS 177319.3254 1237635.154 354638.6508 34.66720507 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate GAS 921693.6708 32233548.24 4274374.135 1629.222502 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate DSL 19516.67089 771652.3864 96044.41776 28.70279505 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 7423.218148 250681.8433 37959.59904 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate GAS 18777.11371 190934.9774 1878.462455 37.17660803 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5865.304828 61785.30748 586.5304828 5.859423982 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 Motor Coach Aggregate Aggregate DSL 676.2916755 91141.88557 9873.858462 13.99760817 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 3972.712037 163041.1007 79486.02243 32.64328018 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 PTO Aggregate Aggregate DSL 0 76505.4461 0 15.50775389 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 1378.869452 55608.41612 5515.47781 6.053496228 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 3460.157096 109535.682 39929.73315 14.35975618 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 Ag Aggregate Aggregate DSL 12.10479957 101.9666453 53.26111809 0.012181572 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 CAIRP heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 272.1638062 53846.97659 3973.591571 4.680155196 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 CAIRP small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 144.6349106 7530.75419 2111.669694 0.699944378 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 instate construction heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2518.967495 168570.4564 11388.15411 16.56194729 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 instate construction small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 8157.753968 433957.0754 36880.88852 42.40587222 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 instate heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 10296.35106 1423092.141 118818.4637 128.9338909 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 instate small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 37908.6179 1932060.83 437460.1947 186.9232192 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 OOS heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 156.4590604 31080.56962 2284.302283 2.699014263 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 OOS small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 83.58460294 4317.240411 1220.335203 0.401773955 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 Public Aggregate Aggregate DSL 4445.935083 69430.49194 13486.00307 8.507368053 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6 utility Aggregate Aggregate DSL 996.7203316 16808.24099 11462.28381 1.735997959 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 14505.49561 793122.3284 290225.9562 157.2392835 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 Ag Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5.193051548 102.8930892 22.84942681 0.01852168 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 CAIRP Aggregate Aggregate DSL 6003.500987 1067306.387 87651.11441 155.0696328 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 CAIRP construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 671.4917023 121085.6232 3035.787878 16.55458348 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 NNOOS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 6498.761345 1301079.701 94881.91563 179.099333 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 NOOS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2371.048773 419354.6563 34617.31208 62.47642547 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 POLA Aggregate Aggregate DSL 8258.014728 1072153.038 62760.91194 188.7409496 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 Public Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5475.906144 110937.1004 16610.24862 19.0808356 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 Single Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5794.937297 385296.7187 66872.77297 58.88961274 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 single construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 4300.116371 300391.1598 19440.65893 44.46501106 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 SWCV Aggregate Aggregate DSL 1379.990695 56384.18389 5381.963711 27.81339016 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 SWCV Aggregate Aggregate NG 2623.533087 106827.7218 10231.77904 47.782843 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 tractor Aggregate Aggregate DSL 12166.67647 1645420.533 154516.7912 230.7310322 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 tractor construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 3592.159925 247796.2601 16240.01536 37.46414496 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7 utility Aggregate Aggregate DSL 405.4684121 8232.431424 4662.886739 1.306947156 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 T7IS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 55.2683338 5768.621752 1105.808823 1.407168754 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 460.6006493 32989.32038 1842.402597 7.783285084 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 10.1389 1181.230112 40.5556 0.208547568 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 12 1070.403311 48 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate NG 4129.345993 437121.0718 16517.38397 111.0876976 EMFAC Fuel Usage: Year 2022
Vehicle type GAS DSL NG
ELEC
VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day All other buses 0 0 0.00 148,348 14,082 10.53 0 0 0.00 0 LDA 149,418,106 4,801,115 31.12 1,426,245 29,363 48.57 0 0 0.00 3,806,342 LDT1 17,372,475 648,191 26.80 6,133 278 22.08 0 0 0.00 196,782 LDT2 52,162,943 2,069,800 25.20 404,272 11,313 35.74 0 0 0.00 584,569 LHD1 3,800,052 359,383 10.57 2,893,383 130,924 22.10 0 0 0.00 0 LHD2 625,879 67,954 9.21 1,126,544 56,597 19.90 0 0 0.00 0 MCY 1,265,085 35,455 35.68 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
MDV 32,264,362 1,576,940 20.46 823,486 29,770 27.66 0 0 0.00 342,100 MH 191,392 36,760 5.21 64,319 6,026 10.67 0 0 0.00 0
Motor coach 0 0 0.00 92,744 13,826 6.71 0 0 0.00 0
OBUS 159,343 31,499 5.06 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
PTO 0 0 0.00 77,199 14,935 5.17 0 0 0.00 0
SBUS 58,916 6,358 9.27 110,638 14,360 7.70 0 0 0.00 0
T6 797,300 155,868 5.12 4,246,866 386,115 11.00 0 0 0.00 0 T7 5,905 1,406 4.20 6,872,058 981,183 7.00 113,852 50,168 2.27 0 UBUS 33,184 7,630 4.35 1,181 209 5.66 439,713 111,745 3.93 1,070 Total 258,154,940 9,798,359 26.35 18,293,417 1,688,982 10.83 553,565 161,913 3.42 4,930,863 3,400,030,661

0.34%
81875000 11690001.06
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Los Angeles (SC) 2023 All Other Buses Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2413.362241 148347.7525 20272.24282 14.0818541 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate GAS 3986929.129 149418105.6 18815397.63 4801.114553 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate DSL 36740.62878 1426244.815 174171.2985 29.36298643 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 91678.53845 3806341.937 457107.9273 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 472375.6724 17372474.6 2187811.198 648.1906909 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 252.4118747 6132.921962 894.9059766 0.277775308 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 4635.248736 196781.6242 23233.68477 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 1397479.324 52162943.36 6567821.268 2069.799895 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 9765.230182 404272.1374 48008.05802 11.31280557 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 18283.62829 584568.8418 92279.45183 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 105195.9307 3800052.408 1567262.626 359.3833271 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 68776.35703 2893383.107 865120.0508 130.9243641 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate GAS 17937.98852 625878.5235 267249.3013 67.95438628 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate DSL 27873.77545 1126544.027 350617.0299 56.59739854 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate GAS 183955.3723 1265084.637 367910.7446 35.45479504 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate GAS 931795.9713 32264362.15 4326648.043 1576.940395 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate DSL 21297.50738 823486.0536 104465.3428 29.77006577 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 10378.92649 342100.1259 52903.33041 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate GAS 18786.35518 191391.548 1879.386973 36.76042896 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate DSL 6166.797629 64319.47927 616.6797629 6.026053915 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 Motor Coach Aggregate Aggregate DSL 658.0910352 92743.98303 9608.129114 13.82589661 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 3965.955178 159342.8081 79350.83121 31.49929974 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 PTO Aggregate Aggregate DSL 0 77198.6472 0 14.93547066 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 1481.565044 58916.21473 5926.260176 6.358131428 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 3497.078427 110638.3688 40355.80019 14.36000383 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 Ag Aggregate Aggregate DSL 11.67476155 97.073849 51.36895084 0.011080203 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 CAIRP heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 280.5602581 54871.42749 4096.179768 4.630891473 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 CAIRP small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 147.0353228 7680.714425 2146.715713 0.690922567 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 instate construction heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2593.685207 170789.0459 11725.94998 16.01357351 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 instate construction small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 7838.439815 439668.4712 35437.28165 40.85987457 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 instate heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 10535.34865 1466280.47 121576.4628 127.6396288 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 instate small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 37375.9816 1984183.072 431313.6457 183.0271301 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 OOS heavy Aggregate Aggregate DSL 161.7713139 31697.11686 2361.861183 2.673821474 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 OOS small Aggregate Aggregate DSL 84.77351604 4403.138169 1237.693334 0.39634697 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 Public Aggregate Aggregate DSL 4479.460204 70241.70163 13587.69594 8.450363812 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6 utility Aggregate Aggregate DSL 1011.45952 16954.26417 11631.78448 1.721713991 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 14623.10816 797300.0842 292579.148 155.8676623 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 Ag Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5.450542727 89.56607012 23.982388 0.015745035 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 CAIRP Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5967.126018 1085857.383 87120.03986 152.0768811 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 CAIRP construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 672.7726984 122679.2552 3041.579212 16.23989484 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 NNOOS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 6698.602472 1323677.931 97799.59609 176.2912352 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 NOOS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 2364.918201 426649.092 34527.80573 61.26348855 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 POLA Aggregate Aggregate DSL 8486.558826 1131828.731 64497.84707 175.4952223 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 Public Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5541.588258 112265.4557 16809.48436 19.02171313 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 Single Aggregate Aggregate DSL 5934.360332 388787.818 68481.69547 56.1742218 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 single construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 4385.71399 304344.6678 19827.64243 42.88123171 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 SWCV Aggregate Aggregate DSL 1255.519365 51298.487 4896.525523 25.30419893 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 SWCV Aggregate Aggregate NG 2795.817267 113851.643 10903.68734 50.16782394 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 tractor Aggregate Aggregate DSL 12205.73158 1665217.666 155012.7911 219.5996373 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 tractor construction Aggregate Aggregate DSL 3685.502446 251057.5562 16662.01327 35.5101791 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7 utility Aggregate Aggregate DSL 409.1727144 8303.947199 4705.486215 1.309375599 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 T7IS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 52.86814563 5904.510911 1057.785858 1.405502268 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate GAS 463.3229945 33183.96593 1853.291978 7.630187276 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate DSL 10.1389 1181.230112 40.5556 0.208547568 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate ELEC 12 1070.403311 48 0 Los Angeles (SC) 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate NG 4153.840831 439713.4848 16615.36332 111.7447779 EMFAC Fuel Usage: Year 2023
Vehicle type GAS DSL NG

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
January 2023
Appendix C Biological Resources Study

80 South Lake Avenue
Suite 570
Pasadena, CA 91101
626.204.6170 phone
626.204.6171 fax
esassoc.com
November 10, 2020
George Cunningham
1001 Rose Bowl Drive
Pasadena CA 91103
Subject: Biological Resources Assessment for the Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project Dear Mr. Cunningham :

This letter report documents the results of biological resources assessment at the proposed Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project site. The project site and 100-foot survey buffer area constitute the survey area. This report provides an overview of the survey area, methodology used for the assessment, results, conclusions, and recommended minimization measures.

Project Location
The survey area is located within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Pasadena, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (quad) in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California, at the base of the San Rafael Hills (Figure 1 – Regional Location). More specifically, it is situated within the Brookside Golf Course; bound to the north, south and west by associated golf course amenities and to the east by Rosemont Avenue and Rose Bowl Drive (Figure 2 – Project Location). A concrete channelized portion of the Arroyo Seco traverses the western boundary of the survey area, located immediately adjacent to the project site. Interstate 210 is located within 1 mile to the north and east, and the California State Route 134 is situated within 1 mile to the south.

Topography within the survey area has been heavily modified through the development and maintenance of the Brookside Golf Course and is relatively flat. Elevation ranges from approximately 860 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwest corner of the survey area and 840 feet amsl in the southeast corner of the survey area.

Project Description
The Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) proposes to relocate and expand the existing driving range and construct a new miniature golf facility within the Brookside Golf Course. The expanded driving range and new miniature golf course would remain in the same general location as the existing driving range that is between the Arroyo Seco and the Brookside Clubhouse.

The proposed expansion of the driving range would include an increase from 20 to 60 hitting bays and the miniature golf course would include 36 holes. The proposed project would remain a championship layout and the reduction in size would be designed to improve the pace of play. In order to accommodate the expanded driving range and new miniature golf course, tree removal and relocation and surficial grading would be required.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 4 ends

Methods
The following resources were queried to reveal special-status plants and wildlife to that have been reported within the Pasadena United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle map and surrounding eight (8) quadrangles that include Burbank, Chilao Flat, Condor Peak, El Monte, Hollywood, Los Angeles, Mt. Wilson and Sunland:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Accessed October 22, 2020.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020b. California Natural Community List.

Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, November 8, 2019. Accessed October 22, 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline • California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Accessed October 22, 2020.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed October 22, 2020. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265 ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020b. Accessed October 22, 2020. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources A field visit was conducted to verify the conditions of the survey area. In addition, a detailed desktop analysis of aerial imagery and review of the available database information was completed to verify adjacent land uses (Google Earth Pro 2020). The information that was gathered was used to determine the potential for special-status species and other sensitive biological resources to occur within the project site and survey area.

All native and non-native plant communities and land uses were characterized and delineated on aerial photographs and then digitized on aerial maps using a Geographic Information System software (ArcGIS). The plant communities and land use within the survey area were described based on vegetation type and/or other visual characteristics. The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer 2009), a common tool used to characterize vegetation, was merely used as a guide, because alliances listed in the publication did not accurately describe the communities present within the survey area. A detailed description of each plant community and land use is provided below. Representative photos were taken during the field assessment conducted on September 23, 2020 and are provided at the end of this report (Attachment A – Photographic Exhibit).

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 5 ends

Results
Plant Communities and Land Use
Three distinct areas were identified within the survey area that include landscaped vegetation, developed land use and unvegetated concrete-lined channel (Figure 3 – Plant Communities and Land Use), each of which are described in detail below.

Landscaped Vegetation. Landscaped vegetation is present throughout the majority of the project site and survey area. This community is characterized by a collection of common (non-native) turf grasses planted along course fairway and putting greens, that may include bent grass (Agrostis sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and Zoysia grass (Zoysia japonica), among others, interspersed with various ornamental trees and landscaping. Trees within the project site are documented within a protected tree report (ESA 2020). As indicated in the protected tree report, the trees located within the survey area include native species such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia); and non-native species such as Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), carob (Ceratonia siliqua), red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).

Unvegetated Concrete-Lined Channel. The Arroyo Seco traverses the western portion of the survey, immediately adjacent to the project site. This portion of the drainage consists of concrete-lined channel and is entirely devoid of vegetation.

Developed. Developed land use generally includes the golf course facilities, that includes the golf course and the paved golf cart/pedestrian pathways, driving range platform and the club house.

Common Fish and Wildlife
Avian species expected to forage and breed within the landscaped vegetation located in the survey area include, but are not limited to, Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). No evidence of raptor nesting was observed within the tree located in the survey area; however, it should be noted that a specific search of predated nest material was not conducted.

California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) could burrow within friable soil available within the survey area and utilize it to forage and breed; however, it is expected that the golf course maintenance staff control these ground dwellers on the golf course and driving range. Various other mammal species that include coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are expected to utilize the Arroyo Seco for local movement and to a limited degree, may forage within the landscaped vegetation of the golf course during nighttime hours when it is closed.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 7 ends

Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-status Wildlife. Special-status wildlife is defined as those animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various forms of habitat loss or population decline, are considered by federal, state, or other agencies to be under threat from human-associated developments. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation and others have been designated as special-status on the basis of adopted local policies (e.g., city and county) or the educated opinion of respected resource interest groups (e.g., Western Bat Working Group). Special-status wildlife is defined as any of the following:
• Wildlife listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
• Wildlife that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380.
• Wildlife designated by CDFW as species of special concern, included on the Watch List or considered “Special Animals.”
• Wildlife fully protected in California (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, and 5050). • Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). • Bat species considered priority by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG).

Special-status Plants. Special-status plants are defined as those plants that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by federal, state, or other agencies as under threat from human-associated developments. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as special-status on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as Counties, Cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. Special-status plants are defined as any of the following:
• Plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under FESA or CESA.
• Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. • Plants considered by the CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered (Rank 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B plants) in California.
• Plants listed by the CNPS as plants for which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Rank 3 and 4 plants).

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 8 ends

• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.).

The special-status plant and wildlife species listed in Table 3 – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Species in the Survey Area below were determined to have varying levels of potential to occur based on the following criteria:
• None: The survey area currently does not habitat for a particular species; therefore, they are not expected to occur onsite.
• Low Potential: The survey area supports limited habitat for a particular species. For example, the appropriate vegetation assemblage may be present while the substrate preferred by the species may be absent.
• Moderate Potential: The survey area provides marginal habitat for a particular species. For example, the habitat may be heavily disturbed and/or may not support all stages of a species life cycle; however, it is present nonetheless.
• High Potential: The survey area provides suitable habitat conditions for a particular species and/or known populations occur in the immediate area.
• Present: The species was observed within the survey area during the site visit.

Numerous special-status species and habitat occurrences have been documented within the eight-USGS quadrangle query of the CNDDB, CNPS and IPaC databases (Attachment B – Database Review), of which, nine (9) special-status wildlife species and six (6) special-status plant species have been reported within or immediately adjacent to the survey area that includes: southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii ssp. extimus), Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis ssp. californicus), American Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ssp. anatum), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii ssp. pusillus), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) and Parish’s gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii) (See Figure 4 – CNDDB). While these species have been previously documented within or in close proximity to the survey area (most in the early- to mid-1900’s), in its current state, suitable habitat (i.e., native plant communities, suitable roost sites, etc.) is not present. Nonetheless, one specialstatus species has potential to occur, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), which has a moderate potential to forage and breed within 500 feet of the project site.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 10 ends

TABLE 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitat Potential to Occur
Wildlife
Birds
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii None/WL, SA/None Cismontane woodland, riparian forest and woodland and upper
montane coniferous forest.

Moderate. Suitable foraging
habitat is present throughout
much of the landscaped golf
greens and nesting habitat is
present within the many of the
ornamental trees planted within
the survey area. This species
may nest within 500 feet of the
project site.
burrowing owl Athene cunicularia FSC/SSC, SA/None Open scrub and grassland communities that allow for
optimal visibility when foraging.

Generally, this species prefers
fossorial mammal burrows for
use as wintering and breeding
refuge; however, may also use
disused material or
infrastructure (e.g.,
concrete/metal pipes, culverts,
debris piles, etc.) for this
purpose. This species readily
utilizes disturbed areas to
forage and breed.

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the southeast of the survey
area, in 1895. However, suitable
habitat for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

Southwestern
willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii ssp.
extimus
FE/SE,WL, SA/None Riparian vegetation. This
species is generally associated
with open water.

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the west of the survey area, in
1906. However, suitable habitat
for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

American
peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus ssp.
anatum
BCC/FP,SA/None Utilizes various habitat types
such as chaparral, forest and
woodland communities for
foraging. Nests on
skyscrapers, water towers,
cliffs, power pylons and other
tall structures (Cornell 2020).

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the west of the survey area, in
2005. However, suitable habitat
for this species does not exist
onsite.
least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii ssp.
pusillus
FE/SE,SA/None Riparian vegetation. None. This species was observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the west of the survey area, in
1911. However, suitable habitat
for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 11 ends

Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitat Potential to Occur
Mammals
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus None/SSC,

SA/WBWG-H
Grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and coniferous
forests; most common in open,
dry habitat with rocky areas for
roosting, as well as abandon
buildings and medal clad
structures Species is known to
roost in cavities of oak trees
(WBWG 2020).

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the southeast of the survey
area, in 1910. However, suitable
habitat for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

Greater western
mastiff bat
Eumops perotis ssp.
californicus
None/SSC,

SA/WBWG-H
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub and
valley and foothill grassland.

Roosts in small colonies in
rock fissures in high cliff faces
(WBWG 2020).

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the southeast of the survey
area, in 1941. However, suitable
habitat for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus None/SA/WBWG-M Roosts in coniferous and/or deciduous trees, commonly
along the edge of clearings
(WBWG 2020).

None. This species was
observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the southeast of the survey
area, in 1945. However, suitable
habitat for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

Reptiles
Southern
California
legless lizard
Anniella stebbinsi None/SSC,SA Chaparral, coastal dunes and coastal scrub. This species is
regularly found associated with
woodrat middens.

None. This species was
observed within and southeast
of the survey area, in 1941.

However, suitable habitat for
this species no longer exists
onsite.

Invertebrates
Crotch bumble
bee
Bombus crotchii None/SA/None Coastal scrub and chaparral. None. This species was observed within the vicinity of
the Brookside Golf Course, to
the southeast of the survey
area, in 1933. However, suitable
habitat for this species does not
currently exist onsite.

Plants
Nevin’s barberry Berberis nevinii FE/SE/1B Sandy/gravelly soils along washes, associated within
coastal sage scrub and
chaparral communities.

None. This species was
observed immediately
adjacent to the Brookside
Golf Course,
approximately 1,500 feet
to the north of the project
site, in1927. However,
suitable habitat for this
species does not
currently exist onsite.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 12 ends

Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitat Potential to Occur
Smooth tarplant Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
None/None/1B Shadescale scrub, alkali sink
and valley grassland.

None. This species was
observed within the
vicinity of the Brookside
Golf Course, to the
southeast of the project
site, in 1901. However,
suitable habitat for this
species does not
currently exist onsite.

Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
None/None/1B Dry, sandy soils within coastal
sage scrub and chaparral
communities.

Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
None/None/1B Alkali sink, coastal salt marsh,
freshwater wetlands and
wetland-riparian.

None. This species was
observed within the
vicinity of the Brookside
Golf Course, to the
southeast of the project
site, in 1882. However,
suitable habitat for this
species does not
currently exist onsite.

White rabbit-tobacco Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
None/None/2B None. This species was
observed within the
vicinity of the Brookside
Golf Course, to the south
of the project site, within
1908. However, suitable
habitat for this species
does not currently exist
onsite.

Parish’s gooseberry Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
None/None/1A Moist woodland. None. This species was
observed within the
vicinity of the Brookside
Golf Course, to the west
of the project site, in
1893. However, suitable
habitat for this species
does not currently exist
onsite.

Federal/State/Other Status: FE – federally endangered, FP – Fully Protected, FSC – Federal Species of Concern; SA – State Special Animal, SE – State endangered, BCC – Federal Bird of Conservation Concern; SSC – State Species of Special Concern, WL – State watch List; WBWG – Western Bat Working Group List (M – medium priority, H – High Priority); California Native Plant Society (CNPS): 1A – Plants presumed extinct in California; 1B – Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 13 ends

Protected Trees
Numerous trees protected under Title 8, Chapter 8.52 of the Pasadena Municipal Code are present throughout the survey area and may be impacted by the project. A protected tree survey was conducted on October 5 and 6, 2020, the results of which have been compiled and analyzed in a tree report (ESA 2020).

Critical Habitat
Under FESA, to the extent feasible, the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to designate critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space containing the physical and biological features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated critical habitat includes sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Designated critical habitats require special management and protection of existing resources, including water quality and quantity, host animals and plants, food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types. Critical habitat designates this suitable habitat, occupied or not, as essential to the survival and recovery of the species.

There is no critical habitat in the vicinity of the survey area.

Migration Corridors
The project site and immediate surroundings contain landscaping and regularly maintained trees associated with the Brookside Golf Course. The Central Arroyo Seco flows north-south along the western portion of the project site and provides connectivity to the Upper Arroyo/Hahamongna Watershed Park to the north of the project site, upstream of Devils Gate Dam. The Central Arroyo Seco provides a suitable corridor for native resident species to move through the area, particularly medium to large mammals such as coyote, bear, deer and mountain lion.

Coyote and deer have been frequently observed in the area by local residents due to the Project location’s proximity to Los Angeles National Forest (ESA 2015). Mountain lion (Puma concolor) have the potential to move through the project site using the Central Arroyo Seco and surrounding recreation areas (Wilson, 2015).

Additionally, the Rose Bowl Operating Committee (RBOC) observed a black bear (Ursus americanus), near the golf course in 2013, at night, near the ponds that occur on the golf course that currently is enclosed by an 8-foot tall fence (RBOC pers. comm. 2015).

While the project site and vicinity provide opportunities for local wildlife movement, the immediate surroundings are entirely developed and frequently used for recreational purposes and various events that are held at the Rose Bowl. The channelized portion of the Arroyo Seco that traverses the western boundary of the project site could support wildlife movement.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 14 ends

Aquatic Resources
The Arroyo Seco is likely regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW; however, with the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP’s), the proposed project activities are not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources.

Regulatory Setting
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts
FESA provides guidance for conserving federally listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

Section 9 of the FESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of any federally-listed endangered or threatened plant or animal species, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. “Take” includes the destruction of a listed species’ habitat. Section 9 also prohibits a number of specified activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants.

CESA mandates that state agencies not approve a project that would jeopardize the continued existence of species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid a jeopardy finding. CESA also prohibits the take of any fish, wildlife, or plant species listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as candidates for listing, under CESA. Similar to the FESA, CESA contains a procedure for the CDFW to issue an incidental take permit authorizing the take of listed and candidate species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, subject to specified conditions.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA prohibits the take of native birds “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities.

Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the killing of birds or the destruction of bird nests.

Birds of prey are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, which provides that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits any take or possession of birds that are designated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as migratory nongame birds except as allowed by federal rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the MBTA. Migratory birds include all native George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 15 ends

birds in the United States, except those non-migratory game species such as quail and turkey that are managed by individual states.

Clean Water Act
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(a) and includes navigable waters of the U.S., interstate waters, all other waters where the use or degradation or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries. Waters of the U.S. are often categorized as “jurisdictional wetlands” (i.e., wetlands over which the USACE exercises jurisdiction under Section 404) and “other waters of the United States” when habitat values and characteristics are being described. “Fill” is defined as any material that replaces any portion of a water of the U.S. with dry land or that changes the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the U.S. Any activity resulting in the placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the United States requires a permit from USACE. In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Section 404 permit for discharge of dredged or fill material must obtain water quality certification from the appropriate RWQCB indicating that the proposed project would uphold State of California water quality standards.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for any activity that may alter the bed and/or bank of a lake, stream, river, or channel. Typical activities that require a Streambed Alteration Agreement include, but are not limited to, excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, installation of culverts and bridge supports, and bank reinforcement. As part of the notification process, the CDFW requires documentation of any trees to be removed as part of the project. Trees that have a trunk diameter at breast height (dbh) of greater than two inches are subject to regulation by the CDFW via the Streambed Alteration Agreement.

City of Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance
The City of Pasadena’s City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance under Title 8, Chapter 8.52 of the Pasadena Municipal Code provides protection for the following trees, broadly defined as “protected tree(s)”:
• Landmark tree – A tree designated as a landmark under Chapter 17.62 of the municipal code as a tree of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community due to various factors. • Landmark-eligible tree – A tree which meets the criteria for designation as a landmark tree • Mature tree – An otherwise non-protected tree with a diameter-at-breast height (DBH) of 19 inches or greater (except for trees in RS or RM-12 Zones.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 16 ends

• Native tree – Any tree with a trunk more than 8 inches in diameter at a height of 4 ½ feet above natural grade that is one of the following species: Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann oak), Quercus chrysolepis (canyon oak), Platanus racemosa (California sycamore), Juglans californica (California walnut), Quercus berberidifolia (scrub oak), Quercus lobata (valley oak), Umbellularia californica (California bay), Populus fremontii (cottonwood), Alnus rhombifolia (California alder), Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood), Salix lasiolepis (arroyo willow), and Aesculus californica (California buckeye)”.
• Public Tree – A tree located in a place or area under ownership or control of the City, including but without limitation streets, parkways, open space, parkland and including city owned property under the operation control of another entity by virtue of a lease, license, operating or other agreement.

Arroyo Seco Master Plans
The City of Pasadena maintains three Master Plans for the Arroyo Seco: The Hahamongna Watershed Park Master Plan (for the Upper Arroyo area); the Central Arroyo Master Plan; and the Lower Arroyo Master Plan.

The project site is located within the Central Arroyo Seco Plan Area and is therefore subject to the provisions set forth within that plan.

Central Arroyo Master Plan. The Central Arroyo Master Plan Advisory Committee developed the Central Arroyo Master Plan in 2003 based on community input, interviews with public agencies, analysis of the Recreation Loop, and a review of pertinent City plans. The Master Plan was adopted by the City Council as of September 26, 2005.

The Master Plan was designed to modify and enhance existing facilities and to provide recommendations for areas within the Central Arroyo, including the area surrounding the Rose Bowl. Recommendations generally fall into the following topic areas: Brookside Park (including both hillside areas and group picnic areas); Rosemont Pavilion; the Recreation Loop; Recreation Trails, Landscape and Aesthetic Improvements; Parking; Flood Protection; Permitting Process; Management and Maintenance; Land and Conservation Acquisition; Accessibility and Security; and Implementation. Many of these recommendations have components that outline the protection and/or restoration of biological resources that persist within the plan area.

Conclusions and Recommended Minimization Measures
Special-Status Species and Nesting Birds
Cooper’s hawk and other native bird species may nest within 500 feet of the project site and may be affected by project construction. Moreover, nighttime lighting associated with the driving range improvements and proposed miniature golf course may contribute to existing nighttime lighting. The minimization measures below are recommended to avoid impacts to nesting birds during construction, including indirect impacts that may be created by additional nighttime light sources during operation. • If construction activities occur within the bird nesting season (generally defined as February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior to the proposed George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 17 ends

start date, to identify any active nests (including Cooper’s hawk) within 500 feet of the project site. If an active nest is found, the nest shall be avoided and a suitable buffer zone shall be delineated in the field such that no impacts shall occur until the chicks have fledged the nest as determined by a qualified biologist.

Construction buffers shall be 300 feet for passerines and up to 500 feet for any raptor species; however, avoidance buffers may be reduced at the discretion of the biologist, depending on the location of the nest and species tolerance to human presence and construction-related noises and vibrations. • To minimize potential indirect impact to nesting birds that may utilize ornamental/landscape vegetation onsite and/or wildlife movement along the Arroyo Seco, nighttime lighting associated with the driving range and miniature golf course shall be shielded downward to limit spillage onto these sensitive receptors.

Aquatic Resources
The Arroyo Seco is located outside of the project site. The implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMP’s) would avoid and/or minimize any inadvertent impacts to this water course, including water quality. As such, the proposed project activities are not expected to have a significant effect on aquatic resources.

Migration Corridors
Wildlife is expected to utilize the Arroyo Seco and while it is situated within the survey area, the project is not expected to have an impact on wildlife movement. Specifically, no direct effects to the Arroyo Seco would occur from construction activities. Indirect impacts to wildlife movement would be minimized by restricting construction activities between the hours of 1900 and 0700, when wildlife is least likely to move through the survey area.

Nighttime light spillage associated with the operation of the driving range and proposed miniature golf course is not expected to significantly disrupt wildlife movement when considering existing conditions. Nonetheless, nighttime lighting should be shielded away from the Arroyo Seco to reduce any potential affects it may have on wildlife movement.

Protected Trees
Protected trees are present within the project site and may be impacted as a result of construction activities. The Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project Tree Report (ESA 2020) includes an inventory of the protected trees that may be affected by the project and provides appropriate mitigation to offset these potential impacts.

Central Arroyo Seco Master Plan
In accordance with Section 4.5 Landscape and Aesthetic Improvements of the Central Arroyo Seco Master Plan, certain areas identified for native plant restoration shall be incorporated into the landscape design of the project.

George Cunningham
November 10, 2020

Page 18 ends

References
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2020. All About Birds. Accessed at: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/ Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2020. Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project, Tree Report.

October 2020.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2015. Arroyo Seco Music and Arts Festival Project, Draft EIR.

Google Earth Pro. 2020
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2020. Species Info. Accessed at http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ Wilson, Larry, Proving that Lions Roam in Pasadena: Larry Wilson, Pasadena Star-News. June 23, 2015.

On behalf of ESA, it has been a pleasure preparing this information for you. Please do not hesitate to contact Robbie Sweet or Greg Ainsworth at (805) 914-1500 if you have any questions or comments regarding this report.

Sincerely,
Robbie Sweet Greg Ainsworth
Senior Associate Biologist Director, Biological Resources Attachments: Attachment A – Representative Site Photographs Attachment B– Database Review - CNDDB, CNPS and IPaC
Attachment A
Representative Site
Photographs
A-1
Photo 1 (E). Photograph depicts the project site from its western boundary.

Photo 2 (S). Photograph depicts the project site from its northern boundary.

Attachment A – Photographic Exhibit
A-2
Photo 3 (W). Photograph depicts the project site from its southeastern boundary.

Photo 4 (E). Photograph depicts the project site from its southern boundary.

Attachment A – Photographic Exhibit
A-3
Photo 5 (N). Photograph depicts the Arroyo Seco, situated along the western project boundary.

Photo 6 (S). Photograph depicts the Arroyo Seco, situated along the western project boundary.

Attachment B
Database Review –
CNDDB, CNPS and
IPaC
Query Summary:

Quad IS (Burbank (3411823) OR Chilao Flat (3411831) OR Condor Peak (3411832) OR El Monte (3411811) OR Hollywood (3411813) OR Los Angeles (3411812) OR Mt. Wilson (3411821) OR Sunland (3411833) OR Pasadena (3411822)) Print Close
CNDDB Element Query Results
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxonomic
Group
Element
Code
Total
Occs
Returned
Occs
Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
CA
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other
Status
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufouscrowned
sparrow
Birds ABPBX91091 235 1 None None G5T3 S3 null CDFW_WL-Watch List
Anaxyrus
californicus arroyo toad Amphibians AAABB01230 139 5 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
IUCN_ENEndangered
Anniella spp. California
legless lizard Reptiles ARACC01070 119 19 None None G3G4 S3S4 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
Reptiles ARACC01060 417 34 None None G3 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Mammals AMACC10010 420 7 None None G5 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive,
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita Dicots PDERI042P0 35 12 None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Arenaria paludicola marsh
sandwort Dicots PDCAR040L0 16 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake Reptiles ARADB01017 260 3 None None G5T2 S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal
whiptail Reptiles ARACJ02143 148 10 None None G5T5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton's
milk-vetch
Dicots PDFAB0F1G0 42 4 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Print View Page 1 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Birds ABNSB10010 1989 2 None None G4 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Atriplex parishii Parish's
brittlescale Dicots PDCHE041D0 15 1 None None G1G2 S1 1B.1 SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo CRES
Native Gene Seed
Bank,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Atriplex serenana
var. davidsonii
Davidson's
saltscale Dicots PDCHE041T1 27 2 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Berberis nevinii Nevin's
barberry Dicots PDBER060A0 32 7 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Bombus crotchii Crotch
bumble bee Insects IIHYM24480 288 8 None Candidate Endangered G3G4 S1S2 null null Buteo swainsoni Swainson's
hawk Birds ABNKC19070 2535 1 None Threatened G5 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
California Walnut
Woodland
California
Walnut
Woodland
Woodland CTT71210CA 76 2 None None G2 S2.1 null null
Calochortus
clavatus var.
gracilis
slender
mariposa-lily Monocots PMLIL0D096 143 2 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Calochortus
palmeri var.
palmeri
Palmer's
mariposa-lily Monocots PMLIL0D122 111 7 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily Monocots PMLIL0D150 230 49 None None G4 S4 4.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Calochortus
striatus
alkali
mariposa-lily Monocots PMLIL0D190 113 1 None None G3? S2S3 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
Monocots PMLIL0D1J1 140 2 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Print View Page 2 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Calystegia felix lucky
morning-glory Dicots PDCON040P0 10 2 None None G1Q S1 1B.1 null Carolella busckana Busck's
gallmoth Insects IILEM2X090 4 1 None None G1G3 SH null null Castilleja gleasoni Mt. Gleason
paintbrush Dicots PDSCR0D140 33 16 None Rare G2 S2 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker Fish AFCJC02190 28 2 Threatened None G1 S1 null
AFS_THThreatened,
IUCN_VUVulnerable
Centromadia parryi
ssp. australis
southern
tarplant Dicots PDAST4R0P4 94 6 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank,
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth
tarplant Dicots PDAST4R0R4 126 1 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Chorizanthe parryi
var. fernandina
San
Fernando
Valley
spineflower
Dicots PDPGN040J1 21 3 None Endangered G2T1 S1 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower Dicots PDPGN040J2 150 3 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Cladium
californicum
California
saw-grass
Monocots PMCYP04010 13 1 None None G4 S2 2B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
Birds ABNRB02022 165 1 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List,
USFS_S-Sensitive,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's
big-eared bat
Mammals AMACC08010 635 3 None None G3G4 S2 null BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive,
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Print View Page 3 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Coturnicops
noveboracensis yellow rail Birds ABNME01010 45 1 None None G4 S1S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List,
USFS_S-Sensitive,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder Dicots PDCUS01111 6 1 None None G5T4? SH 2B.2 null Cypseloides niger black swift Birds ABNUA01010 46 1 None None G4 S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
NABCI_YWLYellow Watch List,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Diadophis
punctatus
modestus
San
Bernardino
ringneck
snake
Reptiles ARADB10015 14 1 None None G5T2T3 S2? null USFS_S-Sensitive Dodecahema
leptoceras
slenderhorned
spineflower
Dicots PDPGN0V010 41 6 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Dudleya
multicaulis
manystemmed
dudleya
Dicots PDCRA040H0 154 2 None None G2 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Birds ABPAE33043 70 2 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S1 null NABCI_RWL-Red Watch List
Emys marmorata western pond
turtle Reptiles ARAAD02030 1398 13 None None G3G4 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
IUCN_VUVulnerable,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Eumops perotis
californicus
western
mastiff bat Mammals AMACD02011 296 9 None None G5T4 S3S4 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Print View Page 4 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine
falcon
Birds ABNKD06071 58 1 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 null CDF_S-Sensitive, CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Galium grande San Gabriel
bedstraw Dicots PDRUB0N0V0 9 3 None None G1 S1 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub Fish AFCJB13120 49 1 None None G2 S2 null AFS_VUVulnerable,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Glyptostoma
gabrielense
San Gabriel
chestnut Mollusks IMGASB1010 24 15 None None G2 S2 null null Gonidea angulata western
ridged mussel Mollusks IMBIV19010 157 2 None None G3 S1S2 null null Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower Dicots PDAST4N102 7 3 None None G5TX SX 1A null Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia Dicots PDROS0W045 103 14 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1 USFS_S-Sensitive Icteria virens yellowbreasted chat Birds ABPBX24010 100 1 None None G5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Imperata brevifolia California
satintail Monocots PMPOA3D020 32 1 None None G4 S3 2B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
silver-haired
bat Mammals AMACC02010 139 1 None None G5 S3S4 null
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern,
WBWG_M-Medium
Priority
Lasiurus blossevillii western red
bat Mammals AMACC05060 128 1 None None G5 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Mammals AMACC05030 238 10 None None G5 S4 null IUCN_LC-Least
Concern,
WBWG_M-Medium
Priority
Lasiurus xanthinus western
yellow bat Mammals AMACC05070 58 1 None None G5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
WBWG_H-High
Priority
Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
Dicots PDAST5L0A1 111 1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive, SB_CalBG/RSABGPrint View Page 5 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
Dicots PDBRA1M114 142 5 None None G5T3 S3 4.3 null
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
Mammals AMAEB03051 103 1 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Linanthus
concinnus
San Gabriel
linanthus Dicots PDPLM090D0 43 4 None None G2 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson's
bush-mallow Dicots PDMAL0Q040 83 36 None None G2 S2 1B.2 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Microtus
californicus
stephensi
south coast
marsh vole Mammals AMAFF11035 7 1 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Muhlenbergia
californica
California
muhly Monocots PMPOA480A0 5 1 None None G4 S4 4.3 null
Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress Dicots PDBRA270V0 13 1 Endangered Threatened G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic Garden
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Dicots PDPLM0C0Q0 61 1 None None G2 S2 1B.2 null
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert
woodrat
Mammals AMAFF08041 132 2 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat Mammals AMACD04020 32 2 None None G5 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
WBWG_MHMedium-High
Priority
Onychomys
torridus ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
Mammals AMAFF06022 28 2 None None G5T3 S3 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Open Engelmann
Oak Woodland
Open
Engelmann
Oak
Woodland
Woodland CTT71181CA 2 2 None None G2 S2.2 null null
Opuntia basilaris
var. brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail Dicots PDCAC0D053 199 7 None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Orobanche valida
ssp. valida
Rock Creek
broomrape Dicots PDORO040G2 12 1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive Print View Page 6 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Palaeoxenus
dohrni
Dohrn's
elegant
eucnemid
beetle
Insects IICOL5K010 3 1 None None G3? S3? null null
Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia Dicots PDHYD0C510 15 1 None None G1 S1 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard Reptiles ARACF12100 784 21 None None G3G4 S3S4 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Birds ABPBJ08081 883 16 Threatened None G4G5T2Q S2 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
NABCI_YWLYellow Watch List
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobacco Dicots PDAST440C0 62 6 None None G4 S2 2B.2 null Quercus dumosa Nuttall's
scrub oak Dicots PDFAG050D0 180 1 None None G3 S3 1B.1
BLM_S-Sensitive,
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo CRES
Native Gene Seed
Bank,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Rana muscosa
southern
mountain
yellow-legged
frog
Amphibians AAABH01330 186 14 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 null CDFW_WL-Watch
List, IUCN_ENEndangered,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Rhinichthys
osculus ssp. 3
Santa Ana
speckled
dace
Fish AFCJB3705K 13 1 None None G5T1 S1 null
AFS_THThreatened,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish's
gooseberry Dicots PDGRO020F3 5 4 None None G5TX SX 1A null Riparia riparia bank swallow Birds ABPAU08010 298 2 None Threatened G5 S2 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Scrub CTT32720CA 30 7 None None G1 S1.1 null null
Scutellaria
bolanderi ssp.
austromontana
southern
mountains
skullcap
Dicots PDLAM1U0A1 43 1 None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Setophaga
petechia
yellow
warbler Birds ABPBX03010 78 2 None None G5 S3S4 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
USFWS_BCC-Birds
of Conservation
Concern
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
Dicots PDMAL110J0 30 3 None None G4 S2 2B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive Print View Page 7 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Southern California
Arroyo Chub/Santa
Ana Sucker
Stream
Southern
California
Arroyo
Chub/Santa
Ana Sucker
Stream
Inland
Waters CARE2330CA 4 1 None None GNR SNR null null
Southern Coast
Live Oak Riparian
Forest
Southern
Coast Live
Oak Riparian
Forest
Riparian CTT61310CA 246 33 None None G4 S4 null null
Southern
Cottonwood Willow
Riparian Forest
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow
Riparian
Forest
Riparian CTT61330CA 111 4 None None G3 S3.2 null null
Southern Mixed
Riparian Forest
Southern
Mixed
Riparian
Forest
Riparian CTT61340CA 14 4 None None G2 S2.1 null null
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian Woodland
Southern
Sycamore
Alder
Riparian
Woodland
Riparian CTT62400CA 230 52 None None G4 S4 null null
Spea hammondii western
spadefoot Amphibians AAABF02020 1409 6 None None G3 S3 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern,
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
Dicots PDASTE80C0 102 2 None None G2 S2 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, SB_CRESSan Diego Zoo
CRES Native Gene
Seed Bank,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Symphyotrichum
greatae
Greata's
aster Dicots PDASTE80U0 56 21 None None G2 S2 1B.3
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Taricha torosa Coast Range
newt Amphibians AAAAF02032 88 3 None None G4 S4 null
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern
Taxidea taxus American
badger
Mammals AMAJF04010 594 1 None None G5 S3 null CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern
Print View Page 8 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake Reptiles ARADB36160 184 7 None None G4 S3S4 null BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern, IUCN_LCLeast Concern,
USFS_S-Sensitive
Thelypteris
puberula var.
sonorensis
Sonoran
maiden fern Ferns PPTHE05192 27 3 None None G5T3 S2 2B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's
vireo Birds ABPBW01114 503 19 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2 null IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened,
NABCI_YWLYellow Watch List
Walnut Forest Walnut Forest Forest CTT81600CA 6 1 None None G1 S1.1 null null Print View Page 9 of 9
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html 10/22/2020 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants *The database used to provide updates to the Online Inventory is under construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here.

Plant List
75 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria
California Rare Plant Rank is one of [1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4], FESA is one of [Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Not L CESA is one of [Endangered, Threatened, Rare, Not Listed], Found in Quads 3411833, 3411832, 3411831, 3411823, 3411822, 3411821, 3411813, 3411812 and 3411811;
Lifeform is one of [Tree, Shrub, Leaf succulent, Herb, Vine, Stem succulent, Lichen, Moss, Liverwort], Duration is one of [ann, per, ephem],
Bloom Time is one of [January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, Dece Modify Search Criteria Export to Excel Modify Columns Modify Sort Display Photos Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming
Period
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
State
Rank
Global
Rank
Acanthoscyphus
parishii var. parishii Parish's oxytheca Polygonaceae annual herb Jun-Sep 4.2 S3S4 G4? T3T4
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreen shrub Mar 1B.2 S3 G5T3 Arctostaphylos
parryana ssp.
tumescens
interior
manzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreen shrub Feb-Apr 4.3 S3S4 G4T3T4 Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Caryophyllaceae
perennial
stoloniferous
herb
May-Aug 1B.1 S1 G1
Asplenium vespertinum western
spleenwort Aspleniaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Feb-Jun 4.2 S4 G4 Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milkvetch Fabaceae perennial herb Jan-Aug 1B.1 S2 G2 Astragalus
pycnostachyus var.
lanosissimus
Ventura marsh
milk-vetch Fabaceae perennial herb (Jun)AugOct 1B.1 S1 G2T1 Atriplex parishii Parish's
brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1G2 Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson's
saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S1 G5T1 CNPS Inventory Results Page 1 of 5
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&fesa=FE:FT:... 10/22/2020 Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry Berberidaceae perennial evergreen shrub
(Feb)MarJun1B.1 S1 G1
Calochortus catalinae Catalina
mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb
(Feb)MarJun 4.2 S3S4 G3G4
Calochortus clavatus
var. gracilis
slender mariposa
lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb
Mar-Jun
(Nov) 1B.2 S2S3 G4T2T3
Calochortus palmeri
var. palmeri
Palmer's
mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Apr-Jul 1B.2 S2 G3T2 Calochortus plummerae Plummer's
mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb May-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
intermediate
mariposa lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb May-Jul 1B.2 S2 G3G4T2 Calystegia felix lucky morningglory Convolvulaceae annual rhizomatous herb Mar-Sep 1B.1 S1 G1Q
Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis' eveningprimrose Onagraceae annual herb Mar-May (Jun) 3 S4 G4
Castilleja gleasoni Mt. Gleason
paintbrush Orobanchaceae perennial herb (hemiparasitic) May-Jun
(Sep) 1B.2 S2 G2
Castilleja plagiotoma Mojave
paintbrush Orobanchaceae perennial herb (hemiparasitic) Apr-Jun 4.3 S4 G4 Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis southern tarplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Nov 1B.1 S2 G3T2 Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis smooth tarplant Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Sep 1B.1 S2 G3G4T2 Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina
San Fernando
Valley
spineflower
Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S1 G2T1
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry's
spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S2 G3T2 Cladium californicum California
sawgrass Cyperaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jun-Sep 2B.2 S2 G4 Clinopodium
mimuloides
monkey-flower
savory
Lamiaceae perennial herb Jun-Oct 4.2 S3 G3
Convolvulus simulans small-flowered
morning-glory Convolvulaceae annual herb Mar-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa Peruvian dodder Convolvulaceae annual vine
(parasitic) Jul-Oct 2B.2 SH G5T4?
Diplacus johnstonii Johnston's
monkeyflower Phrymaceae annual herb (Apr)MayAug 4.3 S4 G4 Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed
dudleya Crassulaceae perennial herb Apr-Jul 1B.2 S2 G2
Erythranthe diffusa Palomar
monkeyflower Phrymaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 4.3 S3 G4
Frasera neglecta pine greengentian Gentianaceae perennial herb May-Jul 4.3 S4 G4 Galium angustifolium
ssp. gabrielense
San Antonio
Canyon bedstraw Rubiaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug 4.3 S3 G5T3 CNPS Inventory Results Page 2 of 5
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&fesa=FE:FT:... 10/22/2020 Galium grande San Gabriel
bedstraw
Rubiaceae perennial
deciduous shrub
Jan-Jul 1B.2 S1 G1
Galium jepsonii Jepson's
bedstraw Rubiaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jul-Aug 4.3 S3 G3 Galium johnstonii Johnston's
bedstraw Rubiaceae perennial herb Jun-Jul 4.3 S4 G4
Helianthus nuttallii ssp.
parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower Asteraceae perennial rhizomatous herb Aug-Oct 1A SH G5TH Heuchera caespitosa urn-flowered
alumroot Saxifragaceae perennial rhizomatous herb May-Aug 4.3 S3 G3 Hordeum intercedens vernal barley Poaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 3.2 S3S4 G3G4 Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula mesa horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb Feb-Jul
(Sep) 1B.1 S1 G4T1
Hulsea vestita ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
Mountains
sunflower
Asteraceae perennial herb May-Jul 4.3 S3 G5T3
Imperata brevifolia California
satintail Poaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Sep-May 2B.1 S3 G4 Juglans californica
Southern
California black
walnut
Juglandaceae perennial
deciduous tree Mar-Aug 4.2 S4 G4
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Jun 1B.1 S2 G4T2
Lepechinia fragrans fragrant pitcher
sage
Lamiaceae perennial shrub Mar-Oct 4.2 S3 G3
Lepidium virginicum
var. robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
Brassicaceae annual herb Jan-Jul 4.3 S3 G5T3
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb
Mar-Jul
(Aug) 4.2 S4? G4T4?
Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel
linanthus Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.2 S2 G2
Linanthus orcuttii Orcutt's linanthus Polemoniaceae annual herb May-Jun 1B.3 S2 G3 Lupinus peirsonii Peirson's lupine Fabaceae perennial herb Apr-Jun 1B.3 S3 G3 Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson's bushmallow Malvaceae perennial
deciduous shrub Jun-Jan 1B.2 S2 G2
Monardella australis
ssp. cinerea gray monardella Lamiaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb Jul-Aug 4.3 S3 G4T3
Muhlenbergia
californica California muhly Poaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb Jun-Sep 4.3 S4 G4
Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's water
cress
Brassicaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb Apr-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1
Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal
pool navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S2 G2 Opuntia basilaris var.
brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail Cactaceae perennial stem succulent
Apr-Jun
(Aug) 1B.2 S3 G5T3
Orobanche valida ssp.
valida
Rock Creek
broomrape Orobanchaceae perennial herb (parasitic) May-Sep 1B.2 S2 G4T2 Phacelia hubbyi Hubby's phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 4.2 S4 G4 CNPS Inventory Results Page 3 of 5
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&fesa=FE:FT:... 10/22/2020 Search the Inventory
Simple Search
Advanced Search
Glossary
Information
About the Inventory
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS
Contributors
The Calflora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California Herbaria
CalPhotos
Phacelia mohavensis Mojave phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Apr-Aug 4.3 S4 G4Q Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobacco Asteraceae perennial herb (Jul)AugNov(Dec) 2B.2 S2 G4 Quercus dumosa Nuttall's scrub
oak Fagaceae perennial evergreen shrub
Feb-Apr
(May-Aug) 1B.1 S3 G3
Quercus durata var.
gabrielensis San Gabriel oak Fagaceae perennial
evergreen shrub Apr-May 4.2 S3 G4T3
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak Fagaceae perennial
deciduous tree Mar-Jun 4.2 S3 G3
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish's
gooseberry Grossulariaceae perennial deciduous shrub Feb-Apr 1A SX G5TX Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija
poppy Papaveraceae perennial rhizomatous herb
Mar-Jul
(Aug) 4.2 S4 G4
Rupertia rigida Parish's rupertia Fabaceae perennial herb Jun-Aug 4.3 S4 G4 Scutellaria bolanderi
ssp. austromontana
southern
mountains
skullcap
Lamiaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb Jun-Aug 1B.2 S3 G4T3
Senecio astephanus San Gabriel
ragwort Asteraceae perennial herb May-Jul 4.3 S3 G3
Sidalcea neomexicana salt spring
checkerbloom Malvaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun 2B.2 S2 G4 Sidotheca
caryophylloides
chickweed
oxytheca Polygonaceae annual herb Jul-Sep(Oct) 4.3 S4 G4 Spermolepis lateriflora western bristly
scaleseed Apiaceae annual herb Mar-Apr 2A SH G5
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster Asteraceae perennial rhizomatous herb
Jul-Nov
(Dec) 1B.2 S2 G2
Symphyotrichum
greatae Greata's aster Asteraceae perennial
rhizomatous herb Jun-Oct 1B.3 S2 G2
Thelypteris puberula
var. sonorensis
Sonoran maiden
fern Thelypteridaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jan-Sep 2B.2 S2 G5T3 Suggested Citation
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 22 October 2020].

CNPS Inventory Results Page 4 of 5
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&fesa=FE:FT:... 10/22/2020 Questions and Comments
[email protected]
© Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved.

CNPS Inventory Results Page 5 of 5
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&fesa=FE:FT:... 10/22/2020 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Los Angeles County, California
Local office
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC: Explore Location Page 1 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
 (760) 431-9440
 (760) 431-5901
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species
and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1 2
IPaC: Explore Location Page 3 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information.

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Birds
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Braunton's Milk-vetch Astragalus brauntonii
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5674
Endangered
Nevin's Barberry Berberis nevinii
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8025
Endangered
IPaC: Explore Location Page 4 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managedspecies/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasur 1 2
IPaC: Explore Location Page 5 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A

BREEDING SEASON IS

INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON

YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY

BREED IN YOUR PROJECT

AREA SOMETIME WITHIN

THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,

WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL

ESTIMATE OF THE DATES

INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD

BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE
RANGE. "BREEDS
ELSEWHERE" INDICATES

THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT

LIKELY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA.)
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
IPaC: Explore Location Page 6 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Black Swift Cypseloides niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878
Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10
Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31
California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7266
Breeds Mar 10 to Jun 15
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9470
Breeds Jan 15 to Jun 10
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
IPaC: Explore Location Page 7 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Breeds elsewhere
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5
Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4243
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20
IPaC: Explore Location Page 8 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483
Breeds elsewhere
White Headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9411
Breeds May 1 to Aug 15
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
IPaC: Explore Location Page 9 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year.

The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is

0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive.

This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC IPaC: Explore Location Page 10 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
(This is not a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
in this area, but
warrants
attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities
in offshore
areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
Black Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Blackchinned
Sparrow
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
IPaC: Explore Location Page 11 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 California
Spotted Owl
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Common
Yellowthroat
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
Costa's
Hummingbird
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
IPaC: Explore Location Page 12 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
(This is not a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
in this area, but
warrants
attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities
in offshore
areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC IPaC: Explore Location Page 13 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Song Sparrow
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
Spotted
Towhee
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
Whimbrel
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
IPaC: Explore Location Page 14 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 White
Headed
Woodpecker
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

IPaC: Explore Location Page 15 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

IPaC: Explore Location Page 16 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
IPaC: Explore Location Page 17 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

FRESHWATER POND
PUBHx

RIVERINE
R4SBCx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
IPaC: Explore Location Page 18 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020 Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed onthe-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.

There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

IPaC: Explore Location Page 19 of 19
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HEJJ2LUXB5EBVO3TDFU4UHPFXI/resources 10/22/2020

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
January 2023
Appendix C Tree Survey Report

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT
Tree Report
Prepared for November 2020
George Cunningham
Rose Bowl Operating Company

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT
Tree Report
Prepared for November 2020
George Cunningham
Rose Bowl Operating Company
Prepared by
Douglas Gordon-Blackwood
Senior Biologist/Arborist, ESA
RCA #689 / ISA WE-11726-AU
Reviewed by
Greg Ainsworth
Director/Arborist, ESA
ISA WE-7473-A
80 South Lake Avenue
Suite 570
Pasadena, CA 91101
626.204.6170
esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
D202000261.00
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Tree Report
Page
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................. 3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 7 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 12 Certification of Performance .............................................................................................. 13 Appendices
A. Tree Measurements
B. Tree Photographs
C. Resumes
D. City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines
List of Tables
1 Tree Impact Summary ................................................................................................ 8 List of Figures
1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................ 4 2 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 5 3 Tree Locations ............................................................................................................ 9 4 Tree Canopies .......................................................................................................... 10 5 Tree Encroachments................................................................................................. 11

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
1 BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
Tree Report
Summary
 Number of protected trees surveyed .................................................................................... 81  Public trees ........................................................................................................................ 81  Native trees ....................................................................................................................... 15  Specimen trees ..................................................................................................................... 6  Number of protected trees that could be removed .............................................................. 47  Specimen trees ..................................................................................................................... 4  Native trees ........................................................................................................................ 10  Public trees ........................................................................................................................ 33  Number of protected trees that could be encroached ......................................................... 16  Specimen trees ..................................................................................................................... 0  Native trees .......................................................................................................................... 4  Public trees ........................................................................................................................ 12  Number of protected trees that could be avoided ............................................................... 18  Specimen trees ..................................................................................................................... 2  Native trees .......................................................................................................................... 1  Public trees ........................................................................................................................ 15 Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
2 BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
Tree Report
Introduction
On behalf of the Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC), Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted a tree survey at the proposed site of the Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project (Project), located in the City of Pasadena (City), Los Angeles County, California. The survey was conducted to document protected trees as defined in the City of Pasadena Code of Ordinances (Pasadena, 2018) that are within the proposed grading limits of the Project, including those that may be removed, encroached, or avoided by the project.

The City’s Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8, Chapter 8.52) defines a Protected tree as “a native, specimen, landmark, landmark-eligible, mature (except for the trees in RS or RM-12 Zones), or public tree”. Furthermore, it defines native trees as:
“any tree with a trunk more than 8 inches in diameter at a height of 4 ½ feet above natural grade that is one of the following species: Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Quercus engelmanii (Engelmann oak), Quercus chrysolepis (canyon oak), Platanus racemosa (California sycamore), Juglans californica (California walnut), Quercus berberidifolia (scrub oak), Quercus lobata (valley oak), Umbellularia californica (California bay), Populus fremontii (cottonwood), Alnus rhombifolia (California alder), Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood), Salix lasiolepis (arroyo willow), and Aesculus californica (California buckeye).”
In accordance with the Ordinance, public trees are defined as “a tree located in a place or area under ownership or control of the city including but without limitation streets, parkways, open space, parkland, and including city owned property under the operational control of another entity by virtue of a lease, license, operating or other agreement”. All trees located within the boundaries of the Brookside Golf Course are considered public trees and are therefore protected.

Mature trees are defined as “an otherwise non-protected tree with a diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 19 inches or greater”. The City also provides a list1 of tree species and criteria of trees that possess distinctive form, size or age at certain trunk diameters or heights, herein referred to as ‘specimen’ trees. Specimen trees are also considered protected. 1 https://www.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2017/06/TPO_6-Specimen-Tree-List.pdf Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
3 Existing Conditions
The Project site is located at the Brookside Golf Course, which is within the Central Arroyo Seco area of Arroyo Seco Canyon in the western portion of the City (See Figure 1 – Project Vicinity and Figure 2 – Project Location). Central Arroyo Seco is generally bounded by the Colorado Street Bridge to the south, Arroyo Boulevard and Arroyo Terrace to the east, Interstate-210 to the north/east, and Linda Vista Avenue to the west. Uses surrounding the golf course include residential uses to the west and east, Interstate-210 to the north, and the Rose Bowl to the south.

Project site is surrounded by the golf course to the north, east and south, and the Arroyo Seco abuts its western boundary. The Arroyo Seco is a concrete-lined channel that is a major tributary of the Los Angeles River. The golf course is a contributor to the Pasadena Arroyo Parks and Recreation District, which is loosely defined as the central and lower Arroyo and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for its cultural landscape.

Project Description
The Project proposes to relocate and expand the existing driving range and construct a new 36- hole miniature golf facility. The expanded driving range and new miniature golf facility would generally be located in the same area as the existing driving range, which is currently located between the concrete channeled Arroyo Seco to the west, the Brookside Clubhouse to the east, and the C.W. Koiner Course to the north and south. The proposed expansion of the driving range would increase the number of hitting bays from 20 to 60 . Brookside Golf Course would remain a championship layout and the course reduction would be designed to improve the pace of play.

A previous tree survey was conducted for the entire Brookside Golf Course by Davey Resource Group in 2016 and provided detailed information for trees within the Project including tree number and species. Those trees were reassessed and are included in this report.

Methods
ESA Arborist Douglas Gordon-Blackwood (See Appendix C – Resume) conducted the field survey on October 5 and 6, 2020. During the field survey, the area identified by RBOC as the grading limits (See Figure 2) was walked and a Global Positioning System with sub-meter accuracy (Eos Arrow 100 Global Navigation Satellite System) unit used in conjunction with ESRI’s Collector for Arc GIS (Classic) application to collect location and survey data. At the discretion of RBOC, previously affixed tree tags and numbering were utilized in order to remain consistent with previous tree inventories conducted by Davey Resource Group (2016), Arborjet and other unknown arborists. A Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR Camera was used to take photographs of each surveyed tree.

Project Location
§¨¦605
§¨¦210
§¨¦5
§¨¦105
§¨¦405
§¨¦110
§¨¦10
§¨¦710
§¨¦5
§¨¦105
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
£¤101
£¤101
UV60
UV91
UV134
UV72
UV110 UV19
UV170
UV2
UV72
UV72
UV2
UV2
UV2
UV90
UV90
Los Angeles
Glendale
Pasadena
Burbank
Whittier
Downey
Monrovia
Arcadia
West Covina
Industry
Norwalk Compton
El Monte
Inglewood
Alhambra
La Mirada
South Gate
Lynwood
Monterey Park
Cerritos
Pico Rivera
Commerce
Hawthorne
Baldwin Park
Santa Fe Springs
Beverly Hills
Culver City
La Canada Flintridge
San Gabriel
La Habra Heights
La Puente
Sierra Madre
West Hollywood
San Fernando

ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
Area of
Detail
N
0 4
Miles
Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Figure 1
Regional Location
SOURCE: ESRI, 2020; ESA, 2020

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
6 Data collected for all protected trees included the tree species and physical characteristics. Survey data for each tree is provided in Appendix A –Tree Measurements and photographs of each tree are provided in Appendix B – Tree Photographs. The following physical condition and characteristic data was collected for each tree:

Physical Characteristics
 Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) – measured four feet, six inches from the base of the tree using a forester’s diameter-equivalent tape. For Palms, Height-to-brown-trunk (base of lowest frond) is measured in place of DBH.
 Canopy spread: The canopy spread from the trunk to the dripline in eight (8) directions (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW).
 Height – Measured using a Nikon Forestry Pro Laser hypsometer.  Balance and symmetry of the tree based on the crown radius measurements and whether the tree leans or is otherwise unstable.

Physical Condition
 Identification of damage caused by pathogens or insect pests, by natural causes such as lightning, or by human activity (such as golf ball damage).  Evaluation of vigor based on such parameters as amount of new growth, leaf color, abnormal bark, dead wood, evidence of wilt, excessive necrosis or leaf chlorosis, thinning of crown, etc.
 Assessment of the overall health of the tree based on the evaluation of vigor, presence of damage, and comparison to the typical archetype tree of the same species.  Evaluation of vigor based on such parameters as amount of new growth, leaf color, abnormal bark, dead wood, evidence of wilt, excessive necrosis or leaf chlorosis, thinning of crown, etc.

Rating
For each tree, a subjective alphabetical rank of “A” through “F” was assigned for health, vigor, balance and aesthetic. Ranks were based on the criteria described below:
 “A” = Very Healthy/Excellent: A healthy and vigorous tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, disease, or pest infestation. With regards to balance and aesthetics, trunks are straight and canopies well balanced and the tree exemplifies the ideal archetype for the species.
 “B” = Healthy/Good: A healthy and vigorous tree with minor visible signs of stress, disease, and/or pest infestation. Some maintenance measures may need to be implemented, such as pruning of dead wood or broken branches. Tree may lean slightly, canopies may not be evenly balanced, or the tree may otherwise be marginally challenged aesthetically.  “C” = Average Health/Fair: Although healthy in overall appearance, there is abnormal amount of stress or disease/insect infestation, and a substantial amount of maintenance may be needed. The trunk may be growing at a more substantial angle or the canopy may have “holes” or be further out of balance.

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
7  “D” = Dying/Poor: A tree that may be exhibiting substantially more stress, disease, or insect damage than what is expected for the species. The tree may be in a state of rapid decline, and may show various signs of dieback, necrosis, or other symptoms caused by pathogens or insect pests. The tree may lean significantly and the canopy is far out of balance.  “F” = Dead/Very Poor: This tree has no foliage and exhibits no sign of life or vigor. Tree may be prone on the ground or otherwise severely aesthetically compromised.

Scope of Work Limitations
Measurement estimates were made for 6 trees (#’s 58, 65, 71, 85, 87, and 88) located within the driving range, because the driving range was open during the assessments and the arborist was unable to access these trees safely.

Results
Eighty-one (81) trees were surveyed. Fifteen (15) trees are native trees that include three coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia; trees 91, 109, & 179), three California bay laurels (Umbellularia californica; tree’s 115, 116, & 160), eight California sycamores (Platanus racemosa; tree’s 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 103, 165, & 1064), and one white alder (Alnus rhombifolia; tree 111). Six (6) trees are specimen trees that include one American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua; tree 69), one red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon; tree 84), two Sydney red gums (Angophora costata; trees 105 & 110), and two Italian stone pines (Pinus pinea; trees 167 and 177).

All of the surveyed trees are considered ‘public trees’ that include: one Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta; tree 102), twenty-seven (27) Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle; tree’s 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, and 174), five (5) shamel ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei; tree’s 106, 107, 108, 173, 1051), one Chinese privet (Ligustrum lucidum; tree 104), five (5) holly oaks (Quercus ilex; tree’s 65, 127, 134, 161, and 162), six (6) Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis; tree #168, 169, 170, 172, 175, and 178), two (2) American sweetgums (tree’s 112 and 164), one Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia; tree 1556), four (4) red ironbark (tree’s 150, 156, 157, and 158), two (2) carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua; tree’s 148 and 152), two (2) swamp mahogany trees (Eucalyptus robusta; tree’s 113 and 114), one Japanese yew (Podocarpus macrophyllus; tree 71) and two (2) white paperbark trees (Melaleuca quinquenervia; tree’s 58 and 159). The locations of the trees are provided in Figure 3 – Tree Locations and the tree canopies are provided in Figure 4 – Tree Canopies.

As shown in Table 1, forty-seven (47) trees are located within the grading limits of the Project footprint and could be removed as a result of the project (tree’s 58, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 157, 158, 169, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 1051, and 1064). Sixteen (16) trees will be encroached by construction activities (tree’s 55, 59, 60, 66, 89, 112, 114, 115, 116, 127, 134, 148, 152, 156, 179, and 1556). Eighteen (18) trees will be completely avoided (tree’s 56, 57, 62, 64, 111, 113, 150, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, and 178. Of the 81 trees inventoried, 93 percent, or 76 trees, were rated to be in excellent to fair condition Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
8 (A, B, or C health grade). This includes ten trees in excellent (A) condition, 32 trees in good (B) condition and34 in fair (C) condition. In addition, 5 trees were rated in poor (D) condition.

TABLE 1

TREE IMPACT SUMMARY
Removals Encroachments Avoided
58, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 157, 158, 169,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 1051, and 1064
55, 59, 60, 66, 89, 112, 114, 115,
116, 127, 134, 148, 152, 156, 179,
and 1556
56, 57, 62, 64, 111, 113, 150,
167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,
173, 174, 175, 177, and 178

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
12 Discussion
All 81 of the trees that were surveyed are considered protected trees in accordance with the City’s ordinance. Based on the current project description which is subject to change, forty-seven (47) of the protected trees are could require removal to accommodate project construction, sixteen (16) could be encroached upon to accommodate project construction, and eighteen (18) protected trees within the survey area could be avoided. In addition, trees qualifying as specimen or native also exist within the grading limits of the project and are included in the aforementioned trees that could be removed, encroached and avoided.

The City Manager is responsible for the review of this tree report, and will make determinations on public tree removal based upon tree reports prepared by certified arborists, other relevant facts, and upon established public tree removal criteria and review development and construction plans as they affect mature, landmark, landmark-eligible, native, public and specimen trees. If trees are to be removed as a result of the Project, the City Manager gives at least 10-days’ notice to abutting property owners prior to the removal. Projects that would result in the removal of 3 or more public trees, notification will be provided to the city council, the design commission, and any neighborhood organizations in such area which are known. Tree replacements or alternative solutions (based on discretionary approval) will be provided after consultation with the City Manager and the design commission.

The City Manager can deny permits for removal of protected trees, including native or specimen trees, unless there is (1) a public, health or safety benefit from the removal of the tree, (2) the tree is deemed dead/dying and determined that it is not likely to survive, (3) there are objective features of the tree that make the tree not suitable for protections (such as invasive, damaging or nuisance trees), (4) the tree represents a substantial financial/recreational hardship to the property owner, (5) the tree injury/removal would constitute a taking of the underlying real property or (6) the corresponding landscape design plan will result in a greater canopy coverage than the tree being removed (within a reasonable time frame). The proposed Project could be considered a ‘public benefit’ (as defined within Code 8.52) in that it provides upgraded recreational areas and facilities which would broaden the usability of the site for the general public.

Based on the Project as described in this report (which is subject to refinement), it could result in the removal of 47 protected trees and the encroachment of 16 protected trees. These activities have the potential to negatively affect not only the encroached trees, but also other trees present in the vicinity of construction activities. For example, Project-related activities such as excavation, trenching, soil compaction, change of grade, drainage, pruning, mechanical damage from construction equipment, landscaping, and irrigation may negatively affect the root system of trees in the vicinity without implementing protective measures. The guidelines provided in the City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines (Appendix D – City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines) should be implemented to ensure that all preserved trees within or adjacent to the property will be protected during construction activities, as well as in perpetuity following completion of the Project.

Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project. ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020
13 Certification of Performance
I, Douglas Gordon-Blackwood, certify:
 That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately.
 That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
 That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own;  That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices;  That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report;
 That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party.

I further certify that I am a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist #689, and acknowledge, accept, and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, and have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over 13 years.

Signed:

Date: 11/9/2020
Douglas Gordon-Blackwood
Registered Consulting Arborist, #689
Certified Arborist, WE-11726-AU
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
This report comprises a total of 13 pages, plus appendices. Unauthorized separation or removal of any portion of this report deems it invalid as a whole.

Conditions represented in this report are limited to the inventory date and time. Rating for health and structure do not constitute a health or structural guarantee beyond that date. Risk assessments were not performed for the purposes of this report.

Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020

Appendix A – Tree Measurements
Tree
Number1 Common Name Latin Name Latitude Longitude
Protected Tree
Classification2 DBH3
Height
5 Canopy North
6 Canopy
NorthWest
Canopy West
Canopy
SouthWest
Canopy South
Canopy SouthEast
Canopy East
Canopy NorthEast
Health
Aesthetics
Balance
Vigor Comments Soil Condition
55 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1646235 ‐118.1680865 P 15.0 22 5 11 23 19 16 12 11 6 B C B B exposed damaged roots normal 56 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16462881 ‐118.1682396 P 13.7 25 11 12 13 15 15 16 12 13 BBBC slight lean, minor root damage normal 57 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16465072 ‐118.168289 P 14.7 20 10 8 13 12 12 8 9 8 C C D C strong lean, exposed damaged roots, crown raised and lion tailed normal 58 white paperbark tree Melaleuca quinquinervia 34.16528314 ‐118.1682843 P, M 21 24 3 6 13 6 3 2 2 2 C C D C severe golf ball damage, topped, damaged exposed roots, measurements estimated due to location on active driving range
normal
59 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16462272 ‐118.1683236 P 10.5 20 8 13 15 15 13 10 4 4 B C C C self corrected lean, root damage, exposed roots, basal sprouting normal 60 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1646015 ‐118.1682719 P 8.0 13 1 1 18 16 5111CCDC strong lean to w‐sw, basal sprouting, lion tailed, exposed damaged roots, decay at base normal 61 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.164594 ‐118.1683748 P 15.6 30 11 12 10 14 18 15 12 8 B B C C root damage, self corrected lean, basal sprouting, normal 62 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16460405 ‐118.1684377 P 13.1 26 10 12 13 16 15 14 12 13 C B B C damaged roots with decay, crown raised, recommend decay assessment normal 63 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1647125 ‐118.1684683 P 14.5 25 5 11 15 17 17 11 14 6 CCCB basal sprouting, lopsided due to presence of driving range fence, built up soil over roots, burls on trunk normal 64 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16456372 ‐118.1684914 P 12.7 19 10 11 12 16 13 12 6 4 C B B C exposed roots, mechanical damage at base, slight lean normal 65 holly oak Quercus ilex 34.16534225 ‐118.1684775 P, M 19.0, 15.0 (24.2)4 30 7 6 7 9 6 6 5 6 CCCC golfball damage, topped, dead hangers in canopy,
measurements estimated due to location on active driving range
normal
66 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16455606 ‐118.1685528 P 14.1 25 10 17 15 10 11 14 10 6 C C B C root decay present, exposed damaged roots, fungus at base, basal sprouting, recommend decay assessment normal 67 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16455511 ‐118.1686195 P 12.5 23 13 12 14 14 15 9 5 8 BBBB crown raised, built up soil over roots normal 68 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16452709 ‐118.1687499 P 15.0 23 10 14 17 15 14 15 14 12 B C B B basal sprouting, minor bark beetle pavement over roots 69 American sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 34.16549444 ‐118.1687804 P, S 23 50 16 20 18 14 15 18 15 16 C C B C dieback in canopy with multiple dead hangers, leaf scorch, golfball damage, exposed damaged roots, remove dead
hangers
normal
70 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16476468 ‐118.1688068 P 14.5 19 11 13 15 15 13 12 10 6 CCCC golfball damage, slight lean, large limb removal, bark beetle, basal sprouting normal 71 Japanese yew Podocarpus macrophyllus 34.16553927 ‐118.1688504 P 11.0 20 6 8 6 6 4 6 7 6DDCC golfball damage, dieback in crown, multiple dead hangers, mold/mildew on trunk due to sprinkler overspray,
measurements estimated due to location on active driving range
normal
72 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16476679 ‐118.1688848 P 13.3 26 14 16 15 18 16 20 15 13 C C B C golfball damage, basal sprouting, bark beetle saturated 73 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1646987 ‐118.1689294 P 15.5 29 12 15 12 11 11 14 12 10 C C B C built up turf over crown, basal sprouting, possible decay at base normal 74 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16479735 ‐118.1689614 P 13.3 25 12 13 9 13 10 7 8 9 B C C B golfball damage, basal sprouting normal 75 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1647948 ‐118.1690292 P 18.3 18 10 11 19 11 12 12 13 11 CCCC golfball damage, exposed damaged roots normal 76 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1648121 ‐118.1690845 P 8.3 14 10 12 11 10 12 7 5 5 C C B C golfball damage, basal sprouting, crown raised normal 77 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16481319 ‐118.1691521 P 13.3 28 9 13 14 15 13 12 12 8 C B C C golfball damage, crown raised normal78 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.1648411 ‐118.1692159 P 8.3 18 6 8 10 9 10 6 7 7 CCCC golfball damage, basal sprouting, crown raised normal 79 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16483821 ‐118.1692768 P 12.3 25 13 14 13 19 12 11 13 12 BBBC golfball damage, crown raised, basal sprouting normal 80 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16486196 ‐118.1693348 P 8.0 16 6 8 978643DCCC slight lean, decay at base, basal sprouting, flush cuts along trunk compacted 81 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16485852 ‐118.1694193 P 8.4 16 2 5 8 11 12 9 6 6 C C B C basal sprouting, golfball damage, exudate in upper canopy normal 82 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16488537 ‐118.1694786 P 7.0 11 5 6 667544CBBC golfball damage, lean, compacted 83 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16488429 ‐118.1695386 P 9.1 18 8 7 765698 BBBC golfball damage, crown raised, basal sprouting normal 84 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 34.16439789 ‐118.1695949 P, S 26.6 30 14 17 11 10 11 13 12 9 C C B C epicormic and basal sprouting, included bark, built up turf/soil on crown
normal
85 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16583031 ‐118.1696162 P, N, M 29 19 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 D F D D tree mostly dead, basal resprouts present, upper 20 feet of canopy all dead decaying wood, measurements estimated due to location on driving range, recommend removal
normal
86 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16490345 ‐118.1696161 P 10.4 20 6 8 7 8 10 6 6 7 B C B B golfball damage, slight lean, crown raised compacted 87 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16514762 ‐118.1696988 P, N 12 28 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 C D C C golfball damage, dieback in crown, ISHB‐FD7 likely,
measurements estimated due to location on active driving range
normal
88 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16515487 ‐118.1697231 P, N, M 23 30 10 8 12 15 18 10 10 10 C D C C ISHB‐FD likely, dieback in crown, large dead hangers in canopy, golfball damage, measurements estimated due to location on active driving range
normal
89 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16420445 ‐118.1699793 P, N, M 27.5 50 17 19 21 15 17 19 19 14 D C C C ISHB‐FD likely, basal resprout, decay in trunk, termites, frass pavement over roots 90 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16586899 ‐118.1700128 P, N, M 23.4 37 20 23 19 19 24 16 20 19 CCCC multiple cavities and woodpecker holes, ISHB‐FD likely, golfball damage, lean normal 1 Appendix A – Tree Measurements
Tree
Number1 Common Name Latin Name Latitude Longitude
Protected Tree
Classification2 DBH3
Height
5 Canopy North
6 Canopy
NorthWest
Canopy West
Canopy
SouthWest
Canopy South
Canopy SouthEast
Canopy East
Canopy NorthEast
Health
Aesthetics
Balance
Vigor Comments Soil Condition
91 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 34.16571731 ‐118.1700568 P, N, M 19.0, 18.6, 15.0 (30.53) 40 18 21 30 28 25 20 18 14 C C B C built up soil over roots, dieback and canker in upper canopy, dead hangers, golfball damage normal 102 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 34.16434393 ‐118.1702501 P 30 bt 35 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 B B A B ash tree growing from base compacted 103 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16465106 ‐118.1702749 P, N, M 28.6 65 21 20 19 28 30 24 28 27 CCCC ISHB‐FD likely, large limb dead in lower canopy, basal sprouting, remove dead limb normal 104 Chinese privet Ligustrum lucidum 34.16458844 ‐118.1702719 P 10.1 19 6 4 335555 AAAA Grouping of 3 hedges with one trunk of appropriate size normal 105 Sydney red gum Angophora costata 34.16534667 ‐118.170263 P, S, M 34.5 50 18 6 4 6 27 25 20 23 C C B C multiple dead hangers in upper canopy, golfball damage, dieback in crown normal 106 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 34.16507957 ‐118.1702809 P, M 10.0, 10.2, 14.0 (20.0) 35 16 18 20 22 24 10 11 16 B C C B large exposed buttress roots with mechanical damage, multiple trunks, fence girdling trunk and base, growing over concrete compacted 107 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 34.16475871 ‐118.1702734 P 8.1, 2.0, 1.0 (8.4) 21 10 8 9 10 10 8 8 11 B B B A multiple trunks, growing in fence normal 108 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 34.16491561 ‐118.1702779 P 10.0 20 11 10 12 98111BCDB growing in fence, half of tree pruned at fence, basal sprouting normal 109 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 34.16540595 ‐118.1702754 P, N 4.0 10 5 6 4 4 6 7 6 5 B B C B growing in fence, poor pruning, pavement over roots 110 Sydney red gum Angophora costata 34.16538686 ‐118.1702957 P, S, M 28.0 45 20 23 20 23 25 12 6 10 BBBB roots covered by concrete, fence pruning made tree lopsided pavement over roots 111 white alder Alnus rhombifolia 34.16540811 ‐118.167398 P, N 9.7 35 12 11 10 10 10 9 12 13 B B A B slight lean, golfball damage and mechanical damage at base normal 112 American sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 34.16526892 ‐118.1675728 P 8.5 33 8 7 865689AABA mechanical damage at base normal 113 swamp mahogany Eucalyptus robusta 34.16534997 ‐118.1675964 P, M 19.9 35 11 7 6 12 17 18 11 10 BBBB slight lean, large cavity on main trunk, golfball damage, wetwood on east side, pavement over roots 114 swamp mahogany Eucalyptus robusta 34.16539175 ‐118.167642 P, M 31.2 50 11 16 17 21 13 16 12 13 BBBB cart path cut part of buttress roots, small cavities thought mid trunk, golfball damage pavement over roots 115 California bay laurel Umbellularia californica 34.165444 ‐118.1676746 P, N, M 26.8 45 12 14 17 20 16 7 8 17 B B B A large burl at base, buttress roots cut off for cart path, mechanical damage at base pavement over roots 116 California bay laurel Umbellularia californica 34.16556045 ‐118.1677838 P, N, M 41.2 45 14 16 17 18 16 18 19 18 AAAA large burl at base, damaged buttress roots, cavity in main trunk with 4‐6" of decay normal 127 holly oak Quercus ilex 34.16536036 ‐118.1682581 P, M 24.1 45 19 23 22 10 6 11 19 22 B B A A epicormic shoots along trunk, golfball damage, mechanical damage at base, soil deeply saturated saturated 134 holly oak Quercus ilex 34.16547632 ‐118.1684952 P, M 25.7 40 17 19 21 18 12 14 14 17 B C B B epicormic shooting in upper canopy, mechanical damage at base, exposed damaged roots, basal sprouting, golfball damage saturated 148 carob Ceratonia siliqua 34.16632124 ‐118.1687484 P, M 23.0 35 17 14 15 12 15 13 13 15 C B B B golfball damage, large exposed damaged roots, laege cavities in trunk with decay and planted growing, normal 150 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 34.16646765 ‐118.1687582 P 17.3 35 7 5 10 12 13 16 12 13 B B C B poor structure, basal sprouting normal 152 carob Ceratonia siliqua 34.16627251 ‐118.1687672 P 16.0 25 10 11 12 12 12 11 8 5 C B B B basal sprouting, exposed damaged roots, poor structure, sapsucker damage normal 156 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 34.16640767 ‐118.1688308 P 16.0 35 3 4 4 18 23 17 12 6 CCCC large amounts of exudate, fissures in bark, poor structure, lean, dead hangers on south side of canopy normal 157 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 34.1663857 ‐118.1688827 P 18.3 37 8 7 12 15 19 15 12 6 B B C B large amounts of exudate, lean, basal sprouting, large exposed damaged roots normal 158 red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 34.16640099 ‐118.1689186 P 16.2 35 3 6 6 12 14 16 6 4 B C D B large exposed damaged roots, basal sprouting, poor structure, large limbs removed, lean normal 159 white paperbark tree Melaleuca quinquinervia 34.16579962 ‐118.1691422 P, M 24.9 38 15 17 15 13 14 15 16 15 BBBC golfball damage, damaged buttress roots, included bark normal 160 California bay laurel Umbellularia californica 34.16578085 ‐118.1692414 P, N, M 19.8 35 22 15 10 15 14 16 12 10 C B B large burl at base with root decay present, exposed damaged roots, golfball damage, basal sprouting saturated 161 holly oak Quercus ilex 34.16584171 ‐118.1692638 P, M 27.6 40 21 22 19 25 24 19 16 15 B B A B golfball damage, basal sprouting, exfoliating bark on large limbs saturated 162 holly oak Quercus ilex 34.16588395 ‐118.1694883 P, M 22.2 45 17 16 21 16 12 15 19 17 A B A B epicormic sprouting in mid canopy, golfball damage, damaged exposed roots saturated 163 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16598456 ‐118.1697542 P, N, M 28.9 49 23 26 22 20 19 17 19 22 CCCC ISHB‐FD likely, Arborjet tag suggests insecticide/fungicide injections and/or soil drench, golfball damage, woodpecker holes, poor structure (topped, poor attachment)
normal
164 American sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 34.16618527 ‐118.1700547 P,M 21.1 40 12 11 10 8 13 15 10 11 C B B B minor dieback in crown, leaf scorch, golfball damage pavement over roots 167 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 34.16674606 ‐118.1702519 P, S, M 30.1 40 25 40 32 12 10 7 18 15 A B C A strong lean, exposed damaged roots normal 168 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16649608 ‐118.1702985 P, M 23.2 45 17 24 20 17 12 14 18 15 AAAA normal 2 Appendix A – Tree Measurements
Tree
Number1 Common Name Latin Name Latitude Longitude
Protected Tree
Classification2 DBH3
Height
5 Canopy North
6 Canopy
NorthWest
Canopy West
Canopy
SouthWest
Canopy South
Canopy SouthEast
Canopy East
Canopy NorthEast
Health
Aesthetics
Balance
Vigor Comments Soil Condition
169 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16645168 ‐118.170296 P, M 19.8 40 12 13 10 12 10 11 14 13 B B A B exposed, damaged roots normal 170 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16653639 ‐118.1702995 P, M 25.2 45 13 15 16 17 13 10 10 12 AAAA slight lean normal 171 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 34.16638824 ‐118.1703019 P, M 17.1, 14.2 (22.2) 40 12 27 30 22 17 19 20 14 B C C B slight lean, sparse canopy, exposed roots pavement over roots 172 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16656722 ‐118.1702999 P 15.0 43 14 13 15 13 13 10 15 16 BBBB slight lean, sparse canopy normal 173 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 34.1666734 ‐118.170298 P 6.3, 5.2 (8.2) 35 8 9 11 12 12 13 15 15 A B B A multiple trunks, rubbing against pine normal 174 Peruvian pepper Schinus molle 34.16668904 ‐118.1702951 P 9.3, 8.2 (12.4) 30 15 18 13 12 13 14 15 19 B B C B multiple trunks with included bark normal 175 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16647073 ‐118.1702944 P 17.2 40 18 20 19 15 17 13 18 15 A B A A minor dieback in canopy normal 177 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 34.16671919 ‐118.1702833 P, S, M 36.2 38 5 10 38 35 33 3 1 1 C C D C lean, exposed, damaged roots, damp pocket in trunk growing grass, column of decay possibly present normal
178 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 34.16641794 ‐118.1702989 P 14.2 38 10 12 13 15 12 8 8 12 A B B B exposed, damaged roots normal 179 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 34.166267 ‐118.1703074 P, N, M 38.8 40 25 35 33 37 33 21 19 25 B A B B Arroyo Seco concrete banks burying roots, minor dieback in crown, self corrected lean pavement over roots
1051 shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 34.16498135 ‐118.1702949 P 6.3, 5.4, 3.8 (9.1) 25 12 6 5 7 11 10 11 14 C C B C Roots growing over concrete, girdling roots, multiple trunks, golfball damage, fence girdling stem normal 1064 western sycamore Platanus racemosa 34.16491637 ‐118.1697157 P, N, M 10.1, 22.5, 17.0 (29.9) 50 18 19 16 20 18 21 20 18 D C C D large dead hangers in upper canopy, woodpecker holes, ISHB‐ FD likely, golfball damage, large cavities in trunk with decay, basal sprouting, investigate decay in trunk, extent of fusarium dieback
normal
1556 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifollia 34.16646706 ‐118.16913 P, M 20.6 30 11 10 12 14 16 23 20 18 C C B C large damaged buttress roots with decay present, compaction In root zone, large cavity in trunk with decay, golfball damage compacted 1: ExistingDavey Tree
Tag/Treenumbersutilized
2: P=Public,N=Native,
S=Specimen
M=Mature
3: Diameter at BreastHeight or 4.5 feet
above ground.Diameter measuredin inches
5: Heightmeasured infeet
6: Canopymeasured in feet
7: ISHB‐FD: Invasive shot‐hole borers ‐ Fusarium Dieback 4: Measurements in
parentheses are thetrees combineddiameter as afunction of thecombined areameasurements foreach individual trunkas defined inOrdinance 8.52.020 3 Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020

Tree 55 - Peruvian pepper Tree 56 - Peruvian pepper Tree 57 - Peruvian pepper Tree 58 - white paperbark tree Tree 59 - Peruvian pepper Tree 60 - Peruvian pepper Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 61 - Peruvian pepper Tree 62 - Peruvian pepper Tree 63 - Peruvian pepper Tree 64 - Peruvian pepper Tree 65 - Peruvian pepper Tree 66 - holly oak Tree 67 - Peruvian pepper Tree 68 - Peruvian pepper Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 69 - American sweetgum Tree 70 - Peruvian pepper Tree 71 - Japanese yew Tree 72 - Peruvian pepper Tree 73 - Peruvian pepper Tree 74 - Peruvian pepper Tree 75 - Peruvian pepper Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 76 - Peruvian pepper Tree 77 - Peruvian pepper Tree 78 - Peruvian pepper Tree 79 - Peruvian pepper Tree 80 - Peruvian pepper Tree 81 - Peruvian pepper Tree 82 - Peruvian pepper Tree 83 - Peruvian pepper Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 84 - red ironbark Tree 85 - western sycamore Tree 86 - Peruvian pepper Tree 87 - western sycamore Tree 88 - western sycamore Tree 89 - western sycamore Tree 90 - western sycamore Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 91 - coast live oak Tree 102 - Mexican fan palm Tree 103 - western sycamore Tree 104 - Chinese privet Tree 105 - Sydney red gum Tree 106 - shamel ash Tree 107 - shamel ash Tree 108 - shamel ash Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 109 - coast live oak Tree 110 - Sydney red gum Tree 111 - white alder Tree 112 - American sweetgum Tree 113 - swamp mahogany Tree 114 - swamp mahogany Tree 115 - California bay laurel Tree 116 - California bay laurel Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 127 - holly oak Tree 134 - holly oak Tree 148 - carob Tree 150 - red ironbark Tree 152 - carob Tree 156 - red ironbark Tree 157 - red ironbark Tree 158 - red ironbark Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 159 - white paperbark tree Tree 160 - California bay laurel Tree 161 - holly oak Tree 162 - holly oak Tree 163 - western sycamore Tree 164 - American sweetgum Tree 167 - Italian stone pine Tree 168 - Canary Island pine Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 169 - Canary Island pine Tree 170 - Canary Island pine Tree 171 - Italian stone pine Tree 172 - Canary Island pine Tree 173 - shamel ash Tree 174 - Peruvian pepper Tree 175 - Canary Island pine Tree 177 - Italian stone pine Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00
Tree 178 - Canary Island pine Tree 179 - coast live oak Tree 1051 - shamel ash Tree 1064 - western sycamore Tree 1556 - Chinese elm
Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Appendix B
Tree Photographs
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
D202000261.00

Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project ESA / D202000261 Tree Report November 2020

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
January 2023
Appendix D Historic Report

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report
January 2023

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. FAIR OAKS AVENUE, SUITE 200, PASADENA, CA 91105-3816 Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401
www.historicresourcesgroup.com

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

PREPARED FOR
Placeworks
Attn. Addie Farrell
700 South Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90015

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 1. Executive Summary
3 2. Proposed Project
12 3. Assessment Methodology
13 4. Regulatory Framework
20 5. Site Description
21 6. Historic Context and Site History
29 7. Identification of Historical Resources
30 8. Analysis of Potential Impacts
36 9. Mitigation
37 10. References
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs
Appendix B: Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix C: Historic Photographs
Appendix D: Historic Drawings
Appendix E: Professional Qualifications

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
The Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) proposes to reorient and expand the existing driving range and construct a new miniature golf facility (Project) on an approximately 9-acre portion of the Brookside Golf Complex (Project Site). The purpose of this report is to determine if historical resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 are present on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and, if so, to identify potential impacts to historical resources as a result of the proposed Project. This report is intended to inform environmental review of the proposed Project.

The Brookside Golf Course and Clubhouse (Brookside Golf Complex) is considered a contributing site to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2008. Because it is listed in the National Register, the District is also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

The proposed Project consists of two main components: (1) reorient and expand the existing driving range; and (2) develop a new 36-hole miniature golf course adjacent to the proposed driving range. Changes to the driving range proposed by the project will be relatively minor. The area will continue to be used as a driving range as it has since at least 1930 and it will contain the wide expanse of fairway, tee line driving bays, safety netting, and support poles that have characterized the driving range for decades.

The miniature golf course would construct a new design element at the Brookside Golf Complex. Because the miniature golf course will occupy less than 0.5% of the Brookside Golf Complex, the overall impact of the miniature golf course to the Golf Complex will also be relatively minor.

The total Project Site represents less than 10% of the total area occupied by the Brookside Golf Complex. The golf courses themselves, with the exception of the C.W.

Koiner (Course #1) Hole #10, and E.O. Nay (Course #2) Hole #6 and Hole #7would remain unchanged by the Project. The Project will not destroy or materially alter physical characteristics that convey historic significance and justify the historic listing of the Brookside Golf Complex as a contributing feature of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District. The overwhelming majority of the site elements that characterize the Brookside Golf Complex would continue to retain their original location, general overall boundaries, and routing, and the Brookside Golf Complex would continue to maintain a substantial amount of integrity.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
2 impact for the purposes of CEQA, therefore a mitigation measure is proposed to include the retention of a qualified historic preservation professional to ensure that alterations to the driving range, design of the miniature golf course, and overall modifications to the Golf Course are compatible with the existing Brookside Golf Complex landscape and the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District so that the historic integrity of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District is maintained.

With mitigation to ensure that the integrity of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District is maintained , the Project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District and will not, therefore, result in significant impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.

For these reasons, the Project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District and will not, therefore, result in significant impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

2. PROPOSED PROJECT 3
Introduction
The Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) proposes to reorient and expand the existing driving range and construct a new miniature golf facility (Project) on approximately 9 acres of the southernmost part the Brookside Golf Course (Project Site or Brookside Golf Complex). The RBOC will be considering the Project as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The expanded driving range and new miniature golf course would be located in the same area as the existing driving range, which is currently located between the concretechanneled Arroyo Seco to the west, the Brookside Clubhouse to the east, the C.W.

Koiner Course to the north and south, and the E.O. Nay Course also located to the north.

The proposed expansion of the driving ranges from 20 hitting bays to approximately 60 hitting bays and the addition of a 36-hole miniature golf course would reduce the E.O.

Nay course from par-70 to par-69. However, it would remain a championship layout and the course reduction would be designed to improve the pace of play. In order to accommodate the expanded driving range and new miniature golf course, tree removal and relocation and surficial grading would be required. Details of the Project description are provided below.

Project Location and Surrounding Uses
As shown in Figure 1, the City of Pasadena (City) is approximately 10 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles in the County of Los Angeles. Regional access to Pasadena is provided by State Route (SR) 134, Interstate 210 (I-210), State Route 110 (SR-110), and Interstate-710 (I-710). Located at 1133 Rosemont Avenue, the Project Site is just west of I-210 and north of SR-134. Local access to the Project Site is provided from Rosemont Avenue, Seco Street, Salvia Canyon Road, West Washington Drive, and Rose Bowl Drive, as shown in Figure 2.

The Project Site is located within Arroyo Seco Canyon in the western portion of Pasadena. The Arroyo Seco, a major tributary of the Los Angeles River, flows out of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northwestern portion of Pasadena, through Arroyo Seco Canyon, and ultimately to the Los Angeles River in downtown Los Angeles. As it flows through Pasadena, the Arroyo Seco passes three major areas that comprise Arroyo Seco Canyon: The Upper Arroyo Seco (Hahamonga Watershed Park); the Central Arroyo Seco (the Brookside Golf Complex, Rose Bowl, and associated facilities); and the Lower Arroyo Seco. Central Arroyo Seco, which contains the Project Site, is generally bounded by the Colorado Street Bridge to the south, Arroyo Boulevard and Arroyo Terrace to the east, I 210 to the north/east, and Linda Vista Avenue to the west.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
4 The Project Site is situated entirely within the interior of the existing Brookside Golf Course. Single-family residential neighborhoods bound the Central Arroyo Seco to the east and west of the Project Site along the slopes of Arroyo Seco Canyon. The southeast portion of the Central Arroyo Seco also contains the Chandler School along Seco Street and some small areas developed with multi-family residential uses along Arroyo Terrace.

Other surrounding land uses in the Central Arroyo Seco include the Rose Bowl, the Recreation Loop, Brookside Park, Kidspace Children’s Museum, the Rose Bowl Aquatic Center, the Rosemont Pavilion, the Jackie Robinson baseball and softball diamonds, tennis courts, an amphitheater, recreation and equestrian trails, multipurpose fields, and parks. The Central Arroyo comprises approximately 409 acres and is the most developed and active section of Arroyo Seco Canyon (City of Pasadena, 2003).

Brookside Golf Complex Background and Existing Condition The Brookside Golf Complex is managed by RBOC, a California non-profit, public benefit corporation, founded in 1995 by an act of the Pasadena City Council. Board members are appointed by the City Council, the City Manager, the Tournament of Roses, and the Chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The purpose of the RBOC is to enhance the economic and civic value of the Rose Bowl as a world-class stadium and the Brookside Golf Course as a professional-quality course.

First opened in 1928, the Brookside Golf Complex is a public 36-hole complex originally designed by famed golf course architect William P. Bell. Owned by the City of Pasadena, Brookside Golf Course features two 18-hole tracks: The C.W. Koiner Course, a par 72 course, and the E.O. Nay Course, a par 70 course. The Brookside Golf Complex includes an approximately 25,000 square foot Brookside Clubhouse, which contains a full-service restaurant, lounge, banquet facilities, meeting rooms, and a retail golf shop. The Brookside Clubhouse contains a restaurant and a retail golf shop that are open to the public daily.

The Brookside Golf Complex is part of a historic district, the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District, which contains 27 contributing historic features (including the Brookside Golf Course) and was listed in 2009 on the National Register of Historic Places (#08000579) at the local level of significance under Criterion A in the areas of entertainment and recreation for its association with the development of Pasadena as a recreational mecca. The parks and recreation facilities and the public open spaces in the District were nominated in the Cultural Landscapes category. A cultural landscape is a geographic area that includes both man-made and natural resources that are important in history.

Description of Project
The Project consists of two main components: (1) reorient and expand the existing driving range; and (2) develop a new miniature golf course adjacent to the proposed

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
5 driving range. These elements, including operational and construction details, are described in detail below. No changes to the Brookside Clubhouse are proposed.

Driving Range Improvements
The existing 9-acre driving range is situated from a generally east to west hitting experience and consists of 20 bays at the east end. It is surrounded by golf course netting on 64 poles between 20 to 50 feet high with lighting and a row of perimeter trees on the southern side. It is an open grassy range with no ground features other than four trees. The Project would remove existing netting, which are nearing the expected end of their lifespan, and reorient and expand the driving range in the same general location of the existing driving range (to maintain proximity to parking and the Brookside Clubhouse). A new safety net feature would be reinstalled. The reoriented driving range would be situated in approximately 8 acres in the same general location of the existing driving range, to maintain proximity to parking and the Brookside Clubhouse. The proposed driving range would be bounded by the by Hole 10 and Hole 18 of the C.W. Koiner Course to the north and south, respectively; the proposed miniature golf course and the Arroyo Seco Channel to the west; and the existing putting greens and the Brookside Clubhouse to the east. A 10-foot golf cart path would be designated around the perimeter of the driving range. The proposed driving range would include 60 hitting bays at the southern end and would be reoriented to face north rather than west, as shown in Figure 3. Orientation to a south to north layout would limit disruption from sunrise/sunset. “Toptracer” technology, which provides instant shot replays and statistical feedback, would be installed within all or a portion of driving range bays to enhance the golfer experience.

A total of 36 poles would be installed to support new netting, with pole height ranging from 38 feet to 130 feet above ground level (increasing height with distance from the hitting bays) with an average pole height of 90.67 feet. An estimated 14 of the 36 poles would be light-mounted (at 60 feet in height) surrounding the perimeter of the driving range on the east and west sides. Poles and netting are shown in Figure 4. LED lighting would be individually adjustable to ensure proper direction and avoidance of light spill into surrounding neighborhoods.

New turf and modified irrigation system would be installed. Other minor landscape modifications would be installed. Site furniture, signage and markers would be updated.

A new electrical service line with generator would be provided. The existing hitting bays would remain as a concrete pad, and no changes would occur to the existing practice putting greens.

Expansion and reorientation of the driving range would result in the shortening of Hole #6 and Hole #7 of the Course #2, which is located approximately 60 yards north of the existing driving range. Approximately 220 yards on the golf course would be removed from play. Even though Course #2 would be reduced from a par-70 to par-69 with

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
6 shortening of the two holes, the Course #2 would still cater to the less difficult experience. It is estimated that the pace of play on the golf course would be improved by five minutes (less than one golf shot). In addition, the Proposed Project would result in alterations to Hole #10 of Course #1, however Hole #10 would maintain similar distance and shape. The hole would be relocated approximately 20 yards to the north; thus shortening two holes of the Course #2 that it would encroach upon (Hole #6 and Hole #7).

The existing golf courses, with the exception of Hole #10 of Course #1, and Hole #6 and Hole #7 of Course #2, would remain unchanged by the Project, and no changes to the Brookside Clubhouse are proposed.

Miniature Golf Course
The Project includes development of a 36-hole miniature golf course, to be developed on approximately one acre within the footprint of the existing driving range (relatively flat grassy area). The proposed miniature golf course would be located directly west of the proposed driving range, and would be bounded by the Arroyo Seco Channel to the west, the proposed driving range to the east and north, and Hole #18 of Course #1 to the south.(Figure 4). The location of the miniature golf course is designed to minimize impacts to the remainder of the golf course, and to maintain necessary proximity to the Brookside Clubhouse and parking areas. The miniature golf course would be designed for family-friendly use and include topographic variation, low-level themed design, educational information, and low-level lighting to accentuate the player experience. The miniature golf course would include an 18-hole ADA-accessible course with play options for 9 holes. Landscaping would include drought tolerate desert species between artificial turf.

Project Design
As described above the Proposed Project is in the conceptual phase and the ultimate design and architect/designer would be selected when funding is secured. While the location and size of the relocated driving range and proposed miniature golf course are identified and evaluated in this document, the final plans would come at a later time.

The RBOC would ensure that the design of the relocated driving range and miniature golf course are compatible with existing design elements of the Brookside Golf Course Complex and are sensitive to the location within the Historic District, the Arroyo Seco, and the adjacent Rose Bowl. The Proposed Project would be subject to the City’s Design Review process as defined in the Pasadena Municipal Code. The purpose of this process is to implement urban design goals and policies and Citywide design principles into project designs and ensure that future development reflect the values of the community, enhance the surrounding environment, visually harmonize with surroundings avoid nostalgic misrepresentations that may confuse the relationships among structures over time. This process would promote the protection and retainment

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
7 retention of landmark, native, and specimen trees and other significant landscaping of aesthetic and environmental value. Design review would also promote the conservation, enhancement, preservation, and protection of historic resources. The process would also specifically ensure that the policies and objectives of the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines (City of Pasadena, 2003) are reflected in the design.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
8 Figure 1: Project Location Map

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
9 Figure 2: Project Location and Site Boundaries

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
10 Figure 3: Conceptual Site Design

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Figure 4: Driving Range and Pole Netting 11

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 12
The Project Site was evaluated using eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, and for designation as a City of Pasadena Historic Monument or Landmark.

Research, field inspection, and analysis are based upon guidance from the National Park Service, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the City of Pasadena for evaluating potential historic resources.

This report was prepared using sources related to the history and development of the Project Site and surrounding area. The following sources were consulted:
• Building permits
• Historical golf course maps
• Historical photographs and aerial photographs
• Historical newspapers and other periodicals
• Other primary and secondary sources relevant to the history of the Brookside Golf Complex and surrounding area
• California Historical Resources Inventory Database (CHRID) for the City of Pasadena
• Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Los Angeles County • California Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) for Los Angeles County • Conceptual drawings of the proposed Project
In general, previous findings of eligibility for historic listing or designation have been carried forward and those properties treated herein as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Field examinations were conducted to review and confirm previous findings and to identify previously unevaluated properties that may be potentially eligible. A site visit was conducted on April 28, 2021, to examine and photograph the existing conditions of the Project Site and vicinity.

Research, field inspection, and analysis were performed by Paul Travis, AICP, Managing Principal, Laura Jannsen, Senior Architectural Historian, and Robby Aranguren, Planning Associate/GIS Specialist, all of whom are qualified professionals who meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

4. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 13
Historical Resources under CEQA
CEQA requires that environmental protection be given significant consideration in the decision-making process. Historical resources are included under environmental protection. Thus, any project or action which constitutes a substantial adverse change to a historical resource also has a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines.

When the California Register of Historical Resources was established in 1992, the Legislature amended CEQA to clarify which cultural resources are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse. A “substantial adverse change” means “demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.” CEQA defines a historical resource as a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources. All properties on the California Register are to be considered historical under CEQA. However, because a property does not appear on the California Register does not mean it is not significant and therefore exempt from CEQA consideration. All resources determined eligible for the California Register are also to be considered under CEQA.

The courts have interpreted CEQA to create three categories of historical resources:
• Mandatory historical resources are resources “listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources.” • Presumptive historical resources are resources “included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1” of the Public Resources Code, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. • Discretionary historical resources are those resources that are not listed but determined to be eligible under the criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources.2
To simplify the first three definitions provided in the CEQA statute, a historical resource is a resource that is:
• Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); 2 League for the Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources vs. City of Oakland, 52 Cal. App. 4th 896, 906-7 (1997).

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
14 • Determined eligible for the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission; or
• Included in a local register of historical resources.

Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) supplements the statute by providing two additional definitions of historical resources, which may be simplified in the following manner. A historical resource is a resource that is:
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code 5024.1(g);
• Determined by a Lead Agency to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the Lead Agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Generally, this category includes resources that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an “historical resource” for purposes of CEQA.

Properties formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties designated by local municipalities can also be considered historical resources. A review of properties that are potentially affected by a project for historic eligibility is also required under CEQA.

Historic Designations
Historic resources may be designated at the federal, state, and local levels. Properties located in the City of Pasadena can be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or designated as a City of Pasadena Historic Monument or Landmark. In order for a property to qualify for historic listing or designation, it must meet one or more identified criteria for evaluation.

The property must also retain sufficient historic integrity to evoke the sense of place and time with which it is historically associated.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places was authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to serve as an authoritative guide to the nation’s historic places

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
worthy of preservation.3 15 The National Register Program is administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

To be eligible for listing and/or listed in the National Register, a resource must possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. Listing in the National Register is primarily honorary and does not in and of itself provide protection of a historic resource. The primary effect of listing in the National Register on private owners of historic buildings is the availability of financial and tax incentives. In addition, for projects that receive Federal funding, a clearance process must be completed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Furthermore, state and local regulations may apply to properties listed in the National Register.

The criteria for listing in the National Register follow established guidelines for determining the significance of properties. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.4
Historic Significance
As defined by the National Park Service, historic significance is “the importance of a property to the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of a community, state, or the nation.”5 It is achieved in several ways:
• Association with important events, activities or patterns • Association with important persons
• Distinctive physical characteristics of design, construction, or form 3 36CFR60 § 60.2. 4 36CFR60 § 60.3. Criterion D addresses potential archaeological resources, which is outside the scope of this assessment. 5 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), 3.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
16 • Potential to yield important information
A property may be significant individually or as part of a grouping of properties.

Integrity
In addition to meeting any or all of the designation criteria, eligible properties must also possess historic integrity. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as “the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period.”6
The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that comprise integrity:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These qualities are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.7
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources is an authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical resources. For a property to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found to be significant under at least one of the following four criteria:
6 National Register Bulletin 16A, 4. 7 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995), 44-45.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
17 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.8 For integrity purposes, a resource eligible for listing in the California Register must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance. It is possible that a resource lacking sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register may still be eligible for the California Register.9
City of Pasadena Designation Programs
The City of Pasadena has established a historic preservation program in order to promote “the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, and restoration of historic structures.” The criteria for the designation of historic monuments, landmarks, historic signs, landmark trees, or landmark districts are applied “according to applicable National Register of Historic Places Bulletins for evaluating historic properties.” These criteria are excerpted below from Section 17.62.40 of the Pasadena Zoning Code.10 Historic Monuments
A historic monument shall include all historic resources previously designated as historic treasures before adoption of this Chapter, historic resources that are listed in the National Register at the State-wide or Federal level of significance (including National Historic Landmarks) and any historic resource that is significant at a regional, State, or Federal level, and is an exemplary representation of a particular type of historic resource and meets one or more of the following criteria:
8 Criterion 4 addresses potential archaeological resources, which is outside the scope of this assessment. 9 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, “California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison” (Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation, 2011). 10 City of Pasadena Zoning Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.62 (November 6, 2020).

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
18 a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the region, State, or nation. b) It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the region, State, or nation.
c) It is exceptional in the embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a historic resource property type, period, architectural style, or method of construction, or that is an exceptional representation of the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is significant to the region, State, or nation, or that possesses high artistic values that are of regional, State-wide or national significance.
d) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the region, State, or nation.

A historic monument designation may include significant public or semi-public interior spaces and features.

Landmarks
A landmark shall include all properties previously designated a landmark before adoption of this Chapter and any historic resource that is of a local level of significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below.

A landmark may be the best representation in the City of a type of historic resource or it may be one of several historic resources in the City that have common architectural attributes that represent a particular type of historic resource. A landmark shall meet one or more of the following criteria:
a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City, region, or State.
b) It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City, region, or State.
c) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City or, to the region or possesses artistic values of significance to the City or to the region. d) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history.

Historic Signs
A historic sign shall include all signs in the sign inventory as of the date of adoption of this Zoning Code and any sign subsequently designated historically significant by the Historic Preservation Commission that possesses high artistic values. A historic sign shall meet one or more or the following criteria:

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
19 a) The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it was constructed, uses historic sign materials and means of illumination, and is not significantly altered from its historic period. Historic sign materials shall include metal or wood facings, or paint directly on the façade of a building.

Historic means of illumination shall include incandescent light fixtures or neon tubing on the exterior of the sign. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic function and appearance.
b) The sign is integrated with the architecture of the building. c) A sign not meeting criteria a or b above may be considered for inclusion in the inventory if it demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic quality, creativity, or innovation.

All other regulations relating to signs shall comply with Chapter 17.48 (Signs).

Landmark Trees
A tree shall qualify to be of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1) It is one of the largest or oldest trees of the species located in the City; 2) It has historical significance due to an association with a historic event, person, site, street, or structure; or
3) It is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood.

Landmark Districts
A landmark district shall include all landmark districts previously designated… and any grouping of contiguous properties that also meet the following criteria:
a) Within its boundaries, a minimum of 60 percent of the properties qualify as contributing; and
b) The grouping represents a significant and distinguishable entity of Citywide importance and one or more of a defined historic, cultural, development and/or architectural context(s) (e.g., 1991 Citywide historic context, as amended, historic context prepared in an intensive-level survey or historic context prepared specifically for the nominated landmark district).

When considering applications to designate a landmark district, the Historic Preservation Commission shall use the National Register of Historic Places Bulletin #21: “Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties”.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

5. SITE DESCRIPTION 20 11
The Project Site is located in the southern portion of the Brookside Golf Complex is located at the north end of the District between Foothill Freeway and the Rose Bowl Stadium. West Drive and Rosemont Avenue generally bound it on the east and west, respectively. Eight holes are located north of Washington Boulevard, which has an eastwest orientation. The golf course features two 18-hole courses (referred to as the “C.W.

Coiner Course #1” and the “E.O. Nay Course #2”), the Brookside Clubhouse building, and several small accessory buildings. Course #1 has large greens that are elevated and well bunkered. The rough bordering the fairways is thick and heavy. Four ponds on a barranca come into play on ten holes. The signature hole is #17, a 199-yard, par 3, which requires a tee shot over water. The Arroyo Seco flood control channel generally divides Course #1 from Course #2. Course #2 is shorter, well bunkered and tighter than Course #1. Overall, the terrain has been subtly graded and sculpted. Numerous bunkers are positioned around the greens and fairways.

Located at the southeastern portion of the golf course fronting Rosemont Avenue, the Brookside Clubhouse is the largest building on the golf course. Designed by William Randolph in 1967, the current Brookside Clubhouse replaced an original clubhouse designed by architects Myron Hunt & Harold C. Chambers. There is a small building from which both courses begin, a maintenance area, a restroom building, one concession stand, one combined restroom and concession stand, and drinking fountains.

The entire area is surrounded by a fence mounted on a low stonewall.

The Project Site occupies an area immediately north and west of the Brookside Clubhouse. The majority of this area contains the existing driving range which, although altered and expanded since its original construction, has always been in this location.

The area also includes the putting greens just west of the Clubhouse and a portion of the Hole #10 fairway and green on Course #1.
11 Site description per the Applicant.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

6. HISTORIC CONTEXT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY 21
The following site development history has been compiled from various sources, including previous historic studies, building permits, historic photographs, aerial photographs, and newspaper articles.

Pasadena and the Arroyo Seco
Pasadena’s beginning dates to 1873 when a group of settlers from Indiana formed the San Gabriel Orange Grove Association and purchased land in the area of the old Rancho San Pasqual. The earliest settlers came to the new colony to enjoy the climate and develop the land. Many saw the potential for farming enterprises; others came to speculate in land. By 1875, the colony was named Pasadena, more than forty houses were built, and a commercial center was developing along Fair Oaks and Colorado Avenues.

With the coming of the railroad and the real estate boom of the 1880s, the new community attracted the attention of wealthy easterners and mid-westerners who began vacationing in the area to escape harsh winters. By 1890, Pasadena had grown from a sparsely populated agricultural village into a major resort town with a well-established reputation as a center of wealth and culture. Grand hotels were built to accommodate the seasonal visitors, and mansions were built along South Orange Grove Boulevard, which became known as “Millionaires Row.”
By this time, Pasadena was considered a recreational mecca; however, it did not possess a single public park. This can be attributed to the fact that the Arroyo informally functioned as a public park, having become part of a trail system. During this period, the Arroyo was used for a variety of recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and picnicking, although it was privately owned. The Valley Hunt Complex hunted fox and rabbits in the Arroyo and started the world-renowned Tournament of Roses on New Year’s Day in 1890.

In 1898, Charles Lummis advocated for the preservation of the Arroyo and became the first president of the Arroyo Seco Foundation. This was the first time a group banded together to promote preservation of the Arroyo. Lummis was a close friend of Theodore Roosevelt. When President Roosevelt was being driven over the Arroyo to South Pasadena on March 23, 1911, after having spoken at Occidental College, he turned to one of his companions and remarked, “The Arroyo would make one of the greatest parks in the world.”
The idea of making the Arroyo a public park quickly gained steam. The Lower Arroyo became the focus of the early plans that developed around 1903. Groups such as the Arroyo Park Association formed. In 1909, Dr. Rudolph Schiffmann, who sat on the Board of City Commissioners, purchased a two and one-half acre wooded lot at the end of Bradford Street and donated it to the City for use as a public park. This was the genesis of the Lower Arroyo Seco Park.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
22 In 1911, a bond issue was passed by the citizens of Pasadena, authorizing the purchase of private land in the Arroyo. The City bought the first parcel of thirty acres for $4,500.

By 1912, the City held or had options on two hundred acres. A syndicate of wealthy citizens bought up most of the remaining options and held them until the City could purchase the parcels.

Initially, the park was referred to as “Arroyo Springs Park;” however, the name was not used for very long. In 1912, Mrs. Everett W. Brooks donated $3,000 for the construction of a municipal plunge in the park. Apparently, the cost of the plunge exceeded the donation as the City contributed another $2,000 towards the construction. The park was named Brookside Park in Brook’s honor. Historically, the name “Brookside Park” was applied to the Central Arroyo and the reason why so many features, including the golf course, adopted the name. By 1918, most of the Arroyo had been acquired by the City. This was the first step in realizing the dream of creating a larger park in the Arroyo.

After World War I the park became a destination for travelers and newcomers who were looking to settle in Pasadena. The facilities in Brookside Park reflected the growth of competitive sports and the changing recreational tastes and needs of the population.

In recognition of those trends, the Pasadena Garden Complex brought landscape architect, Emanuel Tillman Mische (1875-1934) to Pasadena to develop a comprehensive plan for the Arroyo. The other individual who played a key role in the design of the Arroyo was architect Myron Hunt (1868-1952). Hunt was the chairman of the local committee that oversaw the development of the plan and played a key role in surveying the Arroyo with Mische.

The 1918 Arroyo Seco Park Plan combined both passive and active recreational uses.

At this time the Lower Arroyo was still densely wooded in places. As it was so narrow and deep, bridle paths were considered more appropriate than automobile roads. It was recommended that landscaping be confined to the replacement of native plants and that exotics be avoided. Two practical matters dictated using the Central Arroyo for sports and recreational facilities: Brookside Park already existed, and it was the widest, flattest land in the canyon. The notion of putting a municipal golf course in the park, as the 1918 Plan recommended, was forward thinking because at this time most golf courses were private. The first municipal golf course in the United States was created in Griffith Park in 1900.

The 1918 Arroyo Seco Park Plan was implemented to the extent that the Lower and Central Arroyo were developed with passive and active recreational uses, respectively.

The present-day circulation system, landscaping, and golf course are also remnants of the plan.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Brooksid 23 e Golf Complex
The Brookside Golf Complex is one of the oldest golf courses in Los Angeles County.

The first municipal golf course in the California was built in Griffith Park in 1900; however, it was a sand course built mostly by volunteers. It was converted to a grass green course in 1923 but removed in 1958 to make way for a new zoo. Additional golf courses were added to Griffith Park in 1914 (Wilson), 1933 (Harding), and 1964 (Roosevelt). Annandale Golf Complex on the west side of the Arroyo was founded in 1906. Their course was moved north of Colorado Boulevard in 1926.

The City of Pasadena had planned on the development of a golf course in the Arroyo since 1918. Funding for its construction was confirmed by the City of Pasadena in 1922.12 While a course was staked out between Lester Avenue (now Seco Street) and Dakota Street (now Washington Boulevard), the City lacked the funds to construct it.

After several false starts, the first nine holes of a golf course were constructed in 1925 and opened to the public on July 4th of that year.13 It was designed by William P. Bell, a distinguished Southern California golf course architect active in the 1920s through the 1940s. Funding for the first nine holes came from the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce.

Completion of the course was funded by the Municipal Light and Power Department and the completed Course #1 opened to the public in 1928. Throughout its history, Course #1 has also been used for temporary parking and social events related to the Rose Bowl. In 1929 the Brookside Clubhouse, designed by celebrated architect Myron Hunt in a Spanish-Colonial influenced Ranch style, was completed and formally opened to the public.14 At that time a second course was designed by Bell and was later constructed as an unemployment relief measure. The first half of Course #2 was completed in 1931 with money from the public employees’ union. The land for the second half of Course #2 was cleared in 1932. In 1933, President Roosevelt created federally funded work programs including the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In Pasadena, the WPA put the unemployed to work on several projects in the Arroyo, including projects at the Brookside Golf Complex.

A flood damaged both courses in the spring of 1938, claiming several greens and a few fairways. At that time, Course #1 and the first nine holes of Course #2 were reconstructed and revamped. Once again, William P. Bell was responsible for the design.

The second nine holes of Course #2 were presumably constructed sometime thereafter.

Historic photographs indicate continued work on the course in the 1940s. A dedication plaque at Hole #1 indicates that the course was completed by 1946. Despite the modifications, the original location, boundaries, and routing were retained. 12 “Plan Building of Best Golf Course,” Pasadena Star News, March 21, 1922. 13 “City’s Golf Course is Opened,” Pasadena Star News, July 4, 1929. 14 “New Clubhouse is Formally Opened,” Pasadena Star News, May 7, 1929.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
24 The 1938 flood also required reengineering of the Arroyo Seco for flood control. The Arroyo Seco had previously been channelized from the Devil’s Gate Dam north of the Golf Complex to the Colorado Street Bridge in 1934. In 1935 the flood control channel was extended and a gunite coat was applied to the revetments to prevent erosion and reinforce the channel walls. Despite these efforts, the 1938 flood essentially destroyed the original channel. The rebuilding of a new channel was undertaken by the WPA in April of 1938 and the first section was completed in early 1940. It was constructed as a trapezoidal type drain north of Seco Street and as a box type, rectangular drain south of Seco Street, with the sides and bottom lined with reinforced concrete. The flood channel has divided the entire Golf Complex site from north to south since its construction.

After World War II and throughout the 1950s, the Brookside Golf Complex was not substantially changed save for routine upgrades, repairs and maintenance. Large portions of the golf courses were damaged in 1955 when thousands of automobiles temporarily parked on the course during the annual Tournament of Roses festivities tore up the fairways after unusually heavy rainfall. Many cars were stranded in the mud and needed assistance. News sources reported an estimated $25,000 in damage.15 It wasn’t until the 1960s that wholesale changes would come to the Brookside Golf Complex. It was during that decade that plans were made for substantial improvements to the facilities. Eventually, these would include a new Clubhouse to replace the original in the same location, upgrading and expansion of the driving range, construction of two new lakes, and changes to the topography of several fairways. The new Clubhouse was designed by architect William Randolph.

The 1967 upgrades to the golf courses were designed by distinguished golf course architect Desmond Muirhead.16 On Course #1, Hole #8 was moved approximately 50 yards west to create a driving range, bunkers were reduced in size, and the lake on the #6 fairway was added. Total yardage was also increased by a total of 663 yards to accommodate new equipment technology. Hole # 15 of Course #2 was moved to the north side of Washington Boulevard.

Driving Range Area Development
The Project will upgrade and improve an area immediately west of the Clubhouse and east of the flood control channel which contains the existing driving range. This area has been subject to continuous change and alteration since the golf club was first opened.

The general development history of the driving range area is discussed below.

It is unclear exactly when the area immediately west of the Clubhouse was first used for driving practice as no “driving range” is specifically mentioned in news articles from the 15 “100 Cars Still Mired; Golf Course Damaged Severely,” The San Bernardino County Sun, January 3, 1955. 16 “Revamping of Links Adds New Hazard,” The Los Angeles Times, May 23, 1967

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
25 1920s announcing the opening and expansions of the golf club; an early map of the course does not label the area as a driving range.17 Grassy open space in front of the clubhouse, however, unencumbered by fairways or green, appears to have been the existing condition when the course was first open to the public. By 1930, photos appear to show individuals practicing their strokes from a low grassy area just west of the clubhouse, so it is assumed that the area was being used as a driving range by 1930 if not earlier. In 1941, the Pasadena Post announced a City-operated “new driving range” near the Rose Bowl.18 The article includes reference to golf balls “littering the parking area south of the Rose Bowl, suggesting a different location. It is unclear if this is a misprint or if a driving range was established south of the Rose Bowl. More likely is that the area west of the Clubhouse was informally used as a driving range through the 1930s and formalized in 1941. If a driving range was established south of the Rose Bowl, it was evidently short-lived.

For the first decades of its existence, the depth of the driving range was substantially shorter with the (then) 8th hole fairway and green located between the flood control channel and the west end of the driving range. According to Brookside records, the driving range ran east to west and was approximately 200 yards long and 70 yards wide at the east tee line, widening to 125 yards at the westside. The tee line was set on grass.

The only fencing was between the west end of the range and the 8th hole. There were no safety nets, lights, or target greens on the driving range. Evidence for how the area developed is fragmentary but by 1956, aerial photographs show that the tee line is delineated by a curving hardscape strip with individual bays for practicing golfers. The driving bays --- again located just west of the Clubhouse -- faced west and were surrounded on three sides by mature trees. This condition appears to have remained into the 1960s. A 1966 photograph shows safety netting at the west end of the driving range between the (then) 8th hole and the flood channel.

The late 1960s upgrading of the Brookside Golf Complex precipitated improvements to the driving range. A 1968 aerial photograph indicates that the curved tee line shown in 1956 has been replaced by a 15-foot by 200-foot curving concrete tee line located further west of the (new) Clubhouse. The mature trees encircling the tee line have been removed and the area directly west of the Clubhouse is an irregularly shaped grassy area that is used as a putting green bordered by footpaths. It is around this time too that the (then) 8th hole was moved to the west side of the flood control channel allowing for the driving range to be lengthened to 240 yards.

In addition to the day range running east to west, a lighted night range running south to north was also added according to Brookside records. The night range had a non17 The December 1929 edition of “Pasadena Sportland” includes a map of the course. No driving range is delineated on the map.
18 “Driving Range Near Bowl Opens,” Pasadena Post, August 14, 1941.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
26 hardscape grass tee line accommodating 30 golfers. Safety netting (approximately 40- feet tall) was installed on the south side of the range and an approximately 35-foot tall chain link fence was installed on the west side of the range adjacent to the flood channel. The night range was short-lived and was discontinued in the early 1970’s.

The exact transition is again unclear but by 1994, the curving concrete tee line had been removed and a new hardscape tee line, arranged in a straight line and located further east of the previous bays appears in aerial photographs. The grassy area between the Clubhouse and the driving bays is now bisected by an additional pathway.

In the early 2000s, a concrete tee line on the south side of the driving range (hitting north) was constructed approximately 15-feet wide by 275-feet long to accommodate up to 27 golfers. A 6-foot-wide concrete walk path, approximately 150 yards long, was constructed to connect the east tee line (hitting west) to the south tee line (hitting north). The south tee line is reserved for instructional services only. Five target greens were installed in the range landing area as well as a short game (green with sand bunker) area constructed between the east and south tee lines. Thirty-five-foot safety netting was installed on the north side of the range. This condition is what exists today.

William Park Bell (1886-1953)
William Park Bell was one of the most prolific golf course architects in the West. Born in 1886 and raised on a Pennsylvania farm, he studied agriculture at Duff’s Business Institute in Pittsburgh after which he moved to California in 1911. He served as greens keeper and caddie master at Annandale Golf Complex and then as greens keeper and course superintendent at the Pasadena Golf Complex. He then worked as a construction foreman for course architect Willie Watson and assisted with the design or renovation of such prominent Southern California courses as Hacienda Golf Complex and San Diego Country Complex. While working with Watson, Bell oversaw the grading and construction of new bunkers at Annandale in 1919.

Bell ventured out on his own 1920, securing projects such as Woodland Hills Country Complex and Long Beach Country Complex. But it was at Castlewood Country Complex in Pleasanton where he would catch the eye of an established architect and future partner, George C. Thomas Jr. Thomas so admired Bell’s work that he asked him to be his construction foreman on upcoming projects at La Cumbre Country Complex and Ojai Valley Inn.

While he spent his first years collaborating with Thomas on his great designs of the 1920s, including Bel-Air, Riviera, and Los Angeles country Complex, Bell also designed a number of courses on his own during that period. During the 1930s Bell designed La Jolla Country Complex, San Diego County Complex, and Hacienda Country Complex.

Bell employed his trademark lacey-edged bunkers with strategy and temptation in mind.

These artistic, three dimensional multi-bayed bunkers were used as fairway cross hazards and naturally flowed away from greens. He favored rolling, undulating green surfaces

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
27 strategically linked to hole locations and approaches allowing the golfer to work the ball on to the green. Bell was a master at using drainage paths in his design decisions, allowing natural hazards and fairway movement to shine. Trees were used, but sparingly, mostly to accent the aesthetics of the surrounding area.

Bell was a pioneer in golf course construction, irrigation and landscaping, and an expert agronomist, who was also in charge of the turf at the Pasadena Rose Bowl and the Los Angeles Coliseum, where he was turf advisor for the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics.

After solo efforts in the 1930s, Bell partnered with prominent east coast architect A.W.

Tillinghast. Together they redesigned the course at Virginia Country Complex in Long Beach. Additionally, Bell was partly responsible for the beautiful bunker work at San Francisco Golf Complex, considered one of Tillinghast’s finest designs. During World War II, Bell was a turf consultant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awarded a commendation by the Southern California chapter of the PGA, in honor of his work creating golf courses for wounded servicemen. After the war, his son, William Francis Bell joined him in business, forming William P. Bell and Son. They collaborated on a number of well-known courses including the Bakersfield and Newport Beach country Complexes. Bell was a founding member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) and served as ASGCA President in 1952.

Brookside Golf Course was one of Bell’s first independent commissions and was considered to be among his best courses. William Bell died in Pasadena in 1953.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Brookside Golf 28 Complex Selected Development Chronology 1918 City of Pasadena includes a golf course as part of future recreational facilities planned for the Arroyo Seco.
1925 The first nine holes of Course #1 are constructed funded by the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce. The golf course is designed by noted golf course designer William Park Bell. 1928 Complete Course #1 is opened to the public. Funding for construction of the second half of Course #1 provided by the Municipal Light and Power Department. 1929 A one-story clubhouse with clay tile roof is constructed. William Park Bell designs a second golf course.
1930 Driving range is established west of the clubhouse. 1931 The first half of Course #2 is constructed under the auspices of unemployment relief using funding from the public employees union.
1932 Land for the second half of Course #2 is cleared.
1934 Arroyo Seco is channelized for flood control between Devil’s Gate Dam and the Colorado Street Bridge.
1935 Arroyo Seco channel is extended and reinforced.
1938 Major flooding destroys Arroyo Seco flood control channel and damages much of the golf course. Course #1 and first half of Course #2 are repaired and revamped.

Construction of second half of Course #2 begins.
1954 The Metropolitan Water District lays a new water pipeline along the east side of Brookside Golf Course to supply water to Altadena, La Canada, and La Crescenta.

Pipeline does not result in major alteration to the golf course. 1955 An estimated 20,000 automobiles parked on Brookside Golf Complex fairways cause over $25,000 in damage after heavy rains during the annual Rose Tournament Festivities.

Over half of the golf courses are reportedly rendered unusable. 1956 Brookside Golf Complex begins use of electric golf carts. Rehabilitation of selected greens on Course #1 is announced.
1967 A major rehabilitation of the Brookside Golf Complex is underway in preparation for hosting the annual Los Angeles Open. Plans include a new and larger clubhouse to replace the original, reconfiguration and regrading of select fairways, four new lake hazards, and expansion of the driving range for night use.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

7. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 29
Historic Resource Listings
The Brookside Golf Complex is considered a contributing site to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2008. Because it is listed in the National Register, the District is also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

The District was determined eligible for listing at the local level under National Register Criterion A for its association with parks and recreation development in Pasadena. The period of significance for the District is 1909–1939. It contains 24 contributing buildings, structures and sites. On the Brookside Golf Complex property, both Course #1 and Course #2 are considered collectively as a contributing site. A restroom building at the northern portion of the Course #2 is considered a contributing building.

Character-defining Features
The National Register nomination form for the District indicates that despite alternation to the tees, bunkers, fairways, and landscaping, both courses retain their original location, general overall boundaries, and routing. The boundaries are largely defined by the historic stonewalls around the north, east, and west perimeters of the two courses.

Adjacent to the Rose Bowl, however, the boundaries are not specifically defined.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

8. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 30
CEQA Thresholds
The Brookside Golf Complex is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.as a contributor to the Arroyo Seco Recreational Historic District, and therefore is a historical resource as defined by CEQA.19 As such, potential impacts to this historical resource as a result of the Project are analyzed herein.

The State Legislature, in enacting the California Register of Historical Resources, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse.20 A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.21 A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.22
The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources…local register of historical resources…or its identification in a historical resources survey.”23
Discussion of Project Components
As described above, the proposed Project consists of two main components: (1) reorient and expand the existing driving range; and (2) develop a new miniature golf course adjacent to the proposed driving range. No changes to the Brookside Clubhouse are proposed.

Re-orient and Expand Existing Driving Range
The Project site contains the existing driving range which has been in this location historically since at least 1930. This area has gone through multiple changes since its original construction. These include various locations and configurations of tee line driving bays, planting and removal of trees, expansion of the size of the range, and the addition of fencing, safety netting, and lights.
19 California PRC § 21084.1. 20 CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15064.5. 21 CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5(b). 22 CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5(b)(1). 23 CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5(b)(2).

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
31 Throughout its history, the driving range has primarily been oriented east-west with tee line bays located at the east end of the range and shots aimed to the west. A secondary, south-north orientation was added in the late 1960s as a night range. The night range was discontinued in the early 1970s but the south-to-north orientation, with a more permanent tee line along the south edge of the driving range was later established for instructional purposes and continues to be used as such today.

The Project would re-orient the primary driving range north-south with tee line bays located along the southern portions of the range and shots aimed to the northeast.

In addition, the Proposed Project would result in alteration to Course #1 Hole #10, including relocating the hole approximately 20 yards to the north. This will require shortening Hole #6 and Hole #7 of Course #2. Finally, the Project will install 14 light poles and 36 poles to support protective netting. Of the 36 poles, 14 would be lightmounted (at 60 feet in height) surrounding the perimeter of the driving range on the east and west sides. The driving range currently has 64 poles of which 22 will remain.

Existing poles range from 20 to 50 feet in height. The new poles will range from 38 to 130 feet in height.

Miniature Golf Course
The Project would also construct a miniature golf course directly west of the proposed driving range. This area has been reconfigured several times over the life of the Golf Complex. It was originally incorporated as part of the fairway for the C.W. Koiner Course 8th Hole and later incorporated into the driving range. As part of the driving range, the area was further altered with the introduction of the south-north night driving range which was later incorporated as an instructional range.. Introduction of the miniature golf course would add a new design element to the Golf Complex.

Discussion of Potential Impacts
The Project would alter a portion of the Brookside Golf Complex by (1) reorienting and expanding the existing driving range and (2) constructing a new miniature golf course adjacent to and immediately west of the proposed driving range. For this alteration to be considered a substantial adverse change, however, it must be shown that the integrity and/or significance of the Brookside Golf Complex would be materially impaired by the proposed alteration. In practical terms, the significance of a historical resource can be materially impaired when a project alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that are critical to understanding the significance of a historical resource or substantially impairs the ability of the resource to convey its historical significance such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National or California Registers as a contributing element to the Pasadena Arroyo Parks and Recreation District.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
32 Potential Impacts from Reorienting and Expanding the Driving Range As noted above, the driving range has been in its existing location historically since at least 1930. Component parts, particularly the design, location and number of driving bays have been changed over time, but the following aspects have been largely consistent:
• The location west of the Clubhouse.
• The triangular shape widening and hitting from east to west. • The spatial arrangement of tee line and driving bays located at the eastern end of the range and the range fairway stretching west. • Landscape areas, putting greens and/or trees located between the Clubhouse and the driving range.
• Flanking fairways to the north and south
• Western limit defined by the flood control channel.

The driving range would generally remain in its original location west of the Clubhouse, but it would be expanded to the north and concede space for a new miniature golf use to the west. The overall size and dimensions of the driving range, however, have changed throughout its history, including during the late 1960s when the (then) 8th hole was moved to the west side of the flood control channel allowing for the driving range to be lengthened approximately 40 yards to the west. The location of tee lines and putting greens have also been changed, effectively expanding and contracting the length of the driving range.

The driving range would retain its triangular shape common to driving ranges, but the triangle would be canted so that the narrow end of the triangle is to the north. More importantly, the primary orientation of the driving range (hitting east to west) would be shifted to a south-north orientation. Spatial arrangements would also be altered with the primary tee line driving bays relocated along the southern portions of the range and the driving range fairway stretching north. A south-north orientation for the driving range, however, is not without precedent. A tee line located at the southern edge of the driving range has been in existence since the late 1960s when a secondary tee line was introduced as a night range. The southern tee line (hitting south to north) has been enhanced and expanded since that time and is currently used for instructional purposes.

The Project would install a total of36 poles to support protective netting with many of the netting support poles substantially taller than what exists today. There are currently 64 poles today of which approximately 20 will remain for a total of 70 poles. Support poles and safety netting have been part of the driving range since the 1950s; lighting poles were added in the late 1960s with the introduction of a night range. In addition,

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
33 tall poles and safety netting are present in many areas along the perimeter of the Golf Course Complex. As such, support poles and safety netting have been part of the Brookside Golf Complex landscape for decades.

Golf course fairways would continue to flank the driving range to the north and south.

Course #1 Hole #10 to the north would be altered by an extended fairway and relocated green. Course #2 Hole #6 and Hole #7 would also be shortened to accommodate the change to Course #1 Hole #10. Despite these alterations, Hole #6, Hole #7, and Hole #10 would still read as a tee, fairway and green in the same locations.

When looked at in total, changes to the driving range proposed by the Project will be relatively minor. Although the primary east-west orientation of the driving range will be changed to a south-north orientation, the driving range already incorporates a southern tee line and south-to-north hitting for instruction purposes. The introduction of new and in some cases taller poles for safety netting and lighting will continue infrastructure elements that have been integral to the driving range since the 1950s. The area will continue to be used as a driving range as it has since at least 1930 and it will contain the wide expanse of fairway, tee line driving bays, safety netting, and support poles that have characterized the driving range for decades.

Potential Impacts from the Miniature Golf Course
The area west of the driving range between the driving range and the flood channel would host a new 36-hole miniature golf course. Miniature golf is largely an exercise in putting so from a use standpoint miniature golf will continue the golf-related uses that currently occupying the site. The design of the miniature golf area, however, would differ from a typical putting green, incorporating a complex arrangement of pathways and landscape elements with intermittent “themed” objects and structures. The themed structures are anticipated to be between 6 and 8-feet in height.

The Brookside Golf Complex has been characterized by a distinctive landscape comprising tees, fairways, greens, bunkers, lake hazards, mature trees and perimeter stone walls. The net effect is a naturalistic and unified landscape that is not only coherent to itself but seamlessly relates to the natural landscape of the arroyo and surrounding hillsides. The miniature golf course would introduce a new design element to the Brookside Golf Complex. Design of a miniature golf course is necessarily complex with many elements compiled into a relatively small area. The theme aspect of the design can also introduce an esthetic at odds with the historic character of the Golf Complex.

With the introduction of a new design element acknowledged, the proposed miniature golf course will be located at what is currently the far end of the driving range bordered by the concrete flood channel, an area that isn’t generally traversed by golfers and hasn’t been for decades. In addition, the entire miniature golf area will be approximately one

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
34 acre in size out of the approximately 230 acres total that comprise the Brookside Golf Complex. In other words, approximately 0.4% of the total Brookside Golf Complex will be affected by the construction of the miniature golf course.

Tree Removal
Depending on the ultimate design and layout of the driving range and miniature golf course, the Project could result in the removal of approximately 44 mature trees, several of which are dead or diseased. Trees located within the Project site have been added and removed throughout the history of the Brookside Golf Complex and their existence and location in and around the driving range has been altered substantially since the period of significance for the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District (1909– 1939). Therefore, the specific number and location of trees in and around the driving range is not a character-defining feature of the Brookside Golf Complex or the District.

For these reasons, the projected removal of trees will not reduce the integrity or significance of the Brookside Golf Complex such that it’s status as a contributing site to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District would be threatened.

Summary of Potential Impacts
As noted above, changes to the driving range proposed by the project will be relatively minor. The area will continue to be used as a driving range as it has since at least 1930 and it will contain the wide expanse of fairway, tee line driving bays, safety netting, and support poles that have characterized the driving range for decades.

The miniature golf course would construct a new design element at the Brookside Golf Complex that can potentially introduce an esthetic at odds with the historic character of the Golf Complex. The approximately 1 acre in size of the miniature golf course, however, represents only 0.4% of the approximately 230 acres total that comprise the Brookside Golf Complex.

Ultimately, any discussion of potential impacts must concede that the Project Site represents less than 10 percent of the total area occupied by the Brookside Golf Complex. The golf courses themselves, with the exception of Course #1 Hole #10, and Course #2 Hole #6 and Hole #7, would remain unchanged by the Project. All alterations proposed by the project will be in areas that have previously been altered and changed over time. The Project will not destroy or materially alter physical characteristics that convey historic significance and justify the historic listing of the Brookside Golf Complex as a contributing feature of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District. The overwhelming majority of the site elements that characterize the Brookside Golf Complex would continue to retain their original location, general overall boundaries, and routing. The character-defining stone walls around the north, east, and west perimeters of the two courses would also remain unchanged. Despite the proposed alterations to the driving range and Hole #6, Hole #7 and Hole #10, as well as the introduction of the miniature golf course, the Brookside Golf Complex would continue

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
35 to maintain a substantial amount of integrity and continue to convey its historic significance.

However, because the Project has not been completely designed, this study recognizes the potential for the loss of integrity due to alterations associated with the Project out of an abundance of caution. The potential loss of integrity is considered herein a significant impact for the purposes of CEQA; therefore, mitigation measures are proposed. A mitigation measure described in Section 9.1 below includes the retention of a qualified historic preservation professional to ensure that alterations to the driving range, design of the miniature golf course, and overall modifications to the Golf Course are compatible with the existing Brookside Golf Complex landscape and the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District so that the historic integrity of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District is maintained.

With mitigation to ensure that the integrity of the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District is maintained, the Project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District and will not, therefore, result in significant impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

9. MITIGATION 36
As discussed in Section 8 of this report, the Project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreation District and will not, therefore, result in significant impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA.

9.1 Recommended Mitigation Measure
To ensure that the ultimate Project design is executed to achieve a maximum level of compatibility with the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District, the RBOC shall retain a qualified historic preservation professional to ensure that alterations to the driving range, design of the miniature golf course, and overall modifications to the Golf Course are compatible with the existing Brookside Golf Complex landscape and the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District.

This will include the following considerations to ensure that the Project will be executed to achieve a maximum level of compatibility with the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District.

1. A qualified historic preservation professional shall be retained to ensure that the alterations to the driving range, design of the miniature golf course, and modification of Course #1 Hole #10 and Course #2 holes #6 and #7 will be compatible with the existing Brookside Golf Complex landscape and Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreational District.

2. Design issues to be considered for alteration of the driving range will include but are not limited to the form and materials of new circulation paths and Tline/driving bays; the placement, dimensions, and materiality of driving range netting support poles; netting color and transparency; lighting placement; the brightness and the intensity of lighting.

3. Design issues to be considered for the miniature golf course(s) will include but are not limited to grading and topographic changes; new plantings, trees and vegetation; the scale, form and materiality of theme features; perimeter fencing and security/safety elements; signage and wayfinding, lighting placement; the brightness and the intensity of lighting.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP

10. REFERENCES 37
“California Built Environment Resources Directory.” California Office of Historic Preservation, https://ohp.parks. ca.gov/?page_id=30338. Accessed December 2020-January 2021.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§ 15000-15387. “California Historical Resources Inventory.” California Office of Historic Preservation, August 15, 2011.

California Public Resources Code, §§ 21000-21177.

City of Pasadena building permits.

City of Pasadena Planning and Community Development, http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/ planning/. Accessed December 2020-January 2021.

City of Pasadena Zoning Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.62 (November 6, 2020).

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 60.

County of Los Angeles Tax Assessor. Property Assessment Information System, http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/GVH_2_2/Index.html?configBase=http://maps.assessor.lac ounty.gov/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PAIS/viewers/PAIS_hv/virtualdirectory/Resource s/Config/Default. Accessed January 2021.
“Geo. L. Throop Mark Golden Anniversary,” Independent-Star-News, August 20, 1967.

Historic Aerials, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed January 2021.

League for the Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources vs. City of Oakland, 52 Cal. App. 4th 896, 906-7 (1997).

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Parcel information, http://maps.assessor.lacounty. gov/GVH_2_2/Index.html?configBase=http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/Geocortex/Essentials /REST/sites/PAIS/viewers/PAIS_hv/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default. Accessed January-February 2021.

Los Angeles Times. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1990).

Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/. Accessed February 2021.

Pasadena Arroyo Parks and Recreation District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, prepared by Teresa Grimes for Pasadena Heritage, July 13, 2007.

Sanborn Map Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Pasadena: 1931, 1951.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Brookside Golf Complex Improvements
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
38 State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. “California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison.” Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation, 2011.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS
Overview of pathway to clubhouse, golf cart rental, and driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of the golf cart and driving range rental with clubhouse in background looking northeast. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of putting green with golf cart and driving range rental and clubhouse in background looking southeast. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of putting green and driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of putting green and driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of putting green and driving range looking southwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of pathway between driving range and putting green looking northeast. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of putting green and driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of putting green and driving range looking southwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Pathway along south side of driving range with water feature looking southwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of pathway to driving range and instruction area looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of additional driving range and instruction area looking north. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of Arroyo Seco Channel immediately west of the driving range looking north. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Detail of concrete bridge over Arroyo Seco Channel looking east. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of hole and manmade lake west of the driving range and Arroyo Seco Channel looking southwest.

Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of Arroyo Seco Channel and wood cross bridge with driving range in background looking northeast.

Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of rear of driving range from across Arroyo Seco Channel looking southeast. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of C. W. Koiner Course #1, immediately north of the driving range looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of C. W. Koiner Course #1 looking southeast. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of curvilinear path between the driving range and C. W. Koiner Course #1 looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

View of C. W. Koiner Course #1 looking northwest. Historic Resources Group, 2021.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX B: DETAILED HISTORIC AERIALS OF PROJECT SITE
Aerial photograph of the Brookside Golf Course driving range area in detail, 1938. (Special Research Collections, UCSB Library, University of California Santa Barbara) Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial photograph of the Brookside Golf Course driving range area in detail, 1944. (Special Research Collections, UCSB Library, University of California Santa Barbara) Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial photograph of the Brookside Golf Course driving range area in detail, 1956. (Special Research Collections, UCSB Library, University of California Santa Barbara) Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial photograph of the Brookside Golf Course driving range area in detail, 1968. (Special Research Collections, UCSB Library, University of California Santa Barbara) Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX C: HISTORIC PHOTOS
Photo of clubhouse from hillside looking West, 1929.

Photo of golf course and clubhouse looking northeast, 1929.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Photo of clubhouse looking southeast, 1930.

Photo of driving range and old clubhouse looking east, 1930.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Photo of putting green and old clubhouse looking south, 1930.

Construction of Arroyo Seco Channel, 1934.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Construction of Arroyo Seco Channel near Rose Bowl, 1934.

Overview of the Brookside Golf Course with the Rose Bowl looking north, 1940.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Overview of the new course being built looking southwest, c. 1940 Photo of clubhouse with the golf course in the background, 1947.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Photo of golf course and clubhouse with pulling carts, 1955.

Overview of holes, driving range and clubhouse, 1960.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View of golfer at driving range, 1966.

Renovations underway at golf course, 1967.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Renovation of Arroyo Seco Channel block, 1967.

Construction of new clubhouse looking north, 1967.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Completion of new clubhouse, 1967.

Photo of the golf course driving range and holes with the Rose Bowl, 1968.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
.

Overview of golf course looking northeast, c. 1970.

View of clubhouse and course, 1977.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX D: HISTORIC DRAWINGS
1928 golf course drawing by Phil Leonard. Source: Los Angeles Times, November 4, 1928 Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1967 Muirhead Plan
Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1967 Brookside Golf Course General Remodel.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1967 Brookside Golf Course General Remodel.

Brookside Golf Course
Historical Resources Technical Report

HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX E: PROFESIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
PAUL D. TRAVIS, AICP

MANAGING PRINCIPAL
Experience Profile
Paul Travis has been with HRG since 2006 and specializes in master planning, CEQA, NEPA and Section 106 environmental review, and historic resources assessment.

At HRG, Paul manages planning-related projects with a focus on large, multiproperty sites including college campuses, historic downtowns, neighborhoods and districts, industrial sites, motion picture studios, and military bases.

Paul has drafted preservation plans for the University of Southern California; NBC Universal Studios, Hollywood; and Los Angeles International Airport. He has participated in the development of community plans or specific plans for Paso Robles, Fresno, and Whittier; and has been involved in the master planning process for Loyola Marymount University, Occidental College, Mount St. Mary’s College, Fox Studios, the Alameda Naval Station, and the Downey NASA site. Recent survey experience includes historic resource surveys for the cities of Los Angeles, Ventura, Glendale, Paso Robles, San Diego, and Fresno.

Prior to working at HRG, Paul worked as a research assistant at the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies performing academic research for study of transit-oriented development along the Pasadena Gold Line light rail system.

Responsibilities include gathering and analysis of ridership data and adjacent development activity, and field observation of conditions surrounding transit stops.

Paul Travis meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Historic Preservation Planning and History.

Selected Projects
Fresno Fulton Corridor Specific Plan and CEQA, Fresno
Fox Studios Master Plan, Century City
Gamble House Cultural Landscape Report, Pasadena
LAX Historic Assessments, Environmental Review, Preservation Plan NBC Universal Evolution Plan, Universal City
Sunset Bronson Studios Master Planning, Hollywood
Sunset Gower Studios Master Planning, Hollywood
SurveyLA Citywide Survey, Los Angeles
Thacher School Campus Survey, CEQA & Historic Designation, Ojai Years of Experience: 15
Education
Master of Arts in Urban Planning,
University of California, Los
Angeles, 2006
Bachelor of Fine Arts,
Printmaking,
San Jose State University, San Jose,
1985
Speaking Engagements
California Preservation
Foundation
• Historic Resources and the
California Environmental
Quality Act
• Historic Resources Surveys
• Preservation Planning
American Planning Association,
California Chapter
• Preservation Planning
Professional Affiliations
American Institute of Certified
Planners, Member
American Planning Association,
Urban Design & Preservation
Division, Member
American Planning Association,
Los Angeles Chapter, Member
California Preservation
Foundation, Guest Speaker,
Workshop Leader
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Member

LAURA JANSSEN

SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Experience Profile
Laura has been with Historic Resources Group since 2003. At Historic Resources Group, Laura prepares historic structure reports, resource evaluations and historic assessment reports including character-defining features inventories, and conducts on-site existing conditions investigations, and reviews projects for Standards compliance. She prepares National and California Register nominations, local landmark nominations, California Mills Act historic property contract applications, federal tax credit submittals, technical reports, and assists with historic resource surveys.

During her graduate studies, Laura developed a preservation plan for Norwood Park, a suburban residential neighborhood of Chicago, and produced documentation reports for the Portuma Estate complex in County Gallway, Ireland. She received honorable mention in the 2000 Charles E.

Peterson Prize for her measured drawings of Quinn Chapel in Chicago for the Historic American Building Survey. After graduation she worked for the National Park Service where she completed an architectural survey for the Historic American Engineering Record documenting Detroit's industrial riverfront.

Laura Janssen meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History.

Selected Projects
Doris Duke’s Shangri-La Historic Structure Report
Eastern-Columbia Building
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Ennis House
Gamble House
Hollywood Bungalow Courts
Hollywood Palladium
John Lautner’s Stevens House
Los Angeles Arboretum & Botanic Garden Cultural Landscape Report Los Angeles County Hall of Justice
Los Angeles Examiner Building
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
Lummis House
Pasadena City Hall
Queen Anne Cottage Historic Structure Report
Rose Bowl
Sacramento Memorial Auditorium
St. Vincent de Paul Church
Years of Experience: 17
Education
Master of Science, Historic
Preservation, School of the Art
Institute of Chicago
Courses in Graphic Design and
Interior & Environmental Design,
UCLA Extension
Bachelor of Fine Arts, Art History,
UCLA
Honors and Awards
Los Angeles Conservancy
Preservation Award
• Los Angeles County
Arboretum, 2017
• 28th Street YMCA, 2013
• Hollywood Bungalow Courts,
2010
• Eastern-Columbia Building,
2008
• Ennis House, 2008
• Pasadena City Hall, 2008
California Preservation Foundation
Preservation Design Award
• Rose Bowl, 2018
• Hall of Justice, 2015
• 28th Street YMCA, 2013
• Hollywood Bungalow Courts,
2010
• Ennis House, 2008
• Pasadena City Hall, 2008
• Sacramento Memorial
Auditorium HSR, 2007
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
• Pasadena City Hall, 2008
Professional Affiliations
Association for Preservation
Technology International
Los Angeles Conservancy
National Trust for Historic
Preservation

DOCOMOMO

ROBBY ARANGUREN

PLANNING ASSOCIATE

GIS SPECIALIST
Experience Profile
Robby Aranguren is a Planning Associate/GIS Specialist with 11 years of experience in historic preservation in Southern California. Robby joined Historic Resources Group in 2009 as an intern and became full staff in 2010.

At HRG, Robby provides mapping, database creation and management, photography, and research for historic assessments. He also provides assistance with character-defining features inventories and paint analysis studies. He is proficient with the Microsoft Access Database, FiGSS GIS Survey System, Photoshop, Google SketchUp, ESRI ArcMap and ArcCatalog. He has worked on numerous large-scale historic resources surveys, building and manipulating large databases.

Prior to joining HRG, Robby worked at the City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, Department of Planning, preparing staff reports for Historic-Cultural Monument applications, preparing E-newsletters, assisting in the development of the Mills Act 2010 Online Application and Guide. Robby also served as acting secretary at Cultural Heritage Commission meetings and conducted building permit research.

Robby Aranguren meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in History and Architectural History.

Selected Projects
SurveyLA, Los Angeles
CBS Columbia Square Paint Sampling
Chapman University VPOA Window Survey
City of Riverside Modernism Survey
City of Palm Springs Citywide Survey
City of South Pasadena Citywide Survey Update
Glendale Central Air Terminal Paint Sampling
South Glendale Historic Context Statement & Historic Resources Survey Jordan House Rehabilitation & Construction Monitoring, Whittier Lincoln Place Apartments Historic Tax Credit, Los Angeles UC Riverside Citrus Experiment Station Character-defining Features Inventory
Villa Elaine Character-defining Features Inventory
Wallace Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts Adaptive Reuse and Historic Tax Credit, Beverly Hills
Years of Experience: 11
Education
Bachelor of Arts in
Interdisciplinary Studies:

Architecture, Urban Planning, and
Business (Real Estate)
University of Texas, Arlington
Honors and Awards
California Preservation
Foundation
• Preservation Design Award:

Wallis Annenberg Center for
the Performing Arts, 2014
• Preservation Design Award:

Lincoln Place Apartments,
2015
Professional Affiliations
Los Angeles Conservancy
Los Angeles GIS Data Portal
California Preservation
Foundation

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
January 2023
Appendix E Noise Modeling Data
Fundamentals of Noise
NOISE
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound; whether it is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
Noise Descriptors
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
 Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
 Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference sound pressure. The standard reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa).  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.
 Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
 Maximum Sound Level (Lmax). The highest RMS sound level measured during the measurement period.
 Root Mean Square Sound Level (RMS). The square root of the average of the square of the sound pressure over the measurement period.
 Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NOTE: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive – that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per second) due to ground vibration.
 Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.

Characteristics of Sound
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves.

Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Loudness or amplitude is measured in dB, frequency or pitch is measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second, and duration or time variations is measured in seconds or minutes.

Amplitude
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.

Table 1 Noise Perceptibility
Change in dB Noise Level
± 3 dB Barely perceptible increase
± 5 dB Readily perceptible increase
± 10 dB Twice or half as loud
± 20 dB Four times or one-quarter as loud
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).

Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.

When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically used to approximate the response of the human ear. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise. Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
 Ambient (background) sound level
 General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban)  Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition  Duration of the sound event
 Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness
 Time of day that the event occurs
Duration
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively. These “n” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances.

Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related noise sources.

Sound Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be 79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”) surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level absorptive vegetation decreases by an additional 1.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system.

Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, through generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, lessdeveloped areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 2 shows typical noise levels from familiar sources.

Table 2 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+

110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room

Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing

Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).

Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position; velocity is the instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves; and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure.

Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.

As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 3 displays the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).

Table 3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels
Vibration Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e. not structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural”
damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered
walls and ceilings

0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable
to some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected
from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020, April. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International.

LOCAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS

City of Pasadena
Revised Noise Element
of the General Plan
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Prepared by:

City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91109-7215
Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
790 East Santa Clara Street
Ventura, California 93001
December 2002

City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Transportation-Related Noise Sources .............................................................................1 Interstates 210 and 710, State Routes 134 and 110.............................................1 Street Traffic .........................................................................................................2 Future Light Rail ...................................................................................................3 Aircraft Flyovers....................................................................................................3 Other Noise Sources.........................................................................................................4 Central Arroyo.......................................................................................................4 Commercial Activity ..............................................................................................4 Nuisance Noise.....................................................................................................5 Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Firing Range ..................................7 Implementation Measures.................................................................................................7 Noise Evaluation and Mitigation......................................................................................12 Standard Mitigation Packages ............................................................................12 Standard Disclosure in New or Rehabilitated Residential Developments in Mixed-Use Areas.....................................................................13 List of Figures
Figure 1 Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use .......................................................6 Figure 2 Existing Noise Contours.....................................................................................8 Figure 3 Future Noise Contours.......................................................................................9 I
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Introduction
The City of Pasadena is affected by several different sources of noise, including automobile traffic, Rose Bowl events, commercial activity, and periodic nuisances such as construction, loud parties, and other events. The Noise Element is intended to identify these sources and provide objectives and policies that ensure that noise from these sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. Noise is a normal part of the urban environment. However, controlling noise sources can make a substantial improvement in the quality of life for City residents.

The major noise sources in Pasadena are listed below and are discussed in detail in the Existing and Future Conditions report:

Transportation-Related Noise Sources
• Traffic on Interstates 210 and 710, State Routes 134 and 110 • Street Traffic
• Future Light Rail
• Aircraft Flyovers
Other Noise Sources
• Central Arroyo
• Commercial Activity
• Nuisance Noise
• Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Shooting Range The overriding objective of the Noise Element in the General Plan is to minimize exposure of residents, workers, and visitors to excessive noise levels, while maximizing the Land Use Element's objectives to encourage mixed-use development in the Central District and other Specific Plan areas as well as to promote economic vitality. Specific objectives and policies relevant to each of the specific noise issues are listed below.

Transportation-Related Noise Sources
Interstates 210 and 710, State Routes 134 and 110
Motor vehicle noise is the most common and widely dispersed continuous source in the City of Pasadena. The roadways that generate the most noise 1 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
include the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) and the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134). In different parts of the City, Interstate 210 is both a north-south and east-west travel corridor. State Route 134 is an east-west travel corridor in the western portions of the City. To a lesser extent, the Long Beach Freeway is used for north-south travel. The City is also minimally affected by noise associated with the one-quarter mile segment of the Pasadena Freeway (SR110), which enters the City at the southern end of Arroyo Parkway and terminates at Glenarm Street.

Objective 1 The City will work to reduce the effects of noise from freeway traffic on residential and other sensitive land uses.

Policy 1a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses near existing freeways.

Policy 1b The City will cooperate with Caltrans and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to landscape or install noise attenuation along freeways adjacent to residential or noise sensitive uses.

Street Traffic
The major north-south roadways in the City include Lincoln Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, Los Robles Avenue, Lake Avenue, Allen Avenue, Altadena Drive, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Rosemead Boulevard. The major eastwest roadways include Orange Grove Boulevard, Walnut Street, Colorado Boulevard, Sierra Madre Boulevard, and Del Mar Boulevard. Noise from these major roadways may affect sensitive receptors.

Objective 2 The City will work to reduce the effects of traffic-generated noise from major roadways on residential and other sensitive land uses.

Policy 2a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses along major roadways.

Policy 2b The City will encourage site planning and traffic control measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in
residential zones.

Policy 2c The City will encourage the use of alternative transportation modes as stipulated in the Mobility Element (walking,
bicycling, transit use, electric vehicles) to minimize traffic noise in the City.

Policy 2d The City will work with local and regional transit agencies and businesses to provide transportation services that
reduce traffic and associated noise as stipulated in the Mobility Element.
2 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Policy 2e The City will work to reduce the effects of traffic-related noise in residential neighborhoods, including but not limited to neighborhoods adjacent to South Orange Grove Boulevard, Saint John Avenue, Pasadena Avenue, California Boulevard, and other busy streets passing thorough residential
neighborhoods.

Future Light Rail
The Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Construction Authority is constructing a passenger light rail service that will connect Pasadena business centers with downtown Los Angeles. Future train traffic will generate noise that may exceed acceptable levels for noise-sensitive uses along the rail corridor.

Objective 3 The City will minimize noise from the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Line on residential and other sensitive land uses.

Policy 3a The City will encourage noise-compatible land uses and mitigation measures near the Los Angeles to Pasadena
Metro Line rail system.

Policy 3b After commencing operations and regularly thereafter, the City will work with the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority and/or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) to install noise attenuation features if the Gold Line (formerly known as the Blue Line) adversely affects existing adjacent
residential or other noise-sensitive uses (refer to
Implementation Measure 13).

Aircraft Flyovers
Activity from commercial and private aircraft, emergency and trafficmonitoring helicopters contribute to the general noise environment. In particular, low-flying helicopters are a source of noise complaints in the City.

Objective 4 Considering the City’s legal authority, the City will encourage minimizing noise from aircraft flyovers on residential and other sensitive land uses.

Policy 4a The City will work with local and regional agencies, including Los Angeles County and other agencies utilizing Fire Camp #2, to reduce excessive noise associated with aircraft
flyovers.

Policy 4b The City will work with federal agencies to determine appropriate standards for helicopter noise.
3 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Policy 4c The Pasadena Police Department will work to minimize helicopter noise throughout the City to the extent feasible, taking into account operational requirements and the need to protect public health and safety.

Policy 4d The City will work with federal agencies to reduce airplane noise to the extent feasible.

Other Noise Sources
Central Arroyo
Sports, music and other events at the Rose Bowl, Brookside Park, the Rose Bowl Aquatic Center, and the future Kids Space Museum in the Fannie Morrison Center have the potential to generate noise in the Central Arroyo.

The noise levels for these activities are highly variable due to the fact that both the number of events occurring and the noise levels experienced from the events can fluctuate. However, a waiver from the Noise Restrictions Ordinance (Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code) has been required for some events because noise from those events exceeded permitted levels.

Objective 5 The City will balance the effects of noise associated with events held in the Central Arroyo with the benefits of events occurring at Central Arroyo facilities.

Policy 5a The City will continue to seek improvements to noisegenerating equipment and activities at the Rose Bowl, Aquatics Center, Jackie Robinson Field, Brookside Park, Area H, and the future Kids Space Museum in order to
minimize the effects of noise on nearby residents.

Policy 5b The City will continue to coordinate events in the Central Arroyo to minimize noise to the degree feasible.

Commercial Activity
Noise generated by commercial operations, maintenance, truck deliveries and traffic can affect adjacent residential areas and other sensitive land uses.

Future industrial and commercial development should generally be located away from existing and planned residential and other sensitive zones. Day and night activities and special events in the Central District and other mixeduse areas are expected to generate urban noise throughout the year.

Objective 6 The City will minimize noise spillovers from commercial and industrial operations into adjacent residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses, while maximizing the Land Use Element's objectives to encourage mixed-use development in 4 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
the Central District and other Specific Plan areas as well as to promote economic vitality.

Policy 6a The City will encourage automobile and truck access to industrial and commercial properties abutting residential zones to be located at the maximum practical distance from residential zones.

Policy 6b The City will limit the use of motorized landscaping equipment, parking lot sweepers, and other high-noise
equipment on commercial properties if their activity will result in noise that adversely affects residential zones.

Policy 6c The City will encourage limitations on the hours of truck deliveries to industrial and commercial properties abutting residential zones unless there is no feasible alternative or there are substantial transportation benefits for scheduling deliveries at another hour.

Nuisance Noise
The City occasionally receives complaints about individual sources of nuisance noise, including loud parties, events, and gardening equipment.

Construction activity is also a source of occasional temporary nuisance noise throughout the City. These and other such nuisance noises are common to cities and, because of their unpredictable nature, must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Objective 7 The City will minimize the effects of nuisance noise on sensitive land uses as defined in Figure 1 to the degree feasible.

Policy 7a Whenever possible, City-sponsored events that generate noise will be scheduled during hours when effects would be minimal.

Policy 7b The City will encourage limitations on construction activities adjacent to sensitive noise receptors as defined in Figure 1.

Policy 7c The City will encourage construction and landscaping activities that employ techniques to minimize noise.

Policy 7d The City will enforce noise level restrictions contained in the City of Pasadena Noise Regulations (Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code), except during federal, State, or local emergencies (such as power generators required for energy emergencies).
5 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Figure 1 Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use

COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn or CNEL, dBA
55 60 65 70 75 80 85

RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY SINGLE

FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES

RESIDENTIAL - MULTI-FAMILY AND

MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
USE

TRANSIENT LODGING - MOTELS,
HOTELS

SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES,

HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES

AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS,

AMPHITHEATRES

SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR

SPECTATOR SPORTS

PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS

GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES,

WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES

OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL

INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING,

UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE

CLEARLY ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based If new construction or development proceeds, upon the assumption that any buildings an analysis of the noise reduction involved are of normal conventional requirements should be made and needed noise construction, without any special noise insulation features included in the design. insulation requirements.

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should New construction or development should be undertaken after an analysis of the generally not be undertaken, unless it can noise reduction requirements is made and be demonstrated that an interior level of needed noise insulation features included 45 dBA can be achieved. in the design. Conventional construction, but
with closed windows and fresh air supply
systems or air conditioning will normally
suffice.
* Please note that these guidelines are general and may not apply to specific sites.

Source: California General Plan Guidelines, 1998, as modified by the City of Pasadena, 2002. 6 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Firing Range
Noise generated at the Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Firing Range is a source of concern for residents. Noise from this facility can be particularly irritating due to the impulsive sound emanating from gunfire.

Objective 8 The City will minimize noise emanating from the Eaton Canyon Firing Range into residential areas and other
sensitive land uses.

Policy 8a The City will limit exterior activity within the Eaton Canyon Firing Range to work towards noise remaining within
acceptable levels at nearby residences.

Implementation Measures
The following implementation measures are designed to carry out the objectives and policies of the Noise Element.

Measure 1 The City will consult the guidelines for noise compatible land use shown on Figure 1 to guide the appropriateness of land uses relative to roadway noise. [Policies 1a, 2a]
Measure 2 An acoustical study showing the ability to meet state noise insulation standards may be required for any development proposed in an area where the noise level, as indicated on Figures 2 and 3, exceeds the “clearly acceptable level” as determined by the City and shown on Figure 1. [Policies 1a, 2a]
Measure 3 The City will enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25 California Administration Code for future development and redevelopment) to ensure an acceptable
interior noise level of 45dBA Ldn in habitable rooms. [Policies 1a, 2a]
Measure 4 The City will consider the use of alternative paving materials that can reduce traffic noise, as feasible, depending on roadway conditions and cost efficiency. [Policies 1b, 2b] Measure 5 The City will consider the use of “traffic calming” devices, to reduce traffic speed in residential zones. [Policies 2b, 2d] Measure 6 The City will cooperate with Caltrans in the planning of noise attenuation along freeways. [Policy 1b]
7

!
#

%
&

'
%
$

(

%
$'
%
)

%
%

%
%

"
$
*
%
%

',+

%

#

%#&'

(
/

! " #

"
$

"
#
$

$
&

!

#
#

(
)
*
(
'

+

(
'*
(
,

(
(

(
(

% '
-
(
(
.

*/.
#
!

)

(

!

&'(
) *

City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Measure 7 The City will periodically review major roadways and designated truck routes to reduce traffic in residential zones. [Policy 2b]
Measure 8 As feasible and practical, new equipment purchased by the City will meet noise performance standards consistent with the best available noise reduction technology. [Policy 7c] Measure 9 The City will review and update the Noise Restrictions Ordinance at least every five years (Chapter 9.36 of the Pasadena Municipal Code) to ensure effectiveness in
controlling noise sources. [Policies 6b, 6c, 7b, 7c]
Measure 10 The City will enforce Chapter 9.37 of the Pasadena Municipal Code on the hours, use, and maintenance of leaf blowing machines. [Policy 7c]
Measure 11 The City will consider amending the Pasadena Municipal Code to restrict the use of other landscape equipment and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment if problems arise in the future. [Policy 7d]
Measure 12 The City will monitor implementation of noise-related mitigation measures outlined in the General Plan FEIR to ensure effectiveness in minimizing noise from mobile
sources. [Policies 2c, 2b, 2c]
Measure 13 The City will monitor implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles Light Rail Transit project (1993) to verify their success in minimizing noise from the Gold Line (formerly known as the Blue Line). [Policy 3b]
Measure 14 The City will work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine appropriate altitude standards for aircraft flying over congested areas, taking into account public health and safety.
*
[Policies 4a, 4b, 4d]
Measure 15 The City will cooperate with the County Fire Department and Metropolitan Water District to minimize noise conflicts associated with Los Angeles County Fire Department
helicopter activity. [Policy 4a]
Measure 16 The City Police Department will continue to implement its standard operating procedures for helicopters to minimize noise conflicts. [Policy 4a]

*
Note: Several community groups around the country are lobbying for a 1,000 foot minimum altitude for helicopter flyovers.
10 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Measure 17 The Police Department and the Environmental Health Division will coordinate tracking of community noise
complaints. [Policy 7d]
Measure 18 The City will consider adoption of financial penalties for repeated violations of Pasadena Noise Restrictions
Ordinance (Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code). [Policy 7d] Measure 19 The City will continue to monitor noise levels at the Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Firing Range.
[Policy 8a]
Measure 20 The City will pursue funding to enclose the pistol range at the Pasadena Police Department Eaton Canyon Firing Range.
[Policy 8a]
Measure 21 The City will encourage new developments to site outdoor commercial areas and gathering places, loading areas,
parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical
equipment, and other noisier components away from
residential zones and other sensitive uses as defined in Figure 1, to the extent feasible, unless the siting of such components near to noise-sensitive uses provides
transportation or other benefits. [Policies 7a, 7b, 7c] Measure 22 The City will limit new heliports to the Central District or other appropriate areas and will condition new heliports to
minimize noise at sensitive uses as defined in Figure 1. [Policy 4c]
Measure 23 The City will encourage commercial and/or industrial uses abutting residential zones to limit deliveries and trash pickups from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, unless there are substantial transportation or other benefits for different times. [Policy 6c]
Measure 24 The City will continue to enforce the Transportation Management Program Ordinance (Chapter 10.64 of the
Pasadena Municipal Code) to reduce vehicle trips and
associated noise. [Policies 2b, 2c, 2d]
Measure 25· The City will work with the FAA to limit aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Rose Bowl. [Policies 4c, 4d]
Measure 26 The City will warn new residents and other sensitive noise receptors (refer to Figure 1) about the potential for noise in the Central District and other mixed-use areas. [Policies 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a]
11 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
Measure 27 The City will periodically monitor noise levels at major events in the Central Arroyo to determine whether or not current restrictions are achieving acceptable noise levels. [Policy 5a] Noise Evaluation and Mitigation
The following provides a general methodology to be followed in the evaluation of potential noise problems associated with new development in Pasadena.

When mitigation must be applied to new development to ensure an acceptable noise environment, the following approaches will be considered.

First preference will be given to approach (a). Second preference will be given to approach (b). Due to possible aesthetic concerns regarding the use of sound walls, approach (c) will be used only if neither approach (a) nor (b) will achieve desired noise conditions.
a. Site layout, including setbacks, open space separation and shielding of noise sensitive uses with non-noise-sensitive uses; then b. Acoustical treatment of buildings (see Standard Mitigation Packages below for the types of treatment normally required depending upon the amount of noise reduction needed); then
c. Structural measures: Construction of earthen berms or wood or concrete barriers.

Standard Mitigation Packages
Below are standard mitigation packages that can generally be used to mitigate interior building noise if the needed noise reduction is 30 dBA or less and the noise problem is from a single source.

1. If a 15-20 dBA reduction is needed, the following may suffice:
a. Air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system; and b. Windows and sliding glass doors should be double-paned glass and mounted in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per American National Standard Institute [ANSI] specifications); and c. Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals

2. If a 20-25 dBA reduction is needed, the following may suffice:
a. Same as No. 1a-c; and
b. Exterior walls consist of stucco or brick veneer. Wood siding with a 1/2” minimum thickness fiberboard underlayer may also be used; and 12 City of Pasadena Revised Noise Element
Objectives, Policies, and Implementation
13 c. Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed 20% of the floor area in a room; and
d. Roof or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled.

3. If a 25-30 dBA reduction is needed, the following may suffice:
a. Same as No. 2a-d; and
b. The interior sheetrock of exterior wall assemblies should be attached to studs by resilient channels. Staggered studs or double walls are acceptable alternatives; and
c. Window assemblies should have a laboratory-tested STC rating of 30 or greater (Windows that provide superior noise reduction capability and that are laboratory-tested are sometimes called “sound-rated” windows. In general, these windows have thicker glass and/or increased air space between panes. In contrast, standard energy conservation double-pane glazing with a 1/8” or 1/4” air space may be less effective in reducing noise from some noise sources than single pane glazing).

Standard Disclosure in New or Rehabilitated Residential Developments in Mixed-Use Areas
When the City exercises discretionary review, provides financial assistance, or otherwise facilitates residential projects in the Central District, Specific Plan areas, or other mixed-use districts, written warnings to potential residents about noise should be made a condition of that approval, assistance, or facilitation. The following language is provided as an example:
“All potential buyers and/or renters of residential property within Pasadena’s Central District, Specific Plan areas, and/or other mixeduse districts are hereby notified that they may be subject to audible noise levels attributed to business and entertainment-related activities common to such areas, including amplified sound, music, delivery vehicles, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and other urban noise.”
4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
1/10
A.

Chapter 9.36 - NOISE RESTRICTIONS*
Sections:

9.36.010 - Short title.

This chapter shall be known as the "noise restrictions ordinance." (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.020 - Declaration of policy.

It is declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises from all sources pursuant to its police power. Noise at certain levels is detrimental to the health and welfare of the general public. Consequently, it shall be systematically proscribed in the public interest. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.030 - Denitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in the ordinance codified in this chapter are defined as follows:
"Ambient noise" means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of many sources near and far. For the purpose of this chapter, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of 15 minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources, at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made. This value shall not include noise from occasional, or occasional and transient sources.
"A-weighted sound level" means the sound level in decibels as measured on sound level meter using the A weighting network. The level so read is designated "dB(A)" or "dBA." "Commercial purpose" means and includes the use, operation or maintenance of any sound amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, or any goods, or any services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public to, or advertising for, or soliciting patronage or customers to or for any performance, show, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating such sound equipment. "Decibel" means a unit measure of sound (noise) level. It is a unit for expressing the relative intensity of sounds on a scale from zero for the average least perceptible sound to about 130 for the average pain level; also a unit for expressing the ratio of two amounts of electric or acoustic signal power equal to 10 times the common logarithm of this ratio. "Emergency work" means work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
2/10
F.

1. a.
following a public calamity or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. "General noise" means noise from any source not specifically exempted in this chapter. "Noncommercial purpose" means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than a commercial purpose. "Noncommercial purpose" means and includes, but shall not be limited to, religious, philanthropic, political, patriotic and charitable purposes.
"Property line" means the line that separates private property or the event from the public right-of-way.
"Sound amplifying equipment" means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound. "Sound amplifying equipment" shall not include standard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed. "Sound amplifying equipment," as used in this chapter, shall not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes. "Sound level" (noise level), in decibels (dB), is the sound measured with the A weighting and slow response by a sound level meter.
"Sound level meter" means an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels which satisfies the pertinent requirements in American Standard Specifications for sound level meters S1.4- 1971 or the most recent revision thereof.

Supplementary Definitions of Technical Terms. Definitions of technical terms not defined herein shall be obtained from the American National Standards Institute's Acoustical Terminology S1-1-1971 or any revision thereof.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.040 - Ambient noise level.

When "ambient noise level" is referred to in this chapter, it means the actual measured ambient noise level.

Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A weighting.

Where the sound alleged to be offending is of a type or character set forth below, the following values shall be added to the sound level measurement of the offending noise:

Except for noise emanating from any electrical transformer or gas metering and pressure control equipment existing and installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, any steady audible tone: + 5;
4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
3/10
b.
c.
d.
e.

2. A.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

Repeated impulsive noise: + 5;
Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes per hour: - 5; Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 minutes per hour: - 10; Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour: -20.

Values of subsections (B)(1)(c), (B)(1)(d) and (B)(1)(e) of this section shall be added to the sound level measurements during daytime (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) periods only. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.050 - General noise sources.

It is unlawful for any person to create, cause, make or continue to make or permit to be made or continued any noise or sound which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter and in addition thereto it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

The level of the noise;
The intensity of the noise;
Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; The time of the day or night the noise occurs;
The duration of the noise;
Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.060 - Interior noise standard—Multifamily residential property. 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
4/10
A.

1. 2.

3. B.

1. It is unlawful for any person to produce, suffer or allow to be produced on any multifamily residential property, sounds at a level in excess of those enumerated in Table No. 1 when measured inside any dwelling unit on the same property or twenty (20) feet from the outside of the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located.

TABLE NO. 1—Interior Noise Standard
Time
Interval
Interior Noise Standards (dBA)
7:00
a.m. to
10:00
p.m.
60 10:00
p.m. to
7:00
a.m.
50 (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.070 - Construction projects.

No person shall operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick power hoist, forklift, cement mixer or any other similar construction equipment within a residential district or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom at any time other than as listed below:

From 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
From 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday;
Operation of any of the listed construction equipment is prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

No person shall perform any construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects within a residential district or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance at any time other than as listed below:

From 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
5/10

2. 3.

1. 2.

From 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday;
Performance of construction or repair work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

The prohibition against construction on Sundays and holidays as set forth in subsection B of this section shall not apply under either of the following conditions:

The construction is actually performed by an individual who is the owner or lessor of the premises and who is assisted by not more than two individuals; The person performing the construction shall have provided the building official with a petition which indicates the consent of 65 percent of the households residing within 500 feet of the construction site and the unanimous consent of the households adjacent to the construction site. Said petition shall be on a form promulgated by said building official and shall be accompanied by a fee, the amount of which shall be established by resolution by the city council.

The prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the performance of emergency work as defined in Section 9.36.030.

For purposes of this section, holidays are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.080 - Construction equipment.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any powered construction equipment if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dBA when measured within a radius of 100 feet from such equipment.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.090 - Machinery, equipment, fans and air conditioning.

Except for emergency work, as defined in this chapter it is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 decibels.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.100 - Motor driven vehicles and vehicle repairs.

It is unlawful for any person within any residential area of the city to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle between the hours of 10 p.m. of one day and 8 a.m. of the next day in such a 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
6/10
B.

B.
manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any motor driven vehicle within the city in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance; provided, however, any such vehicle which is operated upon any public highway, street, or right-of-way shall be excluded from the provisions of this section. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.110 - Radio, television sets and similar devices.

Use Restricted. It is unlawful for any person within any residential zone of the city to use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound (between the hours of 10 p.m. of one day and 7 a.m. of the following day) in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents or any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

Prima Facie Violation. Any noise level exceeding the ambient base level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels is deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this section.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.120 - Near schools, hospitals and churches.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalk or public place indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.130 - Hawkers and peddlers.

It is unlawful for any person within the city to sell anything by shouting out loud within any area of the city zoned for residential uses. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by yelling of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses and other similar licensed public entertainment events.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.140 - Drums.
4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
7/10
A.

1. 2.

It is unlawful for any person to use any drum or other instrument or device of any kind for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noise within the city. This section shall not apply to any person who is a participant in a school band or duly licensed parade or who has been otherwise duly authorized to engage in such conduct.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.150 - Animals and fowl.

No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by such person any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound, cry, or behavior, causes annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in any residential neighborhood.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.160 - Amplied sound on public property.

Purpose. The city council enacts this section for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety and welfare of its residents and visitors. While recognizing that the use of sound amplifying equipment is protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the council nevertheless feels obligated to regulate reasonably the use of sound amplifying equipment in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of the residents and visitors of this community to privacy and freedom from the public nuisance of loud and unnecessary noise.

Required Registration. It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use or operate within the city a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any sound truck for the purposes of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures or transmitting music to any persons or assemblages of persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park or public property without first filing a registration statement with the director of finance and obtaining approval thereof as set forth in this chapter.

Filing. Every user of sound amplifying equipment shall file a registration statement with the director of finance 10 days prior to the date on which the sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used, which statement shall contain the following information:

The name, address and telephone number of both the owner and user of the sound amplifying equipment;
The maximum sound-producing power of the sound amplifying equipment which shall include the wattage to be used, the volume in decibels of sound which will be produced, and the approximate distance for which sound will be audible from the sound amplifying 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
8/10

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. D.

1. a.
b.
c.
d.

2. 3.

1. 2.
equipment;
The license and motor number if a sound truck is to be used; A general description of the sound to be amplified (speech, music, or both) and the sound amplifying equipment which is to be used;
Whether the sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purposes;
Location of fixed sound equipment, or general route where the sound truck will be used; and Such other information as the director of finance may reasonably require.

Appeal Process.

Initial Determination. The director of finance shall return to the applicant an approved certified copy of the registration statement unless it is found that:

The conditions of the motor vehicle movement are such that in the opinion of the police chief, use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or
The registration statement required reveals that the applicant would violate the provisions set forth in subsection E of this section or any other provisions of this chapter; or
Failure to file said statement within the prescribed period.

In the event the registration statement is disapproved, the director of finance shall cause to be endorsed upon the statement the reasons for disapproval, and return it forthwith to applicant.

Appeal of Decision. Any person aggrieved by disapproval of a registration statement may file a written appeal with the city manager within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of disapproval, setting forth all the facts which the applicant wishes the city manager to consider. The city manager or designee shall render a written decision on the appeal within five business days of receipt.

Fee for Operation. Prior to the issuance of the registration statement, a fee in the amount of $25.00 per day, or any portion thereof, shall be paid to the city, if the loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment is to be used for commercial purposes. No fee shall be required for the operation of a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes.

Regulations. The commercial and noncommercial use of sound amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations:

The only sounds permitted shall be either music or the human voice, or both.

The operation of sound amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
9/10

3. 4.

5. F.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. A.
holidays. The operation of sound amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall only occur between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., except New Year's Day.

Sound level emanating from sound amplifying equipment shall not exceed continuously the maximum noise level of 15 decibels above the ambient noise level when measured at the outside property line where the event is being held.

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (E)(3) of this section, sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated within 200 feet of churches, schools, hospitals or city or county buildings, unless written consent thereto has been given by such church, school, hospital, city or county.

In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility.

Old Pasadena. The commercial use of sound amplifying equipment in the Old Pasadena section of the city shall be subject to the following regulations:

In this section "amplified sound" means amplified music or the human voice used for entertainment only.

The ambient noise level in the Old Pasadena section of the city shall be 60 decibels between 6:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. of the following day; and 50 decibels between 1:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.

Amplified music on private property shall not exceed 15 decibels above the ambient noise level.

Use of sound amplifying equipment shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. of the following day.

Operators of sound amplifying equipment within 500 feet of a functioning church, school or hospital site shall initially obtain the written consent of such facility prior to commencing operation of amplified sound equipment.

Any business owner within 300 feet of a business using amplified sound equipment may request the health officer or a designee to mediate informally any dispute related to the use of such amplified sound equipment.

Notwithstanding the enactment of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the city council reserves the right at a future time to amend or repeal this provision in its entirety, and does not intend the creation of any special property rights by this amendment. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.170 - Exemptions.

This chapter is not intended to regulate construction or maintenance and repair activities 4/22/2021 Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances
10/10
B.

B.
conducted by public agencies or their contractors necessitated by emergency conditions or deemed necessary by the city to serve the best interests of the public and to protect the public health, safety and welfare. These operations may include, but are not limited to, street sweeping, debris and limb removal, removal of downed wires, restoring electrical service, repairing traffic lights, unplugging sewers, vacuuming catch basins, repairing water hydrants and mains, gas lines, oil lines, storm drains, roads, sidewalks, etc.

Notwithstanding the ordinance codified in this chapter, the city manager is authorized to permit special events to generate noise levels up to the limits specified in the noise element of the city's general plan.

Notwithstanding the ordinance codified in this chapter, the general manager of the Rose Bowl is authorized to permit events licensed by the Rose Bowl Operating Company to generate noise levels up to the limits specified in the noise element of the city's general plan.

Provisions in the permit or license agreement shall specify the specific hour limitations imposed, and the set decibel level delineated in the noise element which would apply. (Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.180 - Enforcement responsibility.

The manager of the environmental health division shall have primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of this chapter.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)

9.36.190 - Violation—Penalty.

It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to violate the provisions of this chapter, punishable as a misdemeanor.

The provisions of this chapter are nonexclusive and supplementary to existing rights and remedies. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from commencing any appropriate civil action to abate a public nuisance in addition to, or alternatively to, or in conjunction with the proceedings set forth in this chapter.
(Ord. 7150 § 2 (part), 2008)
CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 09/10/2021
Case Description: RBOC-01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Demolition Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50.0 0.0
Excavator No 40 80.7 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drum Mixer 80.0 77.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pavement Scarafier 89.5 82.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 89.5 86.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
RBOC-01 Construction Noise Modeling Attenuation Calculations Levels in dBA Leq
Driving Range Phases
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Levels at 100
feet
Residences to
East Residences to West
Distance in feet 50 100 1000 900
Demolition 85 79 59 59
Distance in feet 50 100 960 1080
Site Prep 84 78 58 57
Grading 85 79 59 58
Trenching 82 76 56 55
Distance in feet 50 100 660 870
Fencing 82 76 60 57
Overlapping Fencing and Trenching (Driving Range) 84 78 62 60 Distance in feet 50 100 1050 1050
Paving of Golf Cart Path 84 78 58 58
Levels in dBA Leq
Mini Golf Phases
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Levels at 100
feet
Residences to
East Residences to West
Distance in feet 50 100 1000 900
Demolition 85 79 59 59
Distance in feet 50 100 1200 900
Site Prep 84 78 56 59
Grading (Mini Golf Course Area) 83 77 55 58
Trenching 82 76 54 57
Attenuation calculated through Inverse Square Law: Lp(R2) = Lp(R1) - 20Log(R2/R1) RBOC-01 Vibration Annoyance Attenuation Calculations
Levels in in/sec PPV
Residential to east Residential to west
Distance in feet 440 900
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.003 0.001
Clam shovel 0.202 0.003 0.001
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.001 0.000
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.001 0.000
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.001 0.000
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.001 0.000
Jackhammer 0.035 0.000 0.000
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000 0.000
Vibration
Reference Level
at 25 feet

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MND

ROSE BOWL OPERATING COMPANY
Appendix
January 2023
Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis
Transportation Impact Analysis
Outside of CEQA Evaluation
Project Address: 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Project Summary: Expansion of the existing Brookside Golf Course to add 40-bays to the existing 20-bay
driving range to total 60-bays, and an addition
of a 36-hole miniature golf course
Applicant: Rose Bowl Operating Company
1001 Rose Bowl Drive
Pasadena, CA 91103
Attention: Luis Rocha, Zoning Administrator
City Planning Department
May 28, 2021
1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
i
Table of Contents
I. Study Objective .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Project Description...................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Transportation Network ................................................................................. 1 Street System Classifications ..................................................................................... 1 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................. 2 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology ......................................................................... 5 Analysis Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures ......................................... 5 Caps for Determining Project Street Segment Changes ............................................ 6 Caps for Determining Intersection Changes ............................................................... 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index Discussion ............................... 8 V. Transportation Analysis .............................................................................................. 9 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 9 Street Segment Analysis .......................................................................................... 10 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis ............................................................ 10 PEQI/BEQI Analysis ................................................................................................. 13 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 13 VII. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 13

1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location and Site Boundary ................................................................... 3 Figure 2. City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types Map .................................................... 4 Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution and Project Traffic Volumes ........................................ 11 Figure 4. City of Pasadena Adopted Transit Oriented Development Area ...................... 12 List of Tables
Table 1. City of Pasadena Metrics Cap ............................................................................. 6 Table 2. Street Segment Caps .......................................................................................... 7 Table 3. LOS Capacity Criteria .......................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Caps. ..................................................................... 8 Table 5. Street Segment Volume Summary .................................................................... 10 Table 6. Signalized Intersection LOS Summary .............................................................. 10 Table 7. PEQI/BEQI Summary ........................................................................................ 13 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
1 I. Study Objective
The Department of Transportation conducted this analysis to assess the changes to intersection Levels of Service (LOS) and “Access and Connector-Neighborhood” Street Type segments adjacent to the project. The findings may result in imposing project approval conditions to better manage project trips and protect neighborhoods from the proposed development’s vehicular trips, if applicable.

II. Project Description
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation received an application to improve the existing Brookside Golf Course with an expansion of the existing 20-bay driving range to 60-bays, and an addition of a 36-hole miniature golf course. As described in the project description, the existing Brookside Golf Complex is currently served by approximately 100 employees, and operation of the project would not require additional employees.

III. Existing Transportation Network
Street System Classifications
Rosemont Avenue is a north-south 2-lane Neighborhood Connector with a speed limit of 35 mph adjacent to the project. It is observed as a Green Edge Drive north of Seco Street and a Residential – Suburban south of Seco Street in the City’s Street Design Guide. Time limited parking is allowed along the east side of this roadway adjacent to the project. This roadway includes an existing recreational loop surrounding the golf course and Rose Bowl Stadium.

Lincoln Avenue is a 2-lane City Connector from Orange Grove Boulevard to the northern City limits, and an Access Road south of Orange Grove Boulevard. It is observed as a Residential – Suburban north of the Mountain Street intersection and a Commercial – Suburban south of the Mountain Street intersection.

Washington Boulevard is a 2-lane Neighborhood Connector west of Lincoln Avenue with parking allowed on the south side of the street. Between Forest Avenue and Lincoln Avenue are primarily residential uses.

Seco Street is an east-west City Connector from Linda Vista Avenue to Lincoln Avenue with a speed limit of 35 mph. A center median island is found along this roadway between Arroyo Boulevard to Rosemont Avenue. Public transit stops closest to the project are found along Seco Street. This roadway includes an existing recreational loop surrounding the golf course and Rose Bowl Stadium.

Orange Grove Boulevard is a 4-lane City Connector from Columbia Street to the south to Sierra Madre Villa Avenue to the east. It is predominantly observed as Residential – Suburban within the City limits. Between Rosemont Avenue to Oakland Avenue, Orange 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
2 Grove Boulevard is observed as a Commercial – Suburban in the City’s Street Design Guide.

Street segment analyses are limited to “access” and “neighborhood connector” street types within a residential context.

The analysis considered potential traffic changes along the following street segments and intersections:

Segment
- Washington Boulevard between Forest Avenue and Lincoln Avenue - Rosemont Ave between Prospect Terrace and Fremont Drive Intersections
- Lincoln Avenue at Washington Boulevard
- Lincoln Avenue at Mountain Street-Seco Street
- Orange Grove Boulevard at Rosemont Avenue
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the project study area is currently provided by Pasadena Transit (PT) Route 51. The locations of public transit stops near the project are located along Seco Street between Arroyo Boulevard and Rosemont Avenue south of the Rose Bowl.

Figure 1 highlights the location of the project in relation to the Rose Bowl.

Figure 2 depicts the project in the City of Pasadena’s Adopted Streets Plan map.

1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
3 Figure 1. Project Location and Site Boundary
OAK KNOLL AVE GREEN ST HUDSON AVE FIGURE 2 CITY OF PASADENA ADOPTED STREET TYPES NO SCALE PROJECT ADDRESS: 1133 ROSEMONT AVENUE BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE - 1133 ROSEMONT AVENUE 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
5 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology
With the City of Pasadena General Plan, the City’s guiding principles cumulatively represent the community’s vision for the future:

- Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance quality of life. - New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing historic resource. - Economic vitality will be promoted to provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities.
- Pasadena will be a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable community.
- Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars. - Pasadena will be promoted as a cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment, and educational center for the region.
- Community participation will be a permanent part of achieving a greater city. - Pasadena is committed to public education and a diverse educational system responsive to the broad needs of the community.

Understanding the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Pasadena Department of Transportation sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena and create “a community where people can circulate without cars.” Inherent in this vision statement is to accommodate different modes of transportation including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The analysis is based on City Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. This report will assess accessibility of these different modes of travel and the project’s transportation impacts using the City’s adopted transportation performance measures.

Analysis Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures The Department’s defined criteria and categories when determining the level of transportation impact of projects fall under three categories based on project size and community-wide significance.
- Exempt projects have 10 residential units or less, are 10,000 sf or less, or generate less than 300 daily trips if less than 10,000 sf.
- Category 1 Projects considered below community-wide significance are between 11-49 residential units, or 10,001 to 49,999 sf.
- Category 2 Projects classified as having community-wide significance have 50 or more residential units, or are 50,000 sf or more.

Pasadena Department of Transportation’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development impacts.
1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
6 The following table summarizes the City’s Metrics Cap Outside of CEQA for projects below “communitywide significance:”
Table 1. City of Pasadena Metrics Cap
METRIC DESCRIPTION CAP*

1. Street
Segment
Analysis
The street segment
analysis assesses traffic
intrusion on local streets
in residential
neighborhoods
Increases of 10-15% above existing on
streets with more than 1,500 ADT would
trigger conditions of approval to reduce
project vehicular trips

2. Auto Level
of Service
Level of Service (LOS)
as defined by the
Transportation Research
Board's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM)
2010.

A decrease beyond LOS D Citywide or
LOS E within Transit Oriented Districts
(TODs) would trigger conditions of
approval to reduce project vehicular trips

3. PEQI
Pedestrian
Environmental Quality
Index
Below average conditions

4. BEQI Bicycle Environmental
Quality Index
Below average conditions
*The adopted caps are not intended to be the absolute limits, but rather limits/ranges when exceeded may require additional project approval conditions.

Caps for Determining Project Street Segment Changes
Caps for evaluating changes in vehicular volumes on street segments were developed to measure the potential changes of net new trips from projects that intensify an existing land use, change site access, or alter existing traffic patterns. The caps are designed to capture a project’s anticipated level of changes measured in terms of net new trips over existing conditions.

Specific caps have been established to determine whether there would be any potential project changes along neighborhood street segments by project traffic. A conservative approach is taken when calculating the traffic growth by basing the calculation on the increase relative to existing traffic volumes as follows:

Percentage of Increase = net new project trips
existing daily traffic ൗ
The daily traffic growth caps for determining the level of street segment transportation changes are summarized as follows:
1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
7 Table 2. Street Segment Caps
Existing ADT Project-Related Vehicular Increase in ADT
0 to 1,500 average daily trips 150 trips or more
1,501 to 3,499 average daily trips 10 percent or more of final project ADT 3,500 or more 8 percent or more of final project ADT
If project-related net trips exceed the caps in the table above, conditions of approval would require the project applicant to implement measures to discourage neighborhood intrusion by project related traffic. If the project traffic increases fall below the street segment caps, additional analyses are not required.

Caps for Determining Intersection Changes
Proposed development projects that meet or exceed the caps will be evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service (LOS) analysis criteria at study intersections. This methodology determines an intersection’s level of service by calculating delay. LOS descriptions are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. LOS Capacity Criteria

HIGHWAY CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA

LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY
(s)
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B
Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
> 10.0 to

20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to

35.0 D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.

Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to

55.0 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
8 E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor (vehicle) progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to

80.0 F This level is considered oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.

Intersection LOS analysis using HCM criteria will be conducted for peak hour conditions.

LOS caps are summarized in the following table:

Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Caps.

Where the evaluated intersections exceed the LOS caps, conditions of approval will be recommended consistent with the City’s guiding principles to encourage walking, biking, and transit to and from the project site to reduce project-related vehicular trips.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index Discussion The Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI) is a quantitative, observational instrument used to describe and summarize the street and intersection environmental factors known to affect people’s travel behaviors.

The PEQI and BEQI were developed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health as a tool to assess pedestrian and bicycle safety and needs as well as to gain attention and demand for non-vehicle travel planning. The PEQI and BEQI consists of factors associated with pedestrian and bicycle environmental quality and safety, classified into five categories; Intersection Safety, Traffic, Street Design, Land Use and Perceived Safety.

Data is primarily collected through an observational survey. Indicator scores for each indicator category are based on a survey of national experts, including City, transportation planners and consultants regarding the importance of each indicator to pedestrian and bicycle environmental quality. The scores reflect the degree to which environmental factors supportive of walking, biking, and safety have been incorporated into street segment and intersection design. The PEQI and BEQI analysis result in a score for street segments and intersections on a scale ranging between 0-100 as outlined below.

Study Intersections Existing + Project LOS Cap
Citywide D
Transit Oriented District (TOD) E
1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
9 Score Description
81-100 Highest quality, many important pedestrian/bicycle conditions present 61-80 High quality, some important pedestrian/bicycle conditions present 41-60 Average quality, pedestrian/bicycle conditions present but room for improvement
21-40 Low quality, minimal pedestrian/bicycle conditions 20 and below Poor quality, pedestrian/bicycle conditions absent V. Transportation Analysis
Project Trip Generation
The industry standard procedure to determine the number of daily and peak hour trips a project would generate is based on published trip generation estimates from the ITE Trip Generation manual and is summarized in the following table:
1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
10 In summary, it is estimated that the project would generate 403 net daily trip, 12 AM and 37 PM peak hour project trips.

Street Segment Analysis
Figure 3 describes the project trip distribution and project traffic intersection volumes on the street network. A growth factor of 1.15 was used to adjust the available counts on file.

The calculated segment analysis results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Street Segment Volume Summary
Street Segment
Baseline
ADT
Baseline
ADT x

1.15 Project
ADT
Vehicular
Increase
in ADT
Exceeds
Cap?
Washington Blvd b/t Forest
Ave and Lincoln Ave 2,440 2,806 60 2.2% No
Rosemont Ave b/t Prospect
Terrace and Fremont Dr 4,555 5,238 101 1.9% No
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Figure 4 indicates that the project is outside of the City’s Transit Oriented District.

Therefore, the Existing + Project LOS cap for intersections is “LOS D”. A growth factor of

1.15 was used to adjust the available counts on file. The calculated LOS results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Signalized Intersection LOS Summary
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Existing
w/Project
Exceeds
LOS
Cap?
Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No
Lincoln Ave at Washington Blvd
AM 17.1 B 17.1 B No
PM 16.1 B 17.0 B No
Lincoln Ave at Mountain St-Seco St
AM 10.7 B 10.7 B No
PM 9.4 A 9.5 A No
Orange Grove Blvd at Rosemont Ave
AM 12.2 B 12.2 B No
PM 8.1 A 8.2 A No

FIGURE 4 BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE - 1133 ROSEMONT AVENUE NO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF PASADENA ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AREA 1133 Rosemont Avenue
Transportation Impact Analysis 5/28/2021
13 PEQI/BEQI Analysis
An observational survey was conducted along Rosemont Avenue between Washington Boulevard and Rose Bowl Drive to document existing pedestrian and bicycle quality conditions. Vehicle traffic features (i.e., number of lanes, vehicle speed, etc.) as well as street quality features (i.e., sidewalk widths and impediments, driveway cuts, land use characteristics, etc.) were collected on both sides of the street.

Environmental quality of non-vehicular modes must be improved when the assessment of project study segments reveal less than average conditions. According to the PEQI and BEQI indicator and indicator category scores, the following observational scores are:

Table 7. PEQI/BEQI Summary
Segment PEQI Score BEQI Score
Rosemont Avenue between
Washington Blvd and Rose Bowl Drive
- West side
- East side
46 - Average
49 - Average
37 - Low
37 - Low
PEQI and BEQI calculations are found in the appendix of this report.

VI. Conclusion
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review the proposed improvements to the existing Brookside Golf Course. The application proposes to expand the existing 20-bay driving range to 60-bays, and add a 36-hole miniature golf course.

No segments or intersections exceed the adopted caps.

The calculated PEQI scores determined that existing pedestrian conditions are average along Rosemont Avenue between Washington Boulevard and Rose Bowl Drive.

The calculated BEQI scores determined that existing bicycling conditions are low along Rosemont Avenue between Washington Boulevard and Rose Bowl Drive.

VII. Appendices
Memorandum of Understanding
Traffic Volumes
HCM Analysis
PEQI Calculation Sheet
BEQI Calculation Sheet
Appendix:

Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix:

Traffic Volumes

5/19/2021 Transportation Data Management System
https://pasadena.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Pasadena&mod= 1/2

LOCATION INFO
Location ID 1928
Type SPOT
Fnct'l Class -
Located On Washington Blvd
Direction 2-WAY
County Los Angeles
Community Pasadena
MPO ID

HPMS ID
Agency City of Pasadena

COUNT DATA INFO
Count Status Accepted
Start Date Thu 1/27/2011
End Date Fri 1/28/2011
Start Time 12:00:00 AM
End Time 12:00:00 AM
Direction
Notes
Station
Study
Speed Limit
Description
Sensor Type
Source
Latitude,Longitude
INTERVAL:15-MIN
Time
15-min Interval Hourly
Count 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
0:00-1:00 2 1 3 3 9
1:00-2:00 2 0 1 1 4
2:00-3:00 2 1 0 3 6
3:00-4:00 0 2 4 0 6
4:00-5:00 5 1 4 3 13
5:00-6:00 2 6 8 8 24
6:00-7:00 9 15 13 28 65
7:00-8:00 21 46 31 42 140
8:00-9:00 73 57 73 64 267
9:00-10:00 34 20 39 34 127
10:00-11:00 33 33 32 37 135
11:00-12:00 34 40 27 43 144
12:00-13:00 26 16 41 36 119
13:00-14:00 27 41 33 39 140
14:00-15:00 45 36 34 51 166
15:00-16:00 61 73 29 28 191
16:00-17:00 41 39 49 32 161
17:00-18:00 51 78 64 61 254
18:00-19:00 46 41 31 31 149
19:00-20:00 30 24 35 23 112
20:00-21:00 20 18 21 16 75
21:00-22:00 18 17 14 17 66
22:00-23:00 12 14 10 6 42
23:00-24:00 6 6 10 3 25
Total 2,440
AADT 2,440
AM Peak
08:00-09:00
267
PM Peak
17:00-18:00
254
City of Pasadena
Transportation Data Management System
Volume Count Report
5/11/2021 Transportation Data Management System
https://pasadena.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Pasadena&mod= 1/2

LOCATION INFO
Location ID 2089
Type SPOT
Fnct'l Class -
Located On Rosemont Avenue
Loc On Alias

BETWEEN
Prospect Terrace AND Fremont
Drive
Direction 2-WAY
County Los Angeles
Community Pasadena
MPO ID

HPMS ID
Agency City of Pasadena

COUNT DATA INFO
Count Status Accepted
Start Date Tue 6/14/2016
End Date Wed 6/15/2016
Start Time 12:00:00 AM
End Time 12:00:00 AM
Direction 2-WAY
Notes pasadena
Station 2089
Study
Speed Limit
Description
Sensor Type
Source
Latitude,Longitude
INTERVAL:15-MIN
Time
15-min Interval Hourly
Count 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
0:00-1:00 0 0 1 1 2
1:00-2:00 5 1 2 3 11
2:00-3:00 1 0 0 2 3
3:00-4:00 0 0 2 4 6
4:00-5:00 0 2 2 4 8
5:00-6:00 11 17 28 33 89
6:00-7:00 32 27 31 31 121
7:00-8:00 53 56 56 80 245
8:00-9:00 83 86 85 115 369
9:00-10:00 74 69 77 83 303
10:00-11:00 71 86 51 63 271
11:00-12:00 67 78 73 58 276
12:00-13:00 64 72 67 74 277
13:00-14:00 59 52 57 70 238
14:00-15:00 70 65 66 71 272
15:00-16:00 69 74 84 63 290
16:00-17:00 77 75 76 89 317
17:00-18:00 98 90 99 111 398
18:00-19:00 93 96 75 90 354
19:00-20:00 93 78 70 64 305
20:00-21:00 81 51 40 49 221
21:00-22:00 40 20 24 17 101
22:00-23:00 11 13 6 11 41
23:00-24:00 15 9 6 7 37
Total 4,555
AADT 4,555
AM Peak
08:00-09:00
369
PM Peak
17:30-18:30
399
City of Pasadena
Transportation Data Management System
Volume Count Report
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 120120010011
7:00 AM 1 19 3 34 34 1 3 6 2 15 6 43 167
7:15 AM 1 31 8 31 49 2 2 13 4 11 12 55 219
7:30 AM 0 43 12 53 57 1 2 13 2 28 26 81 318
7:45 AM 4 44 13 75 61 4 4 19 4 32 21 63 344
8:00 AM 2 52 21 50 89 1 1 13 2 30 28 76 365
8:15 AM 3 53 13 46 79 5 3 15 2 26 16 63 324
8:30 AM 3 33 12 47 76 9 4 16 2 14 30 56 302
8:45 AM 4 46 8 47 77 6 4 17 4 13 18 40 284

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 18 321 90 383 522 29 23 112 22 169 157 477 2323 APPROACH %'s : 4.20% 74.83% 20.98% 41.01% 55.89% 3.10% 14.65% 71.34% 14.01% 21.05% 19.55% 59.40% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 730 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 9 192 59 224 286 11 10 60 10 116 91 283 1351 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.925
CONTROL : Signalized

0.907

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.867 0.930 0.741

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NS/EW Streets: Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Washington Blvd
AM
Washington Blvd
Project ID:

City:

CA12_5078_001
City of Pasadena
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 120120010011
4:00 PM 2 61 13 53 57 2 2 15 3 21 8 55 292
4:15 PM 0 59 8 43 55 2 3 17 2 16 16 46 267
4:30 PM 2 49 16 58 66 4 4 22 5 10 10 42 288
4:45 PM 3 39 10 71 44 1 1 19 2 12 12 36 250
5:00 PM 5 54 14 51 54 3 2 22 0 19 29 48 301
5:15 PM 0 50 11 60 51 4 1 24 2 12 12 52 279
5:30 PM 2 60 11 62 57 3 0 20 1 13 13 53 295
5:45 PM 3 53 20 54 55 1 3 18 3 14 6 39 269

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 17 425 103 452 439 20 16 157 18 117 106 371 2241 APPROACH %'s : 3.12% 77.98% 18.90% 49.62% 48.19% 2.20% 8.38% 82.20% 9.42% 19.70% 17.85% 62.46% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 500 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 10 217 56 227 217 11 6 84 6 58 60 192 1144 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.950
CONTROL :

Lincoln Ave
Project ID: CA12_5078_001
City: City of Pasadena

0.932
Signalized
NS/EW Streets: Washington Blvd Washington Blvd
PM
Lincoln Ave

0.807

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.931 0.889
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 020020120120
7:00 AM 2 18 17 48 28 11 3 28 0 12 29 17 213
7:15 AM 1 26 15 44 44 12 4 17 1 14 29 22 229
7:30 AM 3 31 20 65 48 20 8 15 2 13 48 36 309
7:45 AM 9 37 23 56 56 25 10 42 2 49 118 69 496
8:00 AM 6 40 18 57 72 14 6 15 1 35 64 45 373
8:15 AM 1 37 13 52 77 19 8 15 2 33 59 29 345
8:30 AM 6 36 14 56 61 18 9 15 1 18 47 20 301
8:45 AM 4 41 13 35 47 15 4 15 3 23 55 18 273

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 32 266 133 413 433 134 52 162 12 197 449 256 2539 APPROACH %'s : 7.42% 61.72% 30.86% 42.14% 44.18% 13.67% 23.01% 71.68% 5.31% 21.84% 49.78% 28.38% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 730 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 19 145 74 230 253 78 32 87 7 130 289 179 1523 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.768
CONTROL : Signalized

0.633

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.862 0.948 0.583

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NS/EW Streets: Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave Mountain St/Seco St AM
Mountain St/Seco St
Project ID:

City:

CA12_5078_007
City of Pasadena
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 020020120120
4:00 PM 9 46 18 33 67 9 7 36 3 19 33 46 326
4:15 PM 9 59 26 45 43 7 6 25 6 11 37 46 320
4:30 PM 8 55 24 36 53 10 10 42 5 13 42 37 335
4:45 PM 4 56 21 37 44 12 9 50 6 9 36 35 319
5:00 PM 5 61 20 34 61 8 6 71 7 18 39 47 377
5:15 PM 4 45 15 37 35 10 6 60 2 18 34 53 319
5:30 PM 2 64 29 23 54 9 10 61 6 16 29 47 350
5:45 PM 1 73 22 23 47 6 10 55 6 12 24 28 307

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 42 459 175 268 404 71 64 400 41 116 274 339 2653 APPROACH %'s : 6.21% 67.90% 25.89% 36.07% 54.37% 9.56% 12.67% 79.21% 8.12% 15.91% 37.59% 46.50% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 445 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 15 226 85 131 194 39 31 242 21 61 138 182 1365 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.905
CONTROL :

Lincoln Ave
Project ID: CA12_5078_007
City: City of Pasadena

0.883
Signalized
NS/EW Streets: Mountain St/Seco St Mountain St/Seco St
PM
Lincoln Ave

0.907

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.858 0.875
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 120121010010
7:00 AM 16 31 3 0 91 6 2 0 13 11 0 0 173
7:15 AM 19 69 2 0 117 10 4 1 29 6 1 2 260
7:30 AM 17 81 2 1 150 7 6 0 41 7 0 1 313
7:45 AM 34 97 1 4 198 11 8 3 80 5 2 5 448
8:00 AM 21 94 5 8 176 8 7 2 40 12 1 4 378
8:15 AM 25 55 13 28 168 12 4 2 47 7 0 6 367
8:30 AM 29 47 19 24 124 6 5 2 37 18 1 6 318
8:45 AM 24 63 4 7 146 12 5 3 45 8 1 6 324

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 185 537 49 72 1170 72 41 13 332 74 6 30 2581 APPROACH %'s : 23.99% 69.65% 6.36% 5.48% 89.04% 5.48% 10.62% 3.37% 86.01% 67.27% 5.45% 27.27% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 745 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 109 293 38 64 666 37 24 9 204 42 4 21 1511 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.843
CONTROL : Signalized

0.670

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.833 0.900 0.651

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NS/EW Streets: Orange Grove Blvd Orange Grove Blvd Rosemont Ave AM
Rosemont Ave
Project ID:

City:

CA12_5078_019
City of Pasadena
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Day: TUESDAY
Date: 2/28/2012

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 120121010010
4:00 PM 34 119 6 4 94 13 8 0 27 5 0 2 312
4:15 PM 28 118 6 3 99 13 9 0 15 3 2 2 298
4:30 PM 29 119 5 0 89 12 6 1 22 4 0 2 289
4:45 PM 39 123 11 6 95 16 12 0 24 4 1 6 337
5:00 PM 33 126 13 10 94 18 11 2 34 3 2 13 359
5:15 PM 33 128 8 10 103 11 16 1 37 1 0 8 356
5:30 PM 33 122 9 8 89 12 8 0 47 3 1 13 345
5:45 PM 36 130 10 13 79 5 7 1 47 8 2 13 351

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 265 985 68 54 742 100 77 5 253 31 8 59 2647 APPROACH %'s : 20.11% 74.73% 5.16% 6.03% 82.81% 11.16% 22.99% 1.49% 75.52% 31.63% 8.16% 60.20% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d
PEAK HR START TIME : 500 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 135 506 40 41 365 46 42 4 165 15 5 47 1411 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.983
CONTROL :

Orange Grove Blvd
Project ID: CA12_5078_019
City: City of Pasadena

0.911
Signalized
NS/EW Streets: Rosemont Ave Rosemont Ave
PM
Orange Grove Blvd

0.728

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.967 0.959
FINAL - JUNE 12, 2014
Appendix:

HCM Analysis

1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1141: Lincoln & Washington Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 69 12 133 105 325 10 221 68 258 329 13 Future Volume (vph) 12 69 12 133 105 325 10 221 68 258 329 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1856 1848 1615 1805 3483 1805 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.78 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1790 1486 1615 850 3483 1069 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 78 13 164 130 401 11 238 73 277 354 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 220 0 42 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 97 0 0 294 181 11 269 0 277 354 6 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Effective Green, g (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 808 671 729 355 1457 447 794 675
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.20 0.11 0.01 c0.26 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.44 0.25 0.03 0.18 0.62 0.45 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 11.2 10.2 10.3 11.0 13.7 12.5 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.98 2.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 6.3 1.8 0.0
Delay (s) 9.8 13.0 27.2 10.4 11.3 20.0 14.3 10.2
Level of Service A B C B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 9.8 21.2 11.2 16.7
Approach LOS A C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1059: Lincoln & Seco/Mountain Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 100 8 150 332 206 22 167 85 265 291 90 Future Volume (vph) 37 100 8 150 332 206 22 167 85 265 291 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3566 1805 3403 3415 3457
Flt Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89 0.71
Satd. Flow (perm) 649 3566 1281 3403 3051 2501
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 42 114 9 165 365 226 26 194 99 301 331 102 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 155 0 0 47 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 117 0 165 436 0 0 272 0 0 716 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 5
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 26.1 26.1
Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 26.1 26.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.53 0.53
Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 204 1123 403 1072 1608 1318
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.13 0.09 c0.29
v/c Ratio 0.21 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 12.0 13.3 13.3 6.1 7.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.1 1.0
Delay (s) 13.4 12.1 14.6 13.8 6.2 8.7
Level of Service B B B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 14.0 6.2 8.7
Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.5 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 612: Orange Grove & Rosemont Page 1
Movement NBL NBR NBR2 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 213 337 44 28 10 235 48 5 24 74 766 43 Future Volume (vph) 213 337 44 28 10 235 48 5 24 74 766 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 1796 1583 1782 1583 1770 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.50 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 616 2787 1443 1583 1338 1583 941 3433 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 220 347 45 29 10 245 66 7 33 81 842 47
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 98 0 0 28 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 220 386 0 0 39 147 0 73 5 81 842 39 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm Over Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 4 4 2
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 4 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 60.5 60.5 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 60.5 60.5 60.5 Effective Green, g (s) 60.4 60.4 10.8 11.6 10.8 11.6 60.4 60.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.75 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.8 4.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 465 2104 194 229 180 229 710 2591 1195 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.03 c0.09 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.18 0.20 0.64 0.41 0.02 0.11 0.32 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 3.7 2.8 30.8 32.2 31.7 29.3 2.6 3.2 2.5 Progression Factor 3.11 3.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.2 0.5 6.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 14.9 8.7 31.3 38.2 33.2 29.4 3.0 3.5 2.5
Level of Service B A C D C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 10.9 37.3 32.0 3.4
Approach LOS B D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1141: Lincoln & Washington Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 97 7 67 69 221 12 250 64 261 250 13 Future Volume (vph) 7 97 7 67 69 221 12 250 64 261 250 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1878 1854 1615 1805 3499 1805 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.83 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1857 1570 1615 1015 3499 1040 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 109 8 83 85 273 13 269 69 281 269 14
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 145 0 38 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 121 0 0 168 128 13 300 0 281 269 6 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.1 28.1 28.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 Effective Green, g (s) 28.1 28.1 28.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 869 735 756 407 1405 417 763 648
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.11 0.08 0.01 c0.27 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.17 0.03 0.21 0.67 0.35 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 9.1 9.5 9.2 10.9 11.7 14.7 12.5 10.8
Progression Factor 1.00 0.90 2.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 8.4 1.3 0.0
Delay (s) 9.4 9.2 24.1 11.0 12.1 23.2 13.8 10.8
Level of Service A A C B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 9.4 18.4 12.1 18.4
Approach LOS A B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1059: Lincoln & Seco/Mountain Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 36 278 24 70 159 209 17 260 98 151 223 45 Future Volume (vph) 36 278 24 70 159 209 17 260 98 151 223 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 0.96 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3563 1805 3302 3449 3483
Flt Permitted 0.50 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.93 0.71
Satd. Flow (perm) 947 3563 1037 3302 3217 2502
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 316 27 77 175 230 20 302 114 172 253 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 159 0 0 50 0 0 13 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 330 0 77 246 0 0 386 0 0 463 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 5
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 24.5 24.5
Effective Green, g (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 24.5 24.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1098 319 1018 1687 1312
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 0.12 c0.19
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 11.7 12.3 12.1 12.1 6.0 6.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 12.1 12.6 12.8 12.3 6.2 6.9
Level of Service B B B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.6 12.4 6.2 6.9
Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.7 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 612: Orange Grove & Rosemont Page 1
Movement NBL NBR NBR2 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 155 582 46 48 5 190 17 6 54 47 420 53 Future Volume (vph) 155 582 46 48 5 190 17 6 54 47 420 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 1782 1583 1796 1583 1770 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.39 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 914 2787 1347 1583 1434 1583 719 3433 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 160 600 47 50 5 198 23 8 74 52 462 58
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 175 0 0 66 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 644 0 0 55 23 0 31 8 52 462 46 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm Over Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 4 4 2
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 4 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 63.0 63.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 63.0 63.0 63.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.9 62.9 8.3 9.1 8.3 9.1 62.9 62.9 62.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.79 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.8 4.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 718 2191 139 180 148 180 565 2699 1244 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 c0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.13 0.21 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 2.2 2.4 33.5 31.9 32.8 31.6 2.0 2.1 1.9 Progression Factor 0.40 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 1.6 1.3 35.4 32.2 33.6 31.7 2.3 2.2 1.9
Level of Service A A D C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 1.4 32.9 32.2 2.2
Approach LOS A C C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1141: Lincoln & Washington Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 69 12 133 105 325 10 221 68 258 329 13 Future Volume (vph) 12 69 12 133 105 325 10 221 68 258 329 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1856 1848 1615 1805 3483 1805 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.78 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1790 1486 1615 850 3483 1069 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 78 13 164 130 401 11 238 73 277 354 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 220 0 42 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 97 0 0 294 181 11 269 0 277 354 6 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Effective Green, g (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 808 671 729 355 1457 447 794 675
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.20 0.11 0.01 c0.26 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.44 0.25 0.03 0.18 0.62 0.45 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 11.2 10.2 10.3 11.0 13.7 12.5 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.98 2.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 6.3 1.8 0.0
Delay (s) 9.8 13.0 27.2 10.4 11.3 20.0 14.3 10.2
Level of Service A B C B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 9.8 21.2 11.2 16.7
Approach LOS A C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1059: Lincoln & Seco/Mountain Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 101 8 150 332 206 22 167 85 265 291 90 Future Volume (vph) 37 101 8 150 332 206 22 167 85 265 291 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3566 1805 3403 3415 3457
Flt Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89 0.71
Satd. Flow (perm) 649 3566 1279 3403 3051 2501
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 42 115 9 165 365 226 26 194 99 301 331 102 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 155 0 0 47 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 118 0 165 436 0 0 272 0 0 716 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 5
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 26.1 26.1
Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 26.1 26.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.53 0.53
Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 204 1123 403 1072 1608 1318
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.13 0.09 c0.29
v/c Ratio 0.21 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 12.0 13.3 13.3 6.1 7.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.1 1.0
Delay (s) 13.4 12.1 14.6 13.8 6.2 8.7
Level of Service B B B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.4 14.0 6.2 8.7
Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.5 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
AM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 612: Orange Grove & Rosemont Page 1
Movement NBL NBR NBR2 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 214 337 44 28 10 235 48 5 24 74 766 43 Future Volume (vph) 214 337 44 28 10 235 48 5 24 74 766 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 1796 1583 1782 1583 1770 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.50 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 616 2787 1443 1583 1338 1583 941 3433 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 221 347 45 29 10 245 66 7 33 81 842 47
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 98 0 0 28 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 221 386 0 0 39 147 0 73 5 81 842 39 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm Over Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 4 4 2
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 4 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 60.5 60.5 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 60.5 60.5 60.5 Effective Green, g (s) 60.4 60.4 10.8 11.6 10.8 11.6 60.4 60.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.75 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.8 4.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 465 2104 194 229 180 229 710 2591 1195 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.03 c0.09 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.18 0.20 0.64 0.41 0.02 0.11 0.32 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 3.7 2.8 30.8 32.2 31.7 29.3 2.6 3.2 2.5 Progression Factor 3.13 3.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.2 0.5 6.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 15.1 8.8 31.3 38.2 33.2 29.4 3.0 3.5 2.5
Level of Service B A C D C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 11.1 37.3 32.0 3.4
Approach LOS B D C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1141: Lincoln & Washington Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 8 98 7 67 71 221 12 250 64 261 250 14 Future Volume (vph) 8 98 7 67 71 221 12 250 64 261 250 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1877 1855 1615 1805 3499 1805 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.83 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1853 1571 1615 1028 3499 1042 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 110 8 83 88 273 13 269 69 281 269 15
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 150 0 38 0 0 0 9
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 123 0 0 171 123 13 300 0 281 269 6 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Effective Green, g (s) 27.1 27.1 27.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 836 709 729 430 1463 435 794 675
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.11 0.08 0.01 c0.27 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.03 0.21 0.65 0.34 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 10.1 9.8 10.3 11.1 13.9 11.8 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.04 3.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 7.2 1.2 0.0
Delay (s) 10.0 11.3 31.2 10.4 11.4 21.1 13.0 10.2
Level of Service B B C B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 10.0 23.6 11.4 17.0
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 1059: Lincoln & Seco/Mountain Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 36 280 25 70 159 209 18 260 98 151 223 47 Future Volume (vph) 36 280 25 70 159 209 18 260 98 151 223 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 0.96 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3561 1805 3302 3449 3482
Flt Permitted 0.50 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.93 0.71
Satd. Flow (perm) 947 3561 1034 3302 3211 2499
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 318 28 77 175 230 21 302 114 172 253 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 158 0 0 50 0 0 13 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 333 0 77 247 0 0 387 0 0 465 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 5
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 24.5 24.5
Effective Green, g (s) 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 24.5 24.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 297 1118 324 1037 1670 1299
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 0.12 c0.19
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 11.6 12.2 12.0 12.0 6.2 6.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5
Delay (s) 12.0 12.5 12.7 12.2 6.4 7.1
Level of Service B B B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.5 12.3 6.4 7.1
Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.1 Sum of lost time (s) 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1133 Rosemont Avenue
PM Existing + Project 05/17/2021
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report 612: Orange Grove & Rosemont Page 1
Movement NBL NBR NBR2 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 158 582 46 50 5 193 17 6 54 47 420 55 Future Volume (vph) 158 582 46 50 5 193 17 6 54 47 420 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.6 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 2787 1781 1583 1796 1583 1770 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.39 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 914 2787 1345 1583 1432 1583 719 3433 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 600 47 52 5 201 23 8 74 52 462 60
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 178 0 0 66 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 644 0 0 57 23 0 31 8 52 462 47 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm Over Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 4 4 2
Permitted Phases 6 4 4 4 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 63.0 63.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 63.0 63.0 63.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.9 62.9 8.3 9.1 8.3 9.1 62.9 62.9 62.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.79 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 4.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.8 4.8 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 718 2191 139 180 148 180 565 2699 1244 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 c0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.29 0.41 0.13 0.21 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 2.2 2.4 33.6 31.9 32.8 31.6 2.0 2.1 1.9 Progression Factor 0.40 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.3 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 1.6 1.3 35.5 32.2 33.6 31.7 2.3 2.2 1.9
Level of Service A A D C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 1.4 32.9 32.2 2.2
Approach LOS A C C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Appendix:

PEQI Calculation Sheet

Appendix:

BEQI Calculation Sheet

DATE: June 3, 2021
TO: Luis Rocha, Zoning Administrator
Planning and Development Department
FROM: Nader Asmar, T.E.

Principal Engineer

RE: CEQA
CASE: Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
1133 Rosemont Avenue
The City of Pasadena, Department of Transportation (DOT) reviewed the application for the improvements to the existing Brookside Golf Course described as an expansion of the existing 20-bay driving range to 60 bays, and the addition of a 36-hole miniature golf course. As indicated in the project description, the existing Brookside Golf Complex is currently served by approximately 100 employees, and operation of the project would not require additional employees.

Since there is no increase in service population, there will be no significant impact to any of the City’s five CEQA transportation thresholds.

This memo was prepared based on the project scope provided to DOT. An update of the findings might be required if a significant change is made to the project scope, or if additional analysis is requested by the decision makers.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or Mr. Conrad Viana of my staff at extension 7424.
c: Laura Rubio-Cornejo, Director of Transportation
David Reyes, Planning Director, Planning Department
Jennifer Paige, Deputy Planning Director, Planning Department Beilin Yu, Senior Planner, Planning Department

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 3, 2021
TO: Luis Rocha, Zoning Administrator
Planning and Development Department
FROM: Nader Asmar, T.E.

Principal Engineer

RE: Transportation Analysis – Conditions of Approval
CASE: 1133 Rosemont Avenue
The City of Pasadena, Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted a transportation analysis for the improvements to the existing Brookside Golf Course described as an expansion of the existing 20-bay driving range to 60 bays, and the addition of a 36-hole miniature golf course.

Pursuant to the City’s transportation study guidelines, DOT recommends the following conditions for the project:

1. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging & Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. This plan shall show the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way including street occupations, closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site.

Construction-related traffic (delivery trucks or haul trucks) shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM to limit peak hour traffic conflict along the local street network.

2. The project shall satisfy the project’s parking requirements to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

The study and conditions have been prepared based on the project scope provided to DOT.

An update of the traffic study and its findings might be required if a significant change is made to the project scope, or if additional analysis is requested by the decision makers.

MEMORANDUM
Luis Rocha, Zoning Administrator
1133 Rosemont Avenue (Outside CEQA)
June 3, 2021

Page 2 ends

Pasadena City CouncilJuly 10, 2023

Pasadena City Council
July 10, 2023