Pasadena City Council
July 10, 2023

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

RECEIVED
2023JUL^sSB^i
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At LawCIPf
ion Avenue
Suite 200
Ufornia91101

VIA E-MAIL
July 10, 2023
Pasadena City Council
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 744-4124
Em: [email protected]
Mark Jams ky. City Clerk
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 744-4124
Em: [email protected]
RE:City of Pasadena Citv Council Tulv 10. 2023. Public Meetinff Reffardine the Brookside Golf Course Impfovements Project fAs-enda Item No. 15)^
Dear Mr. Jomsky and Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Linda Vista-Annandale Associadon (LVAA), my Office is submitting these comments addressing the Midgated Negadve Declaradon (MND) prepared for the City of Pasadena's ("City") Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project ahead of the July 10, 2023, City Council public meedng.

According to the City's description, including in the MND, April 27, 2023, Staff Report ("Staff Report"), the Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC or "Applicant") proposes plans to triple the size of the existing driving range from 20 to 60 bays; reorient the direcdon of the driving range; instaU technology that would presumably electronically track golfbaUs and automadcaUy score drives at 30 of the bays; install two 18-hole miniature golf courses adjacent to the west of the proposed 7/10/2023
Item 15
City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

driving range; and associated plans and infrasttucture including the removal of 44 poles, instaUation of 36 new lighting poles, and removal of a minimum of 47 and possibly 81 public, protected trees and the potendal encroachment upon 16 additional trees ("Project"). In conjunction with the Project, RBOC commissioned the preparation of an Initial Study that concluded that there would be less than significant environmental impacts with incorporadon of certain midgation measures.

Consequently, an MND was prepared and circulated in January 2023.

The Project is located at the Brookside Golf Course's existing driving range at 1133 Rosemont Avenue, north of the intersecdon with Rose Bowl Drive, in Pasadena, California 91103 ("Site"). The Project Site comprises approximately 16 acres within the existing driving range. Hole 10 of the C.W. Koiner Course, and Holes 6 and 7 of the E.O. Nay Course.

In light of the following concerns, LVAA respectfully requests that the City: (1) deny adoption of the MND; (2) order the preparation and circulation of a Project-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to any approvals for the Project; (3) order that Applicant further develop and revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable plans and regulations especially those addressing the Project's potential impacts on human and environmental health; and, (4) require that the environmental review consider the whole of an action and aU. discretionary actions, including but not limited to those for the CUP, design review, and tree removals.

I. THE MND WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. Background Concerning Environmental Impacts Reports.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a Cali.fornia statute designed to inform decisioa-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 CaUfornia Code of Regulations ("CCR" or "CEQA Guidelines"), § 15002, subd. (a)(l).1 At its core, its purpose is to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions 1 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Tide 14 of the California Code of Reguladons, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementadon ofCEQA. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA GuideUnes are given "great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous." Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish ^ Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.

City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

before they are made." Citizens ofGoleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

CEQA also directs pubUc agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternadves or midgadon measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2QOV) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (hereafter, "Berkeley Keep jets"); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 (hereafter, "Laurel Heights"}. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with informadon about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significaady reduced." CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a) (2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

While the courts review an EIR using an 'abuse of discredon' standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritical^ rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p.1355 (quoting Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is endded to no judicial deference. Ibid. Drawing this Une and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA's informadon disclosure requirements presents a quesdon of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. Cnty. ofFresno (2018) 6 Cal.Sth 502, 515;Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. Cnty. ofM-adera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the First District Court of Appeal has previously stated, prejudicial abuse of discredon occurs if the failure to include relevant informadon precludes informed decision-making and informed public participadon, thereby thwardng the statutory goals of the EIR process. Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotadons omitted).

The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a better'Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for responsible Growth, Inc.

City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

v. City ofRancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Ibid. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present informadon so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the pub Uc must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Ibid.

A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumpdon is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.^//^"/ Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City ofEncinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of <CK" St. v. City ofHayivard(\9W) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res. Code, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75 (hereafter, "No Oir~}; accord Jensen v. City of Santa ^osa (2018) 23 Cal.App.Sth 877, 884 (hereafter, "Jensen"). Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Pub. Res.

Code, §§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151; CEQA GuideUnes, §§ 15064, subds. (a)(l), (f)(l). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the inidal study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. 'Berkeley City Council (T.Ql'S) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situadon, the lead agency must adopt a aegadve declaradon. Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c)(l); CEQA GuideUnes, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(2), 15064, subd. (f)(3).
"Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substandal adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. Cnty. ofMendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309 (hereafter, "Sundstrom"). If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall ec
((
City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(l); see Cnty.

Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. ofKem (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544,1580 (hereafter, "Cnty. Sanitation ).

This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparadon of an EIR. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City ofSelma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. Cnty. ofKem (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Docket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thomley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project wUl have no significant effect. Seejensen, supra, 23 Cal.App.Sth at p. 886; Clews Land <z'y L,ivestock v.

City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.Sth 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; BrentivoodAssn.forNo Drilling, Inc. v. City of LosAnge/es (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Fnen^s of t(K" St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(l).

B. Backmound Concernine- Inidal Studies. Neeadve Declaradons. and Midsated Neeadve Declarations.

CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(l)-(2), 15063; see No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 75; see also Communities for a better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2QQX) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112; accord Inyo Citizens for Better Planning v. Injo Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1, 7. Essendally, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project wiU not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(l)- (2); see No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 75 (internal citadons and quotadons omitted); accord Gentry v. City ofM.umeta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399-1400 (hereafter, "Gentr/'). Substantial evidence includes "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this informadon that a fair argument can be made to City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." CEQA GuideUnes, § 15384, subd. (a).

The fair argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 84; Cnty. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1579. It "requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substandal evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumuladvely, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.]" Cnty. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(l)). A lead agency may adopt an MND only if "there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines, § 15074, subd. (b).

Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence.

League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historical resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905 (hereafter, "League for Protection^. "Where the quesdon is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate^]" Cnty. Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1579 (quodng Sierra Club v. Cnty. ofSonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).

Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. "The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data." Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. "Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." Ibid; see also Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1378-1379,1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the akeady low threshold to establish a fau: argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotadons omitted). The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Ibid.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

Both the review for failure to follow CEQA's procedures and the fair argument test are quesdons of law, thus, the de novo standard of review appU.es. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City ofRancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. "Whether the agency's record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a quesdon of law. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City ofSelma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Kostka and Zischke, Pracdce Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76. If the reviewing court finds that the fair argument test had been met yet the lead agency failed to prepare an EIR, "the court must set aside the agency's decision to adopt a negadve declaradon [or a midgated negative declaradon] as an abuse of discredon in failing to proceed in a manner as required by law." City of Redlands v. Cnty. of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 405.

In an MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. AddidonaUy, the agency of the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidence—this is one of the EIR's functions. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004):

Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may "weigh" conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first
instance. Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(l) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.

Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [cjonsideradon is not to be given contrary evidence suppordng the preparation of a negative declaration. 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotadons omitted).

In cases where it is unclear whether there exists substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a "preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." M-ejia v. City of Lss Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332. "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

II. THERE IS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

As detailed further below, the MND is riddled with conflicts and legal and technical deficiencies that mandate the preparadon and circuladon of a thorough, Project- specific EIR.

First, the MND fails as an informadonal document as it does not provide sufficient stable, accurate, and finite informadon, including design details, for decision-makers and the public to meaningfully assess the Project's environmental impacts and midgadon measures.

Second, the MND fails to disclose and thoroughly analyze the Project's potential significant environmental impacts—neither can it do so, in Ught of the incomplete project descripdon.

Third, the MND fails to impose all feasible midgadon measures to reduce the significance of the Project's impacts. Fourth, the Project is inconsistent with applicable laws, regulations, and plans. Additionally, where the Project does not direcdy oppose the law, the MND automatically and therefore erroneously concludes that regulatory compUance effectively establishes less-than-significant impacts.

Fifth, the MND improperly defers midgadon of the Project's impacts to a later date in viokdon ofCEQA. See CEQA GuideUnes, § 15126.4.

A. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Impacts Since the Project Descripdon Is Not Stable. Finite, and Accurate.

The City's April 27, 2023, Staff Report praises the Applicant's effort to prepare an MND at the earliest possible time, stating:

The RBOC has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental QuaUty Act ("CEQA"), which analyzes, discloses, and mitigates aU potentially significant effects of the Project. The RBOC has authority to adopt City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

CEQA documents pursuant to Pasadena Municipal Code Section

2.175.110.G.2 The MND is discussed in more detaU below.

The RBOC prepared the MND at this time, as opposed to waiting until seeking approval of a conditional use permit for the Project from the City at a later, undetermined date, because now is the time for the RBOC to commit itself to a definite course of action toward the Project. The authority requested of the Board herein constitutes a substantial allocation of public funds to further the Project. Such funds would be spent on actions that create momentum behind the Project, such as additional design and engineering drawings, and any necessary retention of architectural and financial consultants. Most importandy, the allocadon of funds goes toward the need to seek out additional funding sources for constcucdon of the Project, such as directed donations from Legacy and applicadons for grant funding if possible. Many of those funding sources will require the type of commitment toward the Project shown herein, and some may even require submission of the certified MND.

Staff Report, p. 3 (emph. added).

While it is commendable that RBOC began its environmental process at an early date, nonetheless CEQA does not allow the bifurcation of a project's approval from its environmental review, as RBOC attempts to do here; or—what is worse—to approve the environmental document while the Project descripdon is far from complete.

Further, CEQA does not allow lead agencies to prepare an MND (i.e., dispense with an EIR) for a half-designed project, only to then approve that MND and trigger the LVAA further challenges the legality of the Pasadena Municipal Code, section 2.175.110., subsection G allowing for RBOC to approve the MND given that the MND or any environmental document must be approved by the public agency approving the Project. Here, manifesdy, the Project approval is sought from.—and will also be further sought through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from—the City. Hence, at least on applicadon, the City is the lead agency that must review and approve this MND. See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15367 (lead agency), 15381 (responsible agency). This is also confirmed by CEQA Guidelines, secdon 15051, which provides the criteria to identify the lead agency and specifically states: "(b) If the project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." Here, RBOC is a corporation and not a governmental endty; on the other hand, it is the City that is the public agency and has the greatest responsibility to approve the Project as a whole, including to provide funding and approve the CUP. Hence, it is the City that must prepare and ultimately approve the MND, contrary to the Pasadena Municipal Code provision.

City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

statute of limitations, thereby insulating the Project from future CEQA challenges— the consequence of which would give the applicant free reign to design the Project how it deems fit and approve it immune to challenge and without any oversight or accountability. See Cf., Vedanta Soc. of Southern California v. California Quartet, lJ:d. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 533-534 ("We need only point out in that regard that if such a procedure were valid under CEQA, it would allow decision-making bodies to circumvent the polidcal scrutiny built into the CEQA process, because one decisionmaker could use an abstendon as a de facto 'yes' vote, and then later hide behind a subsequent overt 'yes,' vote on the theory that the second vote only involved a technical or housekeeping matter on a project that was akeady inevitable. ('Who? Me take responsibility for approving this project?')").

In fact, reasoning on an analogous case of pre-commitment, our Supreme Court has noted this delicate balance that CEQA requires, and the City violates:

This court has on several occasions addressed the timing of environmental review under CEQA, emphasizing in each case the same policy balance outlined in CEQA Guidelines secdon 15004, subdivision (b). In No Oil, Inc: v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,118 CaLRptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66 (No Oil, Inc.), discussing whether the proper scope of an EIR included possible related future acdons, we quoted this obseryadon from a federal decision: " 'Statements must be written late enough in the development process to contain meaningful information, but they must be -written early enough so that whatever informadon is contained can practically senre as an input into the decision-making process.' " (Id. at p. 77, fn. 5,118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66.) We again quoted this formulation of the general issue in Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 187 Cal.Rptr. 398, 654 P.2d 168 (^ullerton), which considered whether a pardcular acdon was a "project" for CEQA purposes, adding, with what has turned out to be an understatement, that "[t]he timing of an environmental study can present a deUcate problem.

Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2QQS) 45 Cal.4th 116,129-130 (emph. added).

The City and Applicant here have ignored the above-quoted delicate balance and CEQA dming issues and mandate to present the MND late enough to contain meaningful informadon and instead have misused and mischaracterized the CEQA requirement to w/?^^ environmental review as early as possible to shape the Project, to suggest City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

that such environmental review may be approved ^ne.o. the Project's design is yet unknown. Yet, conducting or commencing environmental review to allow more flexibility to shape the project and the completion and approval oi \he environmental document to approve the Project are two distinct acdons and should not be conflated, as is being done here.

That the timing of the MND's approval—and hence determinadon of whether an EIR may be dispensed with—is not yet ripe here is also confirmed by numerous cases which have held that to ensure meaningful decision-making processes and pubUc parddpadon, CEQA requires that a project descripdon be stable, accurate, and finite:

Public nodflcation serves the public's right "to be informed in such a way that it can inteUigently weigh the environmental consequences of any contemplated acdon and have an appropriate voice in the formuladon of any decision." (Karlson v. City of Camarilla (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789, 804 [161 Cal.Rptr. 260].) This public pardcipadon assists the agency in weighing midgadon measures and alternatives to a proposed project. (§§ 21100, 21151.) As the court stated in County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193 [139 CaLRptr. 396], "[o]nly through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision- makers balance the proposals benefit against its environmental cost, consider midgadon measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal . . . and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Thus, "[t] he defined project and not some different project must be the EIRs bona fide subject." (Id. at p. 199).

Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 937-938 (emph. added).

The above-quoted requirement for an accurate, stable, and finite project-description for EIRs is equaUy applicable to MNDs, as the latter attempts to dispose of the former.

Further, in light of the above-noted principles and delicate balance, the MND here is premature since, as the MND concedes, the Project is not yet completely formulated:

It is important to note that not all the Project design features, or operational characteristics are determined yet, nor is such required City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

prior to completion of the CEQA process. The MND was prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence Project programming and design, yet late enough in the development process to contain meaningful informadon so that this informadon can practically serve as an input into the analysis and decision-making process. The Project's physical or operational characterisdcs may be modified as it moves forward, so long as they do not go beyond the parameters studied in the MND (or so long as they are studied in further environmental review as may be necessary).

Accordingly, the discredonary acdons requested of the Board at this time, namely seeking City Council financial assistance of $1 million toward further development of the Project, inclusion of Family Golf in the upcoming Request for Proposal for golf course management, and authority to apply to the City for a conditional use permit and design review at the appropriate dme, consdtute commitment toward the Project."
Staff Report, pp. 3-4 (emph. added).

For all the above-noted reasons, the above-quoted passage on what CEQA aUows is a blatant mischaracterizadon. TeUingly, RBOC fails to cite to any legal authority to support its above-quoted claims to allow an approval of the MND at this point in time and to aUow for determination (s) and modification (s) of the Project design in the future.

RBOC's posidon that the MND is proper at this dme—when the Project is far from completely defined or designed—is also legally unsupported given that RBOC is not proposing a tiered EIR. While a dered EIR would aUow for future environmental reviews, with an MND, according to CEQA's defiaidon, the lead agency must make findings that the Project—as already revised—will "clearly" have no significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines, § 15369.5. RBOC is whoUy prohibited from legally making these findings.

As stated by our Supreme Court in Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Community College Dist. (2016):

UnUke the program EIR at issue in Sierra Club, the 2006 initial study and MND were not a tiered EIR. The District's 2006 initial study and MND City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

did not purport 'to defer analysis of certain details of later phases oflong- term linked or complex projects until those phases are up for approval.' (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 431, 53 Cal.Rpti-.3d 821,150 P.3d 709.) The District's initial environmental review documents instead expressly concluded that 'all potendal impacts' of the entire project— including every building on the campus—had 'been mitigated to a point where no significant impacts would occur, and there is no substantial evidence the project would have a significant effect on the environment. 1 Cal.Sth 937, 960 (emph. added).

Lasdy, the Project's MND—or, conversely, the determinadon that an EIR is not required—is premature given that there is a fair argument, due to the lack of informadon or study of the Project's final design, that the Project may have impacts. "Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311; Christward M.inistry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 (fact that iaidal study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact "no" supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects) (hereafter, "Christward'); Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1378-1379, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

For all the reasons Usted above, the MND is undmely and premature, and the RBOC's determinadon that the Project will not have any significant impacts is unsupported.

B. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Aesthetics and Lighting Impacts.

The Project proposes massive changes to and on approximately 16 acres of land, including but not limited to removal of trees and lighting poles, construction of new and in some cases taller poles for safety netting and lighting, installadon of two new miniature golf courses, and tripUng the size of the existing driving range from 20 to 60 bays. It is therefore reasonably foreseeable that the contemplated physical expansion, as well as expansion and intensificadon of uses of the Project Site, as weU as the operadon of the area upon Project corapledon, will require addidonal lighting and cause new sources of lighting and glare, as well as aesthedc impacts.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Iraptovement Project July 10, 2023

CEQA requires agencies to evaluate not only a project's direct impacts, but also its "reasonably foreseeable indirect" impacts. See Aptos Coundl v. Cnty. of Santa Cru°^ (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 288 (cidag CEQA GuideUnes, § 15064, subd. (d)) ("In evaluadng the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project.").

A "reasonably foreseeable" indirect physical change is one in which the activity or project is capable, at least in theory, of causing. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d) (3). Further, the term 'significant' "covers a spectrum ranging from not trivial through appreciable to important and even momentous." No Oil, Inc. v. City ofljos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 & fn. 16 (hereafter "No 0?7') (cidng Hanlj v. Kleindienst (1972) 471 F.2d 823, 837 (dissendng opinion of Friendly, Chief Judge) (internal quotations omitted)).

The court in No 0?7 addressed the term 'reasonable possibility' and stated that:

CEQA does not speak of projects which [w]Ul have a significant effect, but those which [m] ay have such effect. Although we agree with the trial court that the word 'may' connotes a 'reasonable possibility/ that phrase again encompasses a range of meaning extending from the most unlikely possibility which might inHuence the views of a reasonable man to events which fall but a hair short of certainty.

No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d at fn. 16 (emph. added).

There is no dispute that the Project's proposed changes to the Brookside Golf Complex and the lighdng needed to accommodate the Project's operadon upon completion will fit the spectrum of 'changes' as stated in No Oil such that direct and wdirecf'impacts are reasonably foreseeable.

Furthermore, the Project may have significant lighting and aesthetic impacts also considering that the Project description is not complete, accurate, or stable in the MND. Specifically, a number of aesthedc and lighting impacts wUl depend on the very design of the Project, which, as conceded by the Staff Report, is not yet final. This lack of inforraadon by itself enlarges the scope of the fair argument that the Project may have aesthetic and light/glare impacts. Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. As previously noted and quoted, "[d]eficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.

Ibid.; Christward, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at 197 (fact that inidal study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact "no" supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects); accord Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1378-1379, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the Umited facts in the record).

The Project would add "direcdonally focused" LED lighting on 14 of the netting poles at 60 feet in height and surrounding the perimeter of the driving range. See MND, pp. 9, 26. The lights would remain on for driving range patrons until 10:00 p.m., seven days per week, and even later for cleaning staff and related needs after 10:00 p.m. See MND, p. 9. The MND acknowledge that "lighting technology would include spill and glare control, high definidon, and precise light targeting capabiUdes." MND, p. 27. The MND warns though, that "the Project would have a significant impact on neighboring areas if the site lighting produces an illuminance of greater than 1.0 foot-candle on any residendal property." MND, p. 26. Yet according to the lighting assessments of a conceptual lighting layout, the light loss spill factor would be

0.95. MND, p. 27. Given that the MND fails to provide the lighting assessment from which it derives the 0.95 figure, decision-makers and the public are unable to determine which any degree of confidence whether the MND's figures are accurate.

The MND claims that the lighting would be "screened from offsite residendal receptors by existing topography, mature vegetadon, and the Brookside Clubhouse" and "would be individually adjustable to ensure proper direcdon and avoidance of light spill into surrounding neighborhoods." MND, 27. No lighdng analysis or topography assessment has been provided to support the MND's conclusions in this regard.

The "nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the residences along Wotkyns Drive to the east of the Project Site" roughly 200 feet from the existing driving range. No analysis of the Ughdng impacts on these sensidve receptors has been conducted or provided for review. The glow, spillage, and loss of the Arroyo night sky resulting from the new lighting requires that a thorough impacts analysis be conducted and midgadon measures developed in a project-specific EIR.

Lasdy, the Project may have significant impacts, as opined by the expert opinion of Dr. Travis Longcore, an Adjunct Professor at the UCLA Institute of the Environmental and Sustainability; environmental sciendst; and advocate of ecological City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

management, stewardship, and design ("Expert Letter"). See Exhibit A (Expert Letter prepared by Dr. Travis Loagcore endded "Biological Impacts from Lighting from Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project").

In sum, the Project may have significant aesthetic and tight/glare impacts, precluding the use of an MND and mandating the producdon of an EIR.

C. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Si&nificant Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impacts.

There is an acknowledged direct correladon between a Project's potential impacts on traffic and transportation and an increase in their associated air quality, GHG, and noise impacts. See City ofRedlands v. Cnty. of San fiemardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 413 (it is reasonable to assume that a project enabling physical development would have reasonably foreseeable indirect air and other impacts).

As stated in the Office of Planning Research's (OPR) technical advisory in 2018:

VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Execudve Order B-16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportadon sector by 2050. The ttansportadon sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.3 Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between an increase in traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, and water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and the natural environment, including on wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical advisory:

VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as "co-benefits" to GHG reducdon) in both in the near-term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic 3 Office of Planning and Research, 2018 Technical Advisory on 'Evaluating Transportation Impacts inCEQA (Dec. 2018) at 2, available ^https://opr.ca.gov7docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory.pdf.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestcians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users.

The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.

CEQA requires the study of impacts at all phases of the project. "All phases of the project must be considered. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126. The CEQA-compliant environmental analysis must describe the project's direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects and analyze them in both the short-term and the long- term. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, subd. (a), 15064, subd. (d). The analysis should also emphasize the specific effects in propordon to their severity and their probability of occurrence. CEQA Guidelines, § 15143. League to SavetMke Tahoe Mountain etc. v.

Cnty. ofPlacer(2Q2'2) 75 CaI.App.Sth 63, 92 (quotations omitted).

The MND ultimately concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions based on the Project's: (1) relatively small cumulative contribudon to GHG emissions in relation to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD) threshold of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTC02e); (2) use of leading-edge Ught-emitdng diodes (LED); (3) consistency with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan; (4) consistency with the Southern California Associadon of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ("Connect SoCal Plan"); and, (5) consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP). MND, pp. 68-72.

However, the Project's mere implementadon of GHG reduction strategies and reliance on plans and reguladons are insufficient to definitively conclude that the Project will have a less than significant GHG emissions impact, especially considering that these measures are not specific to the Project. Further, the Project's contribution to GHG emissions cannot be ascertained given that the Project's design features are not yet fully formulated and determined. For the same reasons, the Project's 4 Id. at 3.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

consistency with the CARB and SCAG or other plans is not supported by any factual evidence.

The Project clearly contemplates to increase the Project Site intensity, activity areas, and uses in furtherance of its primary goal to "return the use and net revenue of the Brookside Golf Complex back to historical levels while broadening user-ship beyond individual golfers to fanulies." MND, p. 6; accord MND, pp. 15,40,60,69,71, 97, 105 ("The purpose of the Project is to realize the existing capacity of the Brookside Golf Complex by increasing memberships and returning to historically higher levels of patronage use through the expansion of services to a broader range of visitors including families."). In order to effectuate the "primary objective of the Project[,]" RBOC must increase the number of visitors and golfers to the Site. To this aim, the Project must seek a CUP at some indefinite dme.

Currently, it cannot be determined to what extent the proposed Project will increase patronage of the Brookside Golf Complex, what the hours and days of operadon wiU ultimately be, or what kind of services and amenides wUl be added to the final design (e.g., wUl the Project later also provide eadng areas, alcohol permits, more bays, higher nets, additional lighting, etc.). As such, it is inipossible to ascertain the increased amount of traffic or traffic-related GHG emissions, as weU as the amount of GHG emissions that could be generated by the added amenities or services.

RBOC's statements and claims as to GHG impacts and consistency also ignore the concept of additionality — found in the Health and Safety Code and recently emphasized by the court. Health & Safety Code, § 38562, subd. (d) (2) ("the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or reguladon, and any other greenhouse gas emission reducdon that otherwise would occur"); see Golden Door Properties, LL.C v. Cnty. of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.Sth 467, 514-515 ("Addidonality is an important requirement because if non-addidonal (i.e., 'business-as-usual') projects are eligible for carbon [offset] . . . then the net amount of greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase and the environmental integrity of carbon reducdon projects will be called into quesdon.").

In addition, CEQA wholly prohibits RBOC's baseless contendon that compliance with plans and reguladons will necessarily and automadcally reduce impacts to the requisite level of insignificance, especially for purposes of the fair argument standard of an MND, as is the case presendy. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b)(2) ("Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligadon to City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant."). In fact, RBOC's logic and dependence on thresholds and regulatory compliance has been rejected at least since 2002:

In the wake of our decision in Communities for a better Environment, however, such thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. . . . nofrsvithstanding compliance with a pertinent threshold of significance, the agency must still consider any fait argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant." Protect the Historic Am ador Waterways v. Amador Water Ageny (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109 (referencing Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-114 (invalidating the proposed CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h) for fair argument) (emphasis added).

As just one example of many claims the City makes in regard to the Project's air quality and GHG impacts, it contends:

Buildout of the Project would adhere to the programs and regukdons idendfied by the 2022 Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reducdon goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. For example, the increase in capacity of the driving range and new miniature golf course would serve the local population and could contribute to reducing VMT by providing the local community with closer options . . . . Therefore, the Project would be consistent with State efforts to reduce motor vehicle emissions and generate GHG emissions consistent with the reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The Project would not obstruct implementadon of the 2022 Scoping Plan, and a less than significant impact would occur.

MND, pp. 70-71.

The MND acknowledges the Project's potendal traffic-related and operadonal or cumuladve impacts in the context of air quality and GHG emissions, yet rests on CAP compliance or energy efficiency standards to conclude that such impacts would be less than significant. Yet the MND does not explain how CAP compliance or energy efficiency standards will help reduce impacts.

Addidonally, the MND's contention that the Project would "serve the local populadon and [thereby] contribute to reducing VIVTT by providing the local City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

community with closer options" is a shaUow attempt at deflecting attention away from the Project's environmental impacts and onto a contrived need for more driving bays and miniature golf. See MND, pp. 60-62, 70-71. That there is sometimes a waiting time for golfers hoping to use the driving range does not support the need for a 200% increase in driving bays nor the need for 36 holes of miniature golf on an acre of land.

In fact, the MND illuminates its foUy in this regard and conttadicts itself by listing eight other golf courses and clubs within six miles of the Project Site, including the Annandale Golf Club, Scholl Canyon Golf Course, and Chevy Chase County Club— each of which is two miles or less away from the Project Site. MND, p. 103. Neither does the MND have factual support for such statements since it is unknown whether the Project visitors wiU derive from the local community; the Project may, in fact, attract plenty of non-local visitors.

For aU the reasons noted, including but not limited to the understated and unstudied air quality and GHG emissions impacts and the City's baseless and flawed reliance on regulatory conipliance or conformity with certain plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, the Project may have significant impacts on air quality and GHG emissions. To the extent the Project may increase traffic and VMTs, it may also have traffic impacts, as well as traffic-related impacts such as traffic noise. Hence, the City must prepare an EIR to properly and timely study, analyze, and midgate these potentially significant impacts.

D. There Is a Fair Areument that the Project May Have Si&nificant Biological Resources Impacts.

The MND and its November 2020 Tree Report ("Tree Report") indicates that up to 47 of the Site's 81 protected, specimen, native, and public trees may be removed during the Project's construcdon, though that number may change depending on the ultimate design of the reoriented driving range. MND, p. 54; Tree Report, pp. 7,12 ("All 81 of the fccees . . . are considered protected")5. The MND further acknowledges that the Project's construcdon acdvities "could" encroach upon 16 protected trees 3 "All 81 of the trees that were surveyed are considered protected trees in accordance with the City's ordinance. Based on the current project descripdon which is subject to change, forty-seven (47) of the protected trees are coidd [sic] require removal to accommodate project construcdon, sucteen (16) could be encroached upon to accommodate project construction, and eighteen (18) protected trees within the survey area coiild be avoided. In addition, trees qualifying as specimen or nadve also exist within the grading limits of the project and are included in the aforemendoned trees that could be removed, encroached and avoided." Tree Report, p. 12.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

"resulting in indirect impacts" and that such acdvides "may negatively affect the root system of trees in the vicinity." MND, p. 54. The MND and Tree Report fail to acknowledge that the encroachment could result in the death of those 16 trees, resuldng in an effective removal of 63 trees. AddidonaUy, the Tree Report warns that Project-related activides such as "excavadon, trenching, soil compacdon, change of grade, drainage, pruning, mechanical damage from construcdon equipment, landscaping, and irrigadon" may "have the potendal to aegadvely affect not only the encroached trees, but also other trees present in the vicinity of construction acdvides." Tree Report, p. 12. Surprisingly, despite the potential impact on all 81 of the protected and public trees on the Site, RBOC fails to include any midgadon measure which would reduce the environmental impacts of the tree removals or encroachments, and instead states that aU "tree removals as weU as consfa:ucdon activities in proximity to tcees that would be retained would be required to follow the City's Tree Protection GuideUnes[.]" MND, p. 48.

Even if some of the removed trees are replaced with "approved native species," there are several issues associated with planting new trees. MND, p. 75. For example, there is the possibility that many of the newly planted trees wiU not survive. As noted by U.S. Forest Service research ecologist and tree mortality expert Dr. Lara Roman, "plandng a massive number of trees is not necessarily a positive investment if not enough of them survive to become mature plants." Further, "there's also a carbon cost to tree-plandng, meaning that trees have to survive years before they offset that cost. The largest environmental gain comes when trees mature, sometimes decades after they're planted."7 Thus, the new trees will not immediately, or maybe ever, mitigate the impacts associated with removing the akeady mature trees which may have existed at the Site for several decades or more.

Therefore, should the tree removal take place, it may very well result in significant air quality impacts and biological resources impacts and the proposed new tcees cannot properly midgate the impacts on air quality of removing the existing trees.

Furthermore, the MND is fatally flawed and incomplete given that it neglects to show that the Project wUl indeed have a less than significant impact on biological resources.

Blooinberg, The Darker Side of Tree-P [anting Pledges (June 30, 2021), available at https://www.bl<')pmberg.com/news/features/2021-07-30/what--happens--:ifter-]:)ledges-to--plant- miU.ions-of-ti-eesPsrnd^citvlab.
7 Ibid.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

Instead, without adequately identifying and disclosing the impacts, the MND effecdvely concludes that any biological resources impacts from the (unknown number of) tree removals wiU be reduced to the requisite level of significance since, presumably, the Project wiU comply with the City's 2019 Tree Protecdon Guidelines:

Regarding Tree Removals:
• For tree removals, the City Manager will notify the abutdng property owners and applicant ten days prior to the removal. For three or more public trees the City Manager will also nodfy the City Council, Design Commission, and any known neighborhood associadon.
• Requests for the removal of a landmark, nadve and specimen tree wiU be denied unless one of the following findings is made:
•There is a public benefit, or a public health, safety, or welfare benefit, to the injury or removal that outweighs the protecdon of the specific tree (public benefit means a public purpose, service, or use which affects residents as a community and not merely as particular individuals); or
• The present condition of the tree is such that it is not reasonably likely to survive; or
• There is an objecdve feature of the tree that makes the tree not suitable for protecdon; or
• There would be a substantial hardship to a private property owner in the enjoyment and use of real property if the injury or removal is not permitted; or
• To not permit the injury or removal would constitute a taking of the underlying real property; or
• The project includes a landscape design plan that will result in a tcee canopy coverage of greater significance than the tree canopy coverage being removed, within a reasonable time after compledon of the project.

In addition, a request for the removal of a landmark tree will be denied unless the procedures specified for the removal of landmarks and the City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

granting of a certificate of appropriateness is first followed. Relocation of a specimen or native tree will be treated as a removal. • Tree removal requests with a discretionary acdon will be reviewed by the applicable decision-maker. Decisions on tree removal are subject to standard appeal and call-for-review procedures. Specimen and nadve tcee removal requests, not associated with any discretionary action, will be reviewed by the City Manager or designated staff, with a decision rendered 15 days after the appUcadon has been deemed complete. In this case, the appeal process is the same as for a planning director decision.

MND, pp. 48-49.

Nothing in the above-quoted City's 2019 Tree-Protecdon Guidelines actually mitigates the impacts of removal of mature and protected tcees, as required by CEQA. "Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must. . . permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context." CEQA Guidelines, §15125, subd. (c) (emph. added). Further, it is questionable whether the 2019 Tree- Protection Guidelines was adopted for the purposes of mitigating CEQA impacts of removal of trees. There is no indicadon or factual support to show that it was adopted for such midgation purposes — the Guidelines merely provide a procedure to follow for the applicant and the City upon receipt of a tree removal permit request. As such, the MND's conclusion that the biological resources impacts of tree renioval will be midgated is wholly unsupported. Indeed, the mature trees provide for shading for both people and wildlife and their removal will impact the environment and increase the heat, resulting in more GHG impacts and necessitating additional methods (e.g., A/C) to cool the area which, in turn, will cause addidonal significant impacts, including GHG emissions and noise impacts. As described in a report published by the Congressional Budget Office:

Mature forests, having absorbed C02 from the atmosphere while growing, store carbon in wood, leaves, and soil. That carbon is released when people clear forested land and destroy the wood. From 2000 to 2005, the loss of forests, primarily in tropical developing countries, accounted for approximately 12 percent of global GHG emissions.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

Slowing or halting deforestadon in developing countries is a potentially low-cost way to help reduce global GHG emissions. For that potendal to be realized, however, substantial challenges would need to be addressed— by providing technical and financial assistance to governments, by creating demand from private markets, or both."8
RBOC's wanton attempt at glossing over the Project's biological resources impacts mandates that a more thorough environmental analysis be conducted through an EIR.

The above-noted measure to comply with the Tree Protecdon Guidelines and RBOC's inability to state with specificity how many trees will be removed, encroached upon, or replaced evinces that (1) the Project is insufficiendy developed to warrant adoption of an MND, and (2) RBOC attempts to show no significant or less than significant impacts by way of meeting some threshold requirements or regulations.

This is whoUy insufficient for an MND.

Specifically, the lack of an adequate Project design prior to preparadon of the MND enlarges the scope of the fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources. "Deficiencies in the record may actuaUy enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311; Cbristward Ministry, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at 197 (fact that initial study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact "no" supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects); Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1378-1379, 1382.

Further, CEQA prohibits RBOC blanket inference that regulatory compliance will necessarily and automadcaUy reduce impacts to the level of insignificance, especially for purposes of fair argument in MNDs, as here. "Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligadon to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant." CEQA GuideUnes, § 15064, subd. (b)(2).

Last, while the Project Site's mature and specimen trees to be removed may not be protected themselves—an issue not resolved in the MND—they are valuable habitat for protected species, birds, and wildlife of Pasadena. See MND, p. 46 ( "Arroyo Seco channel.. .is a suitable corridor for native resident wildlife"). Tree saplings, 8 Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office, Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases (January 6, 2012), available tf/l~ittps://wwvv.cbo gov/publicaUon/42686; also available at https://\v\vw.cbo,govysites/default\/files/112th-congress-2()ll-20'12/reports/l-6-'12-forest.pdf.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

regardless of their number, cannot provide the protective cover or midgate impacts on biological resources due to their typically smaU canopy size. The JVEND acknowledges the value of the trees to the local wildlife:

The mature trees that occur on and adjacent to the Project Site, including within the surrounding area, provide foraging and breeding opportunides for common wildlife, such as California ground squirrels (OtospermophUus beecheyi), and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). In addition, the landscaping and mature trees located on and surrounding the Project Site could provide suitable nesting habitat for avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), CaUfornia towhee (Melozone crissalis). Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), bushdt (Psaltriparus minimus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltfia), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pardcularly during the nesdng season that generally occurs from February through August.

Ibid.

The MND offers a regurgitated and often insufRcient boilerplate midgadon measure and therefore concludes that any impacts will be reduced to less than significant:

MM-BIO-1. Ifconstcucdon acdvides occur within the bird nesting season (generally defined as February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesdng bird survey within 3 days prior to the proposed start date, to identify any active nests (including Cooper's hawk) within 500 feet of the project site. If an acdve nest is found, the nest shall be avoided, and a suitable buffer zone shall be delineated in the field such that no impacts shaU occur until the chicks have fledged the nest as determined by a qualified biologist. Consttucdon 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 construcdon-related noises and vibradons.

MND, p. 45.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

The Project must include enforceable midgation measures which would, at a minimum, replace the renioved trees at a rate of 3:1 to ensure that the new trees survive at a rate sufficient to replace the lost canopy in the near future. The MND's incorporadon of the empty assurance that "[a]U tree removals as weU. as construcdon acdvides in proximity to trees that would be retained would be required to follow the City's Tree Protection Guidelines" is a blatant example of RBOC's refusal to incorporate sufficient measures to midgate the Project's impacts and "[r]ecognize the uniqueness of the Central Arroyo as an irreplaceable natural resource[.]" See Central Arroyo IVtaster Plan, p. 3-5. Further, incorporation ofMidgation Measure BIO-1 further illuminates RBOC's rushed attempts at moving the MND into adoption and the Project into fruidon at the expense of the Arroyo Seco's unique biological characteristics, local wildlife, and the environment more broadly. As such, the Project may have significant biological impacts. Consequently, an EIR must be prepared to adequately study, disclose, and midgate such impacts, including by providing alternative sites and configuradons.

E. The MND Lacks Evidence to Show the Project Comports With All Applicable Land Use and Planning Designadons.

Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest GOV. v. Napa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352 (hereafter, "Napa Citizen/'} (cidng GOV. Code, §§ 65030, 65300). The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a "consdtudon" or "charter" for all future development. DeVita v. Cnty. ofNapa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; l^esher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540 (hereafter, "Leshe^.

General plan consistency is "the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." Debottari v. Norco City Council (\9?>5) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204,1213.

State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally or "horizontally" consistent: its elements must "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compadble statement of policies for the adopting agency." GOV. Code, § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.AppJd 698, 704. A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita v. Cnty. ofNapa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 796, fn. 12.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

Second, state law requires "verdcal" consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See GOV. Code § 65860, subd. (a) (2) (land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be "compadble with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general] plan."]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. Cnty. ofCalaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 544.

State law requires that aU subordinate land use decisions, including condidonal use permits as is required here (see MND, p. 19), be consistent with the general plan. See GOV. Code, § 65860, subd. (a) (2); Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.

A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is "fundamental, mandatory, and clear," regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats league v. Cnty. of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado Cnty. v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42. Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan's policies and objectives.

See Napa Citizens, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-oriented policies of general plan).

Here, the Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and fails to establish the Project's consistency with several General Plan goals. The Project fails to discuss in detail its conformity with each of the Goals, Policies, and Programs laid out in the General Plan, despite that the Project will have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, vehicle trip generadon, air quality, open space, noise, and GHG emissions. This discussion is relevant not only to the Project's compliance with land use and zoning law, but also with the contempladon of the Project's consistency with land use plans, policies, and reguladons adopted for the purpose of avoiding or midgadng environmental impacts.

One example of the MND's lack of clarity regarding the Project's consistency with all applicable plans involves the City of Pasadena's Climate Acdon Plan (CAP). The MND erroneously concludes that the Project need not comply with the CAP s mandate that any non-residendal projects which exceed 75,000 square feet submit a ?3
City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

T-3.1 Transportadon Demand Management (TDM) plan for review. MND, p. 72.

The MND states:

Based on the nature of the Project in that it would reorient and expand the existing driving range and develop a new miniature golf course, [the TDM] measure would not be applicable. The uses would serve existing visitors to the Brookside Golf Course and no new development is proposed.

Ibid.

RBOC fails to grasp that the TDM mandate applies to the Project regardless of whether RBOC constitutes the Project as a "new development" or a "reorientation" of one of its existing aspects. Ibid. The fact of the matter is that the Project would occur on 16 acres within the existing driving range, Hole 10 of the C.W. Koiner Course, and Holes 6 and 7 of the E.O. Nay Course. MND, p. 1. The Project size exceeds the CAP threshold for non-residendal projects and thus, a TDM was required to be produced for review. In this context, RBOC also fails to include the two 18-hole miniature golf courses along with the 40 addidonal bays of the driving range in its calculation and determinadon that the TDM is inapplicable.

The MND fails to offer sufficient evidence to support the Project's consistency with the CAP in several other areas as well, including: 1-4.1 Renewable Energy (whether or not the Project involves the construction of a "building" has no bearing on how much of the Project's energy will derive from carbon-neuttal sources); T-3.1 decrease annual commuter miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles (the MND concludes without evidence that "existing and future patrons regularly carpool and are not typicaUy single-occupancy vehicle trips, which reduces VMT"); T-4.1 expansion of the availability and use of alternadve fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure (whether or not the Project involves the construction of additional parking or changes to the existing parking areas has no bearing on whether the Project wUl promote the CAP'S Sustainable Mobility goals especially considering that the primary goal of the Project is to "realize the existing capacity of the Bt-ookside Golf Complex by increasing memberships); UG-2.1 Urban Greening (the Project is projected to involve the removal of up to 47 of the Site's protected, specimen, and nadve trees, yet the MND claims consistency with the CAP on this element, which seeks for new developments to "improve and ensure viability of Pasadena's urban forest" and asks whether the Project results in a "net gain of trees"). MND, pp. 72-73, 75,97.

City of Pasadena — Btookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

The MND makes no mention of the Project's compliance with the Arroyo Seco Public Lands Ordinance ("Ordinance"). See Pasadena Code of Ordinances, dde 3, chapter 3.32. The Ordinance:
[E]stablish[es] reguladons for preseryation, enhancement and enjoyment of the Arroyo Seco as a unique environmental, recreadonal and cultural resource of the city surrounded by residendal neighborhoods. Such resource and the neighborhoods must be preserved, protected and properly maintained. These regulations are designed to identify uses, activities, facilides and structures as well as their Umitadons.

Ordinance, § 3.32.010.

According to section 3.32.460 of the Ordinance, "[a]ny new permanent structure or alteration of existing structure shall be subject to the hearing procedures of Section

3.32.180." Secdon 3.32.180 requires:

A. A public hearing shall be held for any new construction, substantial alteration or addition to existing building or significant changes to existing park uses in the Brookside Park area.

B. The hearing shall be held before the parks and recreadon commission with a recommendadon forwarded to the board of directors. Proposed building or landscaping plans shall be reviewed by the city design committee.

C. A nodce of pubUc hearing shall be published in the local newspaper and posted at Brookside Park facilities.

Here, no hearing has been held before the parks and recreation commission with a recommendation forward to the board of directors, nor has any plan been reviewed by the city design committee. The MND has failed to address the Project and it's approval process in line with the Arroyo Seco Public Lands Ordinance. Consequendy, there exists a fair argument that the Project may have significant land use impacts.

AddidonaUy, only once does the MND mention the Central Arroyo Master Plan ("Master Plan"). See MND, p. 86. In this setdng, the MND merely states that:

Section 4.9 of the Centiral Arroyo Master Plan identifies the four enddes that maintain the Central Arroyo (City of Pasadena Parks and Natural Resources Division, RBOC, Rose Bowl Aquadcs Center, and the County City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

of Los Angeles) and recommends coordinadon of acdvides and intensity of acdvides to ensure the facilities are not damaged by overuse. The Project would be consistent with these recommendadons.

Ibid.

To propose that the project "would be consistent with these recommendations" wholly fails the CEQA mandate that aU proposed projects comport with local planning and zoning laws and master plans. The Master Plan is separate and distinct from its Design Guidelines, so ensuring that the Project complies with the Design Review processes or the Design Guidelines does little to afford decision-makers and the public with the confidence to know that the Project does not violate local regulations and plans or CEQA. Given that the MND now appears before the City Council, it must include a full and thorough analysis of the Project's design and details and its compliance with the Master Plan. Decision-makers and the pubUc should not be left guessing what the Project will eventually become and how it will comport with the law.

As it stands currendy, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law by creating inconsistencies within the Arroyo Seco Public Lands Ordinance, the applicable Master Plan, and General Plan Elements, as well as an inconsistency with the General Plan itself, including as to the open space and GHG. Such inconsistencies further increase the fair argument that the Project may have significant land use impacts, especially where, as noted earlier, the Project's design and full scope—along with components required for the Condidonal Use Permit and tree removals—are far from being fully formulated and determined.

F. There Is a Fair Arg-ument that the Project May Have Si&nificant Traffic and Transportadon Impacts.

The MND fails to show that the Project's traffic and tcansportadon impacts will be less than significant or wiU be midgated. Given that the Project may have significant traffic impacts that are not accurately disclosed in the MND, its bcaffic-related impacts are also derivatively understated and may be significant—therefore requiring an EIR.

Given the nature and scope of the Project with its substantial proposed construcdon of 40 new bays and associated infrastructure and technology, reorientadon of the driving range, and two miniature golf courses on 16 acres within the existing driving range. Hole 10 of the C.W. Koiner Course, and Holes 6 and 7 of the E.O. Nay City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

Course, there exists the possibility that it may have significant and severe impacts on traffic in and around the Central Arroyo Seco. Consequendy, an EIR must be prepared. This is further supported by the fact that the Project will generate an estimated 949 daily trips as opposed to the previous 273 daily trips. Transportation Impact Analysis, appen. F, p. 9.

Additionally, the MND acknowledges that the Project's vehicle miles tcaveled (VMT) during its constcucdon would be 71,416 rrdles for construction worker commutes and 367 miles for construction vendor trips. MND, p. 59.

In the context of its operadon, the Project would generate 4,346 VMT daily or 1,588,536 VMT annually. MND, p. 60. According to the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines (TIA Guidelines), the Project—comprising more than 50,000 square feet of non-residendal uses characterized by the reoriented driving range, 40 additional bays, and 18-hole miniature golf faciUty—faUs within Category 2 and is classified as having community-wide significance. See TIA Guidelines, appen. F, p. 5.

Consequendy, a Local Mobility Analysis and a CEQA analysis are required with specific performance measures, including VMT and VT figures. See City of Pasadena Transportadon Impact Analysis Guidelines, p. 5. According to the TIA Guidelines, the CEQA impact thresholds are 22.6 VMT/capita for VMT and 2.8 VMT/capita for vehicle trips (VT). TIA Guidelines, p. 1.10. Unfortunately, the Transportation Impact Analysis attached to the MND as Appendix F fails to include certain metrics mandated by the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, including VMT per capita and VT per capita. MND, pp. 24-25. For these reasons, the City Council, other decision-makers, and the public are unable to meaningfully and adequately assess the Project's tcaasportadon impacts and make an informed determination of the Project's compliance with CEQA. Consequendy, an EIR must be prepared.

Furthermore, the MND contends that the City of Pasadena's Department of Transportadon (DOT) reviewed the Project and found that a "traffic study is not required pursuant to the City's Transportadon Impact Analysis Current Pracdce and Guidelines" given that the "Project would not have a significant impact on the surrounding circuladon system nor would it conflict with Mobility Element policies addressing the circulation system." MND, p. 105. Fatally, the MND's Transportadon Impact Analysis bases this erroneous conclusion on the fact that because "[n]o segments or intersecdons exceed the adopted caps and the Pedestrian Environmental City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

3;
QuaUty Index and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index are average or low[,]" (Transportadon Impact Analysis, appen. F, p. 13) and given that "there is no increase in service populadon, there wiU. be no significant impact to any of the City's five CEQA tcansportadon thresholds" (June 3, 2021, Memorandum attached to Transportadon Impact Analysis, appen. F, p. 45). Yet, the baseUne assumpdoas and reasoning of the DOT is unsupported—the whole point and goal of the Project is to increase the service populadon of the Project. As such, to dispose with preparation of an EIR, the MND relies on this circular, factually unsupported, and actually controverted logic. The Transportadon Impact Analysis fails to thoroughly analyze the Project's potential traffic impacts especially as related to VMT and VT.

The DOT recommends that RBOC undertake certain measures as conditions for the Project, including submission of a "Construcdon Staging & Traffic Management Plan to the Department of PubUc Works" which will "show the impact of the various stages on the public right-of-way including street occupadons, closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construcdon vehicles entering and exidng the construction site. Id., p. 46. Manifestly, the noted midgadon measures and coadidons of approval are to midgate, if at aU, the Project's traffic impacts during the construction phase. Such measures and condidons fail to address the Project's operation phase, especially where DOT erroneously assumed that the service population will be the same and not increase in line with the stated main objective of the Project.

In addition, to ignore the Project's potential traffic impacts at this stage and to condition approval of the Project on RBOC's future compliance and traffic analysis frustrates the very purpose ofCEQA and the pubUc review process, and improperly defers mitigation of potentially significant impacts. Even under CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd (a)(l)(B), this is improper given that, inter alia, RBOC does not commit to a thorough tcaffic impact analysis and mitigadon, but rather reUes on itself to study and midgate such impacts in the future and when no public comment maj impact the Project's CEQA-compliance. This measure is improperly deferred and vague as it defers a more thorough traffic impact analysis and the potendal formuladon ofmidgadon measures or final design thereof to a later time and shifts that burden to the applicant.

CEQA forbids deferred midgadon even for an EIR. CEQA GuideUnes, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(l)(B).

RBOC does not explain why it is impracticable or infeasible to adequately assess the tcafflc impacts or to formulate mitigadon measures. RBOC does not commit to City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

specific midgation nor does it offer in the MND any specific performance criteria to ensure traffic impacts will be mitigated—including during the construction and operadon phases, and both individual and cumuladve, along with any related projects.

RBOC's general ^W/o mitigate excludes the requisite specific performance criteria.

Last, given that constcucdon of the Project itself may result in "street occupadons, road closures, detours, [and] staging areas[,]" there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant traffic impacts which should be assessed in an EIR pursuant to CEQA—despite the conflict in evidence presented in the MND. See June 3, 2021, Memorandum attached to the Traasportadon Impact Analysis, appen. F, p. 46; MND, pp. 16, 106-107 ("the Project will not require road or sidewalk closures during construcdon").

Considering the above-mentioned issues—coupled with the primary fact that the MND omits the final Project design/description, the required figures, and analyses which could show that the Project's generated VMT (and VT) would exceed the significance threshold for constcucdon workers and visitors and therefore result in significant transportadon impacts—the City Council should mandate that an EIR be prepared.

III. THE MND FAILS AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT AS IT IS

IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE, DEFERS MITIGATION, AND

IMPROPERLY PIECEMEALS AND BIFURCATES PROJECT
APPROVALS.

A. TheJviND Fails as an Informational Document.

A project descripdon fails for not including sufficient detail when there is not enough informadon provided to accurately evaluate the project's environmental impacts. See Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. Cnty. ofTulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26 (the environmental determinadon "must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with informadon which enables them to make a decision which inteUigendy takes account of environmental consequences"); accord Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City €^ Cnty. of San 'Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1053.

The MND functions as an informadonal or evidentiary document that supports conclusions that a project will "clearly" not have significant environmental impacts or that such impacts can or will be "clearly" raidgated to a level less than significant. To City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

this aim, the MND must provide information about measures taken to midgate a project's significant environmental impacts, thereby allowing decision-makers and the public the opportunity to assess and comment upon the project's impacts and compliance with CEQA, and whether the proposed mitigation measures are sufficient.

Here, the MND offers a cursory and undeveloped depicdon of the Project, frequently omitting critical informadon about its design characterisdcs, technical details, environmental impacts analyses, and midgadon measures necessary to consdtute the MND as an informadonal document and CEQA-compliant.

Among the many examples of this occurs where the MND discusses the Project's mini golf design and contends that the design, once acquired, wiU, at some future point, comply with applicable rules and plans—in this case, the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines:

Though ultimate design of the miniature golf course is not available at this time, once funding is secured and design is available, the Project would be required to go through the City of Pasadena's Design Review process as required by the Pasadena Municipal Code, prior to approval to ensure that the ultimate design is consistent with the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines, reflects the values of the community, enhances the surrounding environment, and visually harmonizes with surroundings.

The proposed miniature golf course would be designed to minimize impacts to the remainder of the Brookside Golf Course and would include low-level design (structures or features between 6 and 8-feet in height) and low-level lighting consistent with the existing golf uses at the Brookside Golf Course. The proposed miniature golf course would be located within the interior of the Brookside Golf Course, adjacent to the proposed driving range, and in proximity to the Brookside Clubhouse and parking areas.

MND, p. 24 (emph. added).

The MND concedes to the Project's missing details, and yet attempts to provide impacts analyses and deferred midgation9 throughout, often concluding that the Project's impacts would be less than significant because of future regulatory 9Discussed further in subsection B of this section.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

compliance or midgadon. See MND, pp. 25 ("because the ultimate Project design would go through a design review process to ensure compadbility, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas from the Project Site"); 26 ("the Project would go through the City of Pasadena's Design Review process as required by the Pasadena Municipal Code, prior to approval, which would ensure that Citywide design principles are considered, that the policies and objecdves of the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines are reflected, and that the overall design reflects to values of the community"); 26 ("Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant."); 27 ("RBOC [wiU] retain a qualified historic preseryation professional to ensure that alterations to the driving range, design of the miniature golf course, and overall modifications to the Golf Course are compadble with the . . . landscape and the Pasadena Arroyo Park and Recreadonal District. This would ensure consistency with lighting requirements set forth in the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines"); 49 ("any landscaping installed . . . would be consistent with . . . the Arroyo Seco Design Guidelines and would preserve the historical heritage of the City of Pasadena").

In the context of the Project's biological impacts, the MND concludes that:

When the Project goes through the design development, RBOC would ensure that tree removals are Umited and that as many trees are retained as part of the design to the extent that public safety and feasibility regarding golf course design allows. Addidonally, the Project would be required to go through the City's Design Review process, which would promote the protection and retention of landmark, nadve, and specimen trees and other significant landscaping of aesthetic and environmental value. Furthermore, vegetation, including farees, would be included as part of the final design. As such, tree removals would be minimized to the extent possible and consistent with ongoing regular tree maintenance and safety requirements.

MND, p. 48 (emphases added).

Given that the MND is presently appearing before the City Council for approval, it is imperadve that the public and decision-makers be afforded the informed and meaningful opportunity to analyze the Project with a reasonable amount and depth of informadon to understand the Project's potential environmental impacts without deferred midgation measures. In fact, courts have actually set aside MNDs where the City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

MND attempted to defer midgadon pending further study or failed to gather sufficient data regarding a possible environmental impact—as is the case here. In Gentry, supra, for example, the court considered whether the lead agency had complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA, including the information disclosure provisions, and held that noncompliance with such provisions may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discredon. 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the Umited facts in the record); accord Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311 ("Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.").

Without more information and a greater level of detail concerning some of the Project's design features, it cannot be known whether and to what degree of significance the Project will impact the environment and human health. See MND, p. 55 ("there is no final design available at this dme . . . there could be a potentially significant indirect impact"). As it stands now, RBOC has failed to gather and disclose a sufficient amount of relevant data such that meaningful analysis of impacts may occur. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 404 ("Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the pubUc can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process.) Therefore, the MND is impermissibly vague and wholly deficient and cannot be adopted.

An EIR must be prepared given that even a revised MND would fail to afford for the environment and local residents the protections conferred by CEQA. In Christward, supra, the Christward Ministry organization, which owned land utilized as a religious retreat, challenged the City of San Marcos' adopdon of a general plan amendment which applied a waste management facilities designation to a landfill without an EIR. 184 Cal.App.3d 180. The city adopted an ND which concluded in terse and conclusory language that the project would not have a significant environmental impact. Id. at 197. The Superior Court denied the petition and organization appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered the preparation of an EIR, reasoning that the City's assertion it could find no 'fair argument' there would be any potentially significant environment impacts rests, in part, in {^failure to undertake an adequate environmental analysis" Ibid. (emph. added). Such is the case here.

City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

RBOC concludes that the Project wUl not have significant environmental impacts (with or without midgadon) based on an MND which analyzes an undeveloped and incomplete project, incorporates deficient impacts analyses and conflicts of evidence, and makes unsupported assertions. See IVtND, pp. 24 ("ultimate design of the miniature golf course is not available at this drae"), 27 ("design ofUghdng features is conceptual and not known with certainty at this dme"), 64 (despite being subject to Uquefacdon and landslides, because the Project does not include "new housing or commercial uses" and because "the potential for large, deep-seated landslides was considered low in 2002, that the Project will not have significant geologic impacts), 64 (contends without analysis or evidence that because the "[p]otendal for lateral spreading impacts in within [sic] the Project Site would be considered low[,j" geologic impacts would be less than significant); 104 (claims less than significant recreational impacts where "Project would not increase the use of any existing parks or recreational faciUdes located near or adjacent to the Project Site" despite substantially increasing patronage of the Brookside Golf Course by golfers attending the range and families attending the miniature golf course).

The type and depth of inforinadon offered in the MND faUs drasdcally short of CEQA's disclosure mandate. See In re Bay-De/fa etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143 ("courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure"); see also Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32ndDist.

Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 (in the context of an EIR, the court expressed that in order to "facilitate CEQA's informational role, the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions. ); see also People v. County ofKem, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841-842 (conclusory statements fail to crystallize issues); accord Citizens for Quality Growth v. City ofMountShasta, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 441 (lead agency's findings under § 21081 as to mitigadon must be sufficiendy detailed).

Consequendy, the MND is entirely unwarranted, and an EIR instead must be prepared to adequately disclose the Project's full scope and design, and to study and mitigate the fully formulated Project's impacts.

B. CEQA Bars the Deferred Development of Environmental Midgation Measures.

The MND improperly defers cridcal details of midgadon measures. Feasible mitigadon measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

MND for consideration by the lead agency's decision-makers and the public before certificadon of the IvtND and approval of a project. The formuladon of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after cerdficadon of the MND and approval of a project. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(l)(B) (formulation ofmidgadon measures should not be deferred until some future dme).

At the outset, deferral of midgadon measures is inherendy improper in an MND— especially considering that an MND is warranted onl'y ^impacts are "clearly" reduced to the level of insignificance and midgation measures have akeady been formulated and "incorporated." Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.5. An agency may not both claim impacts are "clearly" reduced to insignificant levels and yet defer their studies and midgation. Communities for a Better Environment v. California R.esources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-114 (acknowledging the EIR/MND disdncdon, rejecdng reliance on regulatory compliance in MNDs.)
Further, even in an EIR context, the Project's deferred MMs are improper since they fail to meet the prerequisites and conditions for allowing deferred midgadon. Thus, under CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.4, subsecdon (a)(l)(B), the "specific details of a midgadon measure, however, may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review." (Emph. added). Indeed, cases where deferred midgation was upheld involved a legal impediment, which was duly disclosed to the public, along with the financial feasibility ofmidgadon. City ofM.aywoodv. LosA.ngeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 412 (hereafter "Maywood"') (deferred midgation measures were proper in an EIR, where the agency could not legaUy access lots to make studies and disclosed this issue, along with the feasibility ofmidgadon). RBOC did not show such infeasibility or impracdcaUty here; neither can they. RBOC has full access to the 16 acres of land of the Project site. Absent any legal impediment, RBOC and the City is required to "defer approval of the Project until proposed mitigation measures were fully developed, clearly defined, and made available to the pubUc and interested agencies for review and comment." Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond f2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 95. It did not, improperly "placing the onus of midgadon to the future plan and leaving the pubUc 'in the dark about what land management steps wiU be taken, or what specific criteria or performance standard will be met[.]" Id. at 93 (internal citadon and quotadon omitted).

City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

Further, the MND fails to meet the conditions warranting deferred midgation under the CEQA Guidelines that the agency:
(1) commits itself to the midgation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the midgadon wiU achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential acdon(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the midgadon measure.

CEQA GuideUnes, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(l)CB).

Here, RBOC failed all three elements. It did not commit to mitigadoa; neither did it provide any specific performance criteria that would show impacts would be midgated. And neither could it theoretically do so given that the Project's design is not yet complete. As in Kin^g z^ Gardiner Farms, LLC v. Cnty. ofKem (2020), here, RBOC provided no verifiable specific performance standards. 45 Cal.App.Sth 814.

RBOC "addresses whether a measure would be employed, but does not address the performance of the measure." Id. at 858.

Deferring critical details of a project's midgadon ineasures (and design) undermines CEQA's purpose as a public informadon and decision-making statute. See I^aurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 404 (one of "CEQA's fundamental goal[s] that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of acdon by their public officials"). "[R]eliance on tentadve plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision-making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as consdtudng improper deferral of environmental assessment." Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (201 ff) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92. As the Court noted in Sundstrom, supra, a "study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision-making.

Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc radoaalizadon of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." 202 Cal.App.3d at 307.

A lead agency's adoption of an MND's proposed mitigation measure for a significant environmental effect that merely states a "generalized goal" to mitigate a significant effect without commitdng to any specific criteria or standard of performance violates CEQA by improperly deferring the formuladon and adoption of enforceable City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

mitigadon measures. See Sanjoaquin raptor rescue Center v. Cnty. ofMerced(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670; Communities for a better Environment v. City of Richmond (2Q\G) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 93 (in the context of the adoption of an EIR, the lead agency merely proposed a generalized goal of no net increase in GHG emissions and then set out a handful of cursorily described midgadon measures for future consideradon that might serye to mitigate the project's significant environmental effects); Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council {W9V) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011,1028-1029 (court upheld an EIR that set forth a range of nudgadon measures to offset significant traffic impacts where performance criteria would have to be met, even though further study was needed and the EIR did not specify which measures had to be adopted by city).

Those CEQA midgadon measures which are proposed and adopted into an MND are required to describe the specific acdons to be taken to reduce or avoid an impact. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(l)(B) (providing formuladon ofmidgation measures should not be deferred until some future dme). While CEQA Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(l)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, such exception is narrowly proscribed to instances where "measures may specify performance standards which would midgate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." Ibid. Courts have also recognized a similar excepdon to the general rule against deferral of midgadon measures where the performance criteria for each measure is identified and described in the environmental analysis. Sacramento OlddtyAssn. v. City Council (\99V) 229 Cal.App.3dl011.

Improper deferral may occur where an MND calls for midgadon measures to be created based on future studies or where the MND describes midgadon measures in general terms while the lead agency fails to dedicate itself to specific performance standards. Preserve WildSantee v. City ofSantee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 (lead agency improperly deferred midgadon to butterfly habitat by faUing to provide standards or guidelines for its management in its EIR); Sanjoaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. Cnty. ofMerced(2QQ1) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 671 (lead agency failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standards of performance for mitigadag impacts to biological habitats); Cleveland N ati. Forest Found, v. San Diego Assn. ofGovts. (2017) 17 Cal.App.Sth 413, 442 (generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards); Cal. Clean Energy Comm. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195 (lead agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

with no standards for determining whether midgadon was required); POET, LLC v.

State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 (agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved); Gray v. Cnty. ofMadera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099,1119 (rejecting midgadon measure requiring replacement water to be provided to landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigadon rather than specific performance standard); Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 (requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay).

When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a "nexus" and "rough propordonality" between the measure and the significant impacts of the project.

CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(A); see Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City ofTigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. AU midgadon must be feasible and fuUy enforceable, and all feasible midgadon must be iinposed by lead agencies. CEQA Guidelines, § 15041. Formuladoa ofmidgadon measures shall not be deferred until some future time. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(B).

The CEQA Guidelines allow an MND only where:
(b) The initial study identifies potendally significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substandal evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA GuideUnes, § 15070, subd. (b) (emph. added).

As such, the MND is not warranted here, where the midgadon measures are not yet formulated, let alone where the Project's full scope and design is yet unclear.

For aU. of the reasons stated previously as to various impacts, the MND features several midgation measures which are impermissibly vague and improperly defer City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

critical details. Several examples of the MND's deficiencies in this regard have been addressed in subsection B of this section. RBOC must comply with CEQA and provide clear midgadon measures before circulating the MND.

C. RBOC and the MND Improperly Piecemeal the Project.

The MND and the Staff Report openly disclose that the Applicant wiU still be coming

1.0tfuture discretionary approvals from the City, including but not limited to the CUP.

Staff Report, pp. 3 (condidonal use permit), 4 (design review approval); MND, p. 49 (tree removal permit). In fact, per the Staff Report, the only discretionary approvals sought by RBOC "at this dme" are its:
[S]eeking City Council financial assistance of $1 million toward further development of the Project, inclusion of Family Golf in the upcoming Request for Proposal for golf course management, and authority to apply to the City for a condidonal use permit and design review at the appropriate dme[.]
Staff Report, p. 4.

This constitutes as classic piecemealing, expressly prohibited by CEQA and extensive case law.

CEQA mandates that "the lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its consdtuent parts, when determining whether it wiU have a significant environmental effect." CEQA GuideUnes, § 15003, subd. (h). As a coroUary, CEQA forbids "piecemeaUng." Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cru^ (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170,1208. ("The prohibidon against piecemeal review is the flip side of the requirement that the whole of a project be reviewed under CEQA."); accord CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a). PiecemeaUng is reviewed de novo. Paulek v. Dept. of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, 46.

CEQA's piecemeaUng prohibidon stems ffom two sources—a public agency's duty to define the "project" being evaluated by "the whole of an acdon" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subds. (a), (c)), and its duty to "consider the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in [the] project" (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.1, subd. (d)). Moreover, CEQA's piecemeaUng prohibidon stems from its requireinent to consider the cumulative impacts of aU phased or multiple projects which are part of the same general undertaking. CEQA Guidelines, § 15165. For purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis, CEQA mandates the consideration of the impacts of the City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(l) (prepare an EIR "if he agency determines that there is substantial evidence that anj aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial"); 15064, subd. (h) (need to consider cumulative impacts of past, other current and "probable future" projects). Even if the Project's impacts may not be significant, its incremental effects, when added to other past, present, and probable future projects, can be cumuladvely significant. CEQA GuideUnes, §§ 15065, subd. (a)(3), 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A), 15355, subd. (b).

Our Supreme Court has defined piecemealing as "chopping a large project into many Utde ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumuladvely may have disastrous consequences." Bo^ung v. Local Agency Formation Comm. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15069. Thus, identifying and studying the "whole of the project" is crucial to attainment ofCEQA's goals of properly disclosing and midgadng environmental impacts. "'Project' is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protecdon of the environment." Sanjoaquin raptor I Wildlife rescue Center v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730.

Even when a developer obtains a right to construct or has completed one or more pieces of a larger project that has so far evaded full environmental review, the City and this Court have the right—indeed the duty—to remedy the wrong. This includes stopping the challenged incomplete parts and ordering a comprehensive environmental review of the entire project using a corrected project description and baseline. Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Comm. (2002) is on point. 101 Cal.App.4th 1333 (hereafter "Ariif'). There, a Los Angeles developer had an overall plan to build 21 homes in the Mulholland community along Woodstock Road. Id. at 1336. Rather than present the "whole" of its acdon as part of an EIR or other comprehensive review, the developer chopped the larger project into pieces—one of 5 homes, another of 2 homes, and another of 14 homes. Id. at 1338,1343. The developer then separately processed each pordon via CEQA exempdons or an MND. Id.

Eventually, the City discovered the developer's attempted circumvendon of CEQA and required it "to obtain an EIR for a 21-house development," rather than proceed in a piecemeal manner. Id. The developer sued the City, arguing it should not have to prepare an EIR. Id. at 1343. The trial court rejected the developer's position, and our Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that "[t]he significance of an accurate project City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project July 10, 2023

description is manifest, where, as here, cumulative environmental impacts ma^ be disguised or minimised by filing numerous, serial applications." Id. at 1346 (emph. added). "One way to evaluate which acts are part of a project is to examine how closely related the acts are to the overaU objecdve of the project." Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City ofSonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1226. "Another way to phrase the question of whether a particular act is a step taken towards the achievement of the proponent's objecdve is to ask 'whether the act is part of a coordinated endeavor.'" POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.Sth 52, 75, fn. 15 (internal citadon and quotadon omitted).

The failure to analyze the whole of the project, and thereby allow the brue impacts, including cumulative impacts of the various parts added together, to escape review, is potentiaUy "disastrous," and should not be allowed. Bo^ung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 283- 284. Consistent with Arviv, supra, an EIR is also required on piecemealing grounds to properly analyze regulatory threshold exceedances caused by the Project Applicant's "coordinated endeavor." For example, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15206, subsection (b) (2) (D), a proposed hotel with more than 500 rooms shaU. be deemed regionally/area wide significant. This determinadon may not be possible where a project is piecemealed. Similarly, under Public Resources Code, secdon 21155.1, there are numerous limitadons and requirements a project must meet, including a cap of 200 units, which cannot be properly assessed where a project is piecemealed.

CEQA's piecemealing prohibition—especially for later phases or last act project components—is also critical as it results in an improperly inflated and inaccurate baseline and/or fundamentally inaccurate "no project" alternatives, which, in turn, taints the entire CEQA review. POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd (2017)12 CaLApp.Sth 52, 83 (use of an inflated baseline had the effect of understating the increase of impacts, requiring reversal); see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.6, subd. (e)(2), 15125, subd. (a)(l) (both the "no project" alternative and the baseline consider the existing environmental conditions). It is well-setded that, without an adequate baseline, the "analysis of impacts, midgadon measures and project alternatives becomes impossible." Cnty. ofAmadorv. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 953.

Alternatively, even if various parts of the project are sufficiendy separate and do not constitute a whole of an acdon, CEQA requires that the environmental review of the project include impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future City of Pasadena — Brookside Golf Coiirse Impfovetnent Project July 10, 2023

projects. See CEQA GuideUnes, §§15065, subd. (a)(3), 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A), 15355, subd. (b). In fact, courts treat piecemealing and failure to study cumuladve impacts of related approvals as alternative theories. Sanjoaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 733 (hereafter "Sanjoaquin") ("even assuming the sewer expansion was severable from the development project, the FEIR still did not comply with CEQA" for failure to consider cumulative impacts). Thus, in analyzing the Project's cumuladve impacts here, it is critical to analy2e not only the impacts of the Project itself, but those impacts from all other related projects as well.

Here, there is no dispute that the Project is being piecemealed. As a result of such piecemealed project approvals—funding now, and CUP, design review, and tree removal permits later—the MND fails to account for the cumulative impacts for the "whole" of an acdon. Needless to say that, by the time the noted (and potendaUy other) discredonary actions come before the City, such acdons will proceed by-right and will not provide the City nor the public any meaningful chance to review and request changes or midgadon. The MND by then may be immune to challenge.

The noted piecemealing is also fatal given that the MND does not, and cannot, consider the Project's cumulative impacts along with other related projects.

Another potendal CEQA problem that will arise due to the MND's piecemealing of the whole of the acdon is that the baseline of the Project for purposes of CEQA review will be inflated and, as such, the Project's impacts will be ardficially decreased to avoid significance thresholds. For example, if the CUP approvals occur after the design review and potendally in 2024-2025, then arguably, there may be other related projects that would have been approved before then and would have increased the baseUne traffic or GHG impacts. As such, the Project's own increase of impacts, along with its own prior parts that were approved, may seem insignificant as compared if the same design review and CUP review occurred now in 2023. See POET, LLCv. S fate Air Resources Bd (2017) 12 CaLApp.Sth 52, 83 (use of an inflated baseline had the effect of understating the increase of impacts, requiring reversal); Cnty. ofAmadorv. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 953 (without an accurate baseUne, the "analysis of impacts, midgadon measures and project alternatives becomes impossible").

As a result of piecemeaUng or alternatively failure to review the cumulative impacts of the project's related parts or components, there is informational deficiency and overall impossibility to meaningfully assess the Project's impacts and to determine whether City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

the MND is indeed proper. On this additional ground as weU, the MND should not be approved and RBOC must be required to disclose the full scope of the Project, its final design, and evaluate the impacts of the whole of such action in compliance with CEQA's environmental protecdon mandates.

IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the aforemendoned concerns, LVAA respectfully requests that the City: (1) deny adoption of the MND; (2) order the preparadon and circuladoa ofaProject- specific EIR prior to any approvals for the Project; (3) order that AppUcant further develop and revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable plans and reguladons especially those addressing the Project's potential impacts on human and environmental health; and, (4) require that the environmental review consider the whole of an action and aU discretionary acdons, including but not limited to those for the CUP, design review, and tree removals.

As stated in San Franciscans for reasonable Growth v. City <^y City. of San Francisco (1984):

The only reason we can infer for the Commission's failure to consider and analyze this group of projects was that it was more expedient to ignore them. However, expediency should play no part in an agency's efforts to comply with CEQA.
151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74.

LVAA is comprised of individuals and taxpayers who live, work, and recreate in Pasadena and would be direcdy affected by the Project's social and environmental impacts. LVAA is also interested in enforcing the State's environmental and planning and zoning mandates under CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law.

LVAA expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project, and during review of any version of the MND or future EIR. GOV. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2W^) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184,1199-1203; accord Galante Vineyards v. M.onterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

City of Pasadena - Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project

LVAA incorporates by reference aU comments raising issues regarding the Project, its environmental review, and associated documents and reports. See California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (citing Citizens for Open Government v. City ofl^odi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 875) (finding that any party who has objected to a project's environmental documentadon may assert any issue dmely raised by other parties); see also Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 701 (citing Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subds. (a)-(b)) (to attack a decision that is subject to the CEQA, the alleged grounds for aoncompUance must have been presented to the public agency, and the person attacking the decision must have raised some objecdon during the administradve proceedings).

Moreover, LVAA requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the California Planning and Zoning Law (GOV. Code, §§ 65000- 65010). California PubUc Resources Code, sections 21092.2 and 21167(f) and California Government Code, secdon 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body.

Should the City have any questions or concerns, it should feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
^
Reza Bonachea MN^Smadzadeh
Attorney for LVAA
Attached:

July 7, 2023, Biological Impacts from Lighting from Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai (Exhibit A)

EXHIBIT A
kl
-r
Land Protection Partners
P.O. Box 24020, Los Angeles, CA 90024-0020
Telephone:(310)247-9719
Biological Impacts of Night Lighting from
Brookside Golf Course Improvements Project
Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Catherine Rich, J.D., M.A.

July 7,2023
The Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) is proposing to make changes to the Brookside Golf Course, located in the Arroyo Secojust north of the Rose Bowl itself, consisting of the reorientation, expansion, and lighting of the driving range, and the addition and lighting of a miniature golf course. RBOC issued an Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration (MND) in January 2023, followed by revisions and responses to received comments in May 2023. We were engaged by Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law, to review these documents relative to the potential adverse impacts of light pollution from the proposal project because of our extensive and specific expertise on artificial light at night and its effects on wildlife and humans (see list of publications. Section 7). In this review, we present substantial evidence that the proposed project will have significant adverse impacts from light pollution and that the MND fails as an informational document by perpetuating the absurdity that "the Project would not result in a permanent glow in the Arroyo Seco" and that "the proposed lighting at the driving range would not substantially differ from the current (or historical) conditions on the Project Site" (MND Response to Comments, p. 2-7). As discussed in detail below, these patently false assertions fail to meet the standards necessary to inform the public or to support a final decision by the City of Pasadena.
1 No Matter How Well Shielded, Sports Lighting Causes Light Pollution The proposed project will cause significant light pollution, notwithstanding the commitment to follow the generic code for the City of Pasadena (Zoning Code Section 17.40.080(a)). Some understanding of how light is measured, and what the Zoning Code measures, is required comprehend why the analysis in the MND is so inadequate.

The code requires that "no lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source." The code also has an admonition to direct light "downward" and away from adjoining properties.

The way lighting engineers typically measure light for compliance with an ordinance like this is to calculate the illumination from the proposed light on a horizontal plane at ground level surrounding the lights. Because the ordinance does not specify where or how the illumination is to be measured, the engineer will assume that it means horizontal illumination at the ground, which will always be less than if one measured the illumination on a vertical plane at the height that a person or animal might encounter the light. The measurement is just the amount of light falling per unit area on the ground, as if the sensitive receptor were looking straight up, lying on the ground. This measurement typically does not include any analysis of the scattering and reflecting of light, but rather is just the sum of the direct light from each of the lamps. The Pasadena Zoning Code is insufficient to achieve the mitigating effects attributed to it in the MND for several reasons.

First, horizontal illuminance only deals with illuminance (light falling on a surface) at the location of a sensitive receptor, not the visual apparency (glare and glow) of the lighted area itself. This is the difference between luminance (the glare and glow), which is measured in units that reference the brightness of the surface of the lamp and other items from which light is reflecting, and illuminance, which is the amount of light falling on a surface. Illuminance can be quite low, while luminance of the light source is still high. Consider looking at a bright LED flashlight across the length of a football field. The glare will be blinding (high luminance) but you probably would not be able to read a newspaper from the light (low illuminance). The ordinance regulates whether you can read a paper by the light, not whether it appears as a glowing area, or if the individual lamps are bright point sources visible to the observer. This bears repeating; as it is written, the code can be met while still exposing people and wildlife to high levels of light and glare.

Second, the threshold of 1 foot-candle is itself very high. For comparison the full moon in Los Angeles produces about 0.02 foot-candles of illumination and often is only 0.01 foot-candles.

This means that the standard adopted for impacts in the MND allows light to be 50-100 times greater than the brightest natural conditions. Natural conditions, and the conditions through most of the month, are orders of magnitude lower still. This is a problem for the analysis in the MND because 1 foot-candle is bright enough to impact human and wildlife health through suppression ofmelatonin (Grubisic et al. 2019) and far exceeds all thresholds for impacting wildlife behavior (Prugh and Golden 2014, Schirmer et al. 2019, Simons et al. 2022, Longcore 2023).

Third, the measurement unit foot-candle is based on the sensitivity of human eyes to different colors of light and does not consider how bright the light appears to other species. The spectral composition of the lights will make them appear even brighter to some species, which will not show up in the analysis. For example, insects tend to be quite sensitive to light that is blue and violet and so lights that contain high levels of blue and violet will appear brighter to them than is captured by their measurement in foot-candles, which incorporates human sensitivity during the daytime and has low sensitivity to violet and shorter blue wavelengths.

Having reviewed the Zoning Code and the lighting plan for the proposed project (MND, Appendix A), anyone knowledgeable about light would understand that the claims in the MND 2 do not have a factual basis. In particular, the claims that the project would not cause permanent glow in the Arroyo Seco and that the project would not change the condition from current conditions are unsupported, and we turn to this issue next.

The proposed lighting system for the driving range includes 33 LED lights with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 5700 K and an output of 85,000 lumens each. This information is not stated in the MND but is found in Appendix A, where the model of the lamps (CLIR 630 EV) is listed. Then, by consulting the specifications sheet from Phoenix Lighting for that model of light,' one learns the lumen output and CCT of the lamps. By multiplying 85,000 lumens by 33 it is seen that the total amount of light from the driving range alone (leaving aside any other lighting for pathways or the miniature golf course) will be 2.8 million lumens.

As a comparison with the light from the driving range, a 60-Watt incandescent bulb produces about 800 lumens, which means that the proposed lighting will be as bright as 3,506 60-Watt incandescent bulbs installed in the middle of the Arroyo Seco. Put another way, it would be as bright as 561 typical streetlights (at 5,000 lumens each) installed around the driving range. This amount of light will be noticeable and "glow" no matter how low the measured illumination is at the property boundary because all that light must go somewhere, and it will be reflected and scattered by aerosols and the air.

The angle at which light shines on a surface affects the amount of light that is reflected by that surface. When light shines straight down on turf, roughly 55% of the light is reflected upward.

When the light is at a 60° angle, as little as 12% of the light is reflected upward. The average amount of light reflected upward from light shining on turf at angles of 60-90° is 20-25% (from figures produced by Dr. C. Baddiley, scientific advisor to the British Astronomical Association Campaign for Dark Skies). Taking this conservative estimate of 20-25% reflected light from turf (and it will be more in reality), the proposed driving range lights would result in 561,000- 701,250 lumens of light emanating outward from the site (and unregulated by the code section relied upon as a mitigation). This would be the equivalent of 112-140 streetlights' worth of light directed upward into the sky and toward off-site receptors.

Light is also scattered by aerosols in the air. These can be dust, pollen, or droplets of water. The MND fails to account for the scattering of light from fog and clouds or other aerosols that will take place between the lamps and the ground, or the exacerbating effect of fog and clouds on the light that is reflected from the turf itself. Fog is extremely efficient at reflecting light and recent research has shown that foggy conditions result in a sixfold increase in night sky brightness (a measure of light pollution) (Sci^zor et al. 2012). Furthermore, clouds reflect light downward, so even if it were only cloudy (and not also foggy), the light reflected downward would be substantially greater than that under a clear sky (Kyba et al. 2011, Sci^zor et al. 2012). The MND does not account for either scattering of light by fog or reflection by clouds.

An assessment of light pollution from the proposed lighting should also consider scattering in the air, which is known as Rayleigh scattering. This type of scattering increases with shorter wavelengths of light, so the light from proposed full-spectrum lamps will be scattered. High * https:/Avww.phoenjxlighting.com/sites/default'files/products/specification; sheets,''n5400146f^_c1ir_series_spec_sheet_p_df
3 CCT lamps, which are proposed for the project cause 10-20% more light pollution than high- pressure sodium lamps of the same luminous output (Bierman 2012). The proposed lighting will both exceed the illumination from streetlights in the Rose Bowl area, its CCT will result in even more light pollution. The preparers of the MND appear not to have any expertise in lighting or physics, because none of this is discussed and they made easily falsifiable claims that the driving range will not glow at night.

To the contrary, over half a million lumens of scattered light will create a glow that is always visible from off-site when the lights are illuminated, will contribute significantly to sky glow, and will adversely impact wildlife as discussed more in the following sections. Sports facilities are the second biggest contributor to light pollution in US cities, after commercial districts, and contribute far more to light pollution relative to their area than any other feature (Luginbuhl et al. 2009). This project is no different.
2 Biological Effects of Light Pollution
The analysis of impacts on biological resources, and aesthetic resources for that matter, depends on understanding and describing the difference between illuminance and luminance (also known as irradiance and radiance when measured in units not weighted to human vision). Although broadly related, it is possible for a project to cause significant new radiance sources in the nighttime visual environment (including through reflected light) even as irradiance around the property may or may not be elevated substantially.

To review, illuminance refers to the amount of light falling on a surface where something of interest is going on. It influences the visibility of items in the environment as well as the circadian (daily) rhythms of species. So, for example, small mammals respond to illumination in their foraging activities (Clarke 1983, Brillhart and Kaufman 1991, Vasquez 1994, Falkenberg and Clarke 1998, Kramer and Birney 2001, Prugh and Brashares 2010). It generally influences predator-prey relationships, including at levels of <0.01 foot-candle, far below the threshold of 1 foot-candle used in the MND (Kotler 1984, Simons et al. 2022).

Birds would be affected by increased ambient illumination at levels described in the MND.

Species can forage at artificial lights (Goertz et al. 1980, Sick and Teixeira 1981, Prey 1993, Rohweder and Baverstock 1996) and experience significant changes in their morning singing times, especially since the lights will be turned on at 6 A.M. (Derrickson 1988, Miller 2006, Kempenaers et al. 2010, Longcore 2010). Those birds that sing earliest are responding to increases in illumination so faint that they are undetectable by humans (Thomas et al. 2002), and well below the resolution of the illumination diagram in the MND, which ignore reflected and scattered light. Such species would be affected at distances far beyond the 100-foot buffer used for biological resource analysis because of this sensitivity and the quantity of light that would reach beyond the lower resolution of precision for the lighting diagram.

Luminance refers to the brightness of the lights themselves, even as visible from a distance and even if they only negligibly increase illuminance. Merely seeing lights at a distance can influence the wayfinding and habitat use of an animal (Beier 1995). It is the overall luminance created by the project that will attract insects and migratory birds to their detriment, while 4 simultaneously reducing the value of the golf course and surroundings as a wildlife movement corridor by bats as well as terrestrial mammal species, contrary to the assertions in the MND.

2.1 Attraction of insects to light
Insects are attracted to light because they perceive the luminance of the light and adjust their behavior in response. Many families of insects are attracted to lights, including moths, lacewings, beetles, bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets (Sustek 1999, Kolligs 2000, Eisenbeis 2006, Longcore et al. 2015, Owens et al. 2020, Deichmann et al. 2021). Insects attracted to lights are subject to increased predation from a variety of predators including bats, birds, skunks, toads, and spiders (Blake et al. 1994, Frank 2006). The lights proposed for use on the driving range would have a high CCT (5700 K)and therefore can be expected to be far more attractive to insects than lower CCT lights (Eisenbeis and Eick 2011, Hauptfleisch and Dalton 2015, Longcore et al. 2015, Donners et al. 2018, Longcore et al. 2018, Deichmann et al. 2021). Some studies have shown inconclusive results with respect to CCT (Pawson and Bader 2014, Haddock et al. 2019), but mechanistic assessments (Donners et al. 2018), studies in light-nai've environments with high insect diversity (Deichmann et al. 2021), and assessments of invertebrate visual systems (Longcore 2023) strongly suggest that the high CCT lamps proposed for the driving range lighting will exacerbate the attraction of insects.

2.2 Attraction of migratory birds
During a 2022 playoff game at Dodger Stadium between the San Diego Padres and the Los Angeles Dodgers, a Lesser White-fronted Goose entered the stadium and attempted a landing on the field. To light pollution experts, this was easily recognized as a case of a nocturnally migrating species being attracted to and disoriented by lights at night (Longcore 2022). The phenomenon of migratory birds being attracted to lights at night is well known and studied, in contexts ranging from communication towers to ceilometers to tail buildings and cruise ships (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006, Longcore et al. 2008, Bocetti 2011, Longcore et al. 2012, 2013, Van Doren et al. 2017, Horton et al. 2019, Van Doren et al. 2021, Burt et al. 2023). The MND does not consider the interference with movement of native migratory species represented by the introduction of a large, highly visible light source in an area traversed by millions of birds each year. Recently developed tools using weather radar estimate that 22 million birds traversed Los Angeles County during the spring 2023 migration, with close to 200,000 at peak times (see https://dashboard.birdcast.info/region/US-CA-037?night=2023-05-17).

Shielding the lights would not eliminate attraction of birds, because the proposed lights will be so bright, and the light will be reflected and scatter. Remote sensing studies already show that sports fields (even when lights are shielded) are the most significant contributors to light pollution in cities, and those same measures of light pollution (upward radiance) directly influence the distribution of migratory birds, as documented in many recent studies (La Sorte et al. 2017, Van Doren et al. 2017, McLaren et al. 2018, Burt et al. 2023). Light is reflected, scattered by fog, and reflected by low clouds. One of the higher bird mortality events at a wind turbine installation occurred at a location with lights that were at ground level and created a light attraction in conjunction with fog (Kerlinger et al. 2010, Kerlinger et al. 2011). Reflected light is more than adequate to attract migratory birds. Lebbin et al. (2007) documented an interspecific flock of migratory songbirds that gathered under stadium lighting consisting of 156 1500-Watt 5 metal halide lights illuminating a stadium at a university. Nothing about the design of the lights at Brookside Golf Course would make them proportionally any less attractive to migratory birds than other existing examples of birds being attracted to lights at sports fields.

Unless mitigated, the described lighting on its own would constitute a significant adverse impact on movement of native wildlife species through its impacts on migratory birds.

2.3 Disruption of movement of native terrestrial wildlife The project site and immediate surroundings are well within the range of and can expected to be used by native mammals. Species observed on the property include coyotes and mule deer, while bobcat has been observed near the project site and mountain lion approximately 1 km away within the Arroyo Seco. Each of these can be easily verified with photographs on the iNaturalist website. The irradiance and radiance produced by the project would affect the distribution of these species. We know this from extensive camera trap studies of coyotes (Schirmer et al. 2019), habitat use studies of mule deer, mountain lion, and bobcat (Rockhill et al. 2013, Ditmer et al. 2020), and radiotelemetry of mountain lions (Beier 1995). We can add to the published research a study currently in review for publication and already presented at a scientific conference that evaluated mountain lion habitat preference in Orange and San Diego counties using GPS data from 102 individuals (Barrientos et al. 2023). After accounting for other factors, the analysis found that light escaping upward from the landscape and visible by a satellite from overhead was highly negatively associated with habitat use by mountain lions at the scale of about 500 m. That is, the lighting of the driving range, which would dramatically increase the brightness of the area (through reflected light), would dramatically reduce the probability that its surrounding part of the Arroyo Seco would be used as a movement corridor by mountain lions. This, too, would represent a significant adverse impact on biological resources that is not disclosed in the MND.

The MND erroneously states the following, in the Biological Resources appendix: "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" (Appendix C, p. 17). The preparers do not reference any of the peer-reviewed literature and base their conclusion on the proposed limits on horizontal illumination, when those levels of illumination are known to impact space use of relevant species (Schirmer et al. 2019).

Furthermore, luminance (radiance) is equally important in determining habitat use for species moving across the landscape. The conclusion in the MND that the lighting would not affect wildlife movement therefore is not supported by substantial evidence.

2.4 Spectrum of lights proposed increases biological impacts As already discussed, the environmental analysis for the project does not incorporate any of the voluminous research that shows the differential effects of different wavelengths of light on biological systems (Longcore 2023). Neither the aesthetics analysis nor the biological resources analysis takes into account the wavelengths of light that would be produced by the proposed project.

The conclusion from a number of studies on humans and wildlife is that whiter light (that is, full- spectrum light with blue and violet light included) has more adverse impacts (Pauley 2004, Rich 6 and Longcore 2006, van Langevelde et al. 2011, Gaston et al. 2012, Stone et al. 2012, Longcore et al. 2015, Longcore 2018, Longcore et al. 2018, Gaston and Sanchez de Miguel 2022). The MND does not even discuss this important feature of the project design and one even has to track down the specification sheet for the lights to be used to ascertain that 5700 K LEDs will be used.

Although the sheer quantity of light to be used makes it impossible to fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the inevitable adverse impacts could be reduced slightly by reducing the CCT of the lights to be used so that they will cause less scattering in the atmosphere (Kinzey et al. 2017), have a reduced effect on circadian rhythms, and reduce wildlife impacts for the groups of species that are highly sensitive to blue light.
3 Mitigation IMeasures
The MND relies on two mitigation measures to argue that impacts from light at night will be reduced to a less than significant level. In the biological section, the following mitigation measure is proposed:

MM-MIO-2. To minimize potential indirect impact to nesting birds that may utilize ornamental/landscape vegetation on site 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.

As discussed at length above, shielding lights is insufficient as a mitigation measure when so much light is going to be used that the reflected light itself will be the brightness of 112-140 streetlights. The reflection and scattering are unavoidable physical processes. Furthermore, the mitigation measure does not address impacts to migratory birds for the same reason.

In the aesthetics section of the MND a separate mitigation measure is proposed:

MM-AES-1. Upon design of the Project, including both miniature golf and driving range lighting fixtures, RBOC shall prepare a quantified lighting study to confirm that final lighting configurations will not exceed 1.0foot candle from the property line. Prior to installation affinal lighting features, RBOC shall conduct a directional lighting test to further determine no exceedance of 1.0 foot candle of light spill.

As already noted, this "mitigation measure" simply confirms that the project will conform with the existing Zoning Code for the City of Pasadena and offers no additional mitigation that is specific to biological setting or the sensitive resources that are acknowledged to be present.

Mitigation measures must reduce impacts beyond the status quo and yet this measure applies the same lighting standard as would be acceptable in the most active commercial zone in the City to a location that is both historically significant and biologically sensitive. The threshold his comically high — 50-100 times brighter than the light of a full moon, allowing illumination that would meet street lighting standards to be experienced at the property boundary. It does not seem like anyone writing the MND understands that this limit would be far too bright to be effective at reducing the impacts from the light to a less than significant level. 7 4 Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the project goal of a lighted driving range cannot be achieved without significant adverse impacts on biological resources. The analysis in the MND is missing key information such as the cumulative light emissions and does not do the modeling necessary to fully visualize and quantify the impacts to the nighttime environment that result from the introduction of 2.8 million lumens of light. Impacts to migratory birds are not addressed at all, and conclusions of mitigated impacts on movement of terrestrial wildlife and nesting birds are not supported by any evidence. Comparison of the proposed project lighting with conditions known to affect wildlife behavior and physiology support our conclusion that the project will have a significant adverse impact. Make no mistake about it, the Arroyo Seco will glow while the proposed lights are on, and this impact will be amplified by the presence of low clouds and fog such that it is foreseeable that neighbors will be able to read a newspaper by the reflected and scattered light, just as one can next to the Rancho Park Golf Course driving range in Los Angeles.
5 About the Authors
Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich are principals of Land Protection Partners. Dr. Longcore is Adjunct Professor in the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA. He has taught, among other courses, Bioresource Management, Environmental Impact Analysis, Field Ecology, and Ecological Factors in Design. He was graduated summa cum laude from the University of Delaware with an Honors B.A. in Geography, holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Geography from UCLA, and is professionally certified as a Senior Ecologist by the Ecological Society of America and as a GIS Professional by the Geographic Information System Certification Institute. He is a 24-year member of the Los Angeles County Environmental Review Board and recently received the Galileo Award for outstanding academic work on light pollution over a multi-year period. Catherine Rich is Executive Officer of The Urban Wildlands Group. She holds an A.B. with honors from the University of California, Berkeley, a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law, and an M.A. in Geography from UCLA. She is lead editor of Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting (Island Press, 2006) with Dr. Longcore. In 2001, she was presented with the International Dark-Sky Association Executive Director's Award for outstanding service in protecting the nighttime environment. Longcore and Rich have authored or co-authored over 65 scientific papers in top peer-reviewed journals such as Auk, Biological Conservation, Conservation Biology, Environmental Management, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Trends in Evolution and Ecology, and Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Longcore and Rich have provided scientific review of environmental compliance documents and analysis of complex environmental issues for local, regional, and national clients for 25 years.
6 Literature Cited
Barrientos, R., T. W. Vickers, T. Longcore, E. S. Abelson, J. Dellinger, D. P. Waetjen, G.

Fandos, and F. M. Shilling. 2023. Nearby night lighting, rather than sky glow, is associated with habitat selection by a top predator in human-dominated landscapes.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences in review. 8 Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237.

Bierman, A. 2012. Will switching to LED outdoor lighting increase sky glow? Lighting Research and Technology 44:449-458.

Blake, D., A. M. Hutson, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R. Speakman. 1994. Use oflamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology (London) 234:453-462.

Bocetti, C. I. 2011. Cruise ships as a source ofavian mortality during fall migration. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123:176-178.

Brillhart, D. B., and D. W. Kaufman. 1991. Influence of illumination and surface structure on space use by prairie deer mice {Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii). Journal of Mammalogy 72:764-768.

Burt, C. S., J. F. Kelly, G. E. Trankina, C. L. Silva, A. Khalighifar, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, A. S.

Fox, K. M. Fristmp, and K. G. Horton. 2023. The effects of light pollution on migratory animal behavior. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38:355-368.

Clarke, J. A. 1983. Moonlight's influence on predator/prey interactions between Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) and deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13:205-209.

Deichmann, J. L., C. Ampudia Gatty, J. M. Andfa Navarro, A. Alonso, R. Linares-Palomino, and T. Longcore. 2021. Reducing the blue spectrum of artificial light at night minimises insect attraction in a tropical lowland forest. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14:247- 259.

Derrickson, K. C. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in Northern Mockingbirds. Condor 90:592-606.

Ditmer, M. A., D. C. Stoner, C. D. Francis, J. R. Barber, J. D. Forester, D. M. Choate, K. E.

Ironside, K. M. Longshore, K. R. Hersey, R. T. Larsen, B. R. McMillan, D. D. Olson, A.

M. Andreasen, J. P. Beckmann, P. B. Holton, T. A. Messmer, and N. H. Carter. 2020.

Artificial nightlight alters the predator-prey dynamics of an apex carnivore. Ecography 44:149-161.

Donners, M., R. H. A. van Grunsven, D. Groenendijk, F. van Langevelde, J. W. Bikker, T.

Longcore, and E. Veenendaal. 2018. Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:434^40.

Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. Pages 281-304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Eisenbeis, G., and K. Eick. 2011. Studie zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten an die Stralienbeleuchtung unter Einbeziehung von LEDs [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights: a study of lighting systems, with consideration ofLEDs]. Natur und Landschaft 86:298-306.

Falkenberg, J. C., and J. A. Clarke. 1998. Microhabitat use of deer mice: effects of interspecific interaction risks. Journal of Mammalogy 79:558-565.

Frank, K. D. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. Pages 305-344 in C. Rich and T.

Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Frey, J. K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by Scissor-tailed Flycatchers under artificial light. Western Birds 24:200.
9 Gaston, K. J., T. W. Davies, J. Bennie, and J. Hopkins. 2012. Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:1256-1266.

Gaston, K. J., and A. Sanchez de Miguel. 2022. Environmental impacts of artificial light at night.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47:373—398.

Gauthreaux, S. A., Jr., and C. G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds. Pages 67-93 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Goertz, J. W., A. S. Morris, and S. M. Morris. 1980. Ruby-throated Hummingbirds feed at night with the aid of artificial light. Wilson Bulletin 92:398-399.

Grubisic, M., A. Haim, P. Bhusal, D. M. Dominoni, K. Gabriel, A. Jechow, F. Kupprat, A.

Lerner, P. Marchant, and W. Riley. 2019. Light pollution, circadian photoreception, and melatonin in vertebrates. Sustainability 11:6400.

Haddock, J. K., C. G. Threlfall, B. Law, and D. F. Hochuli. 2019. Responses of insectivorous bats and nocturnal insects to local changes in street light technology. Austral Ecology 44:1052-1064.

Hauptfleisch, M., and C. Dalton. 2015. Arthropod phototaxis and its possible effect on bird strike risk at two Namibian airports. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 13:957- 965.

Horton, K. G., C. Nilsson, B. M. Van Doren, P. A. La Sorte, A. M. Dokter, and A. Farnsworth. 2019. Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds' exposure to artificial light. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17:209-214.

Kempenaers, B., P. Borgstrom, P. Loes, E. Schlicht, and M. Valcu. 2010. Artificial night lighting affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success, and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology 20:1735-1739.

Kerlinger, P., J. Gehring, and R. Curry. 2011. Understanding bird collisions at communication towers and wind turbines: status of impacts and research. Birding 43:44-51.

Kerlinger, P., J. L. Gehring, W. P. Erickson, R. Curry, A. Jain, and J. Guarnaccia. 2010. Night migrant fatalities and obstruction lighting at wind turbines in North America. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:744-754.

Kinzey, B., T. E. Perrin, N. J. Miller, M. Kocifaj, M. Aube, and H. S. Lamphar. 2017. An investigation of LED street lighting's impact on sky glow. U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AC05-76RLO 1830), Richland, Washington.

Kolligs, D. 2000. Okologische Auswirkungen kunstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch- Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement 28:1-136.

Kotler, B. P. 1984. Effects of illumination on the rate of resource harvesting in a community of desert rodents. American Midland Naturalist 111:383-389.

Kramer, K. M., and E. C. Birney. 2001. Effect of light intensity on activity patterns of Patagonian leaf-eared mice, Phyllotis xanthopygus. Journal of Mammalogy 82:535-544.

Kyba, C. C. M., T. Ruhtz, J. Fischer, and F. Holker. 2011. Cloud coverage acts as an amplifier for ecological light pollution in urban ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6:el7307.

La Sorte, F. A., D. Fink, J. J. Buler, A. Farnsworth, and S. A. Cabrera-Cruz. 2017. Seasonal associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global Change Biology 23:4609-4619.
10 Lebbin, D. J., M. G. Harvey, T. C. Lenz, M. J. Andersen, and J. M. Ellis. 2007. Nocturnal migrants foraging at night by artificial light. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:506-508.

Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits. Current Biology 20:R893-R895.

Longcore, T. 2018. Hazard or hope? LEDs and wildlife. LED Professional Review 70:52-57.

Longcore, T. 2022. Goose in the lights. Western Tanager 89:5.

Longcore, T. 2023. Effects of LED Lighting on Terrestrial Wildlife. Prepared under Contract #65A0766 between California Department of Transportation and Regents of the University of California. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Los Angeles.

Longcore, T., H. L. Aldern, J. F. Eggers, S. Flares, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. N.

Petrinec, W. A. Yan, and A. M. Barroso. 2015. Tuning the white light spectmm of light emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370:20140125.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and meta-analysis. Auk 125:485-492.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A.

Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville, II, E. R. Travis, and D.

Drake. 2012. An estimate ofavian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada. PLoS ONE 7:e34025.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A.

Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville, II, E. R. Travis, and D.

Drake. 2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada:
which species, how many, and where? Biological Conservation 158:410^19.

Longcore, T., A. Rodriguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018. Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:511-521.

Luginbuhl, C. B., G. W. Lockwood, D. R. Davis, K. Pick, and J. Selders. 2009. From the ground up I: light pollution sources in Flagstaff, Arizona. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 121:185-203.

McLaren, J. D., J. J. Buler, T. Schreckengost, J. A. Smolinsky, M. Boone, E. E. van Loon, D. K.

Dawson, and E. L. Walters. 2018. Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters 21:356-364.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American Robins.

Condor 108:130-139.

Owens, A. C. S., P. Cochard, J. Durrant, B. Farnworth, E. K. Perkin, and B. Seymoure. 2020.

Light pollution is a driver of insect declines. Biological Conservation 241:108259.

Pauley, S. M. 2004. Lighting for the human circadian clock: recent research indicates that lighting has become a public health issue. Medical Hypotheses 63:588-596.

Pawson, S., and M.-F. Bader. 2014. LED lighting increases the ecological impact of light pollution irrespective of color temperature. Ecological Applications 24:1561-1568.

Prugh, L., and J. Brashares. 2010. Basking in the moonlight? Effect of illumination on capture success of the endangered giant kangaroo rat. Journal of Mammalogy 91:1205-1212. 11 Prugh, L. R., and C. D. Golden. 2014. Does moonlight increase predation risk? Meta-analysis reveals divergent responses of nocturnal mammals to lunar cycles. Journal of Animal Ecology 83:504-514.

Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Rockhill, A. P., C. S. DePerno, and R. A. Powell. 2013. The effect of illumination and time of day on movements of bobcats (Lynx rufus). PLoS ONE 8:e69213.

Rohweder, D. A., and P. R. Baverstock. 1996. Preliminary investigation of nocturnal habitat use by migratory waders (Order Charadriiformes) in northern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 23:169-183.

Schirmer, A. E., C. Gallemore, T. Liu, S. Magle, E. DiNello, H. Ahmed, and T. Gilday. 2019.

Mapping behaviorally relevant light pollution levels to improve urban habitat planning.

Scientific Reports 9:11925.

Sci^zor, T., M. Kubala, and W. Kaszowski. 2012. Light pollution of the mountain areas in Poland. Archives of Environmental Protection 38:59-69.

Sick, H., and D. M. Teixeira. 1981. Nocturnal activities of Brazilian hummingbirds and flycatchers at artificial illumination. Auk 98:191-192.

Simons, A. L., K. L. M. Martin, and T. Longcore. 2022. Determining the effects of artificial light at night on the distributions of Western Snowy Plovers (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) and California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) in southern California. Journal of Coastal Research 38:302-309.

Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology 18:2458-2465.

Sustek, Z. 1999. Light attraction ofcarabid beetles and their survival in the city centre. Biologia (Bratislava) 54:539-551.

Thomas, R. J., T. Szekely, I. C. Cuthill, D. G. C. Harper, S. E. Newson, T. D. Frayling, and P. D.

Wallis. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:831-837.

Van Doren, B. M., K. G. Horton, A. M. Dokter, H. Klinck, S. B. Elbin, and A. Farnsworth. 2017.

High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:11175-11180.

Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willard, M. Hennen, K. G. Horton, E. F. Stuber, D. Sheldon, A. H.

Sivakumar, J. Wang, A. Farnsworth, and B. M. Winger. 2021. Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118:e2101666118.
van Langevelde, F., J. A. Ettema, M. Donners, M. F. WallisDeVries, and D. Groenendijk. 2011.

Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological Conservation 144:2274-2281.

Vasquez, R. A. 1994. Assessment ofpredation risk via illumination level: facultative central place foraging in the cricetid rodent Phyllotis darwini. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34:375-381.
12 7 Publications on Light Pollution by Authors
Books
Welch, D., R. Dick, K. Trevino, T. Longcore, C. Rich, J. Hearnshaw, C. Ruggles, A. Dalton, J.

Barentine and I. Gyarmathy. 2023. The World at Night: Preserving Natural Darkness for Heritage Conservation and Night Sky Appreciation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland (forthcoming).

Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Articles and Reports
Longcore, T. Pollution, light. 2023. In S. Scheiner, editor-in-chief, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 3rd Edition. Elsevier (forthcoming).

Yin, X., and T. Longcore. 2023. Measurement and analysis of exposure to light at night in epidemiology. In L. Fonken and R. Nelson, cds.. Biological Implications ofCircadian Disruption: A Modern Health Challenge. Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

Longcore, T. 2023. Effects of LED Lighting on Terrestrial Wildlife. Prepared under Contract #65A0766 between California Department of Transportation and Regents of the University of California. Los Angeles, UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.

Zhong, C., R. Wang, L. Morimoto, T. Longcore, M. Franklin, T. Rogne, C. Metayer, J. L.

Wiemels, and X. Ma. 2023. Outdoor artificial light at night, air pollution and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Scientific Reports 13:583.

Aulsebrook, A. E., A. Jechow, A. Krop-Benesch, C. C. M. Kyba, T. Longcore, E. K. Perkin, and R. H. A. van Grunsven. 2022. Nocturnal lighting in animal research should be replicable and reflect ecological conditions. Biology Letters 18:2022035.

Sordello, R., S. Busson. J. H. Cornuau, P. Deverchere, B. Faure; A. Guette, F. Holker, C.

Kerbiriou, T. Lengagne, I. Le Viol, T. Longcore, P. Moeschler, J. Ranzoni, N. Ray, Y.

Reyjol, Y. Roulet, S. Schroer, J. Secondi, N. Valet, S. Vanpeene, and S. Vauclair. 2022.

Considering light pollution in ecological networks: a plea for a worldwide development of dark infrastructure for biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 219:104322.

Holker, F., J. Bolliger, T. W. Davies, S. Giavi, A. Jechow, G. Kalinkat, T. Longcore, K.

Spoelstra, S. Tidau, M. E. Visser, and E. Knop. 2021. 11 pressing research questions on how light pollution affects biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9:767177.

Simons, A. L., K. L. M. Martin, and T. Longcore. 2021. Determining the effects of artificial light at night on the distributions of Western Snowy Plovers (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) and California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) in Southern California. Journal of Coastal Research 38:302-309.

Zhong, C., T. Longcore, J. Benbow, N. Chung, S. S. Wang, J. V. Lacey, Jr., and M. Franklin. 2021. Environmental influences on sleep in the California Teachers Study Cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology 191:1532-1539.

Barentine, J. C., K. Walczak, G. Gyuk, C. Tarr, and T. Longcore. 2021. A case for a new satellite mission for remote sensing of night lights. International Journal of Remote Sensing 13:2294.
13 Deichmann, Jessica L., C. Ampudia Gatty, J. M. Andia, A. Alonso, R. Linares-Palomino, and T.

Longcore. 2021. Reducing the blue spectrum in artificial light at night minimizes insect attraction in a tropical lowland forest. Insect Conservation & Diversity 14:247-259.

Zhong, C., M. Franklin, J. Wiemels, N. Chung, J. Benbow, S. S. Wang, J. V. Lacey, Jr., and T.

Longcore. 2020. Artificial light at night increases risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among women in the California Teachers Study cohort. Cancer Epidemiology 69:101811.

Bara, S., C. Bouroussis, A. Jagerbrand, A. Jechow, T. Longcore, J. Lowenthal, M. Motta, P.

Sanhueza, L. J. M. Schlangen, and S. Schroer. 2020. Bio-environment Report. Pages 92- 117 in Dark and Quiet Skies for Science and Society. United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs.

Longcore, T. 2020. On the use of summary metrics of light spectral characteristics to assess effects of artificial light at night on wildlife. Forum for Illumination Research, Engineering, and Science. Illuminating Engineering Society, New York.

Longcore, T., D. Duriscoe, M. Aube, A. Jechow, C. C. M. Kyba, and K. L. Pendoley. 2020.

Commentary: Brightness of the night sky affects Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle hatchling misorientation but not nest site selection. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:221.

Simons, L., X. Yin, and T. Longcore. 2020. High correlation but high scale-dependent variance between satellite measured night lights and terrestrial exposure. Environmental Research Communications 2:021006.

Longcore, T. 2018. Hazard or hope? LEDs and wildlife. LED Professional Review 70:52-57.

Longcore, T., A. Rodnguez, B. Witherington, J. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018. Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology A 329:51 1-521.

Banners, M., R. H. A. van Grunsven, D. Groenendijk, F. van Langevelde, J. W. Bikker, T.

Longcore, and E. Veenendaal. 2018. Colours of attraction: a general model for insect phototaxis. Journal of Experimental Zoology A 329:434^1-40.

Pack, D. W., B. S. Hardy, and T. Longcore. 2017. Studying Earth at night from CubeSats. Pages 1-11 in Proceedings of the 31st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites.

Gillespie, T. W., K. S. Willis, S. Ostermann-Kelm, T. Longcore, F. Federico, L. Lee, and G. M.

MacDonald. 2017. Inventorying and monitoring night light distribution and dynamics in the Mediterranean Coast Network of Southern California. Natural Areas Journal 37:500-510.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2016. Artificial night lighting and protected lands: ecological effects and management approaches. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR— 2016/1213. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 51 pp.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2016. Ecological and organismic effects of light pollution. eLS:

Citable Reviews in the Life Sciences doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0026328.

Kensek, K., Y. Ding, and T. Longcore. 2016. Green building and biodiversity: facilitating bird friendly design with building information models. Journal of Green Building 11:116-130.

Swaddle, J. P., C. D. Francis, J. R. Barber, C. Cooper, C. C. M. Kyba, D. M. Dominoni, G.

Shannon, E. Aschehoug, S. Goodwin, A. Y. Kawahara, D. Luther, K. Spoelstra, M. Voss, and T. Longcore. 2015. A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30:550-560. 14 Longcore, T., H. Aldern, J. Eggers, S. Flares, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. Petrinec, W. Yan, and A. Barroso. 2015. Tuning the white light spectrum ofLEDs to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions B 370:20140125.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A.

Gauthreaux Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville II, E. R. Travis, and D. Drake. 2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada: which species, how many, and where? Biological Conservation 158:410^19.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A.

Gauthreaux Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville II, E. R. Travis, and D. Drake. 2012. An estimate ofavian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada. PLoS ONE 7:e34025.

Rodrigues, P., C. Aubrecht, A. Gil, T. Longcore, and C. Elvidge. 2011. Remote sensing to map light pollution stress on Cory's Shearwater, Calonectris diomedea borealis, on Sao Miguel Island, Azores Archipelago. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58:147-155.

Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits.

Current Biology 20:R893-R895.

Aubrecht, C., M. Jaiteh, A. de Sherbinin, T. Longcore, and C. Elvidge. 2010. A call for urban lighting governance in the vicinity of protected areas. In BiodiverCities 2010 - An international conference of the Urban Protected Areas Network. Paris, France.

Aubrecht, C., C. D. Elvidge, T. Longcore, C. Rich, J. Safran, A. E. Strong, C. M. Eakin, K. E.

Baugh, B. T. Tuttle, A. T. Howard, and E. H. Erwin. 2008. A global inventory of coral reef stressors based on satellite observed nighttime lights. Geocarto International 23:467^79.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and meta- analysis. Auk 125:486^1.93.

Elvidge, C. D., P. Cinzano, D. R. Pettit, J. Arvesen, P. Sutton, C. Small, R. Nemani, T.

Longcore, C. Rich, J. Safran, J. Weeks, and S. Ebener. 2007. The Nightsat mission concept. International Journal of Remote Sensing 28:2645-2670.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2007. Lights out! For nature. Pp. 165-171 in C. Mann and J. Jafari, editors. StarLight: a common heritage. StarLight Initiative, Institute de Astroffsica de Canarias, La Palma Biosphere Reserve, Government of the Canary Islands, Spanish Ministry of the Environment, UNESCO - MaB., Canary Islands, Spain.

Rich, C., and T. Longcore. 2006. Introduction. Pages 1-13 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors.

Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Nightingale, B., T. Longcore, and C. A. Simenstad. 2006. Artificial night lighting and fishes.

Pages 257-276 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2006. Synthesis. Pages 413^30 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors.

Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191-198.
15 National and International Standards and Practices
Illuminating Engineering Society [Outdoor Lighting Committee, including T. Longcore]. 2020.

Lighting Practice: Environmental Considerations for Outdoor Lighting, An American National Standard, ANSI/IES LP-11-20.

Illuminating Engineering Society [Outdoor Lighting Committee, including T. Longcore]. 2019.

Recommended Practice: Off-Roadway Sign Luminance, An American National Standard, IESRP-39-19.
16 McMillan. Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Cheryl vdZ
Saturday, July 8, 2023 3:02 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Proposed use of Arroyo near Rose Bowl
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
'/'am why this is important at
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.

Hello, we would like to register our disagreement with the proposal to add miniature golf courses to the Rose Bowl area.

Not only will this remove lovely trees and change the natural habitat, but, we think that we can more cleverly use the Rose Bowl itself to generate income. We are aware there is a huge loan out on the Rose Bowl repair, and bringing a mini-golf course would not bring nearly the income needed to offset the huge bills against the Rose Bowl. Let's be more clever about using what we have and preserving this lovely part of Pasadena before you chase all of the Linda Vista and San Rafael residents out.
16-year residents of of Linda Vista
7/10/2023
Item 15
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Peter Wisner
Sunday, July 9, 2023 2:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Re: July 10th Hearing regarding Brookside Family Golf Concept Some people who received this message don't often get email from 1rn why this is important ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is e. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more ....

Dear Pasadena City Counsel:

I am corresponding with you regarding the investigation as to the modifications being considered regarding Brookside Golf Courses #s 1 and 2, and your suggested modifications thereto to expand the use of these facilities.

I have been playing both courses for more than 5 decades. At the moment, due to the efforts of the organization now maintaining both courses, I have to say, without a doubt, the courses are in spectacular playing condition. As a result, both courses are very busy and attract players from the entire Seven Southern California counties (As I have played with many of them). I suspect because of these facts, the courses are generating record amounts of income not seen before in the history of these two outstanding golf courses.

There is a certain aura when you arrive at Brookside. It reeks of "let's play golf." As a golfer, that first impression is most important. Should the City of Pasadena go forward with its proposal to significantly change the stature of Brookside #1 and #2 you will be making a critical mistake. You will take two difficult and magnificent courses and convert them to a morass of unnecessary and money loosing public fool's adventure. If you look to the City's past experience where it opened access to the snack shop on course #1 ( current hole #6), you will recall that it was an utter disaster, relegating that snack shop to dereliction from non use. It was a place where I always enjoyed a hot dog and a drink ... no more. 1;1012023
Item 15
1 I stand with the Brookside Men's Golf Club and all of it's objections and suggested conditions should this counsel go forward with what most of us see as a ill advise adventure.

These two courses and it's practice areas are a classic example of how to run a profitable public golf course.

In one particular note, changing the configuration of course #2 is suicidal. Making it a par 69 with be the end of that course for any sort of competition, High School or other wise.

Brookside has earned it's reputation as a classic golf facility. It should not be altered and only upgraded in areas that are called for by the Men's Club.

Peter F. Wisner
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Kohorst, Kevin
Sunday, July 9, 2023 4:40 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Bob Kohorst
Rose Bowl Family Golf Project (Brookside) - SUPPORT
Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Learn why this is important /j\,] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....

Pasadena City Council,
We are writing this email in SUPPORT of the Rose Bowl Family Golf Project at Brookside.

The proposed project should be fully supported by the entire City Council. It will bring great family friendly activities to the Arroyo, Brookside, the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena. As a parent of two young children, I hope to be able to enjoy the proposed projects which include a family mini golf course, Top Tracer driving range and other activities that will only make the area better. I look forward to taking my two young children and wife down to Brookside for an evening at the mini golf course for some fun family-friendly competition! My brother is involved with the First Tee of Greater Pasadena and these improvements will have a huge positive impact on the youth that are served by this great organization.

The game of golf is growing and the area and City should grow with it.

As someone who was born, raised and continues to live and raise a family in Pasadena, I fully support the proposed Rose Bowl Family Golf Project as Brookside and encourage the entire city council to approve the project.

Sincerely,
Kevin Kohorst
and
Amb. W. Robert Kohorst (ret.)
7/10/2023
Item 15
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dennis Becking
Sunday, July 9, 2023 8:54 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Brookside improvement project
Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Lea m_why_this js j m po rtajrt CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....

Council members, I strongly urge you to decline the RBOC request to move further along with the proposed improvements to the Brookside Golf Course . Such improvements as a fun zone on the property defeat the purpose of continuing the operation of a municipal course in good standing, on sound financial footing and providing recreational services to our city.

In addition , lending money to the RBOC so it can go further in debt makes no good financial sense. If in the future the RBOC can show it can meet its debt payments for previous RBOC projects to this area then possibly a loan for more improvements to the course property should be entertained. Perhaps a smaller project, like improving or expanding the driving range, or improving the existing club house to expand its conference or social events potential would be a better served idea for the property.

As a long time resident of the city, a long time business owner in the city and a long time member of the Brookside Men's Golf Club, please make the right choice and not allow this particular project go any further.

Thank You
Dennis Becking
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
7/10/2023
Item 15
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Schaper
>
Sunday, July 9, 2023 11 :57 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Brookside Golf Course Improvement Project
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification]
_earn why this is important at
[ & ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more ... <https://mydoit.cityofpasadena .net/sp ?id=kb _ article_ view&sysparm _article= KB0010263>.

Steve Madison and the folks trying to keep the Rose Bowl solvent, Thanks for exploring every way possible to make the Arroyo a vibrant part of Pasadena life. As an almost SO-year resident I see and hear every attempt to monetize our amazing resource from my patio. I am very lucky to do so. Some are lovely and some are annoying but I choose to believe all are good faith efforts to be stewards of our city.

This particular project carries the danger of damage to a quality asset for dubious returns. It simply doesn't present more than a very speculative possibility of return for an assuredly significant downgrade to courses and practice facilities we currently operate which are of a piece with the historic Rose Bowl and the other recreational facilities in the Arroyo. Please don't try this if you have to maim the golf course. Desperation doesn't convert speculation into wisdom.

Regards,
Robert Schaper
Pasadena, CA 91105
1 7/10/2023
Item 15
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Stephen Vranes
Monday, July 10, 2023 6:58 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Brookside Golf Improvement Project
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] . Learn why this is
[L!}.] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more ... <https://mydoit.cityofpasadena .net/sp ?id=kb _article_ view&syspa rm_ a rticle=KB0010263>.

Dear Council members,
I am writing this letter to express support for the Brookside Golf Course improvement project. We live in Pasadena and have 3 kids, and we believe that the driving range improvements and the mini-golf course will create a fun and safe space for everybody in our city. I am sure that it will generate very meaningful revenue growth as well.

This will become one of the best family-friendly activities in Pasadena, and we hope that the council will approve this project.

Steve and Becky Vranes
1 7/10/2023
Item 15
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Monday, July 10, 2023 7:19 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Disapproval of the ROSE BOWL GOLF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
L.&.J CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more ... <https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.

To Whom it May Concern,
My name is I am a professor at Caltech and a long time Pasadena resident. My wife and I recently purchased We bought this home because of the serenity and majestic views overlooking the Arroyo. While I understand that some upgrades to the golf course are necessary, I am quite concerned about the effects of the improvement project on my home and on my neighbors. In particular, light pollution could be incredibly disruptive to our sleep and activities. Please consider arguing that light levels and timing should be kept the same as it is now! 1 7/10/2023
Item 15
McMiIIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

JON DUDLEY
Friday, July 7, 2023 5:17 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Mini Golf course
I Some people who received this message don't often get email from^arn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....

Please do not build a miniature golf course in the Arroyo. I live in Linda Vista. The noise and light pollution does not fit the neighborhood. The traffic would be too much. The entire plan does not fit in the Master Arroyo Plan for Pasadena. Thank you.

Jan Dudley
7/10/2023
Item 15
1